• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    TUHOKlimaticka zmena / Thank you so much for ruining my day
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Defining floors and ceilings: the contribution of human needs theory
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15487733.2020.1814033

    This article argues that a theory of human needs is essential to buttress and give content to the concept of consumption corridors. In particular it enables us to, first, define a safe, just, and sustainable space for humanity, and second, to decompose and recompose consumption based on a distinction between necessities and luxuries. After an introduction, the article is divided into four parts. The first compares different concepts of human needs and concentrates on universalizable need theories. The second presents a method for agreeing on contextual need satisfiers, and the third discusses current research identifying the floors of poverty and necessities. A fourth section then sets out how sustainable needs can underpin the upper bound of the corridor and how this ceiling might be measured in income and consumption terms. However, once we move from a national to a global perspective a profound dilemma is encountered as rich country corridors diverge from a global consumption corridor
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19452829.2019.1633734

    The first reason for the argument that the richest should be the primary funders of climate actions is the one given in the previous section, which relates to overall welfare improvement: the surplus money of the superrich cannot be used to enhance their well-being; however, it could be more beneficial if it were invested wisely in climate action strategies. A modified version of the first reason is as follows. More and more climate experts and writers on climate change (e.g., Gardiner 2011) are claiming that we are dealing with a real disaster. Thus, if the issue of climate change is unlike our many everyday problems, then it is appropriate to apply the principle that anyone who can help, should help, although the ablest are expected to carry the most onerous burdens. This approach has led several philosophers to conclude that we should adopt “the ability to contribute principle” and that we should focus on those who are in a position to make a difference (Caney 2014; Shue 2015).

    The second reason for the argument that the richest should be the primary funders of climate actions is related to the unfairness in the current situation. If one compares countries, then historically Europe has been responsible for many emissions, although North America’s current average emissions per capita are much higher than the average emissions of other geographic regions. For example, the global average emissions arising from consumption amount to about 6.2 tons per person per year (and this should stand closer to zero in a few decades if we intend to avoid dangerous climate change). Nonetheless, the differences are enormous: 22.5 tons for North America; 13.1 tons for Europe; 7.4 tons for the Middle East; 6 tons for China; 4.4 tons for Latin America; 2.2 tons for South Asia and 1.9 tons for Africa (Chancel and Piketty 2015). These averages tend to hide the vast inequalities within the countries in these regions, and that rich people everywhere can have lifestyles that cause emissions of up to 300 tons. Hence, Chancel and Piketty (2015) suggest imposing a global flat tax on air tickets, which could be used to fund climate adaptation measures. While I endorse this idea and have argued elsewhere that a tax on air travel is needed not only for climate reasons but also for economic fairness among different transport sectors (Robeyns 2019), I believe that this measure hardly goes far enough. Ideally, we should levy a worldwide ecological crisis tax on the superrich to finance the climate action funds. If that is not possible, governments should take the initiative to establish international agreements on what each country contributes to the global funds, and each country could on their own tax their most affluent citizens. Either way, the aim is to let the superwealthy contribute first to the climate action funds.

    There are at least two aspects to the fairness reason for charging the rich for climate actions funds. The first argument is based on principles of rectification or compensation. Most superrich people have acquired their wealth by engaging in economic activities with negative environmental externalities. Market prices in themselves do not reflect the environmental damage embedded in the production and transport of commodities. If the environmental damage linked to economic production were appropriately incorporated in the prices (or as economists would put it, the negative externalities had been internalised), the prices would increase, causing demand and profits to fall. Hence, the fortunes of the superrich partially consist of non-paid compensation for environmental damage. The second aspect is that in some countries, the situation is even worse, mainly because the government directly or indirectly subsidises fossil fuel industries. Thus, part of the wealth of the superrich who own companies or work for them in these countries represents the ecological damage that has been passed onto society at large. Hence, from a fairness point of view, one can argue that compensation for these past negative ecological externalities could now be used to fund the climate action funds.
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    Zachraňme energetiku
    https://zachranmeenergetiku.cz/

    Peksa a Kocmanova mají Twitter projekt na vyvracení mýtů o oze
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    nevim co to znamena, ale tak mapa

    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    btw si tedka nacitam nejaky veci k historii klimatologie a dostal jsem se k historii ruske antarkticke stanice Vostok, odkad patri analyzy vzorku az 400.000 let zpatky a koukam, ze to tam musi bejt docela zabavny.

    In 1959, the Vostok station was the scene of a fight between two scientists over a game of chess.[8][9][10] When one of them lost the game, he became so enraged that he attacked the other with an ice axe.[10][8][9] According to some sources, it was a murder,[10][8][9] though other sources say that the attack was not fatal.[11] Afterwards, chess games were banned at Soviet/Russian Antarctic stations.[8][10]
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    YMLADRIS: post-extinction comeback

    Record set with 2-million-year-old ancient DNA | MIT Technology Review
    https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/07/1064392/dna-frozen-two-million-years-sequenced/

    After an eight-year effort to recover DNA from Greenland’s frozen interior, researchers say they’ve managed to sequence gene fragments from ancient fish, plants, and even a mastodon that lived 2 million years ago.

    It’s the oldest DNA ever recovered, beating the mark set only last year when a different team recovered genetic material from a million-year-old mammoth tooth.
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Carol of the Ecocide: Tina Karol and UAnimals present New Year's song about ecocide in Ukraine
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=g5vP6xyNYVo&feature=share
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    YMLADRIS: nukleární geoinženýrství. to se ufounům líbit nebude
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    YMLADRIS: zas je fajn, že kdo zavede nerůst, odtamtud ten kapitál skutečně rychle vypadne a vsichni budou spoko :))
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    jinak MinuteEarth ma ted upresnujici video k tem jadernym valkam

    15 vybuchu = pokles teploty o dva stupne


    odpalit vsechno = 16 stupnu, co se tyce toho hladomoru, tak jim to vychazi 5B lidi by hladovelo prvni, ovsem v severnich sirkach 99.9 procent populace. dal to nerozebiraji, jako jake jsou svetove zasoby potravin, jak dlouho se mrak udrzi atd. Cili porad je to lehce lepsi nez ty 4 stupne otepleni podle Postupimi :) ale tak jako, no

    Why It's Impossible To Win a Nuclear War
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLLKeXbSKJ0


    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    ad degrowth, se to furt snazim naroubovat na zachovani te kapitalisticke inovace, ale to tak nejspis fakt neni proste mysleny

    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    je ti teplo devenko
    DZODZO
    DZODZO --- ---
    YMLADRIS: staci google "levne letenky" kolko toho vyskace :)
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    jako chapu ze jsou na ostrove, ale prekvapuje me, ze chudy lidi vubec nekam litaji

    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Reid Allen Bryson (1920–2008) was a forceful orator who consistently fought against institutional pressures to get his messages out to the public. In the 1960s, Bryson was a leader in the wider academic turn toward politically charged interdisciplinarianism. To the dismay of many of his colleagues, he publicly made climatological prognoses in the 1970s, becoming a significant figure in the media landscape. He was not swayed by the arguments for global warming, even as the framing became the recognized face of climate change in the late 1980s. By examining the controversies that Bryson instigated and the currents that he swam against, we can see the wider community crystallizing and promoting positions that may have previously gone unstated. In addition, Bryson's personal contribution to the rise of climate discourse has been underexplored in the historical literature. Bryson was instrumental in bringing climate onto the political radar during the World Food Crisis of 1973, shocking both the US and Canadian political establishments into paying more attention to the issue. Bryson's narrative linking climate change to both food supply and a series of climate anomalies in the 1970s remained predominant in the first World Climate Conference of 1979. Bryson also helped break a seal on climatologists speaking directly to the media, leading to unprecedented climate discourse in the 1970s and giving climate change a springboard to become one of the defining issues of the 21st century.

    https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.744
    SEJDA
    SEJDA --- ---
    TADEAS: podle mne to s tim CO2 nebude az takova katastrofa, protoze psali o "emisich", takze treba sira muze byt 30x horsi, v prumeru s ostatnimi emisemi 2x ;)Biomasa ma vyuziti, ale kdyz pripustime, ze ziskavani dreva za kazdou cenu nepomaha, muzeme se posunout od plantazi zpet k lesum .. nekde.
    RADIQAL
    RADIQAL --- ---
    SHEFIK: Btw, zdroj taky nic moc.
    DNF
    DNF --- ---
    SHEFIK: clanek je ztrata casu, precetl jsem si o tom vejlupkovi Zitelmannovi na wiki. To delam u clanku co sdili neverohodni lidi jako treba ty :) Ztrata casu.
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    DNF: porad se nechytam. Firmu prodal pred lety, ted uz pise jen zajmu a investuje do vyzkumu pro obsah svych knizek nemaly penize, ktery se mozna nevrati. Kapitalismus poznal prostrednictvim podnikani - mel by ho radeji vychvalovat na zaklade teorii? Levicovymi obdobimi si orosel taky, ma tedy srovnani. Nebo radeji davat priklady od cloveka co zna jen jednu stranu mince?

    Btw je to nemec, historii studoval. Moje druha polovicka taky. Nevidim v jeho vyrokach nepravdy.

    Spis mi prijde z toho co rikas, zes ten clanek ani neotevrel, ale rad bys, aby nemel pravdu, protoze by se ti to proste nelibilo. Kazdopadne to vzdavam.
    DNF
    DNF --- ---
    SHEFIK: No, spis ze pak kdyz teda 'zmoudris' zacnes vynaset system kdyz na jeho uspechu je zavisly uspech tvoji vlastni spolecnosti, protoze ji stavis na tom systemu ... ale je to americky vedec, autorita, chapu!
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam