TADEAS: https://x.com/LeonSimons8/status/1798612747376357550

X-Risk
How Humanity Discovered Its Own Extinction
By Thomas Moynihan

Tracing this untold story, Moynihan revisits the pioneers who first contemplated the possibility of human extinction and stages the historical drama of this momentous discovery. He shows how, far from being a secular reprise of religious prophecies of apocalypse, existential risk is a thoroughly modern idea, made possible by the burgeoning sciences and philosophical tumult of the Enlightenment era. In recollecting how we first came to care for our extinction, Moynihan reveals how today's attempts to measure and mitigate existential threats are the continuation of a project initiated over two centuries ago, which concerns the very vocation of the human as a rational, responsible, and future-oriented being.


X-Risk
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9781913029845/x-risk/

ROGER_WILCO: To je tím, že ten problém není v terminologii, ale ve vzdělání. Můžeme mít 20 termínů, ale pokud lidé nevědí co je "klima" co je "globální" apod., tak jim to až tak nic neřekně - a i tak se vzhledem ke komplexitě a rozsahu jedná o dost abstraktní téma i pro ty, kteří se tomu věnují.

Osobně používám "globální ohřívání", vzhledem k stovkám ZJ, které se akumulují v atmosféře a oceánech, případně více rozsáhle - metakrize / polykrize.
Možná též hraje roli to jak termíny vyzní, jak mediálně tak politicky je snaha neznít pesimisticky a "kolaps planetárních systémů" / "destrukce života-umožňujících/podporujících systémů" / "ekocida" / "konec světa jak ho známe" do toho úplně nehrajou.

SCHWEPZ: NIMBUS: z těchto důvodů se to už dávno přejmenovalo na klimatickou změnu, ale to taky nikomu nic moc neříká..

PALEONTOLOG: vida, bazén zadarmo. Vila nad jezerem!

SHEFIK: XCHAOS: snad nam chlapci nechce zakazovat tradice!!

Handful of countries responsible for climate crisis, top court told | Climate crisis | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/handful-of-countries-responsible-for-climate-crisis-icj-court-told

Over the next two weeks, the court will hear statements from 98 nations, including wealthy developed nations with the greatest historical responsibility for the climate emergency, such as the UK and Russia, and states that have contributed very little to global greenhouse gas emissions but stand to bear the brunt of their impact, including Bangladesh and Sudan as well as Pacific island nations.

The US and China, the world’s biggest emitters, will make statements too, even though neither fully recognises the court’s authority.

Regenvanu told the court that states continued to emit vast amounts of greenhouse gases in spite of “increasingly dire warnings” from scientists, noting that emissions had increased by more than 50% since 1990.

...

Wewerinke-Singh said responsible states were required to make full reparation for the injury they had caused and this must be “proportionate to historic contributions to the harm”. She said this could include monetary compensation in addition to cash committed under the UNFCCC.

YMLADRIS: No, tak je to v tom clanku napsany.

2.3. Conflict and negative emissions technologies
Only recently has a first framework been constructed to elucidate the potential geopolitical dimensions of negative emissions technologies as a broad suite of large-scale energy production, resource usage, carbon storage, and land-use systems [58]. Direct air capture approaches rely on massive energy costs which could be coupled with either existing fossil-fuel or novel renewable infrastructures - possessing the potential to entrench or reorient the global carbon economy and its geopolitics [59,60]. Meanwhile, land-use approaches (large-scale forestry or agricultural management) by necessity entail heavy spatial and resource usage as well as pose inequities and trade-offs for the populations currently resident on or adjacent to the land [61]. Ocean based and marine carbon removal, and even the protection of coral reefs for ecosystem restoration, could also intersect with fisheries conflicts around the world [62].
This deliberately geopolitical focus on various aspects of negative emissions and carbon removal is nascent, but raises issues highlighted by antecedent conflicts in global food systems. These studies cite land-grabs and ownership conflicts, the food versus ethanol dilemma (e.g. the 2005 global food crisis), “phantom commodities”, the consequences of shifting prices in one-resource economies, and other issues and challenges confronting rural, smallholder communities – often accompanied by the particular pressures experienced by indigenous populations, or in the global South [[63], [64], [65]]. Others cite extractive industries in energy and other natural resources as relevant antecedents, raising questions of hazardous siting and carbon infrastructure lock-in [66]. As carbon removal technologies and their related approaches are looking beyond the terrestrial and into coastal and oceanic environments, some are increasingly concerned that the same logics of exploitation and conflict more familiar in the former could be repeated [67,68].

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X22002255

Abstract
The impacts of global climate change on international security and geopolitics could be of historic proportion, challenging those of previous global threats such as nuclear weapons proliferation, the Great Depression, and terrorism. But while the evidence surrounding the security impacts of climate change is fairly well-understood and improving, less is known about the security risks to climate-technology deployment. In this study, we focus on the geopolitical, security, and military risks facing negative emissions and solar geoengineering options. Although controversial, these options could become the future backbone of a low-carbon or net-zero society, given that they avoid the need for coordinated or global action (and can be deployed by a smaller group of actors, even non-state actors), and that they can “buy time” for mitigation and other options to be scaled up. We utilize a large and diverse expert-interview exercise (N = 125) to critically examine the security risks associated with ten negative emission options (or greenhouse gas removal technologies) and ten solar geoengineering options (or solar radiation management technologies). We ask: What geopolitical considerations does deployment give rise to? What particular military applications exist? What risks do these options entail in terms of weaponization, misuse, and miscalculation? We examine such existing and prospective security risks across a novel conceptual framework envisioning their use as (i) diplomatic or military negotiating tools, (ii) objectives for building capacity, control, or deterrence, (iii) targets in ongoing conflicts, and (iv) causes of new conflicts. This enables us to capture a far broader spectrum of security concerns than those which exist in the extant literature and to go well beyond insights derived from climate modelling or game theory by drawing on a novel, rich, and original dataset of expert perceptions.

PAN_SPRCHA: Ach tak. No kdyby se holka držela submissive porn, asi by udělala líp :))

L4MA: to by mě zajímalo, jak si paní lisková představuje spektrum plynů v atmosféře :) kyslík tvoří těch 21% troposféry u země a zbytek sloupce je dusík? :)