YMLADRIS: Ja musim nacist, co se teda skutecne prijalo. Ten vyvoj byl dost zajimavej a dramatickej, osciloval od velkejch nadeji, po frustraci z toho, ze OPEC a Rusko to torpedujou a potopej a nakonec to vypada na dulezitej, ale stale nedostatecnej posun vpred. Podle me bysme se meli sakra zamyslet, co se vsema tema fosilnima lobbistama a petrostatama, ktery se snazej proste cestu k relativne bezpecny budoucnosti torpedovat.

Johan Rockström
@jrockstrom
No, COP28 will not enable us to hold the 1.5°C limit, but yes, the result is a pivotal land-mark. It makes clear to finance, business and societies that we are now finally - 8 years behind Paris schedule - at the beginning of the end of the fossil-fuel driven world economy (1/4).

Science called for a mitigation COP, and we got a mitigation COP, focused on fossil-fuels. The world must now act accordingly, i.e. rapidly transition away from oil, coal and gas, aiming at >40% reductions by 2030 and reaching net-zero by 2050, as recognized in the text (2/4).

Yet, the text on transition away from fossil-fuel remains too vague, with no accountability for 2030, 2040 & 2050. No recognition that scaling CO2 removal technology needs to occur in addition to fossil-fuel phase out, to have a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C (3/4)

And there is no convincing plan on how to transition away from fossil-fuels. National voluntary action alone will not do it. Collective, global action, on finance, carbon pricing, and technology exchange are also needed, at a scale vastly exceeding what is now on the table (4/4).

SHEFIK: Problem je, ze my ten kompetentni stat / verejnou sferu potrebujeme. Korporace proste urcity druhy problemu neresej / nejsou schopny resit (jinak bysme mohli stat ostatne zrusit uplne).
Neverim v outsorcovani klicovejch strategickejch rozhodnuti. Je to prilis riskantni, nejakou expertizu si proste musis drzet "doma". Jako kdo si asi myslis, ze ovlada ty konzultantsky spolecnosti typu Deloitte?

ABOUT THE BIG CON
A vital and timely investigation into the opaque and powerful consulting industry—and what to do about it

There is an entrenched relationship between the consulting industry and the way business and government are managed today that must change. Mariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington show that our economies’ reliance on companies such as McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Company, PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, and EY stunts innovation, obfuscates corporate and political accountability, and impedes our collective mission of halting climate breakdown.

The “Big Con” describes the confidence trick the consulting industry performs in contracts with hollowed-out and risk-averse governments and shareholder value-maximizing firms. It grew from the 1980s and 1990s in the wake of reforms by the neoliberal right and Third Way progressives, and it thrives on the ills of modern capitalism, from financialization and privatization to the climate crisis. It is possible because of the unique power that big consultancies wield through extensive contracts and networks—as advisors, legitimators, and outsourcers—and the illusion that they are objective sources of expertise and capacity. In the end, the Big Con weakens our businesses, infantilizes our governments, and warps our economies.

In The Big Con, Mazzucato and Collington throw back the curtain on the consulting industry. They dive deep into important case studies of consultants taking the reins with disastrous results, such as the debacle of the roll out of HealthCare.gov and the tragic failures of governments to respond adequately to the COVID-19 pandemic. The result is an important and exhilarating intellectual journey into the modern economy’s beating heart. With peerless scholarship, and a wealth of original research, Mazzucato and Collington argue brilliantly for building a new system in which public and private sectors work innovatively for the common good.


The Big Con by Mariana Mazzucato, Rosie Collington: 9780593492673 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/710959/the-big-con-by-mariana-mazzucato-and-rosie-collington/

The corporate climate accountability loop introduces seven key conceptual functions of an accountability system for corporates in the real economy, and illustrates how activities under these functions feed into and reinforce each other. We differentiate the accountability functions between core functions supportive functions (see Figure 1 below).

Readers can use our framework to analyse the limitations of today’s corporate climate accountability system and assess how to improve it in the future to hold companies accountable for their (lack of) climate action.



The corporate climate accountability loop | NewClimate Institute
https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/the-corporate-climate-accountability-loop

‘A green transition that leaves no one behind’: world leaders release open letter | Emmanuel Macron, Mia Mottley, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Ursula von der Leyen, Charles Michel, Olaf Scholz, Fumio Ki...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/21/a-green-transition-that-leaves-no-one-behind-world-leaders-release-open-letter

We, leaders of diverse economies from every corner of the world, are united in our determination to forge a new global consensus. We will use the Paris Summit for a New Global Financing Pact on June 22-23 as a decisive political moment to recover development gains lost in recent years and to accelerate progress towards the SDGs, including just transitions. We are clear on our strategy: development and climate commitments should be fulfilled and, in line with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, we recognise that we need to leverage all sources of finance, including official development assistance, domestic resources and private investment.

Delivering on that consensus should start with existing financial commitments. Collective climate-finance goals must be met in 2023. Our total global ambition of $100bn (£78bn) of voluntary contributions for countries most in need, through a rechannelling of special drawing rights or equivalent budget contributions, should also be reached.

No country should have to wait years for debt relief. We need greater and more timely cooperation on debt, for both low- and middle-income countries. This starts with a swift conclusion of solutions for debt-distressed countries.

A top priority is to continue ambitious reform of our system of multilateral development banks, building on the existing momentum. We are asking development banks to take responsible steps to do much more with existing resources and to increase financing capacity and private capital mobilisation, based on clear targets and strategies in terms of private finance contribution and domestic resource mobilisation. These financial resources are essential, but this reform is about far more than money. It should deliver a more effective operational model, based on a country-led approach. We also need our development banks to work together as an ecosystem, closely with other public agencies and streamlined vertical funds – and, where appropriate, with philanthropists, sovereign wealth funds, private finance and civil society – to deliver the greatest impact.

Technology, skills, sustainability, and public and private investment will be at the core of our partnerships, to promote voluntary technology transfer, a free flow of scientific and technological talents, and contribute to an inclusive, open, fair and non-discriminatory economy. We will promote an agenda of sustainable and inclusive investment in developing and emerging economies, based on local economic value added and local transformation, such as fertiliser value chains. This comprehensive approach will require new metrics to update our accountability instruments.

Public finance will remain essential to achieving our goals. We should start with strengthening our instruments (the International Development Association, the International Monetary Fund’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust and Resilience and Sustainability Trust, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the Green Climate Fund, and other concessional windows of our banks, as well as the Global Shield against Climate Risks). But we acknowledge that meeting our development and climate goals, including the fight against hunger, poverty, and inequality; adapting to climate change; and averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage, will require new, innovative, and sustainable sources of finance, such as debt buy-backs, engagement from sectors that prosper thanks to globalisation, and more trusted carbon- and biodiversity-credit markets.

UK or not UK?



Prem.Sikka
https://twitter.com/premnsikka/status/1668728811670716423

Lords voted 154-68 to let Tory govt change the Public Order Act through the back door, Unprecedented.

Our freedoms to protest gone; police have carte blanche, no accountability.




Just Stop Oil
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668898464502018050

You probably have no idea, because the media didn't cover it, but last night we lost our final defence against new, fascist, anti-protest laws.

Tens of thousands of people
petitioned Labour to vote to block laws in the House of Lords that had already voted down — but that the government snuck back in.

Instead of acting as an effective opposition, Labour abstained.

Those laws now make protest illegal if police deem it causes anything other than "minor inconvenience".

A crowd outside the gates of a fracking site. A picket line. A demonstration outside the parish council. Any protest march.

These will all now be illegal, should police decide they are more than minorly inconvenient.

Ask yourself, what protest has ever fitted neatly into a working day? This government, with Labours help, has banned all protests aside from the ones they can ignore. Because that's what they intend to do: ignore the people.

A country without the right to protest is sliding from democracy to dictatorship.

Nová studie zveřejněná v časopisu One Earth vyčísluje ekonomickou zátěž, kterou jednotlivé firmy a společnosti, které vyrábí a prodávají fosilní paliva, způsobují. Podle ní je to až 209 miliard dolarů ročně, což je v přepočtu asi 4,3 bilionů korun. Za tuto částku by prý firmy odškodnily skupiny nejvíce poškozené jejich znečišťujícím podnikáním. Podle průlomové analýzy patří mezi 21 největších znečišťovatelů například společnosti BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Total, Saudi Aramco a Chevron, které jsou zodpovědné za sucho, lesní požáry, zvyšování hladiny moří a tání ledovců a další klimatické katastrofy, které už nyní pociťujeme.

„Toto je pouze špička ledovce dlouhodobých škod způsobených klimatem, nákladů na jejich zmírnění a přizpůsobení se na ně,“ uvedl spoluautor studie Richard Heede. Ta vychází z databáze Carbon Majors, která zaznamenává emise jednotlivých ropných, plynárenských a uhelných společností od roku 1988. V tomto roce byl totiž založen Mezivládní panel pro změnu klimatu – IPCC, který každoročně vydává reporty o stavu planety a důsledcích klimatických změn. Právě v poslední zprávě IPCC vydané v březnu 2023 bylo psáno, že máme poslední šanci učinit konkrétní kroky k odvrácení změn klimatu, pak její dopady na lidstvo a planetu budou nezvratné.

https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(23)00198-7

Climate Accountability Institute
https://climateaccountability.org/carbonmajors.html

Firmy vyrábějící a prodávající fosilní paliva způsobují ročně klimatické škody za čtyři biliony korun – A2larm
https://a2larm.cz/2023/05/firmy-vyrabejici-a-prodavajici-fosilni-paliva-zpusobuji-rocne-klimaticke-skody-za-ctyri-biliony-korun/

Jessica Tierney
@leafwax
The @IPCC_CH report will be released in the early AM tonight. I helped author it, and tomorrow I'll tweet about some of the findings re: #drought which was one of the things I worked on. In the meantime, it's worthwhile knowing a few things about the process
1/ IPCC authors like myself do not get paid! We volunteer. It's a three year commitment and it becomes a deep part of your life. Why do we do it? Because we care about making sure the world knows about what has happened and what will happen if we don't cut emissions.
2/ The text in the IPCC report went through two rounds of public peer review, during which time anyone (I mean anyone!) could read the draft and submit comments. The authors have to respond to *every* comment (there are thousands). #accountability
3/ The IPCC report doesn't have "new" data. Everything in the report is already published in the scientific literature. The report is an "assessment", which means it synthesizes what is out there and decides how well we understand what has happened/will happen
4/ As you'll see tomorrow, the report has a lot of parts. Let's break them down. The meat of the report is made up of 12 chapters and an Atlas. Each chapter has a dozen or so main authors and a list of contributing authors. Let me explain the authorship thing...
5/ The Coordinating Lead Authors (listed first) do what their name implies, they coordinate the production of the chapter, take on a lot of extra admin-style work, and are ultimately responsible for meeting deadlines
6/ The Lead Authors (like me) do a lot of the writing and figure making. In some cases we are responsible for entire subsections within the chapter. We get help though from the Contributing Authors, who we might ask to draft up a paragraph or two about a specific topic
7/ Contributing Authors are not officially part of the IPCC process (drafting, reviewing, etc) but are folks in the community who are specialists and helped by contributing some text or sometimes a figure
8/ Back to the "parts". One step up from the full report is the Technical Summary, which is what it sounds like, a detailed summary of the full report.
9/ Two steps up from the full report is the Summary for Policymakers, which is probably what you will read tomorrow. This is an even more concise summary, and it has to be approved by governments line by line, which is what has been happening in the last two weeks.
10/ So in order of shortest to longest, it goes Summary for Policymakers -> Technical Summary -> Full Report. Don't be afraid to read stuff in the full report! There is good stuff that for brevity didn't make it to the top docs!
11/ Finally, because people are asking about impacts and mitigation, know that the report released tomorrow is just the Working Group I (WGI) report, "The Physical Science Basis". Impacts and mitigation are in WGII and WGIII respectively which are coming out next year
12/ Hope that helps explain things some! Tomorrow there will be a lot of science to digest. fin/

Melo to bejt green recovery, ale nevypada...

The nations that make up the G7 have pumped billions of dollars more into fossil fuels than they have into clean energy since the COVID-19 pandemic, despite their promises of a green recovery.
As the UK prepares to host the G7 summit, a new analysis reveals that the countries attending committed $189 billion to support oil, coal, and gas between January 2020 and March 2021. In comparison, the same countries – the UK, U.S., Canada, Italy, France, Germany and Japan – spent $147 billion on clean forms of energy.
The support for fossil fuels from seven of the world’s richest nations included measures to remove or downgrade environmental regulations as well as direct funding of oil, gas and coal.

G7 nations committing billions more to fossil fuel than green energy | Grist
https://grist.org/accountability/g7-nations-committing-billions-more-to-fossil-fuel-than-green-energy

World leaders pledge to save life on Earth
The leaders of 71 countries have pledged to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. The commitment comes ahead of a major UN biodiversity summit on Wednesday, which will be virtually hosted from New York. “We commit ourselves not simply to words, but to meaningful action and mutual accountability to address the planetary emergency,” says the pledge, which is signed by Pakistan’s Imran Khan, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Canada’s Justin Trudeau and the United Kingdom’s Boris Johnson, among others. Leaders from the United States, Brazil, India, Russia and China are notably absent.

The Guardian | 6 min read
Reference: Leaders’ Pledge for Nature

Leaders' Pledge for Nature
https://www.leaderspledgefornature.org/

Trump Is Bailing Out Big Meat—and Further Screwing the Planet
https://newrepublic.com/article/157913/trump-bailing-big-meatand-screwing-planet

critics who track the U.S. agricultural industry’s massive environmental footprint, the produce stage props seemed disingenuous: The stimulus will prop up a U.S. agricultural system in which more than two-thirds of crops become animal feed. The ultimate winners will be industrial meat companies like Cargill and Tyson. That’s disastrous news for the climate.

In 2018, watchdog groups GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy estimated that the world’s top five industrial meat and dairy companies—JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill, Dairy Farmers of America, and Fonterra—were together releasing more emissions than fossil fuel companies like Exxon. Factory farms have contributed to a 14.4 percent spike in climate-destabilizing U.S. methane emissions since 1990, EPA calculations suggest, while at the same time leaking tens of millions of tons of raw sewage into the country’s waterways. And that’s before you get to their other potential public health issues.

...

Much of this pollution can be traced back to a small group of powerful businesses such as Cargill, which is the largest privately held company in the United States, bigger even than Koch Industries. “They run agriculture,” Patty Lovera, a policy adviser for the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, told me, referring to the factory-farming giants. “They run the supply chain.” And the current stimulus contains no provisions for changing that. “Overall, it’s more subsidies to lock in the meat-based U.S. agriculture system,” said Glenn Hurowitz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.–based environmental watchdog group Mighty Earth. “That could be locking in polluting practices for much longer.”

...

a recurring pattern under the Trump administration: play up the optics of supporting small farmers while mostly assisting atmosphere-warming corporations. That’s what happened with the $28 billion program announced in May 2019 to mitigate the impact of Trump’s trade wars. “What was meant to be a financial lifeline for struggling farmers,” The New York Times reported in February, “has been widely derided by critics as a corporate bailout for big agriculture companies and those who live in metropolitan areas but own farms in rural America.”

One of the larger beneficiaries of that trade war bailout has been the U.S. subsidiary of JBS, which received $67 million


The Brazil-based company is the largest meat-processing firm on the planet. The annual emissions linked to its business model—which relies on suppliers clear-cutting sections of the Amazon rain forest for cattle grazing—amount to 280 megatons of greenhouse gases, according to 2017 calculations from the Climate Accountability Institute.

Factory-farming meat giants have largely avoided the climate scrutiny given to oil and gas companies. “I think agriculture is a huge blind spot for the climate community,” Hurowitz said. “We need to decarbonize energy, don’t get me wrong, but acting on agriculture is at least as urgent.”

...

“These companies depend on cheap corn and soy,” Lovera told me. “If there wasn’t [federal support] to prop up farmers to return next year and overproduce corn and soy cheaply again that could be disruptive.”

And this in turn perpetuates a highly destructive agricultural system. Squeezing thousands of animals into small spaces on factory farms means creating massive manure-storing lagoons. The expansion of this model is one reason why U.S. manure-related emissions have grown 66 percent since 1990. Ironically, farmers are already feeling the effects of climate change, including hundreds of millions of dollars in uninsured crop losses from record Midwestern flooding last year.

TADEAS: