World faces new danger of ‘economic denial’ in climate fight, Cop30 head says | Cop30 | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/28/andre-correa-do-lago-cop30-interview-climate-crisis

The world is facing a new form of climate denial – not the dismissal of climate science, but a concerted attack on the idea that the economy can be reorganised to fight the crisis, the president of global climate talks has warned.

André Corrêa do Lago, the veteran Brazilian diplomat who will direct this year’s UN summit, Cop30, believes his biggest job will be to counter the attempt from some vested interests to prevent climate policies aimed at shifting the global economy to a low-carbon footing.

“There is a new kind of opposition to climate action. We are facing a discredit of climate policies. I don’t think we are facing climate denial,” he said, referring to the increasingly desperate attempts to pretend there is no consensus on climate science that have plagued climate action for the past 30 years. “It’s not a scientific denial, it’s an economic denial.”

This economic denial could be just as dangerous and cause as much delay as repeated attempts to deny climate science in previous years, he warned in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.

Just Stop Oil has ended its campaign of direct action, yet many activists still face years in prison. In the final episode, Rivkah and Clare find out whether their commitment to their cause has wavered. They also speak to veteran climate campaigner Roger Hallam, currently serving a four-year sentence, about his role in sending young activists to prison.

Was Prison Worth It? | Committed Episode 4
https://youtu.be/8DBEKH83otE?si=jrAQK_zbYSkp1PdI

In March (2025?), 440 winter and summer Olympians representing more than 90 countries and 50 sports wroteExternal link an open letter to candidates for the presidency of the International Olympic Committee. They expressed concern about the risks that climate change poses to many sports and called for the organisation to take more action to fight climate change. This included setting standards for sponsorships, upholding sustainable practices, and strengthening commitments to cut carbon emissions.

David King

We passed the 1.5C climate threshold. We must now explore extreme options | David King | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/07/climate-solutions-extreme-options


R Hallam
https://www.facebook.com/share/1AP5yJSuWn/


The former UK government’s chief scientific adviser, the foreign secretary’s special representative for climate change and the head of the University of Cambridge’s chemistry department, Sir David King states that as we have passed 1.5C "we must now explore extreme options". I could not agree more. I trust and respect science experts when they say we cannot save ourselves without geo-engineering. This goes against my culture as a former organic farmer but facts are facts and I am not an expert.

The question then is whether natural scientists like Sir David King will trust social scientists/experts like myself who have been saying for the last decade that only through mass civil disobedience and resistance will the policies insisted upon by him and others be implemented. This is not because I like creating disruption any more than scientists like the risks of geo-engineering. It is simply a matter of rationally looking at reality.

We are in an existential emergency; without drastic action the deaths of billions of people will be locked in in the next decade, not to mention the prospect of human extinction. It is time to do what is necessary - what is most likely to work.

As I wrote recently on the news that JSO has been prevented from continuing its actions due to the mass imprisonment of its organisers, the reason for our failure is the refusal of key members of the elites to "defect," as is the word in the literature. This means they lead the marches, get arrested, and receive prison sentences.

I would bet my life that if 50 individuals of Sir David's social standing decided to act to save our country to the point of being imprisoned then policy change would happen in the UK. And the same would happen in other Western states. The reason nothing is happening is that civil society leaders refuse to act on their sacred duty and honour to protect the people of our country. They are violating their values through their cowardice, and they know it.

As Sir David says, we don't want to leave it too late. "The longer we delay, the fewer options remain on the table and the more likely that deployment will happen without the proper due diligence at a point of desperation." In social scientific terms what he means is that if we don't act now because it is only poor black people (over there) that will die, by the time we are forced to engage in civil resistance because "nice" white people in the home counties are dying, it will be way too late for us too. Won't it.

⚰️ Why The Human Race is Going Extinct this Century
https://rogerhallam.com/blog-extinct/

related

Car tyres shed a quarter of all microplastics in the environment – urgent action is needed | University of Portsmouth
https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/protecting-our-environment/car-tyres-shed-a-quarter-of-all-microplastics-in-the-environment-urgent-action-is-needed

Every year, billions of vehicles worldwide shed an estimated 6 million tonnes of tyre fragments. These tiny flakes of plastic, generated by the wear and tear of normal driving, eventually accumulate in the soil, in rivers and lakes, and even in our food. Researchers in South China recently found tyre-derived chemicals in most human urine samples.

These tyre particles are a significant but often-overlooked contributor to microplastic pollution. They account for 28% of microplastics entering the environment globally.

Despite the scale of the issue, tyre particles have flown under the radar. Often lumped in with other microplastics, they are rarely treated as a distinct pollution category, yet their unique characteristics demand a different approach.

TUHO: Regulerne je mi do place

We’ve long known President Donald Trump is a climate-change denier. And we knew that, during last year’s campaign, Trump promised to make the dreams of fossil-fuel tycoons reality if they bankrolled his candidacy. But nothing could have prepared us for the breadth or intensity of the assault on climate action that Trump has unleashed during his first months back in office.

There’s a chance you’ve seen one or 20 news reports in recent weeks detailing some of this activity. Far more likely is that you don’t even know the half of it. Here are just a few of the highlights:

Much chatter, little impact: Net zero reference slipped into German constitution - Euractiv
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eet/news/germany-climate-law-legislation/

BERLIN – As part of the deal over Germany's massive defence and infrastructure spending package, the Greens managed to write spending earmarks with a reference to climate neutrality into the country's constitution.

Champions and critics of climate action alike have been trying to play up the significance of adding in a mention of Germany's 2045 net-zero goal, although legal experts largely see the change as lacking broader legal significance.

The amendment to Article 143 of the Basic Law, Germany's constitution, allows for “a special fund with its own credit authorization for additional investments in infrastructure and for additional investments to achieve climate neutrality by 2045, with a volume of up to €500 billion.”

One line in the paragraph specifically sets aside €100 billion in an off-budget special fund for climate projects toward bringing emissions down to net zero, a goal already set down in Germany's Climate Action Act.

Diana Urge-VorsatzDiana Urge-Vorsatz
• 2nd • 2nd Vice Chair of the IPCC, Professor at Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University
2h • 2 hours ago

After immensely hard work and many sleepless hours, the IPCC can be very proud to have the planned content of all the products of the Seventh Assessment hashtag#AR7 cycle agreed on.

At the same time, I need to register my concerns about the future of both the IPCC as well as our global climate based on certain trends that the changes in the outlines signal.

It is concerning that key words that formed the backbone of previous reports, assessments that were consistent and among the most used components of ARs cycle after cycle after cycle were not accepted to be included in the outlines.

Key scientific concepts, such as hashtag#policies, hashtag#exPostEvaluation, hashtag#scenarios, hashtag#pathways, hashtag#infrastructure, national and subnational [policies], hashtag#lockin, hashtag#maladaptation, hashtag#targets, hashtag#goals, hashtag#NDCs, hashtag#fossilfuels, hashtag#subsidies, cost of inaction, hashtag#UNFCCC, hashtag#ParisAgreement, trade, conflict, market-based [instruments], non-state actors, hashtag#electrification, policy packages, acceleration, hashtag#overshoot, environmental impacts, hashtag#attribution, future emission trends, among others – have been questioned and either cut or replaced in many places, many of these key words do not appear any more in the outline of one WG.

Some words, like the hashtag#ParisAgreement, acceleration, pathways, that form important parts of one working group’s agreed outline, were considered as too policy prescriptive in another working group and were excluded.

In the cycle when we may officially exceed 1.5C global warming and thus the goal of the Agreement signed by virtually all governments, the IPCC will significantly compromise its policy relevance if it cannot focus its assessment, among all the other crucial topics well reflected in the outlines, also on knowledge and science related to NDCs, the Paris Agreement, accelerating not only adaptation but also mitigation action, comprehensive (and policy neutral) ex-post evaluation of policies.

Without a robust assessment of the exponentially growing experience and knowledge on the topics relevant to our global efforts, we are jeopardizing the effectiveness of these crucial multilateral processes – that have so far taken us off of the worst climate pathways since the PA, and that have helped catalyse important achievements such as loss and damage funds and other financial instruments.

We could also jeopardise the very existence of multilateralism about climate change. As already signalled by recent events and trends – if the perspectives and efforts of some parties are poorly reflected, if the relevance of IPCC reports to a crucial part of the global discourse is compromised – it is increasingly concerning how long some parties can still uphold their strong moral (and financial) commitment to not only IPCC but also the multilateral processes such as the UNFCCC, considering the shifts in preferences of their voters.

This is a risk to all of us.

Disclaimer: These are my personal views and not those of the IPCC

TADEAS: lehce malm vibrs

In the first chapter, Malm describes a protest he participated outside the COP1 United Nations climate conference in 1995.[2] He asks "At what point do we escalate?",[5]: 8  stating that the modern climate movement has remained committed to "absolute non-violence" and avoided property destruction.[5]: 22–23  He criticizes what he defines as "moral pacifism" for failing to account for defensive violence[5]: 30–32  and argues that "strategic pacifism" as advocated by Bill McKibben and Extinction Rebellion is ahistorical, discussing the radical flank effect in the context of the civil rights movement and questioning whether there are "convincing reasons" to believe that "the struggle against fossil fuels ... will succeed only on condition of utter peacefulness".[5]: 34–54 

Malm describes Ende Gelände 2016, during which he and other activists blockaded the Schwarze Pumpe power station, writing that politicians and the media described the action as violent because the activists broke fences. He quotes The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon, stating that Fanon wrote violence "frees the native 'from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect'". He concludes that "There has been a time for a Gandhian climate movement; perhaps there might come a time for a Fanonian one. The breaking of fences may one day be seen as a very minor misdemeanour indeed."[5]: 158–161 

How to Blow Up a Pipeline - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Blow_Up_a_Pipeline

Katerina Kolouchova (Fakta oklimatu)


🇪🇺 European Commission dnes představila očekávaný Kompas konkurenceschopnosti, ve kterém v návaznosti na Draghiho zprávu nastiňuje, jak chce zvýšit konkurenceschopnost unijních podniků.

Celé je to hodně o zjednodušování (povolovacích procesů, státní podpory, reportingu), inovacích, zvyšování soběstačnosti a odolnosti.

💡 Důležité je pro mě opakované potvrzení, že cíle Zelené dohody a klimatické neutrality v roce 2050 zůstávají a že Komise stojí za emisním cílem −90 % pro rok 2040. Stejně tak zůstávají stejné emisní cíle pro automobilový průmysl (ač s explicitní zmínkou technologické neutrality a e-paliv).

Jsem zvědavá na konkrétnější vykreslení dekarbonizačních opatření, které na konci února přinese Clean Industrial Deal.

V samotném Kompasu mě ještě mj. zaujalo, že Komise navrhne vznik 28. právního režimu, ve kterém by pro inovativní podniky odpadaly starosti s 27 různými regulačními prostředími.

Co v Kompasu zaujalo vás?

---
Kompas obsahuje i časový rámec pro jednotlivé iniciativy, např.:

– Clean Industrial Deal and an Action Plan on Affordable Energy [Q1 2025]
– Amendment of the Climate Law [2025]
– Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act [Q4 2025]
– New State Aid Framework [Q2 2025]
– Strategic dialogue on the future of the European automotive industry and Industrial Action Plan [Q1 2025].
– Joint purchasing platform for Critical Raw Minerals [Q2-3 2025]
– Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism Review [2025]
– Circular Economy Act [Q4 2026]

⚖️ Scientists prize neutrality – that doesn’t cut it any more. In 2025, they must fully back the climate movement
https://rogerhallam.com/scientists-prize-neutrality-that-doesnt-cut-it-any-more-in-2025-they-must-fully-back-the-climate-movement-2/

There are nearly 9 million scientists in the world, making up a tribe that is one of the most trusted groups on the planet. Imagine the noise they could make if they spoke with one voice; think of the impetus it would give climate activism. The UK courts have tried to silence climate scientists in the past few years, by keeping their expert testimony out of court cases. As we start out on the second quarter of the 21st century, let’s show them what we can really do.

Inevitably, there are those who demand impartiality from scientists, but being impartial doesn’t mean not telling the truth; it doesn’t mean playing down threats; and it certainly doesn’t mean keeping silent at a time of global emergency. Wanting to remain apolitical no longer cuts it. It is naive at the best of times, but this is now a matter of survival, not politics. So, throw your weight behind those groups and organisations fighting to tackle climate breakdown, work to bring colleagues on board, and use your influence in the best way you can to drive serious action. As we have said before, there are no grant-awarding committees on a dead planet, so it is time to choose which side of history you are on.

Frightening :)

‘Tipping points’ cause confusion, not clarity
A focus on climate ‘tipping points’ — moments of abrupt and irreversible shifts in the Earth system, such as the loss of the Amazon rainforest — isn’t helpful, argues an interdisciplinary group of ten researchers that includes climate scientists, science communicators and environmental sociologists. The issues involved are important to study, but the framing is too abstract and frightening to trigger useful action, and not rigorous enough to inform policy, they argue. They recommend that scientists avoid using the idea as a scholarly tool and instead consider it “a fuzzy, boundary-spanning concept akin to ‘sustainability’”.

Nature Climate Change | 27 min read

‘Tipping points’ confuse and can distract from urgent climate action | Nature Climate Change
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-02196-8

Fury as US argues against climate obligations at top UN court | Climate crisis | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/04/us-climate-crisis-legal-court

Australia, China and Saudi Arabia – major fossil fuel economies and among the world’s worst greenhouse gas emitters – also argued against legal accountability that developing nations are pushing for.

After years of campaigning by vulnerable nations and the global climate justice movement, the UN asked the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on what obligations states have to tackle climate change and what the legal consequences could be if they fail to do so. More than 100 countries and organisations are testifying over the course of two weeks, and many hope the hearings will elevate science to the forefront, ensuring international law reflects the realities of climate breakdown and the urgent need for transformative action