DESMOND: no ona je ta situace jeste horsi, pac i kdyz dosahneme 'neutrality', tak planeta se stale bude oteplovat diky sklenikovym plynum uz v obehu.

Jinymi slovy, vcera bylo pozde a pokud nechceme prejit pres 2*C, tak musime zacit kolem 2030 dosahovat negative carbon balance, coz je z feasibility pohledu scifi. Ne ze by nebyly technologie, ale znamena to ohromny investice, cas na zmenu infrastruktury, plosnou zmenu mysleni/chovani lidi. Nerealny.

Plus od ledna nastoupi Trump se svoji politikou drill baby, drill s nejsilnejsi ekonomikou sveta v zadech...

(Metan rozpad cca 12 let ve svrchnich vrstvach atmosfery, co2 cca 300-1000 let)

The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide - NASA Science
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

K těm přehradám, ono to zní jako řešení, ale občas může způsobit problémy úplně jinde a nelze říct, že by jich dost nebylo.

Mě spíše jako první napadá stav zemědělství kdy máme obrovské plochy, které takřka nemají schopnost zadržet vodu a do toho v krajině nejsou prvky, které by situaci napomohli.
A samozřejmě další je to jak jsou toky samotných řek upraveny a návrat do původního stavu je nejspíše v valné většině případů nemožný kvůli existující zástavbě.

Na téma absorbce vody v zemědělství jsem našel tuto metaanalýzu:
Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with conventional and alternative farming methods
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215702#sec008

Overall we found that the largest infiltration rate changes were associated with practices that entail a continuous presence of roots and soil cover, suggested by the positive improvements of perennial systems compared to annual crops and cover crops compared to no cover crops, as well as the negative trend associated with the crop and livestock systems compared to crop systems only. Determining the exact processes underpinning the observed results is outside the scope of meta-analysis.

While increasing infiltration rates may mostly be considered important for reducing flooding risk, the previously discussed soil improvements can play a role in reducing the impacts of drought.

Tweet:

2020: Microsoft sets goal to be carbon negative by end of the decade.

2023: Microsoft's emissions are 30% higher than in 2020.

Main cause? The relentless push to meet AI demand, which requires carbon-intensive steel, cement, chips.

Microsoft’s AI Investment Imperils Climate Goal As Emissions Jump 30% - Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-15/microsoft-s-ai-investment-imperils-climate-goal-as-emissions-jump-30?srnd=undefined&sref=jjXJRDFv

PAN_SPRCHA: No hele, to je na dlouhou debatu, ja bych do ni rad sel, ale nemam tedka na to silu ani cas. Zajimalo me, jestli ses opiral o nejakej zdroj nebo o svuj dojem. Ja si dokazu predstavit dost sirokou skalu moznosti, prekvapilo me to, protoze si nevybavuju, ze bych nekde cetl takovy cisla.
Ale aspon rychle: tedka jsem se rychle jenom koukal teda na nejakej prvni report od McKinsey... Oni ty absolutni cisla vypadaj desive, ale kdyz to porovnas, kolik se vydava na tu infrastrukturu ted, plus velkou cast infrastruktury musi obmenovat tak nebo tak (konec zivotnovsi), zaroven fosilni paliva maj giganticky externality (zivotni prostredi, zdravi, klima zmena etc), taky jsou fosilni paliva globalne jedny z nejdotovanejsich odvetvi. kdyz se to poscita, tak to zas tak sileny neni, kdyz to kompenzujes hospodarskym rustem, tak imho vubec k zadnymu propadu prijmu dojit nemusi.

Six characteristics that define net zero | McKinsey
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/six-characteristics-define-the-net-zero-transition

Ono urcite uz budou existovat priklady, kde se da kouknout, jak to vypada v praxi. Par zemi uz existuje, kteyr net-zero jsou, ale predpokldam, ze to jsou predevsim ty, kde byly dobry podminky, tak asi nejsou uplne vhodny.

Nicmene treba Finsko chce bejt uhlikove neutralni do roku 2035 a potom dokonce carbon negative. Zatim cile celkem zvladaj a zivotni uroven nejen, ze neklesa, ale roste...
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/06/finland-carbon-neutral-2035-goals/

Finland: disposable income per capita | Statista
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1273185/disposable-income-per-capita-finland/

Starsi ale zajimavy

Russian Energy in a Changing World
What is the Outlook for the Hydrocarbons Superpower?

Description
For a long time Russia’s position as a key global energy player has enhanced Moscow’s international economic and political influence whilst causing concern amongst other states fearful of becoming too dependent on Russia as an energy supplier. The Global Financial Crisis shook this established image of Russia as an indispensable energy superpower, immune to negative external influences and revealed the full extent of Russia’s dependence on oil and gas for economic and political influence. This led to calls from within the country for a new approach where energy resources were no longer regarded wholly as an asset, but also a potential curse resulting in an over reliance on one sector thwarting modernization of the economy and the country as a whole. In this fascinating and timely volume leading Russian and Western scholars examine various aspects of Russian energy policy and the opportunities and constraints that influence the choices made by the country’s energy decision makers. Contributors focus on Russia’s energy relations with the rest of the world alongside internal debates about the need for diversification and modernisation in a changing economy, country and world system where overdependence on energy commodities has become a key concern for customer and supplier alike.

Russian Energy in a Changing World: What is the Outlook for the Hydroc
https://www.routledge.com/Russian-Energy-in-a-Changing-World-What-is-the-Outlook-for-the-Hydrocarbons-Superpower/Godzimirski/p/book/9781138279780

Zajimavej kratkej paper o historii klimatickyho vyzkumu v Cine #China #Cina

Another scientist who shared this view of China’s
climate as being related to global long-term cycles and
a recent warming trend was Tu Changwang (1906–1962).
Tu, at the request of Zhu Kezhen, returned to China from
studying in the UK in the 1930s and became a leading
figure in Chinese meteorological research. In a particularly
noteworthy article in the People’s Daily in January 1961
entitled “On the issue of climate change in the twentieth
century” (关于二十世纪气候变暖的问题), Tu underscored
the fact that international meteorologists had calculated
that the annual average temperature of the earth rose
by 0.33 degrees between 1910 and 1940. He subsequently
issued an early warning to the leadership about the risk
of potential negative effects of continued climate change.7
In many respects, Tu Changwang became one of the most
influential scientists in the field through his mentoring of
a group of meteorologists and atmospheric physicists that
became a core of the climate science community in China
in the late twentieth century.8

https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/sites/default/files/2023-03/OP09_ErikBaark.pdf

TUHO: A btw taky to byl prvni clovek, ktery navrhoval geoinzenyring

Budyko:
My booklet with a description of this problem was published in 1972. I mentioned a number of practical problems and presented ideas of what we could do and what we could not do. 1972 — almost 20 years ago — my conclusion was that data included in this booklet are not sufficient to decide a big economical problem now. But they are sufficient to determine how long we can wait before such a decision will be done. I concluded that we had approximately 10-20 years.

Weart:
Which is now.

Budyko:
And if in ten years this problem will not dissolve, the consequences can be grave. It was not very different from the real history of the problem because in tem years understanding was incomparable with the beginning of the 70's. But until now we have a big problem, and till now I have a painful feeling that I know much more than is accepted and taken into account now. I think the history is now repeating, in less dramatic form, but all the same it is repeating. Understand that to be an inventor, to present new ideas; it is not a big pleasure. It is lot of negative feelings, and frankly speaking I am a bit tired of such activities. That is the reason I am now interested more in the origin of man, as I mentioned to you, and why in a short time a historical book written by me will be published.

Weart:
I am interested in your specific suggestion of sending planes up to spread sulphur in the upper atmosphere. Can you tell me where this idea came from?

In February 2023, Antarctic sea ice set a record minimum; there have now been three record-breaking low sea ice summers in seven years. Following the summer minimum, circumpolar Antarctic sea ice coverage remained exceptionally low during the autumn and winter advance, leading to the largest negative areal extent anomalies observed over the satellite era. Here, we show the confluence of Southern Ocean subsurface warming and record minima and suggest that ocean warming has played a role in pushing Antarctic sea ice into a new low-extent state. In addition, this new state exhibits different seasonal persistence characteristics, suggesting that the underlying processes controlling Antarctic sea ice coverage may have altered.

Record low Antarctic sea ice coverage indicates a new sea ice state | Communications Earth & Environment
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00961-9

TADEAS: dobrej rozhodvor, anderson do rockstroma celkem subtilne šíje, ale kdyz si to tak clovek prelozi, tak to je fakt takovej hodne sofistikovanej zpusob v podstate vedomyho denialu (od rockstromma) - nebudu radsi rikat, jaky klicky (negativni emise) v tech modelech jsou, protoze uz tak jsou nase aspirace uplne na hrane (i s tema klickama), takze let's hope for the best a nemysleme moc na realnou situaci



28:10 voluntary carbon schemes - "we really need to invest in nature, but we cannot use these sinks as offsets"

31:40 "we have failed so much, kicking the can down the road for so many decades, that the carbon budget can only exist thanks to assumptions of negative carbon emissions technologies"


rockstrom: rapidni snizovani emisi je dve procenta rocne, udrzeni 1.5 stupne je okolo 7 procent rocne, a udrzeni 1.5 bez CCS technologii je pres 10-15 procent rocne, coz by znamenalo totalni civilizacni marshalluv plan

Johan Rockström interview | Planetary boundaries, 'negative emissions', mitigation models & fairness
https://youtu.be/lLq8e73-FAw?si=ltNE7wE4dx4_IHhz


In this wide-ranging conversation with Kevin Anderson, recorded in Norway in March 2023, they discuss their respective views on the risks and challenges we face in delivering on our Paris climate commitments.

CONTENTS:
00:00 Introductions
01:05 Outlining the planetary boundary & tipping points framework
05:14 How long before we see tipping points occurring?
10:00 Climate impacts this century
17:45 Understanding the conservatism of the IPCC process
24:20 Integrated Assessment Models: do they rely too much on CO2 removal?
28:58 Is the promise of future 'carbon dioxide removal' undermining emission reductions?
37:06 How ready to deploy are 'negative emissions technologies' really?
40:39 Where is equity in Integrated Assessment Models?
46:36 Privileged scientists in wealthy countries have framed the mitigation agenda
49:15 Is change driven top-down or bottom-up?
52:21 The role for citizens' assemblies in guiding mitigation policy
56:39 Is academia biased towards the status quo, rather than real action on climate

btw si zase trochu procitam ze stranky "the discovery of global warming" od spencera wearta (ta stranka je naprostej poklad, doporucuju vsem se zajmem o problematiku obcas si tam zabrouzdat)". Rok 1971

By 1971, the risks to climate were under vigorous discussion in the small community of climate scientists. When Budyko presided over a large meeting in Leningrad, a rare occasion when most of the leading American, Western European and Soviet experts all met together, he put the issue to them forcefully. At the conclusion of the conference, where the organizer would traditionally sum up with some bland remarks, "Instead of general words," Budyko recalled, "I presented in short form an idea which proved to be absolutely unacceptable to everybody: the idea that global warming is unavoidable... The result was a sensation. Everybody had very strong feelings, and extremely unfavorable... A few very prominent men said, first, that it was absolutely impossible to have any [effect] of man's activity on the climate... And absolutely impossible to predict any climate change."(78) It was not pleasant, Budyko later recalled, to present unconventional ideas and provoke negative feelings, but the risk to the planet seemed so grave that it was important to provoke scientists to study the question and find whether the ideas were valid.(79)
Budyko was not alone in his concerns. They were taken up in an influential report (the "SMIC report") as the consensus of a major scientific meeting held in Stockholm that same year, 1971. The experts concluded that there was a possibility that a mere 2% increase or decrease of solar radiation, helped by albedo feedback, could leave the planet either totally ice-free or totally frozen.(80*) Budyko, Sellers, and others pressed ahead, finding that under a variety of simple assumptions, any model that gave a good representation of the Earth's present climate looked unstable and could just as easily produce a radically different climate.(81*) In 1972, Budyko calculated that a mere few tenths of a percent increase in solar radiation input could melt the ice caps. More important still, changing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would have an effect similar to changing the Sun's radiation. His model indicated that a 50% increase in CO2 would melt all the polar ice, whereas reduction of the gas by half "can lead to a complete glaciation of the Earth." Budyko went on to note that any changes in CO2 caused by natural geological processes had been overtaken by human activity. At some time "comparatively soon (probably not later than a hundred years)... a substantial rise in air temperature will take place." He offered a crude estimate (which would turn out to be not far off) that by 2020 global temperature would rise 1°C and the Arctic Ocean's summer ice would be reduced by half.(82)

Simple Models of Climate
https://history.aip.org/climate/simple.htm#M_62_

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.

A na dekarbonizaci dalsiho sektoru, stacilo pouzit mikrovlnku. Jen tam zas chybi cisla o energetickych vstupech, jen:

The process, known as BioIron, uses raw biomass instead of metallurgical coal as a reductant and microwave energy to convert Pilbara iron ore to metallic iron in the steelmaking process. (Earlier post.) The microwave energy drives the iron ore reduction reactions to remove the oxygen from the iron ore. BioIron has the potential to support near-zero CO2 steel-making, and can result in net negative emissions if linked with carbon capture and storage.

Rio Tinto validates BioIron process for low-carbon iron-making; biomass and microwave energy - Green Car Congress
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/11/20221123-riotinto.html

One common denominator between these reactionary takes is that they’re often not based on empirical evidence. The claim is that these disruptive (or radical, extreme or whatever you want to call it) tactics don’t work. In fact, people not only claim these tactics are ineffective, but they also claim they’re counterproductive, and lead to a movement being weaker overall. So why don’t we examine this claim?

First of all, there is a clear strategy being used by Just Stop Oil, and other disruptive organisations – the radical flank effect. The radical flank effect is where more radical factions of a social movement can increase support for more moderate factions. For moderate groups, this can mean increased support for their goals, increased mobilisation, or additional donations. However, there is some debate about whether the radical flank effect is positive (it helps moderate groups) or negative (it harms moderate groups). To test this theory, I’ll quickly summarise some academic literature on the topic.

What’s everyone got against throwing soup? - by James Ozden
https://jamesozden.substack.com/p/whats-everyone-got-against-throwing