• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    TUHOKlimaticka zmena / Destroying the Future Is the Most Cost-Effective


    "Given the sheer enormity of climate change, it’s okay to be depressed, to grieve. But please, don’t stay there too long. Join me in pure, unadulterated, righteous anger."


    "I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. Once you start to act, the hope is everywhere."

    "Our best scientists tell us insistently that a calamity is unfolding, that the life-support systems of the Earth are being damaged in ways that threaten our survival. Yet in the face of these facts we carry on as usual."

    “We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels. So many aspects of life depend on fossil fuels, except for music and love and education and happiness. These things, which hardly use fossil fuels, are what we must focus on.”

    A nejde o to, že na to nemáme dostatečné technologie, ty by na řešení použít šly, ale chybí nám vůle a představivost je využít. Zůstáváme při zemi, přemýšlíme až moc rezervovaně. Technologický pokrok to sám o sobě nevyřeší. Problém jsme my, ne technologické nástroje.

    Rostouci hladiny oceanu, zmena atmosferickeho proudeni, zmeny v distribuci srazek a sucha. Zmeny karbonoveho, fosforoveho a dusikoveho cyklu, okyselovani oceanu. Jake jsou bezpecnostni rizika a jake potencialni klady dramatickych zmen fungovani zemskeho systemu?
    Ale take jak funguji masove dezinformacni kampane ropneho prumyslu a boj o verejne mineni na prahu noveho klimatickeho rezimu post-holocenu.
    rozbalit záhlaví
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    I’m a climate and water scientist. For more than 40 years, I’ve worked on trying to understand and communicate the complex climate threats facing the planet. In general, I’ve always been an optimist: I believe that we can solve these challenges. But I also have to acknowledge both my growing worry that I’m wrong, and the remaining steep obstacles in our path now made steeper by the recent U.S. election and the persistent failures of the world’s nations to commit to actions to adequately tackle the problem.
    The scientific facts of climate change and the role that humans play in driving those changes are irrefutable and have been understood and tested for literally decades—some of the earliest warnings about the adverse effects of burning fossil fuels on the climate and the planet were actually made more than 150 years ago.

    I’m a Climate Scientist. I Refuse to Give Up Hope | TIME
    https://time.com/7178677/climate-scientist-optimist-refuse-to-give-up-hope/
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Let’s tell the moodsplainers they’re wrong and then get back to work – Professor Jem Bendell
    https://jembendell.com/2023/08/05/lets-tell-the-moodsplainers-theyre-wrong-and-then-get-back-to-work/

    One of the chief ‘moodsplainers’ is the famous author Rebecca Solnit. When her ‘doom-shaming’ was challenged on her Facebook page, she defended her position with the claim that scientists tell her it’s not too late (presumably for our modern societies). She referenced the climatologist Michael Mann as evidence for her claim (see the screenshot). Known to be a prolific author, he was in good company when declaring in 2009 that if emissions did not peak by 2020 and consistently decline, then humanity would be in for the roughest of rides, in a situation where various feedbacks would likely amplify changes. As you may already know, emissions went up last year. But the 2023 version of Professor Mann appears to have forgotten his past assessment. Clearly, hope springs eternal. Especially if wishful thinking is a non-negotiable aspect of one’s identity, worldview and status. The suggestion by Solnit that all scientists agree must ignore the hundreds of scientists and scholars who have publicly disagreed that it is not too late to transition to a sustainable form of our current societies, including leading climatologists Professor Gesa Weyhenmeyer and Professor Will Steffen

    ...

    After my paper on climate change went viral in 2018, a big part of my next two years was talking with psychologists and reading the relevant psychology research. That got me invited to keynote at conferences of the psychology peak bodies around the world, and to publish in peer-reviewed psychology journals. I learned that research finds how so-called “catastrophic imaginaries” are powerful motivators whereas optimism can be demotivating on environmental issues. So when the new head of the IPCC, Jim Skea, tells the media that “we should not despair and fall into a state of shock” if global temperatures increase to 1.5C, it is likely he does not know what he is talking about, psychologically-speaking, and is simply expressing his own proclivities.

    ...

    You have probably seen some version of the illogical claim that “doomism breeds apathy and inactivism, and there are far too many doomers in Extinction Rebellion and other activist groups.” It wasn’t named the optimist’s incremental change rebellion, was it? Even XR’s critics have a better appreciation of activist motivations than the armchair anti-doomers. When trying to claim that such activism is a form of extremism that the British government should crack down on, guess who was the academic the Policy Exchange think tank cited the most for ideas motivating Extinction Rebellion? Yes, that’s me, the guy that GQ magazine called the “doomer-in-chief”. That was in an article that Facebook then filtered from view, like they have done with so much doomster content since 2020 – a global form of censorship and public manipulation I will discuss further in a moment.

    ...

    The ‘doomster way’ is naturally rebellious and radical. Which means we pose a threat to the establishment. Which is why they are responding with moodsplaining, telling us we should believe in the system – technology, enterprise, capital, charismatic leaders, and so on. That is how ‘stubborn optimism’ can become functional in ongoing oppression. The worst instance of this approach is when they pathologise the youth for having a more honest assessment of the situation. To believe that the experts and elites need to fix the emotions of young people by providing more positive stories seems to me to be an arrogant form of ‘experiential avoidance’ on the part of adults, and even a form of psychological child abuse. Instead, young people need us adults to grow up and meet them in a far more honest way. To hold the possibility that young people are closer to the truth than many adults, and explore what the options are from such an outlook.

    ...

    people in frontline communities have criticised the stories of a sustainability transition that are promoted in Western media to comfort their audiences. Kenya climate activist, scholar and agroforester Dr Nyambura Mbau argues “The millions of people being uprooted by climate change do not benefit from the ‘stubborn optimism’ of environmental elites. Instead, they will be better served by the stubborn realism of the experts and activists now brave enough to call for urgent degrowth in rich countries and fair adaptation everywhere.” Solnit’s claim is not unusual, with the same argument made to slur people like me over the last few years, even in publications like the New Internationalist (which then retracted and apologised). If people are busy thinking and communicating like white saviours, then they can overlook what is being said and done by the independent activists and scholars from across the Global South

    ...

    There is now a huge faction of capital that wants to limit the environmental agenda to promoting renewable energy, nuclear power, and electrical products like cars. There is also a huge professional sector ‘climate users’ who are driven to have a successful career with a green sheen. They are joined by a wider ‘sustainable development’ sectors of hundreds of thousands of professionals who are now compulsively lying to each other to ignore the data from the UN on what’s really happening.

    It is extremely worrying for democracy and good governance, globally, that the moodsplainers are now backed up by the censorship teams in the bigtech companies, who shadow ban content on climate that doesn’t align with the capitalist-friendly ecomodern view of the future. For years, their climate ‘factchecking’ outfits don’t even bother to reply to internationally renowned climatologists who criticise their shadow banning activities. Thus, the general public is left misinformed, less radical, and more compliant for incumbent power.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    GLOBETROTTER: A kde myslis australsky uhli? Vetsina ho jde na vyvoz.
    Doma je to celkem easy, slunecnej stat, spousta mista. Koncentrovana solarni energie (ohraty soli dokazou generovat elektrinu i pres noc), bateriovy uloziste, solary, asi budou primarni. Moc jsem nezkoumal, jak to tam maj pres zimu. Takova jizni Australie uz je skoro tam.

    The last week of 2021 has been an exceptional one for South Australia. The state set an impressive renewable energy record, supplying an average of just over 100 percent of its electricity demand with solar and wind for a period of almost one week.
    South Australia ran on 100 percent renewable energy for almost a week | The Optimist Daily
    https://www.optimistdaily.com/2022/01/south-australia-ran-on-100-percent-renewable-energy-for-almost-a-week/
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    novej smil byl?


    How the World Really Works
    https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/319/319141/how-the-world-really-works/9780241454398.html

    In this ambitious and thought-provoking book we see, for example, that globalization isn't inevitable - the perils of allowing 70 per cent of the world's rubber gloves to be made in just one factory became glaringly obvious in 2020 - and that our societies have been steadily increasing their dependence on fossil fuels, making their complete and rapid elimination unlikely. For example, each greenhouse-grown supermarket-bought tomato requires the equivalent of five tablespoons of diesel oil for its production; and we still lack any commercially viable ways of making steel, ammonia, cement or plastics on the scale required globally without fossil fuels.

    Vaclav Smil is neither a pessimist nor an optimist, he is a scientist; he is the world-leading expert on energy and an astonishing polymath. This is his magnum opus and a continuation of his quest to make facts matter. Drawing on the latest science, including his own fascinating research, and tackling sources of misinformation head on - from Yuval Noah Harari to Noam Chomsky - ultimately Smil answers the most profound question of our age: are we irrevocably doomed or is a brighter utopia ahead? Compelling, data-rich and revisionist, this wonderfully broad, interdisciplinary masterpiece finds faults with both extremes. Looking at the world through this quantitative lens reveals hidden truths that change the way we see our past, present and uncertain future.



    How long can humans survive? - UnHerd
    https://unherd.com/2022/01/how-long-can-humans-survive/

    Smil identifies these four basic pillars of human civilisation as steel, cement, plastic and ammonia. Producing them takes enormous amounts of fossil fuels. It takes, for instance, 25 gigajoules of energy to produce one ton of steel, roughly twice the amount of energy used by the average UK household per year. In 2019, the world used 1.8 billion tons of steel; its production is responsible for about 8% of the world’s total carbon emissions. But we can’t do without it: the frameworks of our cities are built of it; the pipes we send our water and gas through, too. Our cars, our transporter ships, our knives and cooking pots. Our machines for making all these things. Cement and plastic are similarly vital, and are responsible for comparable amounts of our total carbon output. We can’t do without them, and there’s no easy carbon-free alternative way of making them

    And then there’s ammonia, which rarely features in any conversation about cutting carbon emissions.
    ...
    It requires huge amounts of energy, and hydrogen, usually taken from natural gas. We now spread hundreds of millions of tons of ammonia on our fields — about 50% of the total nitrogen going into food production comes from it. Smil quotes an author, writing in 1971: “industrial man no longer eats potatoes made from solar energy; now he eats potatoes partly made of oil.”

    This means the world is able to eat. The share of the global population that is underfed has plummeted, even as the actual population has ballooned – about 65% of people could not get enough to eat in 1950, compared to about 9% in 2019. So, “in 1950 the world was able to supply adequate food to about 890 million people,” as Smil puts it: “but by 2019 that had risen to just over 7 billion”. That is not entirely down to ammonia, but ammonia is a large part of the story. If fertiliser were removed, perhaps half the world’s population would starve.

    Agriculture, then, depends on the whalefall: the glut of energy provided by fossil fuels. Our deep reliance on fossil fuels, to create materials most of us don’t appreciate we need, is unnerving. Especially when Smil points out that much of the world — notably, sub-Saharan Africa — lives on well below average levels of energy use. Africa uses just 5% of the world’s total ammonia supplies, despite having almost 25% of the population. About 40% of the world — 3.1 billion people — has a per capita energy supply “no higher than the rate achieved in both Germany and France in 1860”. “In order to approach the threshold of a dignified standard of living,” writes Smil, “those 3.1 billion people will need at least to double — but preferably triple — their per capita energy use.”

    Can we do that while also reducing our carbon emissions? Not fast, says Smil. For all the boasts and pledges — all the “government targets for years ending in zero or five”, about which Smil is very sniffy — the world relies too heavily on fossil fuels, for too many things, to rapidly stop using them.

    ...

    We need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, and the sooner the better. But it will be a long and difficult job — as Smil demonstrates, they are threaded through our society at every level, entwined like knotweed in the systems that provide our food, our housing, our machinery, our transport. We forget how complex our society is until it stops working in some way — as when supply chains broke down in the pandemic and our hospitals ran out of rubber gloves (an issue Smil talks about in a section on globalisation). As it stands, if we were to reduce fossil fuel consumption by the sort of degrees that some demand, it would lead to disaster, because we haven’t unpicked the threads yet.
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    #optimist

    Imho je tohle prilezitost a potencialni akcelerace transformace, ktera sice kratkodobe vyvola vetsi tlak na fosil, ale tim tlakem samotnym nastavi i zrcadlo. A pokud to vlady ukociruji, muze dojit i k masivnim investicim do renewables/clean sources, vcetne zdroju hnojiva, nebo regenerative/sustainable pristupu.

    Ale o to vic to bude nektery lidi bolet a o to tezsi to bude pro zvoleny politiky. V kratky dobe budou bojovat na nekolika frontach - obrovska inflace u nezbytnych statku - jidlo, preprava; drahe energie; politicka a bezpecnostni stabilita.

    Jestli ma lidstvo jeste sanci na sustainabilitu at uz svou politickou reprezentaci, nebo pochopenim globalniho kontextu a jeho podpory se projevi v nejblizsich letech... pokud ne, pak to bude opravdu doom koncem stoleti
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    FOR THE PAST three decades, on and off, I've written about climate change and its effects. Through it all, I'd have described myself as a Star Trek-scale optimist about science and its ability to uplift humanity. I thought that science-hero sci-fi was inspirational, and dystopian sci-fi was a warning. I believe in positive political action. I think that in times of disaster, people help each other.

    Or, at least, I've always thought I thought that.

    But a few weeks ago, at dinner, a conversation with my teenage son went awry. I was trying to talk to him about possible college plans, and he wouldn't engage. I pushed. We gotta get started, I explained. Applications. Money. Campus visits.

    And he said, “Frankly, I just feel sort of nihilistic about it.”

    I followed up. About what?

    Well, it turned out—the whole thing, really. College, jobs, the ecosphere, the future. The boomers blasted it all into oblivion while Gen X screwed around on the internet.

    Here's where I blew it. Instead of giving him the we're-all-in-this-together-change-the-future speech, I said, “Kiddo, I think there's a chance that when all this shakes out, some people will get to be inside the dome and most people won't, and I'm just hoping you'll get inside the dome before they shut the door.”

    This was, I want to be clear, me fucking up. He couldn't figure out how to make his schoolwork matter even to himself, and I basically implied that if he didn't get good grades he wouldn't be worth saving after the apocalypse. I don't even think that! Or I don't mean to. But after 30 years on the job I'm starting to suspect that shouting “But science!” from the back of the room might not actually be making enough of a difference. I keep typing, but antivaxxers keep anti-ing and carbon emitters keep emitting. What is the point of me? Like the kid said: nihilistic.

    In 'Termination Shock,' Neal Stephenson Finally Takes on Global Warming | WIRED
    https://www.wired.com/story/sci-fi-icon-neal-stephenson-global-warming/
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    Can A New Kind Of Capitalism Effectively Confront The Climate Crisis?
    https://cleantechnica.com/...0/can-a-new-kind-of-capitalism-effectively-confront-the-climate-crisis/

    McAfee is a principal research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who focuses on digital transformation. He says that today’s environmental degradation and growing inequality, which were originally grounded in colonialism, can be held in check by what he calls the “four horsemen of the optimist,” namely:

    - capitalism
    - technological progress
    - public awareness
    - responsive government

    He says we can’t let one of these “horsemen” overpower the others. If it is in capitalism’s nature to increase inequality, then a responsive government should reign in that excess. If capitalists have incentives to shape regulations to maximize their profits, the government should legislate in ways that ensure equity for all.
    XCHAOS
    XCHAOS --- ---
    The Dow Jones just dropped its oldest member: Exxon Mobil | The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News
    https://www.optimistdaily.com/2020/08/the-dow-jones-just-dropped-its-oldest-member-exxon-mobil/
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam