Tech’s complicity in environmental destruction is not just limited to toxic manufacturing waste and a large carbon footprint. Companies also have a large influence on the climate crisis in the context of policy, the broader economy, and the flow of information. Reports in 2019 revealed that Google has made significant contributions to climate denialist groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which helped convince the Trump administration to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2017. Facebook has come under fire for lax action against climate change denial on their platform, where disinformation can easily spread without diligent fact-checking. Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have partnered with large oil companies to build machine learning tools that streamline oil production. In fact, the oil industry invested an estimated $1.75 billion in 2018 into machine learning tools, which is projected to grow to $4.01 billion by 2025.

Our purpose in throwing light onto this destructive behavior is not simply to paint a bleak future. Through public pressure and the collective organizing of tech employees, there has been media coverage of some success in holding the tech industry responsible for their environmental destruction. In 2019, after the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice organization led a large walkout in support of the global climate strike, Amazon pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040. Similarly, in response to employee pressure, Google pledged to stop funding climate change deniers in 2020. Google also promised to rescind all future contracts with oil companies in response to a Greenpeace report about tech’s oil contracts

The Hidden Cost of Digital Consumption
https://parametric.press/issue-02/streaming/

Fosilni prumysl se snazi stale ve velkym blokovat klimatickou akci

InfluenceMap
@InfluenceMap
The American Petroleum Institute is flooding Facebook with ads aimed at blocking key climate initiatives in the $3.5t budget reconciliation.
The group has eclipsed its previous daily spend record, which was set when Joe Biden announced his climate plan during the 2020 election.

TUHO: I didn’t know it, but when I’d used the word “consensus,” I’d hit a land mine. For those who claim that climate change is a myth, the term “consensus” will — boom! — trigger a backlash. That’s because their strategy is based on spreading the idea that the science is still unsettled. Why? Because if you don’t know for sure there’s a problem, you can’t justify doing anything about it.
As an ad from the coal industry had it, “How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?”

Around the time this was happening, I met the Caltech historian Erik Conway. He’d come across material about the campaign to stop ozone depletion by curbing chlorofluorocarbons use. Erik said one of the people attacking me had done the same to Sherwood Rowland, a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work on ozone depletion.

Like many people, I used to think the scientific community was divided about climate change. Then in 2004, as part of a book I was doing on oceanography, I did a search of 1,000 articles published in peer-reviewed scientific literature in the previous 10 years.

I asked how many showed evidence that disagreed with the statement made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report: “Most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” I found that none did. Zero.

Naomi Oreskes Imagines the Future History of Climate Change - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/science/naomi-oreskes-imagines-the-future-history-of-climate-change.html

The latter argument claims that populists deny climate change because they distrust the underlying climate science. According to this view, populists would view climate scientists as part of the self-serving elite that betrays the people. Utilising data from the Austrian National Election Study and structural equation modelling, we find strong support for the relationship of populism and climate attitudes via attitudes towards science and institutional trust. Populists systematically hold more negative attitudes towards science and political institutions, and consequently deny climate change.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1978200

Předvolební debata se zástupci stran a hnutí – 3/5
https://youtu.be/FBzXMFQdKWQ?t=1959


Pynelopi Cimprichová (Švýcarská demokracie) na 32:55 s vážnou tváří kontempluje co budou chudáci kytky dýchat kdyby skutečně došlo na uhlíkovou neutralitu

TUHO: trollit Ševčíka byla zábavná kratochvíle, jak zabít volnou hodinu. Už před 15 rokama, co jsem tam studoval, mu jebalo v lebeni o stošest a EU/OSN byly na jeho seznamu nepřátel kapitalismu bez přívlastků na prvních příčkách. Debata probíhala vždycky stejně, nejdřív se tě pokusil setřít nějakou náhodnou hláškou, když zjistil, že tudy cesta nevede, hodil si pětiminutovou přednášku na téma kapitalismus spasí svět, akorát jste moc mladý a blbý na to, abyste to pochopili, a když nezabralo ani to, vyrukoval argumenty typu: já se nebudu bavit s dvacetiletým děckem, co má dredy/piercing/whatever, a pokud nepřinesl kýženej výsledek ani to, vyhodil tě z hodiny.

PETER_PAN: Tam jde o 1 vec. Ted kdyz tohle tema vic a vic studuju tak je jasne ze ta narocnost te transformace bude zejmena kolem vyroby elektricke energie. Transformace prumyslu a provozu civilizace na neemitujici bude stat trvalou vyrobu elektriny v levelu (cisla se mirne lisi a nikdo je nopocita globalne, ale jen na mensi lokality) cca 2.5x soucasne produkce. A to nejde s OZE + baterky udelat. Tzn. bez podpory JE je to bud nerealizovatelne, nebo se strukturou spolecnosti odpovidajici evrope po 1.sv.valce. A to pri dnesnich schopnostech lidi neni v Evrope moc realne. Protoze transformovat energetiku je maraton na cca 30 let, tak nepodporovani JE ted, znamena strkat hlavu do pisku a je to stejna zmrdovina pro "planetaritu" jako si muzeme precist z produkce IVK.