I’m not sure we do really differ. The standard tools of incentives, light regulation & incremental market instruments could have been applied but weren’t in any meaningful way. As climate is a cumulative issue we now face the repercussions of choosing BAU/rhetoric/lies; ie. major state intervention.
I see a major mitigation difference between non-discretionary emissions from poor-average households locked in to inadequate housing & transport networks & rubbish infrastructure (unable to buy retrofit/EVs/Solar) &those with huge discretionary emissions &whose norms absorb scarce labour& resources.
In ratcheting down fossil emissions to nil (voluntarily? regulated?), the burden must fall on the "discretionary emissions [of] affluent norms".
Along that path, lower income people need emissions leniency, and high assistance in substituting affordable, non-fossil energy for their needs. 1/3
Thanks for the link👍
Political Cooption of Research Climate action involves politics as well as science and economics, and the framework for our analysis here is political ecology, the environmental outcomes of political processes. The tourism industry contributes to climate change, and is affected by it, but continues to pursue economic growth, with consequent growth in emissions. As for other industries with high environmental impacts, it uses a portfolio of political measures to create pretences of reduced contributions to climate change, whilst in reality it continues to increase them. One measure is to co-opt researchers, keen to analyse new mechanisms; and environmental non-government organisations, optimistic about new options. With good intentions, they devote time to technical analysis, and compendia of case studies and small-scale success stories. This creates delays of years or decades, during which industries escape effective regulation. Eventually, researchers realise that positive contributions are proportionately miniscule, and the broader sector is unchanged. The industry then proposes another new option, and the process repeats. We argue here that the suggestion that ecotourism could serve as a mechanism to decarbonise the tourism sector as a whole 1 , falls into this category: a positive proposal doomed to fail in technical terms, but able to create political delays to put off effective regulatory options.
A commentary paper by 3 tourism researchers — a glimpse into how serial ploys by airlines & the tourism industry enable their continuing climate-harming growth, using "new arguments to create further delay."
"Ecotourism Caught in decarbonisation politics" open access www.nature.com/articles/s44...
I suggest we have to escape the view that we’re all in this together, on both impacts & mitigation. On the latter I’m increasingly moving towards framing the agenda in terms of “discretionary” emissions (arising from more affluent norms) &those on lower incomes with structurally locked-in emissions.
Agree with much of this. As it stands I do think 1.5°C level cuts are impossible, but your emergency framing still fits with 2°C (~8% pa. global cuts) - if we’re lucky on some of the feedbacks.
Currently I see the mainstream mitigation expertise as a major obstacle to any ‘emergency level’ agenda.
Yes agree. Though those emission cuts cannot be evenly distributed. We can’t squeeze emissions out of those who barely emit or are structurally locked into emissions through the basics of living.
Where does that leave everyone now? The primary objective, avoiding dangerous climate change, was missed. Tech (alone) won't save us (Yes). There is little political appetite for additional mitigation, much less for emergency-level cuts (Yes). We're all stuck in a mire of cognitive dissonance. 2/5
I see it as less the Agreement & more the conservative framing of the science combined with mitigation expertise dominated by fraudulent models (the IAMs), &a broadly complicit academia, publicly supporting what they decried privately & with a wider cohort using silence to support the unsupportable.
Aviation continues to grow. Green planes are decades away + our carbon budget has virtually gone. We need a Frequent Flyer Levy now
No flight = Rebate
1st Flight £0 Tax
2nd x2 Airfare
3rd x4
4th x8
5th x16
6th x32
etc
#EndFossilFuels
#ClimateAction
idea plagiarised from @kevinclimate.bsky.social
I agree. Especially:
"Climate leaders are individuals who go beyond their baseline responsibilities to make climate a visible priority, ... and leverage their credibility and reach to shift norms, policies, or practices in their communities, industries, or institutions."
As alarming as this news story is, that is the the latest intensification of a long, continuing climate disruption.
I find the quality of the writing captivating.
Well done, except for one deep flaw — no mention of the leading cause — fossil fuel emissions.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...
Fun listen re #climate touching on:
- How fast we need to move to keep global tems to below 2C. (we won't)
- The failure of scientists & journalists to get this message across & to communicate what sort of world we are heading for.
@kevinclimate.bsky.social
climateuncensored.com/the-climate-...
Unfortunately a lot of Climate science academics don't want to talk about the policy choices- for fear of loosing career progression, status or an MBE. This is why Kevin would make a good guest for @zackpolanski.bsky.social
Bold Politics podcast as he's very evidence based on this.
Well said, as always, sir.
I'd add that "convincing" any "right wing" policy maker is far from the job at hand.
What we need is to raise the level of consciousness on this subject among the depoliticised masses who are deliberately kept in the dark and misinformed, leading to despair @ politics.
The truth leans neither Left nor Right.
It is the ears that hear it that apply that filter.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon, The Boxer)
Thanks for the message. I do try to point out that the latest estimates of carbon budgets (& I typically refer to Robin Lamboll for these as I think he relentlessly plays a straight bat) do rely on us being relatively lucky in terms of some of the other feedbacks.
A comment following my interview with Rob Cooper climateuncensored.com/the-climate-... was: "It would be good to occasionally hear a climate expert that doesn’t spout all the other left wing axioms ... more chance of convincing right wing policy makers." An important point with my reply attached.
Thought provoking thread.
Thanks for the supportive post. I share your concern for the “lack of sense of urgency within much of the academy”. Thankfully some early career researchers (ECRs) are trying to make a difference, though their voices are typically eclipsed by the reassuring murmurings of senior academics & experts.
As ever, @kevinclimate.bsky.social is putting out some fantastic stuff, highlighting just what a bad situation we're currently in. The in-action and lack of sense of urgency within much of the academy is something that frustrates me more and more. Good to see that some with high prolies speaking out
Agree - but he certainly isn’t alone in his reluctance to directly communicate the implications of his own research. I suggest cognitive dissonance is widespread amongst the expert community, and consequently it is almost justified by the size, influence & prestige of the well-meaning cult.
Agree - but he certainly isn’t alone in his reluctance to directly communicate the implications of his own research. I suggest cognitive dissonance is widespread amongst the expert community, and consequently it is almost justified by the size, influence & prestige of the well-meaning cult.
In my discussion with Rockström he attempted to fit the square peg in a round hole -see m.youtube.com/watch?v=lLq8... at ~33 minutes. In my view such cognitive dissonance is widespread amongst the expert community. We’re typically unprepared to accept the real-world implications of our own analyses.
Demonstrated again in the parliamentary committee hearing in Scotland where you were one of 5 expert witnesses. The other 4 experts were unable/unwilling to adopt the Climate Emergency Mode your figures demanded.
Cd help if everyone in meetings writes "CEM" on their forehead to remind all others.
3/3: Yes, we need to flesh out what a 2°C framing (8% annual cuts) entails across socio-economic & cultural groups. But even before this we need to get a widespread recognition of just how quantitatively desperate the situation is, & that means countering the IPCC (WG3) & the CCC’s comforting fluff.
2/3: From engaging with established experts, journalists, policy-types, business leaders & some NGOs, there is almost no public acknowledgement of the scale of reductions required globally or nationally, & certainly not on what such rates actually imply. Blue-pill prescriptions are ubiquitous.
1/3: Thanks for the thread. I agree with much of your thrust but read Paris a little differently. It operationalises the 1992 UNFCCC, especially defining “dangerous”. The core is the 1.5–2°C range &CBDR/equity; much else is diplomatic scaffolding, & sadly it’s this that frames the mainstream debate.
My estimation is that most people recognize, at least deep down inside, the necessity for deep emissions cuts, both by demand substitution & demand reduction.
They resist that recognition, though, if personal sacrifice seems futile. If a non-futile pathway can become prominent, there is hope. 5/5