recentpopularlog in

climate-change

« earlier   
The Politics of Climate Emergency
The ‘climate emergency’, let us put it this way, is nothing but the call to wage a ‘war on climate change’, and it has every prospect of producing the same dismal outcomes. But the idea of ‘climate emergency’ is yet more ominous than the emergencies to which I have adverted and it is potentially fraught with genocidal implications, and not only because there is likely no place in the world which is immune from climate change. When we consider who the victims of the ‘war on drugs’ and the ‘war on terror’ have been, ‘climate emergency’ begins to emit the stench that arises when the wealthy purport to act in the name of humanity...

When an emergency is declared, some constituency is asked to bear the price. There is every reason to suspect that, in keeping with the traditions of the last 500 years when the age of European expansion and the plundering of the world commenced, it is the countries of the Global South that will be burdened with the task of alleviating the ‘climate emergency’. Every sane person is bound to admit that climate change is an issue of planetary proportions and this is as decisive a time as ever to repudiate a nationalist outlook. Nevertheless, the history of racism, privilege, greed and self-aggrandisement in the West, to which we may now add the art of killing by kindness, overwhelming the world with philanthropy and the chicanery which has led to new forms of intervention dressed up as ‘responsibility to protect’ and ‘the international community’, all suggest that colonialism will be given a new shelf life. There is certainly a science to climate change, but the Global South should be mindful of the fact that the West has a noxious history of rendering science into the handmaiden of a self-serving politics. There is more than one kind of emergency behind ‘climate emergency’.
climate-change  politics  emergency  responsibility 
3 days ago by jimmerricks
The climate and the fat tail risk | Michael Roberts Blog
JP Morgan economists recently considered the issue of the “financial stability and economic risks from fossil fuel stranded assets: oil, coal and gas reserves that cannot be exploited due to the transition to a low-carbon economy.”  They reckon that up to US$20tn could be wiped from stock market values if it is realised by investors that reducing fossil fuel use would mean a sizeable portion of proved reserves held by energy companies may never be used. These ‘transition risks’ to the profits of the energy companies would be equivalent to 17% of the US$119tn global fixed income and equity markets.

So JP Morgan economists tried to work out what could be the minimum reduction in fossil fuel use to avoid losses for the energy companies and financial markets. The lower the target limit on greenhouse gas emissions, the greater the risk of ‘stranded assets’ (unused) on the books of the companies.
climate-change  climate_diaspora  jp_morgan  energy  fossil_fuels 
5 days ago by perich
the CO2 footprint of email is greatly exaggerated
If you care about the environmental impact of tech, worrying about email is not the place to spend your time and energy.

Worry instead about the big tech companies accelerating the extraction of fossil fuels, when we need to keep them in the ground. [....] Worry instead about consulting companies you admire doing the same, and helping the same oil and gas companies, but keeping quiet about doing so. Worry about how blase we are about flying when it makes up a significant chunk of company emissions in many tech consultancies and enterprise sales teams.
climate-change  email  factoids  misinformation  carbon 
6 days ago by jm

Copy this bookmark:





to read