recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : carbonfootprint   17

Interview - Greta Thunberg - Inspiring Others to Take a Stand Against Climate Change - Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Trevor Noah (Video Clip) | Comedy Central
[See also: https://www.greenmatters.com/p/greta-thunberg-trevor-noah-daily-show

“So, host Trevor Noah asked Greta about the difference between Sweden and the U.S. in terms of treatment of the climate crisis — and Greta’s answer says it all.

“I would say yes,” Greta said, when Noah asked her if she has noticed a different feeling surrounding climate change between the two countries. “Because here, it feels like it is being discussed as something you believe in or [do] not believe in. And where I come from, it’s more like, it’s a fact.”



In the U.S., we like to think that we are ahead of the curve — but it’s clear that some Americans are foolishly ignoring the science that proves that human activity is deepening the climate crisis, while other nations treat that information as a fact. Americans still have a long way to go before we can be real leaders in the fight for the climate.

Before noticing that disparity, Greta made a few more surface observations about New York when Noah asked her about her impression of NYC so far.

“Everything is so much, so big, so loud. People talk so loud here,” Greta told Noah, comparing the bustling city to her time on the Malizia II yacht. “Because when I was on the boat, there is nothing. There is just the ocean, and of course the sound of the waves crashing, but that’s it. No smells — apart from sweat. So, I remember the first thing I noticed when we came into the harbor — I woke up, and suddenly smelled something. And of course, it was pollution, but it’s still something. And that was… [in]describable,” she said with a smirk, to which the audience burst out laughing.

“To go from this extreme environment — you are disconnected from everything and everyone, you only have yourself, and the ocean, and the boat of course… to New York,” Greta added, her eyes widening with the slightest cringe, to which the audience laughed once again.”



“Noah also asked Greta why she stopped flying in airplanes, and why she opted to make the boat trip to New York. “I did it because I have, since a few years [ago], stopped flying because of the enormous impact aviation has on the climate, individually,” she told Noah. “And just to make a stand. I am one of the very few people in the world who can actually do such a trip, so I thought, why not?”

Greta makes an important point here. If there’s something we have the privilege to do that will protect the planet — or even just make a statement about protecting the Earth — we should do it."]
gretathunberg  aviation  flight  travel  climatechange  interviews  2019  trevornoah  climatejustice  activism  us  europe  nyc  flightshame  flyingshame  flygskam  carbonemissions  emissions  airlines  climate  airplanes  carbonfootprint 
4 days ago by robertogreco
Dr. Genevieve Guenther on Twitter: "@GlobalEcoGuy @keya_chatterjee @MichaelEMann @Peters_Glen Hi Jon, my apologies for taking so long to reply to your question. I was solo-parenting today. Anyhow, I have a very long answer for you. One of these days I sho
“Anyhow, I have a very long answer for you. One of these days I should write something about this, but for now lots of tweets…

I think you’re right that aviation has become a domain for virtue signaling. But also I think it still encapsulates real issues that the climate movement must grapple with.

I think there are two different contexts in which to consider these issues. The first is that of the climate movement. What should be expected from people who publicly declare that we must stop emitting GHGs and who try to move our culture and politics to that goal?

My opinion is that people in the climate movement should do everything they can to reduce their own personal emissions.

I am persuaded by the research showing that our doing so increases our public credibility and inoculates us against the charge of moral hypocrisy.

I also believe that reducing our personal emissions gives extra (and necessary) force to our argument that only political action leading to systemic change will solve the climate crisis.

The “we need systemic change” argument is weakened considerably insofar as it seems like self-justification for continuing to enjoy high-carbon pleasures.

Ask your gut: would Greta Thunberg have so galvanized the world if she had flown around Europe to deliver her speeches?

That said, Glen is also clearly right: being able not to fly depends on a number of contingencies. Many people have to fly for work or to see family.

Many climate leaders have to fly. Should Jay Inslee, for example, not fly while he’s campaigning for president? Surely not.

Should island nations send their delegates to the COPs by boat? Perhaps not be the best use of their resources. But delegates of high emitting nations? Absolutely, they should travel to the COPs emitting the least GHGs as possible. Climate justice from the get-go, I say.

And the political is the personal & visa versa. If flying were a country, its emissions would be sixth largest in the world. And out of the entire population, only 1.5% of us are responsible for the majority of aviation emissions. Flying is climate injustice full stop.

I think considering questions of climate justice in one’s personal practices should be encouraged or even normalized. And who else is going to do that work but people in the climate movement?

As for the argument that calling for the end of unnecessary flying hurts the climate movement because it plays into the hands of the fossil fuel industry…

I can see how the ff industry / denial machine wants to keep everyone’s attention on consumption rather than the managed decline of the ff economy, and I agree it’s tricky to be talking about personal behavior change in a public forum for that reason.
But I think climate twitter is more of a bubble than it seems, and there is a gap between the conversations and debates to be had here and our communication to the general public. (The general public sphere being the second context in which to consider this issue.)
I never try to persuade my friends, my colleagues outside of the climate movement, or the audiences for my talks that they should stop flying. Never.

Not only because it’s a shocking idea for people who have yet to be mobilized, but also because the *only* worthwhile public message IMHO is that everyone needs to take actions that demand and attempt to force *political* and *institutional* change.

But if I am asked I say that I have committed to not flying, and I say why: once I understood that emitting GHGs is fatally dangerous, I felt a kind of categorical imperative to emit as little of them as possible…

…even though the reduction of my own personal emissions of GHGs won’t make any *quantitative* difference overall.

Let me say right away that I have failed in my commitment by flying to Pittsburgh to give a paper beccause I didn’t have time to take the train for family reasons, and…

I flew once w my son and will again until he’s old enough to tolerate the idea of how dangerous climate change might be and why his entire world needs to change. He already knows why we have to cut back (from 8 flights a year to once in 3 years); that’s enough for now.

So it’s complicated, I fuck up all the time, my motherhood conflicts with my activism, we’re all human.

But I am tortured by the question: if we need to bring our emissions down to net zero in 30 years, and the tech for net zero flight is not there yet, everyone is going to need to stop or curtail their flying at least temporarily, no? So why not start now?

And I will acknowledge that sometimes I speak too harshly and admit that I do so because it hurts me, makes me feel most despondent and hopeless, when the people who understand climate change the best are no more willing to give up flying than anyone else.

I know lots of people dislike me for the way I talk about flying. And I see that flying is becoming an increasingly contentious issue.

But as far as wedges go, I think that not grappling w the problem, but dismissing or subtweeting w barely concealed contempt people who express dismay about flying is also pretty divisive.

That said, I realize that nearly everyone I respect and who has devoted their life to this problem disagrees with me. I know that the people who disagree with me want the climate movement to succeed and the world to decarbonize.

I just passionately believe that we are more likely to succeed if we signal the urgency with our actions, unite the word with the deed, and also…

show that life is absolutely beautiful, and meaningful, and interesting, and rewarding, and that people can be successful and have amazing experiences, without needing to spew plumes of carbon dioxide into the sky or, really, ever get on a plane.“
planes  airplanes  flight  climatechange  activism  genevieveguenther  2019  travel  signaling  gretathunberg  morality  hypocrisy  fossilfuels  environment  sustainability  parenting  responsibility  carbonemissions  aviation  flygskam  guilt  shame  carbonfootprint  flying  flyingshame  flightshame  emissions  airlines  climate 
22 days ago by robertogreco
Matthew Paskins on Twitter: "When I tell colleagues I don’t fly, quite a lot of them, especially senior ones, respond—“oh, I should fly less.” I respect this response, but /1" / Twitter
[via: https://twitter.com/justinpickard/status/1163199568332447744 ]

“When I tell colleagues I don’t fly, quite a lot of them, especially senior ones, respond—“oh, I should fly less.” I respect this response, but /1

I suspect it’s very unlikely that you will start to fly less if your professional persona and way of being depends on it. People just don’t actually give it up, you know? /2

Some do, some reduce, some have great aspirations; some use the security of professorial status or tenure to reduce their transport load. But in general flying is too central to a way of being and a kind of thriving to give up. /3

(I think. I’d love to be wrong). /4

The reason I don’t fly isn’t straightforwardly instrumental—it isn’t that I think I’m grounding enough planes to make a big difference. It’s that I can’t bear a model of scholarship which is as dependent on the sociotechnical system of aviation and border control as ours is. /5

And I would like to have contributed in whatever small way I can to the anticipatory labour of making a less unjust academy. That is obviously complicated and obviously fraught with inequities. /6

And senior people are going to continue to behave with the combination of grace and ruthlessness which got them where they are. That means, most of the time, accepting the immense subsidy for elite networking which universities pay out. /7

What those people can meaningfully do—what you can do if you’re one of those people—is support colleagues whose mobility is limited: whether that’s through refusal to fly, the operation of tyrannous Visa systems, or because they have caring responsibilities. /8

I don’t mean me—or just the performative act of attempting to refuse to reproduce institutional injustice: a lot of the people who feel they can afford to do that are already fortunate, or very stubborn can or both /9

But limited access to transport is an injustice that reaches far beyond that group. /10

I would love for the conversation to go: “I don’t fly.” “Oh that’s interesting, I’ve just written a letter this week to a colleague who can’t travel about how we could work together.” Or “Cool, I’ve been making sure people are reading stuff by [so-and-so]”. /11

Etc. These are tiny wishes but they are achievable in a way that individual flight-reduction may not be. THE END. /12"
flight  flying  academia  highered  highereducation  opportunity  matthewpaskins  aviation  status  security  inequality  inequity  elitism  networking  conferences  borders  visas  travel  injustice  socialjustice  climatechange  sustainability  flightshame  flyingshame  flygskam  carbonemissions  emissions  airlines  climate  airplanes  carbonfootprint 
29 days ago by robertogreco
Flying shame: Greta Thunberg gave up flights to fight climate change. Should you? - Vox
“Greta Thunberg gave up flights to fight climate change. Should you?”



“Rosén said there isn’t anything unique in the Swedish soul that has made so many across the country so concerned about flying. “This could have happened anywhere,” she said. “We’ve had some good coincidences that have worked together to create this discussion.”

Nonetheless, the movement to reduce flying has created a subculture in Sweden, complete with its own hashtags on social media. Beyond flygskam, there’s flygfritt (flight free), and vi stannar på marken (we stay on the ground).

Rosén said that judging by all the organizing she’s seen in other countries, she thinks Sweden won’t long hold the lead in forgoing flying. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the Germans would follow us soon,” she said.”



“Scientists are having a hard time overlooking their own air travel emissions

Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has curbed her air travel by 75 percent.

“I really started thinking about my carbon footprint after Trump was elected,” she said. “Doing my climate science and donating to the right candidates was never going to be enough, even if you took that to scale.”

She created a spreadsheet to track her personal carbon footprint and found that flying formed the dominant share of her emissions. “By the end of 2017, 85 percent of my carbon footprint was related to flying,” she said.

Much of Cobb’s research — examining geochemical signals in coral to reconstruct historical climate variability — required her to travel to field sites in the equatorial Pacific.

While she doesn’t anticipate giving up those visits entirely, Cobb has taken on more research projects closer to home, including an experiment tracking sea level rise in Georgia. She has drastically reduced her attendance at academic conferences and this year plans to give a keynote address remotely for an event in Sydney.

[embedded tweet by Susan Michie (@SusanMichihttps://twitter.com/SusanMichie/status/1144799976377200641e):

"I have begun replying to invitations “Due to the climate emergency, I am cutting down on air travel …” Have been pleasantly surprised how many take up my offer of pre-recorded talk & Skype Q&A’s @GreenUCL @UCLPALS @UCLBehaveChange https://twitter.com/russpoldrack/status/1144368198227120128 "

quoting a tweet by Russ Poldrack (@russpoldrack):
https://twitter.com/russpoldrack/status/1144368198227120128

"I’ve decided to eliminate air travel for talks, conferences, and meetings whenever possible. Read more about my reasons here: http://www.russpoldrack.org/2019/06/why-i-will-be-flying-less.html "]

Cobb is just one of a growing number of academics, particularly those who study the earth, who have made efforts in recent years to cut their air travel.

While she doesn’t anticipate making a dent in the 2.6 million pounds per second of greenhouse gases that all of humanity emits, Cobb said her goal is to send a signal to airlines and policymakers that there is a demand for cleaner aviation.

But she noted that her family is spread out across the country and that her husband’s family lives in Italy. She wants her children to stay close to her relatives, and that’s harder to do without visiting them. “The personal calculus is much, much harder,” she said.

She also acknowledged that it might be harder for other researchers to follow in her footsteps, particularly those just starting out. As a world-renowned climate scientist with tenure at her university, Cobb said she has the clout to turn down conference invitations or request video conferences. Younger scientists still building their careers may need in-person meetings and events to make a name for themselves. So she sees it as her responsibility to be careful with her air travel. “People like me have to be even more choosy,” she said.

Activists and diplomats who work on international climate issues are also struggling to reconcile their travel habits with their worries about warming. There is even a crowdfunding campaign for activists in Europe to sail to the United Nations climate conference in Chile later this year.

But perhaps the most difficult aspect of limiting air travel is the issue of justice. A minority of individuals, companies, and countries have contributed to the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions from flights and profited handsomely from it. Is it now fair to ask a new generation of travelers to fly less too?”



“Should you, dear traveler, feel ashamed to fly?

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts,” wrote Mark Twain in The Innocents Abroad. “Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things can not be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.”

Air travel has yielded immense benefits to humanity. Movement is the story of human civilization, and as mobility has increased, so too has prosperity. Airplanes, the fastest way to cross continents and oceans, have facilitated this. And while some countries have recently retreated from the world stage amid nationalist fervor, the ease of air travel has created a strong countercurrent of travelers looking to learn from other cultures.

Compared to other personal concessions for the sake of the environment, reducing air travel has a disproportionately high social cost. Give up meat and you eat from a different menu. Give up flying and you may never see some members of your family again.

So it’s hard to make a categorical judgment about who should fly and under what circumstances.

But if you’re weighing a plane ticket for yourself, Paul Thompson, a professor of philosophy who studies environmental ethics at Michigan State University, said there are several factors to consider.

[embedded tweet by @flyingless:
https://twitter.com/flyingless/status/1151524855982039046

"No need to tell me about your feelings of guilt. I see no reason for you to feel guilty. You already excel at ethical thinking in many other areas of your life and relationships. Judge for yourself what the times require of you, personally and politically. Act or don’t act."]

First, think about where you can have the most meaningful impact on climate change as an individual — and it might not be changing how you are personally getting around. If advocacy is your thing, you could push for more research and development in cleaner aviation, building high-speed rail systems, or pricing the greenhouse gas emissions of dirty fuels. “That’s the first thing that I think I would be focused on, as opposed to things that would necessarily discourage air travel,” Thompson said. Voting for leaders who make fighting climate change a priority would also help.

If you end up on a booking site, think about why you’re flying and if your flight could be replaced with a video call.

Next, consider what method of travel has the smallest impact on the world, within your budget and time constraints. If you are hoping to come up with a numerical threshold, be aware that the math can get tricky. Online carbon footprint calculators can help.

And if you do choose to fly and feel shame about it, well, it can be a good thing. “I think it’s actually appropriate to have some sense of either grieving or at least concern about the loss you experience that way,” Thompson said. Thinking carefully about the trade-offs you’re making can push you toward many actions that are more beneficial for the climate, whether that’s flying less, offsetting emissions, or advocating for more aggressive climate policies.

Nonetheless, shame is not a great feeling, and it’s hard to convince people they need more of it. But Rosén says forgoing flying is a point of pride, and she’s optimistic that the movement to stay grounded will continue to take off.”
climatechange  travel  carbonemissions  2019  gretathunberg  sweden  flight  airplanes  aviation  flygskam  guilt  shame  activism  sustainability  globalwarming  majarosén  arctic  norway  germany  science  scientists  carbonoffsets  offsets  electrofuels  carbonfootprint  kimcobb  academia  susanmichie  russpoldrack  highered  education  highereducation  flying  flyingshame  flightshame  emissions  airlines  climate 
6 weeks ago by robertogreco
If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home? - The New York Times
"In the age of global warming, traveling — by plane, boat or car — is a fraught choice. And yet the world beckons."



"The glaciers are melting, the coral reefs are dying, Miami Beach is slowly going under.

Quick, says a voice in your head, go see them before they disappear! You are evil, says another voice. For you are hastening their destruction.

To a lot of people who like to travel, these are morally bewildering times. Something that seemed like pure escape and adventure has become double-edged, harmful, the epitome of selfish consumption. Going someplace far away, we now know, is the biggest single action a private citizen can take to worsen climate change. One seat on a flight from New York to Los Angeles effectively adds months worth of human-generated carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

And yet we fly more and more.

The number of airline passengers worldwide has more than doubled since 2003, and unlike with some other pollution sources, there’s not a ton that can be done right now to make flying significantly greener — electrified jets are not coming to an airport near you anytime soon.

Still, we wonder: How much is that one vacation really hurting anyone, or anything?

It is hard to think about climate change in relation to our own behavior. We are small, our effects are microscopically incremental and we mean no harm. The effects of climate change are inconceivably enormous and awful — and for the most part still unrealized. You can’t see the face of the unnamed future person whose coastal village you will have helped submerge.

But it turns out there are ways to quantify your impact on the planet, at least roughly. In 2016, two climatologists published a paper in the prestigious journal Science showing a direct relationship between carbon emissions and the melting of Arctic sea ice.

32 = The square feet of Arctic summer sea ice cover that one passenger’s share of emissions melts on a 2,500-mile flight.

Each additional metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent — your share of the emissions on a cross-country flight one-way from New York to Los Angeles — shrinks the summer sea ice cover by 3 square meters, or 32 square feet, the authors, Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve, found.

In February, my family of three flew from New York to Miami for what seemed like a pretty modest winter vacation. An online carbon calculator tells me that our seats generated the equivalent of 2.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Throw in another quarter-ton for the 600 miles of driving we squeezed in and a bit for the snorkeling trip and the heated pool at the funky trailer-park Airbnb, and the bill comes to about 90 square feet of Arctic ice, an area about the size of a pickup truck.

When I did that calculation, I pictured myself standing on a pickup-truck-sized sheet of ice as it broke apart and plunged me into frigid waters. A polar bear glared hungrily at me.

Calculating the harm

And what of my vacation’s impact on my fellow man? Actually, academics have attempted to calculate that, too. Philosophers, not climatologists. But still.

In 2005, a Dartmouth professor, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, wrote in a journal article provocatively titled “It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations” that he was under no moral obligation to refrain from taking a gas-guzzling S.U.V. for a Sunday afternoon joy ride if he felt like doing so.

“No storms or floods or droughts or heat waves can be traced to my individual act of driving,” he wrote. Conversely, “If I refrain from driving for fun on this one Sunday, there is no individual who will be helped in the least.”

Other philosophers questioned his reasoning.

Professor John Nolt of the University of Tennessee took a stab at measuring the damage done by one average American’s lifetime emissions. (The average American generates about 16 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent a year, more than triple the global average.)

Noting that carbon stays in the atmosphere for centuries, at least, and that a United Nations panel found in 2007 that climate change is “likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding, reductions in water supplies, increased malnutrition and increased health impacts” in the next 100 years, Professor Nolt did a lot of division and multiplication and arrived at a stark conclusion:

“The average American causes through his/her greenhouse gas emissions the serious suffering and/or deaths of two future people.”

Then Avram Hiller of Portland State University used Professor Nolt’s approach to derive the impact of Professor Sinnott-Armstrong’s hypothetical 25-mile ride.

“At a ratio of one life’s causal activities per one life’s detrimental effects, it causes the equivalent of a quarter of a day’s severe harm,” he wrote.

“In other words, going for a Sunday drive has the expected effect of ruining someone’s afternoon.”

Multiply that joy ride by a three-person Florida vacation and you’ve ruined someone’s month. Something to ponder while soaking up UV-drenched rays on a tropical beach.

Ships? Even worse

There are alternatives to flying, of course. Perhaps a cruise? After all, there’s more ocean than there’s been in thousands of years. With the Northwest Passage now mostly ice-free in the summer, new vistas have opened. One cruise company runs polar bear tours to check out “the Arctic’s ‘poster boy.’”

Perhaps not. Bryan Comer, a researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation, a nonprofit research group, told me that even the most efficient cruise ships emit 3 to 4 times more carbon dioxide per passenger-mile than a jet.

And that’s just greenhouse gas. Last year, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that the air onboard cruise ships was many times dirtier than the air nearby onshore.

3x to 4x = The amount of carbon dioxide the most efficient cruise ship emits per passenger mile when compared with a jet.

“Some of the particulate counts were comparable to or worse than a bad day in some of the world’s most polluted cities like Beijing and Santiago,” said Kendra Ulrich of Stand.earth, the advocacy group that commissioned the study.

While most cruise ships run on highly polluting heavy fuel oil, many have begun using “scrubbers” to remove toxic sulfur oxides from their exhaust. But the scrubbers discharge these and other pollutants into the ocean instead, and they’ve been banned by seven countries and several U.S. states.

A spokeswoman for Cruise Lines International Association, a trade group, said that the scrubbers comply with the new 2020 standards for air and water quality set by the International Maritime Organization, a U.N. agency. The spokeswoman, Megan King, added that it was not fair to compare emissions from ships and jets because a jet is just a transportation vehicle while a cruise ship is a floating resort and amusement park.

There’s always driving, which is less carbon intensive than flying, especially if there are multiple passengers. But “less” is relative, and most long trips are out of practical driving range anyway.

Considering carbon offsets

Maybe there is a justification out there somewhere: Personal decisions alone won’t stop global warming — that will take policy changes by governments on a worldwide scale. Tourism creates millions of jobs in places starved for economic development. Carbon offsets can effectively cancel out our footprint, can’t they?

Carbon offsets do seem to offer the most direct way to assuage traveler’s guilt. In theory, they magically expiate your sins. You give a broker some money (not a lot of money either — carbon offsets can be bought for $10 per metric ton). They give it to someone to plant trees, or capture the methane from a landfill or a cattle operation, or help build a wind farm, or subsidize clean cookstoves for people in the developing world who cook on open fires. All these things help cut greenhouse gas.

But nothing is that simple in practice. Carbon-offset people talk about concerns with things called additionality, leakage and permanence.

Additionality: How do you know the utility would not have built the wind farm but for the money you gave them?

Permanence: How do you know the timber company that planted those trees won’t just cut them down in a few years?

Leakage: How do you know the landowner you just paid not to cut down an acre of rain forest won’t use the money to buy a different acre and clear that?

While certifying organizations go to great lengths to verify carbon offset projects, verification has limits.

“Whether someone would have planted trees anyway, or taken some other action like building a housing development, is ultimately unknowable and something you have to construct,” said Peter Miller, a policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council and a board member of the Climate Action Reserve, the country’s biggest carbon offset registry. “It’s an endless debate.”

Some carbon offsets are surer bets than others. “With methane capture,” Mr. Miller said, “once you capture that methane and you burn it — you’re done. It’s not in the atmosphere, it’s not going in the atmosphere. You’ve got a credit that’s achieved and you’ve avoided those emissions forever.”

Not flying at all would be better, Mr. Miller said, “but the reality is that there’s lots of folks that are going to do what they’re going to do.” For them, offsets are a lot better than nothing.

But some climate experts call offsets a cop-out.

“It’s like paying someone else to diet for you,” said Alice Larkin of the University of Manchester’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, who has not flown since 2008.

She said that while governments do need to take tough action, they derive their courage to do so from the … [more]
flight  flights  travel  climatechange  globalwarming  2019  andynewman  emissions  carbonemissions  offets  carbonoffsets  flying  leakage  permanence  additionality  ayramhiller  johnnolt  waltersinnott-armstrong  dirknotz  juliennestroeve  flightshame  flyingshame  flygskam  aviation  airlines  climate  airplanes  carbonfootprint 
june 2019 by robertogreco
Critics: Endgame
"But the discourse around art has not often included climate change, barring work which specifically addresses it. Following recent movements that have awoken the general populace to various systemic inequities, we have been slowly shifting toward an awareness of how those inequities inform contemporary popular culture. This has manifested in criticism with varying levels of success, from clunky references to Trump to more considered analyses of how historic disparity is reflected in the stories that are currently told. And while there has been an expansion in representation in the arts as a result, the underlying reality of these systemic shifts is that they don’t fundamentally affect the bottom line of those in power. There is a social acceptability to these adaptations, one which does not ask the 1 Percent to confront its very existence, ending up subsumed under it instead. A more threatening prospect would be reconsidering climate change, which would also involve reconsidering the economy — and the people who benefit from it the most."



"I am not saying that climate change must be shoehorned into every article‚ though even a non sequitur would be better than nothing — but I am saying that just as identity politics is now a consideration when we write, our planet should be too. What I am asking for is simply a widening of perspective, besides economics, besides race, beyond all things human, toward a cultural carbon footprint, one which becomes part of the DNA of our critiques and determines what we choose to talk about and what we say when we do. After more than 60 years of doing virtually the same thing, even nonagenarian David Attenborough knew he had to change tacks; it wasn’t enough just to show the loss of natural beauty, he had to point out how it affects us directly. As he told the International Monetary Fund last month: “We are in terrible, terrible trouble and the longer we wait to do something about it the worse it is going to get.” In Our Planet, Attenborough reminds us over and over that our survival depends on the earth’s. For criticism to survive, it must remind us just as readily."
climatechange  urgency  identity  identitypolitics  2019  soryaroberts  sustainability  globalwarming  economics  race  carbonfootprint  davidattenborough  imf  ourplanet  earth  criticism  priorities  culture 
may 2019 by robertogreco
Pascal’s Climate – Popula
"For a decade or more there has been a cottage industry in telling people that individual action is meaningless in the face of the overwhelming force of climate change. Plane rides don’t matter, eating meat doesn’t matter; 100 companies are causing 71% of the emissions and it is they who are the problem; only governments acting in concert have the remotest chance of arresting the disaster. And so on.

One of the most influential of these arguments, with 328,677 shares at the time of writing, is a much-quoted 2017 Guardian piece by Martin Lukacs, who wrote, “Stop obsessing with how personally green you live–and start collectively taking on corporate power.”

“While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives,” he added, “fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant. The breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an astonishing 71%. You tinker with those pens or that panel; they go on torching the planet.”

While I sympathize with Lukacs’s desire to rein in the energy oligarchs, he and other anti-individualists, like Eric Levitz in last week’s Intelligencer, are dead wrong that individual action doesn’t count.

The 71% of emissions that 100 companies are responsible for are producing?? They are mainly the result of extracting and refining fossil fuels that individuals are using for flying and driving and importing bottled water from glaciers and plastic bird feeders from China. Economic questions of supply and demand are far more salient to the matter of emissions than is any aspect of political will.

Human activity is interconnected. When the breakneck demand for these things ends–as indeed it must and will, either in time, or too late–there will no longer be a market for what the energy oligarchs are selling. From a purely logical economic perspective, it’s the only real way to stop them.

Let’s have a look at this remark of Lukacs’s again.

“Collectively taking on corporate power” is just exactly what will happen when millions of individuals stop flying on airplanes, which, again, is a thing that has to happen in order for the planet to survive. Whether through a global individual cap and trade program or simply because individual people collectively realize, together, that they are dooming the Earth and had better drive to their next holiday, is entirely immaterial. Though even a casual witness to the abject stupidity of the world’s politicians must surely suspect that the latter course has better chances.

In any case, the bigger problem with the anti-individualist stance to taking collective action is an even simpler one. There is no way to achieve collective action without individual action. Collective action doesn’t fall off a tree, it is made up of countless individual acts that turn into conversations, writings, meetings, plans. Individual actions are the only material from which collective action can be made, and to suggest that individuals are helpless and somehow just don’t matter now, in the current emergency, at a time of rising confusion, anger, hopelessness and dread, is nothing short of enraging.

[image: The most effective individual steps to tackle climate change
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html ]

In the Intelligencer, Levitz writes: “With climate change, the pointlessness of individual action is especially acute. If you accept the scientific consensus on warming, then you know your personal carbon footprint is a drop in the rising sea. So, why on earth would you feel compelled to lower your quality of life for the sake of cutting carbon emissions by a wholly negligible amount?”

What even?

Why would you even consider dialing back your own special role in destroying the planet? Why not go vacation in Tulum, while you’re at it, why not go befoul The Beach, you saw it in a movie?

It is high time for an end to the nihilist bullshit that is telling the public it doesn’t matter whether or not they eat meat or fly in airplanes. It does. Not least because even a small chance to contribute to a better possible future gives life and work meaning and value—conceivably, maybe, even more value than just obediently swallowing down your consumerist “quality of life,” spoon-fed to you by the loving algorithms of the surveillance state.

A less lemming-like, suicidal, self-loathing, murderous society would just plain say the obvious: every decision matters, in a time of crisis. Individual, collective, political, business: human life is a single gigantic machine of endless complexity, working every second on innumerable levels, and every iota of the machine involves a responsibility to society and to the future.

So if the planet is to survive the effects of human stupidity and shortsightedness—which question, admittedly, does incline the rational mind to pessimism, but still—and if every single decision counts: Why not take the Pascal’s Wager position? Why not act as if success, as if a good surprise, were possible?

In the Oxford philosophical journal The Monist of July 2011 (Vol. 94, No. 3, “Morality and Climate Change”) Avram Hiller’s (really excellent) article “Climate Change and Individual Responsibility” [JSTOR] applied a philosophical and moral lens to these questions. Hiller gives five conjectures “as to why people erroneously do not believe that individual actions have much or any effects” on climate change. They include the “Nero’s Fiddle” effect, which is like “it’s too late, fuck it, it doesn’t matter what I do”; psychic numbing, or failing to reason properly because too freaked out; limited capacity for valuing, or, “I’m too small to matter at all,” and fallacy of double-division, which is kind of like, “I can get away with putting just one straw on the camel’s back; if anything goes wrong it’s not because of me.” But really the first conjecture he gives is the best one.
Selfishness and denial. “In fact, we do in some way understand that individual actions are significant, but are also aware that if we countenance this fact and wish to remain moral, our whole lives must change. So we subconsciously let ourselves believe that small individual actions in fact make no significant difference.”
"
mariabustillos  martinlukacs  sustainability  individuals  collectivism  ericlevitz  nihilism  economics  politics  collectiveaction  individualaction  carbonfootprint  globalwarming  responsibility  society  selfishness  small  local  hyperlocal  energy  canon 
march 2019 by robertogreco
Greta Thunberg full speech at UN Climate Change COP24 Conference - YouTube
[See also:
https://grist.org/article/call-the-cops-this-swedish-teenager-just-wrecked-u-n-climate-negotiators/
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/world/greta-thunberg-cop24/index.html ]

"15 year old activist Greta Thunberg speaks truth to power at the UN COP24 climate talks:

"My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 15 years old. I am from Sweden.

I speak on behalf of Climate Justice Now.

Many people say that Sweden is just a small country and it doesn't matter what we do.

But I've learned you are never too small to make a difference.

And if a few children can get headlines all over the world just by not going to school, then imagine what we could all do together if we really wanted to. But to do that, we have to speak clearly, no matter how uncomfortable that may be.

You only speak of green eternal economic growth because you are too scared of being unpopular. You only talk about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess, even when the only sensible thing to do is pull the emergency brake.

You are not mature enough to tell it like is. Even that burden you leave to us children. But I don't care about being popular. I care about climate justice and the living planet.

Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.

Our biosphere is being sacrificed so that rich people in countries like mine can live in luxury. It is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few.

The year 2078, I will celebrate my 75th birthday. If I have children maybe they will spend that day with me. Maybe they will ask me about you. Maybe they will ask why you didn't do anything while there still was time to act.

You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.

Until you start focusing on what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope. We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.

We need to keep the fossil fuels in the ground, and we need to focus on equity. And if solutions within the system are so impossible to find, maybe we should change the system itself.

We have not come here to beg world leaders to care. You have ignored us in the past and you will ignore us again.

We have run out of excuses and we are running out of time.

We have come here to let you know that change is coming, whether you like it or not. The real power belongs to the people.

Thank you.""
gretathunberg  climatechange  2018  sustainability  youth  sweden  change  globalarming  activism  civilization  crisis  flight  action  money  corruption  anthropocene  goodancestors  resistance  science  climatescience  hope  flightshame  flyingshame  flygskam  travel  aviation  carbonemissions  emissions  airlines  climate  airplanes  carbonfootprint 
december 2018 by robertogreco
School strike for climate - save the world by changing the rules | Greta Thunberg | TEDxStockholm - YouTube
"Greta Thunberg realized at a young age the lapse in what several climate experts were saying and in the actions that were being taken in society. The difference was so drastic in her opinion that she decided to take matters into her own hands. Greta is a 15-year-old Stockholm native who lives at home with her parents and sister Beata. She’s a 9th grader in Stockholm who enjoys spending her spare time riding Icelandic horses, spending time with her families two dogs, Moses and Roxy. She love animals and has a passion for books and science. At a young age, she became interested in the environment and convinced her family to adopt a sustainable lifestyle. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community."
gretathunberg  climatechange  2018  sustainability  youth  autism  aspergers  sweden  change  globalarming  activism  extinction  massextinction  equity  climatejustice  inequality  infrastructure  interconnected  crisis  flight  action  money  corruption  anthropocene  goodancestors  resistance  science  climatescience  hope  flightshame  flyingshame  flygskam  travel  aviation  carbonemissions  emissions  airlines  climate  airplanes  carbonfootprint 
december 2018 by robertogreco
CoolClimate Network: Carbon Footprint Planning Tools and Scenarios
"Consumption-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories have emerged to describe full life cycle contributions of households to climate change at country, state and increasingly city scales. Using this approach, how much carbon footprint abatement potential is within the control of local governments, and which policies hold the most potential to reduce emissions? This study quantifies the potential of local policies and programs to meet aggressive GHG reduction targets using a consumption-based, high geospatial resolution planning model for the state of California. We find that roughly 35% of all carbon footprint abatement potential statewide is from activities at least partially within the control of local governments. The study shows large variation in the size and composition of carbon footprints and abatement opportunities by ~23,000 Census block groups (i.e., neighborhood-scale within cities), 717 cities and 58 counties across the state. These data and companion online tools can help cities better understand priorities to reduce GHGs from a comprehensive, consumption-based perspective, with potential application to the full United States and internationally.

Jones, C., Wheeler, S., & Kammen, D. (2018). Carbon Footprint Planning: Quantifying Local and State Mitigation Opportunities for 700 California Cities. Urban Planning, 3(2), 35-51. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/up.v3i2.1218

Resources

1) Try the Interactive Policy Tool!: GHG reduction potential for every California block group, zip code, city, county and the state overall
https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/ca-scenarios/index.html

2) Interactive Online Map
https://coolclimate.org/maps-2050

3) California Local Government Climate Policy Tool (Excel Version, 11 Mb)
https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/files2/Jones-Wheeler-Kammen-2018-Results-CA.xlsx

4) Open Access Version of the Paper (external site)
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/1218

5) CoolClimate Calculator: Calculate and compare your carbon footprint to similar households and create a personalized climate action plan.
https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/calculator "
california  climatechange  policy  governance  government  carbonfootprint  sustainability  local 
december 2018 by robertogreco
How a (nearly) zero-carbon conference can be a better conference | University of California
"A conference wrapped up recently at UC Santa Barbara, but this was not a typical academic conference. There was no mess to clean up at the end: no coffee-stained tablecloths and muffin crumbs. The attendees were from campuses all across California, but no one had to rush to catch a flight home. The cost of the conference: essentially free. The carbon footprint of the conference: nearly zero.

John Foran, professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies at UC Santa Barbara, was part of the team that put on the recent UC-CSU Knowledge Action Network Conference as part of UC’s Carbon Neutrality Initiative.

Given the topic of the conference — developing resources for teaching sustainability, climate change, climate justice and climate neutrality to all California students from kindergarten through college — the idea of having people fly in, and contribute greenhouse gases in the process, seemed sadly ironic, if not "morally bankrupt," in Foran's words.

In fact, air travel to conferences, talks and meetings accounts for about a third of the carbon footprint for a typical university. For many professors who travel to multiple conferences and meetings per year, air travel can easily make up over half of their annual carbon footprint.

“Knowing what we know now, it’s just not responsible to fly to conferences all over the world,” said Foran.

For universities concerned about trying to reduce — or even eliminate — their carbon footprints, the problem of air travel is especially acute. Both the carbon footprint and the cost of air travel and honoraria have pushed many institutions to support virtual meetings, but traditional teleconferencing has proved a largely unsatisfying alternative. Dropped connections, inadequate bandwidth and other technological issues have made live video conferences a poor substitute for in-person attendance."

[See also: http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2016/016796/more-conference-less-carbon ]

[See also: http://ehc.english.ucsb.edu/?page_id=16797/

"UC-CSU KAN Conference
a nearly carbon-neutral conference

Interested in staging a nearly carbon-neutral (NCN) conference? For the rationale behind this approach & details on how to coordinate such events, see our White Paper / Practical Guide.
[http://hiltner.english.ucsb.edu/index.php/ncnc-guide/ ]

“Building a UC/CSU Climate Knowledge Action Network”
Spring 2017 Nearly Carbon-Neutral Conference

The UC-CSU Knowledge Action Network
for
Transformative Climate and Sustainability Education and Action



Welcome!

We are delighted to host this virtual space and welcome you to our community – We’re all in for an adventure, if this goes as we hope! This conference opened on Monday, June 12, 2017, and we now invite all participants to please view and comment on the talks for the next three weeks! On Monday, July 3, the conference and the Q&A will close. After that, the website will remain open to the public and continue to invite participation in the building of this Knowledge Action Network.

Guiding Principles

We affirm the essential roles social scientists, humanists, educators, and arts and culture play in advancing transformative climate action. We affirm the roles of California faculty in supporting younger generations to act on climate and in reaching beyond the campus to engage various publics to accelerate the shifts. We affirm the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goal 4.7: “To ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.”

Purpose

Over the course of the 2016-17 academic year, a network of 32 University of California and California State University teachers has been building a Knowledge Action Network (KAN) around issues of teaching sustainability, climate change, climate justice, and climate neutrality to all California students, from kindergarten to the graduate university level.

The purpose of this knowledge action network is to begin to take the steps necessary to provide California educators a collaborative framework to facilitate highly integrative sustainability and climate education and action. The KAN will accelerate California educators’ abilities to offer climate neutrality, climate change, climate justice,[1] and sustainability education to all Californian students in ways that are culturally contextualized, responsive and sustaining, as well as actionable and relevant to their futures. The network will also enable California educators to engage across and beyond our educational institutions for transformative climate action over time.
Process

In the spring of 2017, we came together in four regional workshops, and spent one and a half days together at each site getting to know each other, identifying the current state of climate change and climate justice education in California, envisioning what we hope to see in the future, and then beginning to identify ways to get there. In doing so, we explored the facilitation process of “emergent strategy,” based on the book by Adrienne Maree Brown, Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds.

The present “nearly carbon-neutral conference” is the next step in that process. Each participant was asked to make a video of approximately fifteen minutes on one of the following themes:

Option 1:

What is one of your best practices in teaching climate change, climate justice, carbon neutrality/greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and/or sustainability in a culturally responsive and sustaining way?

What makes it work?

How does/can it scale?

[If appropriate] What obstacles and barriers have you encountered? Where are you stuck? What would you need to go forward?

Option 2:

What vision, proposal, or idea do you have for achieving the goals of the KAN in teaching climate change, climate justice, carbon neutrality/greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and/or sustainability in a culturally responsive and sustaining way?

What is exciting about it?

How does/can it scale?

[If appropriate] What obstacles and barriers have you already or might you encounter? Where are you stuck? What would you need or what would need to happen to make it a reality?

Format

This conference was unusual because of its format, as we took a digital approach. Because the conference talks and Q&A sessions reside on this website (the talks are prerecorded; the Q&As interactive), travel was unnecessary. By 2050, the aviation sector could consume as much as 27% of the global carbon budget (more). We need to immediately take steps to keep this from happening. This conference approach, which completely eschews flying, is one such effort (more).

Website

UCSB’s Environmental Humanities Initiative (EHI) is hosting this conference on the EHI website. While here, please feel free to explore the EHI site, perhaps starting with our Intro and Home pages."]
conferences  carbonneutrality  events  planning  2017  johnforan  virtual  environment  sustainability  teaching  pedagogy  sfsh  airtravel  climatechange  climate  climatejustice  climateneutrality  carbonfootprint  kenhiltner  internet  web  online  access  accesibility  community  howto  ucsb  highered  education  highereducation  academia 
july 2017 by robertogreco
Alive in the Sunshine | Jacobin
"There’s no way toward a sustainable future without tackling environmentalism’s old stumbling blocks: consumption and jobs. And the way to do that is through a universal basic income."



"Consumption doesn’t correspond perfectly to income — in large part because of public programs like SNAP that supplement low-income households — but the two are closely linked. The US Congressional Budget Office estimates that the carbon footprint of the top quintile is over three times that of the bottom. Even in relatively egalitarian Canada, the top income decile has a mobility footprint nine times that of the lowest, a consumer goods footprint four times greater, and an overall ecological footprint two-and-a-half times larger. Air travel is frequently pegged as one of the most rapidly growing sources of carbon emissions, but it’s not simply because budget airlines have “democratized the skies” — rather, flying has truly exploded among the hyper-mobile affluent. Thus in Western Europe, the transportation footprint of the top income earners is 250 percent of that of the poor. And global carbon emissions are particularly uneven: the top five hundred million people by income, comprising about 8 percent of global population, are responsible for 50 percent of all emissions. It’s a truly global elite, with high emitters present in all countries of the world."



"We need to think seriously and expansively about these kinds of work and value — and about the real costs that “sustainability” will impose on individuals and communities. And we need to recognize that this is a truly collective project — that individualized, atomized systems of work and reward are increasingly untenable in the face of the interdependent tangle in which we’re enmeshed.

How might we do that? To begin with, by divorcing income from conventional notions of production, and by instituting a social wage in the form of universal basic income. Basic income won’t, in and of itself, solve environmental problems; it won’t replace coal plants with solar panels or ease pressure on depleted aquifers. If instituted as a justification for cuts to other social programs, it would be disastrous both socially and environmentally; robust public services are necessary if we’re to live on less. But it marks a critical starting point in rethinking the relationship between labor, production, and consumption, without which environmental hand-wringing will go nowhere.

More pragmatically, in providing an alternative to dependence on destructive industries and removing the threat of job blackmail from communities desperate for livelihoods, it makes change a real option, giving workers and communities more power to demand protections against environmental harms. It can start to reorient social focus away from an eternal game of consumption catch-up toward the good life.

It admittedly won’t do much to curb the upper bounds of consumption, at least not right away. But it might point in that direction. Environmentalists like to point to World War II for evidence that people will accept restrictions on consumption for the sake of a shared cause, but the so-called Greatest Generation didn’t exactly accept rations with a patriotic grin. What that experience does demonstrate, however, is that while people don’t like limiting consumption under any circumstances, what they really don’t like is cutting back if everyone else isn’t doing the same. That sentiment is typically mobilized in service of anti-welfare politics: why should I have to work if someone else just gets a check? But during the war, it went the other way: over 60 percent of the population supported capping incomes at $25,000 a year, a relatively paltry $315,000 today.

Of course, the post-work future has long been over the horizon; to propose it as a solution to such time-sensitive problems may seem wildly, even irresponsibly utopian. The revolution might happen in time to avoid environmental catastrophe, but we probably shouldn’t count on it, though some African climate activists have put basic income grants, financed by wealthy nations’ payment of ecological debt, at the centerpiece of their demands."



"Even the US presents some interesting opportunities. One prominent alternative to a straight carbon tax or cap-and-trade system is a policy known as tax-and-dividend, in which the proceeds from a carbon tax would be distributed unconditionally to all citizens — similar to the oil dividend paid to every Alaskan resident. It’s defended as a compensatory mechanism for the higher energy prices that would result from a carbon tax; in more bluntly political terms, it functions as a bribe to garner support for a tax that would otherwise be unpopular. There are plenty of criticisms to be leveled against the plan as currently designed, particularly if it’s considered a stand-alone climate solution — individual dividends won’t maintain levees, support public transportation systems, or build affordable urban housing. But it’s also a potential wedge into new obligations and relationships: the first suggestion of an unconditional guaranteed income, financed mostly by a tax on the environmentally destructive consumption habits of the wealthy. It’s an assertion of public ownership of the atmosphere, and the staking of a new claim to public resources.

Viewed as a bulwark linking unconditional livelihood provision to environmental sustainability, it could be the beginning of a much larger project of ensuring decent standards of living for all regardless of productive input, while reclaiming environmental commons from the false yet persistent narrative of tragedy."



"The post-work future is often characterized as a vision of a post-scarcity society. But the dream of freedom from waged labor and self-realization beyond work suddenly looks less like utopia than necessity.

Finding ways to live luxuriously but also lightly, adequately but not ascetically, won’t always be easy. But perhaps in the post-post-scarcity society, somewhere between fears of generalized scarcity and dreams of generalized decadence, we can have the things we never managed to have in the time of supposed abundance: enough for everyone, and time for what we will."
alyssabattistoni  via:anne  economics  income  postcapitalism  capitalism  sustainability  carbonfootprint  environment  environmentalism  class  consumption  jobs  labor  work  compensation  2014  climatechange  growth  policy  universalbasicincome  ubi 
march 2014 by robertogreco
New! Carbon Footprint Maps | CoolClimate Network
"Interactive carbon footprint maps from the CoolClimate Calculator. Find out how you compare to local averages and create a personalized climate action plan for you or your community. See info on recent Jones and Kammen paper and FAQ below.

Average Annual Household Carbon Footprint by Zip Code
Average Household Energy Carbon Footprint by Zip Code
Average Vehicle Miles Traveled by Zip Code"

[via: http://ucresearch.tumblr.com/post/73463951301/coolclimateucbmaps ]
data  energy  maps  cars  climate  carbonfootprint  2014  us  mapping 
january 2014 by robertogreco
How Aerotropolis May Destroy Us Yet | varnelis.net
"One of the most annoying & pervasive myths pundits like to spout today is that living in cities is, de facto, greener.

All things is being equal, yes, it would be.

It disturbs me, however, that these same pundits spend jet around the globe much of the year, bragging about how many miles they've logged.

Check out Getting There Green, a fascinating report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that I came across in our research for rebuilding the Port Authority Bus Terminal. It turns out that plane travel is much, much worse for the environment. Try it out for yourself at the Terrapass Carbon Footprint Calculator. Alas, that calculator doesn't include first class travel, which pundits prefer, but if we can assume that one first class trip is equal to two coach trips (it may be worse than this), all it takes is 2 first class trips from NY to Europe to equal a year of carbon output from an SUV. 

Is there a surprise in Getting There Green? Yes, the bus is the greenest mode of travel."
buses  myths  gettingtheregreen  green  carbonfootprint  2012  kazysvarnelis  petpeeves  environment  sustainability  aerotropolis  hypocrisy  travel 
february 2012 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read