At COP28, all 198 countries that signed the UNFCCC will meet. Over the years, this annual event seems to have grown even faster than the greenhouse gas emissions it tries to limit.
Very just ! And it is very regrettable that political issues, of power, or money, ultimately take precedence over the issues of fighting the climate crisis!
Every word is concise and focused, stated succinctly and clearly so anyone can clearly understand without being schooled in the scientific field. Youāve covered all the pertinent facts without either sugar coating or screaming warnings. Simply laying it on the line.
Excellent visuals to support everything you said.
Let me also say how much I admire your decisions to not attend these gatherings and your reasons in doing so. Itās the distinguishing mark of a true voice for climate who lives what he says. Never doubt you are an important voice. I only wish your voice was heard by many more.
Extra points for āminus the oil lobbyists exempted from moral considerationsā. š
Your conclusion is very important, whatever this figure of 70,000 is,
"it is above all a question of political will".
And for this, it seems necessary to have direct links between representatives of the scientific community and decision-makers to explain to them the measures to be taken with the sole aim of combating global warming.
Are all 70,000 people really necessary to shed light on these debates?
And explain to decision-makers the Ā«Ā practical measuresĀ Ā» that can help achieve the essential objectives against climate change ?
Decission makers know exactly what is at stake and what needs to be done. But decisions are often made based on personal or career considerations, like winning the next elections which is hard to combine with unpopular measures like reducing subsidies on fossil fuels.
Where there are rulers, there is power. Power is a pattern, neither good nor bad until those who use it make it so. It is an agreement with the connections and differences that have meaning across space and time. Time keeps ticking, faster than ever, but there is still space and opportunity to change and rethink similarities, to see the opposite side reflected in the mirror. Letās hope.
āDo not be a slave to your past ā dive into the sublime seas, dive deep and swim far, so that you may return with new self-respect, with new power and with an advanced experience that will explain and overlook the old. ā - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Yes, Nietzsche. But the crux is that too often power is a bad thing and those in power become bad. Countries were there is a resonable control on power, society usually functions far better; it makes the call for "freedom" in those countries where people have the freedom to demand for freedom, sound hollow but at the same time so very relevant when spoken in a country where the power has such an extend of control that freedom sounds like a thread. And with all these huge varieties in government in nearly 200 countries in the world, we now have to find agreement on climate change, as issue that can not be understood without taking into account the power relationships of those who have a stake in the status quo.
Thank you for the review and self-explanatory charts, alarming as they may be. Does it really take 70,000 people flying to Dubai to accomplish the goals of COP 28? You mentioned many are there to network, but do not have a role in the proceedings. Is that really helpful? Perhaps informal gatherings produce ideas š” for change (I can only relate to the meetings in my history in NIH sponsored cancer research, perhaps 450 professionals / meeting ). The dollars expended could be used for so many productive alternatives, and the emissions from travel alone must be astronomical. The conflict of interests at this site alarms me especially, but I must presume that officials planning the meeting are aware and wiser than I. We will hope for a good outcome. ā¤ļøššļø
For anything you want to achieve in this world, you need to get people together. So if it is for a good cause like climate action, I understand it. I have participated at COPs and believe my presence was useful and I did contribute to global climate action. But it is just that it doesn't work like: because I go to the COP the climate problem will become a little bit less. Each participant has to be able to convincingly explain to themselves that the damage of flying to the COP (there is no other way to get to Dubai) is worth it. I believe for many that is the case, and for many it is doubtful. I will only go to a COP, or to any other conference, after making such considerations. It means that I missed fully paid trips to beautiful locations where I would have loved to go.
Spoken like a true diplomat. (Not a criticism!). I saw many places in my travel for work I would have missed; all those continental USA. Agree in principle. Smaller groups might use Zoom or the equivalent. ??? I suspect the geographer in you is very tempted indeed. If funding is available to support your participation, it must be difficult to stick to your own rules. Seems that many are so burned out on being homebound for Covid, travel for holidays and vacations seems very high as an observation from online friends. Now carbon free jet fuel? ā½ļø Is that on the horizon? Guilt free indulgence of beautiful people and places! (Never private jets until.....just wishing.)
Don't fall for the marketing of carbon free jet fuel. It still needs to be produced, using enormous amouts of land, and when it is burned there are still greenhouse gasses produced. The airline industry want you to believe the guilt-free flying is on the horizon. Instead, we should all fly less, and governements should make sure people pay the real price for flying while subsidizing forms of public transport that are much less polluting like trains.
Thank you for what you do and the years you've given to this crucial mission. I have called myself an environmental activist since the 80s and became part of an off-shoot of Nader's Raiders, cleaning waterways. It was then I discovered, regrettably, that our federal agencies were not really in place for the people. But I continued to do what I could. Then in 2011 I encountered you on Twitter and began to think of activism in yet another way. One-on-one interaction. It takes an exhaustive and exhausting amount of diplomacy changing one mind at a time.
PS Would you address in a newsletter the topic of Carbon Capture? In speaking of leaders, one of our (unlikely at present) to win candidates for President in 2024, Nikki Haley, has said that carbon capture would be her preference in dealing with the crisis and that doesnāt seem to gel with what I recall about its efficacy? Another topic of concern I just glanced at yesterday was the receding of the Amazon which would be catastrophic to inhabitants and the precious remaining rainforest. Thoughts? Later perhaps. š¤
later perhaps, but in short: carbon capture exists mostly in the minds and there is hardly a proof of concept that comes anywhere near to being scalable. I'm all for it, but only additional to the far better alternatives that come down to preventing that new carbond enters the atmosphere. It's easy to understand for everyone that letting a gas escape into the atmosphere and then later trying to catch those molecules or far less efficient than just not emitting them and using renewable energy and of course much more energy efficiency. We ar Now at 400-something parts per million, that means that if you have a million molecules, you have to catch the only 400 one that are in there. Needles in haystacks are hard to find. Capturing at the source makes it a bit easier. In short: everything that lowers greenhouse gasses is welcome, but with limited financial means let's focus on the most efficient ones.
Very just ! And it is very regrettable that political issues, of power, or money, ultimately take precedence over the issues of fighting the climate crisis!
Every word is concise and focused, stated succinctly and clearly so anyone can clearly understand without being schooled in the scientific field. Youāve covered all the pertinent facts without either sugar coating or screaming warnings. Simply laying it on the line.
Excellent visuals to support everything you said.
Let me also say how much I admire your decisions to not attend these gatherings and your reasons in doing so. Itās the distinguishing mark of a true voice for climate who lives what he says. Never doubt you are an important voice. I only wish your voice was heard by many more.
Extra points for āminus the oil lobbyists exempted from moral considerationsā. š
Thanks Lizzie!
70,000 participants!
A number that makes the dizzy...
Your conclusion is very important, whatever this figure of 70,000 is,
"it is above all a question of political will".
And for this, it seems necessary to have direct links between representatives of the scientific community and decision-makers to explain to them the measures to be taken with the sole aim of combating global warming.
Are all 70,000 people really necessary to shed light on these debates?
And explain to decision-makers the Ā«Ā practical measuresĀ Ā» that can help achieve the essential objectives against climate change ?
Decission makers know exactly what is at stake and what needs to be done. But decisions are often made based on personal or career considerations, like winning the next elections which is hard to combine with unpopular measures like reducing subsidies on fossil fuels.
Where there are rulers, there is power. Power is a pattern, neither good nor bad until those who use it make it so. It is an agreement with the connections and differences that have meaning across space and time. Time keeps ticking, faster than ever, but there is still space and opportunity to change and rethink similarities, to see the opposite side reflected in the mirror. Letās hope.
āDo not be a slave to your past ā dive into the sublime seas, dive deep and swim far, so that you may return with new self-respect, with new power and with an advanced experience that will explain and overlook the old. ā - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Yes, Nietzsche. But the crux is that too often power is a bad thing and those in power become bad. Countries were there is a resonable control on power, society usually functions far better; it makes the call for "freedom" in those countries where people have the freedom to demand for freedom, sound hollow but at the same time so very relevant when spoken in a country where the power has such an extend of control that freedom sounds like a thread. And with all these huge varieties in government in nearly 200 countries in the world, we now have to find agreement on climate change, as issue that can not be understood without taking into account the power relationships of those who have a stake in the status quo.
Thank you for the review and self-explanatory charts, alarming as they may be. Does it really take 70,000 people flying to Dubai to accomplish the goals of COP 28? You mentioned many are there to network, but do not have a role in the proceedings. Is that really helpful? Perhaps informal gatherings produce ideas š” for change (I can only relate to the meetings in my history in NIH sponsored cancer research, perhaps 450 professionals / meeting ). The dollars expended could be used for so many productive alternatives, and the emissions from travel alone must be astronomical. The conflict of interests at this site alarms me especially, but I must presume that officials planning the meeting are aware and wiser than I. We will hope for a good outcome. ā¤ļøššļø
For anything you want to achieve in this world, you need to get people together. So if it is for a good cause like climate action, I understand it. I have participated at COPs and believe my presence was useful and I did contribute to global climate action. But it is just that it doesn't work like: because I go to the COP the climate problem will become a little bit less. Each participant has to be able to convincingly explain to themselves that the damage of flying to the COP (there is no other way to get to Dubai) is worth it. I believe for many that is the case, and for many it is doubtful. I will only go to a COP, or to any other conference, after making such considerations. It means that I missed fully paid trips to beautiful locations where I would have loved to go.
Spoken like a true diplomat. (Not a criticism!). I saw many places in my travel for work I would have missed; all those continental USA. Agree in principle. Smaller groups might use Zoom or the equivalent. ??? I suspect the geographer in you is very tempted indeed. If funding is available to support your participation, it must be difficult to stick to your own rules. Seems that many are so burned out on being homebound for Covid, travel for holidays and vacations seems very high as an observation from online friends. Now carbon free jet fuel? ā½ļø Is that on the horizon? Guilt free indulgence of beautiful people and places! (Never private jets until.....just wishing.)
Don't fall for the marketing of carbon free jet fuel. It still needs to be produced, using enormous amouts of land, and when it is burned there are still greenhouse gasses produced. The airline industry want you to believe the guilt-free flying is on the horizon. Instead, we should all fly less, and governements should make sure people pay the real price for flying while subsidizing forms of public transport that are much less polluting like trains.
Thank you, I am informed! Love trains but none near. Yet.š
Thank you for what you do and the years you've given to this crucial mission. I have called myself an environmental activist since the 80s and became part of an off-shoot of Nader's Raiders, cleaning waterways. It was then I discovered, regrettably, that our federal agencies were not really in place for the people. But I continued to do what I could. Then in 2011 I encountered you on Twitter and began to think of activism in yet another way. One-on-one interaction. It takes an exhaustive and exhausting amount of diplomacy changing one mind at a time.
But it's always rewarding to change a mind, even if it is just one; each one counts.
PS Would you address in a newsletter the topic of Carbon Capture? In speaking of leaders, one of our (unlikely at present) to win candidates for President in 2024, Nikki Haley, has said that carbon capture would be her preference in dealing with the crisis and that doesnāt seem to gel with what I recall about its efficacy? Another topic of concern I just glanced at yesterday was the receding of the Amazon which would be catastrophic to inhabitants and the precious remaining rainforest. Thoughts? Later perhaps. š¤
later perhaps, but in short: carbon capture exists mostly in the minds and there is hardly a proof of concept that comes anywhere near to being scalable. I'm all for it, but only additional to the far better alternatives that come down to preventing that new carbond enters the atmosphere. It's easy to understand for everyone that letting a gas escape into the atmosphere and then later trying to catch those molecules or far less efficient than just not emitting them and using renewable energy and of course much more energy efficiency. We ar Now at 400-something parts per million, that means that if you have a million molecules, you have to catch the only 400 one that are in there. Needles in haystacks are hard to find. Capturing at the source makes it a bit easier. In short: everything that lowers greenhouse gasses is welcome, but with limited financial means let's focus on the most efficient ones.
Thank you! š