Category Climate Change

BBC

Finland has pledged to be carbon-neutral by 2035 – that’s twice as fast as the UK government target. But to achieve this, it will have to make big changes, particularly in the peat industry, which currently provides energy, heating and jobs.

Can the Finns turn an ambitious plan into reality?

BBC

If Finland can do it, so can everybody else. It’s time to stop stalling because “somebody else isn’t changing, so I don’t need to until they do.” We all have to do our part – inaction from somebody else doesn’t justify our own inaction. We need to do our best personally, and to change any systems that we are a part of eg local, provincial, national etc. Let’s support ambitious goals, and help each other get there. 🙂

Mass consumerism is destroying our planet. This Black Friday, let’s take a stand
And, by extension, this does not apply to only one day – or one week. To be clear, I am not against giving gifts, if that’s what is being bought – it’s the opposite, in fact. I love gift-giving traditions. This is about an end to the culture of mass consumerism that is destroying the planet. Instead of 3 cheap shirts from the mall, have 1 nice one from a business that is genuinely worth supporting. Support quality over quantity. Enjoy outings and experiences and relationships, instead of more cheap stuff. The change may feel hard sometimes, but it’s worth it. 🙂

TIME: How to Halt Global Warming for $300 Billion.
Here is another reminder of one of many steps that need to be taken. And, to avoid jumping to any quick conclusions about not having the money to pay for it, here are some important stats. Depending on the calculation (ie how much direct vs indirect support is included etc), fossil fuel subsidies, globally, are in the range of $300 billion-$5.2 trillion/year.
So, in terms of the strictly financial/economic side, $300B is easily doable, even on a conservative estimate, by moving fossil fuel subsidies over for one year.* Every year, after that, along with any available funds that go beyond the conservative estimate, are available for job transition training for fossil fuel workers, support for renewables, and countless other important pieces of this response. (How about buying EV busses and trains for every school/university and municipality/province in the country, and then offering free public transit on all of them? How about adding in post-secondary tuition for students at the same time? Solar panels on school rooftops? Heat pumps in every building? The possibilities are almost endless, with that much money. :))
* Details on Guardian , the Atlantic, IISD and others. (NOTE: I am not an economist, so I am trusting them that their numbers are accurate.)
Ultimately, this is not the final or only piece of the puzzle. We will still need to make dramatic lifestyle and systems changes. This simply helps to buy a little bit of time.
So what does this mean for next steps? Here’s what I see (among others):

• Elect government officials who are committed to ending fossil fuel subsidies (and work towards proportional representation, which will likely help with this piece).
• If your current representative (including all levels, from local up to the PM) does support fossil fuel subsidies, write letters/arrange a meeting etc (if you can) and explain why you would like them to change. Public pressure is really important to moving these kinds of changes forward.
• Reduce our own fossil fuel consumption as much as possible, and encourage others to do the same. (Take the train instead of flying. Seriously consider how often we are flying, overall. Reduce consumption of animal products etc.)
  • One of the big obstacles that comes up in this discussion is “Others aren’t going to change, so there’s no point in me changing.” We are all responsible for our own piece, and, if we can help somebody else find a path to change with us, that’s even better. 🙂
• Remember that the point at which fossil fuel companies will start dropping in value (even in the current state) is likely coming sooning than many people realize.

How much longer are we going to subisdize something that is causing destruction, and isn’t even a good economic investment?

The Guardian: ‘It’s a crisis, not a change’: the six Guardian language changes on climate matters.

Important and valuable notes from the Guardian on their editorial choices, which is also highly relevant to the language that we all use when addressing the climate crisis.

Here are a couple of examples:

“climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”

The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment

and another one…

 Use “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks”

This change emphasises that fish do not exist solely to be harvested by humans – they play a vital role in the natural health of the oceans.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment

And, by extension, the same thing applies to other aspects of nature. Creation care, and a liveable climate, requires a change in how we view nature – from yet another consumable, to something that we genuinely are trying our best to care for in a sustainable manner.

I think that language plays an important role in how we frame the world, and our choices within our local and global context. Accurate representation is even more important when we are dealing with a crisis, and hard choices are required of all of us.

Thanks to the Guardian for their excellent journalism – on this and other issues. 🙂

The Guardian: Rise of renewables may see off oil firms decades earlier than they think.

Some rare good news in climate action. Here are several key quotes:

The world’s rising reliance on fossil fuels may come to an end decades earlier than the most polluting companies predict, offering early signs of hope in the global battle to tackle the climate crisis.

The climate green shoots have emerged amid a renewable energy revolution that promises an end to the rising demand for oil and coal in the 2020s, before the fossil fuels face a terminal decline.

The looming fossil fuel peak is expected to emerge decades ahead of forecasts from oil and mining companies, which are betting that demand for polluting energy will rise until the 2040s.

Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/14/rise-renewables-oil-firms-decades-earlier-think

Within the energy industry, experts believe the rapid rise of renewable energy in recent years may soon seem glacial compared with the changes to come.

Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/14/rise-renewables-oil-firms-decades-earlier-think

It is a cautionary tale for fossil fuel companies that believe the world’s demand for polluting energy will continue to rise until the middle of the century. It is also a new narrative of hope, he says.

“We’re a lot further on than we were. And yes, we need to go faster. And yes, it’s difficult and complicated. But at the same time we now live in a world where two-thirds of the global population live in a country where wind and solar power is the cheapest form of new electricity capacity. We have the tools to do this,” he says.

Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/14/rise-renewables-oil-firms-decades-earlier-think

BBC News: Climate change: Big lifestyle changes are the only answer.

The BBC has further evidence, again, that significant lifestyle changes will be needed for many people – specifically those who are currently living a lifestyle with higher carbon emission activities. The time for incremental changes was decades ago. What is needed now is a rapid transition off of fossil fuels.

As with any major change, there is a mix of both individual and systemic changes needed. Switching significantly towards plant-based eating is relatively easy (and, often, cost-effective) for many people to do. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies requires enough pressure from civil society to enact government changes, at the federal level, across the globe.

On the flip side, while individuals, alone, do not have the power to create a federal government policy, we do have the power to be strong advocates. We can also make changes that replicate federal policies, and encourage others in our circles to do the same. To be clear, I am not suggesting any bans for anybody – simply encouraging all of us to look at how we can make changes in our circles of influence. 🙂

– Want a carbon tax? Using a reliable carbon calculator, estimate your own carbon footprint, and then tax yourself, by donating to a reputable NGO (or your local Green Party) that is working on sustainability. Adding in Bullfrog Power, or another similar option, is another possibility. Encourage others in your family/friends/circles of influence to do the same.

– Want a reduction in aviation emissions? Consider adjusting your own travel plans. Do you fly to go somewhere warm every winter with friends or family? Lead the way and encourage the group to go somewhere closer, instead. Do you fly to some meetings where you could call in or have someone local work on your behalf?

– Want to reduce emissions from eating animal products? Go plant-based (all or part of the way) and help build excitement with others. Help nudge the transition (politely, of course), and show that your journey is positive and something to embrace, not a negative to be endured. 🙂

This is not an exhaustive list, by any stretch. Simply a starting point for discussion, as we each discern our individual and collective responses to what climate change calls us to do. Let’s embrace the positive aspects that come from change and see where a new path might lead us. 🙂

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/business-climate-strike-1.5293916

I firmly believe that it’s time that we stop pitting climate against the economy – as though doing the right thing for the climate will be wrong for everything else, and somehow the trade off isn’t worth it, which justifies stalling on critical climate change action. At the same time, the concept of endless economic growth is a myth, in my opinion. Nothing can go up forever – at some point, things need to moderate, which is precisely what is needed to stay within planetary boundaries.

So, we can still have an economy – but a livable climate has to far outrank making more money, burning fossil fuels and maintaining the status quo.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-denial-fossil-fuel-think-tank-sceptic-misinformation-1.5297236
Bottom line: Climate change is an absolutely critical issue, and the time for action (other than starting decades ago), is right now. Misinformation campaigns have no place in this, but they are there, and need to be dealt with, so that they do not impede climate action, at the pace that is needed.
Now is not the time for moderate action, or “let’s try a few things that aren’t too difficult and see how they feel” or anything else. It’s time to throw everything we’ve got at the issue.
For me, in the immediate term, that means electing Green MPs (because I believe that they have the strongest climate action plan.) Also, it means switching to proportional representation – to make it easier for people to vote positively (ie for Greens or whoever), instead of feeling pressured to vote negatively (ie “you have to vote for your second or third choice to make sure someone worse doesn’t get elected.”)
If we, collectively, vote overwhelmingly for candidates that support strong climate action, and PR, we can, in one election, shake up the current, broken system and build something better! (As far as I am aware, Greens and NDP are the only two parties that support both – though the Green climate platform is stronger). This will require massive turnout at the polls – but I believe that it’s doable, if we all work together, and bring others along. 🙂

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/20/climate-change-morally-wrong-carbon-abolition-movement

I love the approach the author is taking here. I agree that there are certainly technical and financial discussions that need to be had, and they have value. However, doing the right thing, is ultimately a moral/faith issue, not a financial issue.

If our primary motivation is financial or technical, lots of the important decisions and changes that we need to make will not happen – since the right thing is (often) not the easiest or the cheapest. A deeper sense that we owe it to others to live sustainably is, in my opinion, critical to grounding ourselves to make the radical changes that creation care calls us to do.

Societies have rallied around war efforts (which I disagree with). This is the time to rally around what is right, and set ourselves on a rapid transition to zero carbon, then to carbon negative. There is no more time to delay. With collective effort, we can move forward, at an incredible pace – towards what’s right, instead of what’s easy. 🙂

Excellent article from The Guardian here:

Totally agree – the endless pursuit of wealth has no upside, for me. This fits in well with the donut economics model by Kate Raworth.

While some parts of the world certainly need an increase in standard of living, much of the world will need to accept a decrease in order to stay within planetary boundaries. (And that does not apply only to the ultra rich with private planes and yachts.) Certainly, many others will need to adjust, if not to an actual decrease, certainly a decrease in what we are striving for in the future – an adjustment of goals and hopes and what we aiming for in life.

Extreme wealth imbalances, in my opinion, have no place in a balanced environment, or in a balanced society.