Home » Posts tagged 'citizen action monitor' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: citizen action monitor
350 Canada’s “Climate Science Basics” fail the acid test of science reporting excellence
350 Canada’s “Climate Science Basics” fail the acid test of science reporting excellence
Its climate crisis assertions border on the fraudulent; they’re “misleading, overly simplistic, and sometimes, factually false.” —
No 2723 Posted by fw, March 30, 2021 —
On Wednesday April 7, 2021, Amara Possian of 350.org sent an email to followers bearing the Subject line “We’re launching something big today.” The message expressed dissatisfaction with Justin Trudeau’s failure “to tackle climate change,” and called on followers to “Sign the petition to call on federal Green Party Leader Annamie Paul and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh to form a Climate Emergency Alliance.”
As a follower of 350 Canada, I received Amara’s email. Disappointed with with the absence of any scientific facts to support the claim of “the climate crisis,” mentioned in the email, I did not sign the petition.
Instead, using the return address 350canada@350.org, I immediately replied to the email. Opening with the salutation “Dear Amara –”, I candidly began: “If 350 were genuinely interested in the climate crisis, it would be reporting on the contributions of top climate scientists and experts in related disciplines. As things stand, 350’s apparent misunderstanding of the nature and scope of humanity’s global existential crises broaches on the fraudulent; one might be tempted to suggest your oversight of the facts is intentional.”
I suggested to Amara that, for her own edification, she should look at the recent works of seven climate scientists, and researchers in related fields. I listed their names, academic qualifications, and links to a recent article or video presentation. (See the list at the bottom of this post).
*****
On April 13, I received this follow-up email from Chris –
Hi Frank,
Thanks for these links. Yes, I know the situation is dire and that our growth-obsessed economic system is to blame, but what are you proposing exactly?…
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Sir David Attenborough issues a stern warning to Earthlings in his new documentary film
Sir David Attenborough issues a stern warning to Earthlings in his new documentary film
Physicist Tom Murphy finds much to agree with in his review of the film: “We would keep consuming the earth until we had used it up.”
No 2722 Posted by fw, March 30, 2021“In the 1970s, we started noticing extinctions taking place right before our eyes.
Attenborough makes the point that no one wanted animals to become extinct, but that lack of awareness and a focus on personal benefits obscured the unfolding tragedy. Having largely eliminated or isolated ourselves from predators, achieved control over diseases, and mastered food to order, nothing was left to restrict or stop us. We would keep consuming the earth until we had used it up.” —Tom Murphy, Do the Math
Tom Murphy is an associate professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego. Murphy’s keen interest in energy topics began with his teaching a course on energy and the environment for non-science majors at UCSD. Following his natural instincts to educate, Murphy is eager to get people thinking about the quantitatively convincing case that our pursuit of an ever-bigger scale of life faces gigantic challenges and carries significant risks.
Below is my repost of Tom Murphy’s review of Sir David Attenborough’s new documentary, “A Life on Our Planet.” At the bottom of the repost is a SEE ALSO link to an embedded excerpt from a November 2011 video of a lecture by Murphy.
But first, by way of introduction to Sir David’s new film, here is the Official Trailer.
David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet | Official Trailer | Netflix (2:00-Min)
To read Tom Murphy’s review of this stunning new film, click on the following linked title.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
citizen action monitor, david attenborough, tom murphy, human consumption, fj white,
On a finite planet, maintaining endless economic growth is not a viable option
On a finite planet, maintaining endless economic growth is not a viable option
Cooperative conservatism could help to get us off growth with minimum pain and maximum gain, says Richard Heinberg. —
Richard Heinberg
“Both the U.S. economy and the global economy have expanded dramatically in the past century, as have life expectancies and material progress. Economists raised in this period of plenty assume that growth is good, necessary even, and should continue forever and ever without end, amen. Growth delivers jobs, returns on investment and higher tax revenues. What’s not to like? We’ve gotten so accustomed to growth that governments, corporations and banks now depend on it. It’s no exaggeration to say that we’re collectively addicted to growth. The trouble is, a bigger economy uses more stuff than a smaller one, and we happen to live on a finite planet…. Engineering a happy conclusion to the growth binge of the past century might be challenging. But it’s not impossible. Granted, we’re talking about an unprecedented, coordinated economic shift that would require political will and courage. Perhaps we could think of it as cooperative conservatism (since its goal would be to conserve nature while maximizing mutual aid). It would require a lot of creative thinking on everyone’s part.” — Richard Heinberg, Post Carbon Institute
Richard Heinberg is an American journalist and educator who has written extensively on energy, economic, and ecological issues, including oil depletion. He presently serves as the senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute.
Below is my repost of Richard’s latest contribution delivered with concise clarity and with my added subheadings, text highlighting, selected bulletted formatting, and images. Alternatively, to read his original piece on the Post Carbon Institute’s website, click on the following linked title.
**********
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
“In my analysis, I think we’re headed for a financial recalibration.” — Nate Hagens
“In my analysis, I think we’re headed for a financial recalibration.” — Nate Hagens
We need to plan for a smaller economy, but decision makers see growing the economy as the solution. —
BACKGROUND
1/ In my February 19, 2021 piece, I reposted a report co-authored by 17 scientists that documents, in considerable detail, the evidence of humanity’s existential plight. My repost is titled: Just how bad will future environmental conditions get? In a word, “ghastly!”. The title of the report that I reposted is “Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future”, by Frontiers in Conservation Science, January 13, 2021.
2/ Included at the bottom of my February 19 repost is a link to a 90-minute video titled OMEGA – Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future . This 90-minute video brings together six experts, including two commentators, Bill Rees and Nate Hagens, for a ZOOM discussion of the January 13 report co-authored by the 17 scientists.
3/ Although the hosts of the 90-minute video refer to the event as a “discussion,” I found the format of the proceedings was more along the lines of a Q & A directed at the participants and the two commentators, Bill Rees and Nate Hagens, with very little discussion among the respondents.
4/ Below is my transcript of Nate’s response to the January 13 report, “Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future”.
5/ At the bottom of this post is the 90-minute embedded video of the full ZOOM discussion where you can watch Nate’s opening ten-minute response.
*****
Those who are unfamiliar with Nate Hagen’s work, may, in places, find his choice of words, his phrasing, and his explanations in the transcript conceptually and cognitively challenging. I suggest you skim those and move on to the many passages that are illuminating, thought-provoking and worthy of contemplation.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
If humanity’s critical planetary overshoot is not corrected deliberately, nature will impose a chaotic implosion
If humanity’s critical planetary overshoot is not corrected deliberately, nature will impose a chaotic implosion
“If we wish civilization to continue, human beings must learn to live more equitably, well within the means of nature” – William Rees. —
No 2709 Posted by fw, February 14, 2021 —
“So, if I can just summarize and put the choice before us –.
1/ Climate change is indeed a serious problem. We must deal with it.
2/ But it’s a mere symptom of a much greater disease, which is the generalized overshoot of the human population above and beyond the long-term carrying capacity of Earth. We cannot solve any of these problems in isolation, and doing so would be futile because the others would take us down. They are a collective issue under the umbrella of overshoot.
3/ Well, we are in that critical overshoot, and the present trajectory resembles a plague phase of a one-off population cycle. And if it is not corrected deliberately, it will crash.
4/ We may or may not already be on some critical tipping point, not only in climate but in other ways as well.
5/ In my view, in coming years, there’s no question that the human enterprise will contract.
6/ But, as an intelligent, planning-capable, moral species, we can theoretically make a choice between —
6(a) Insistence on “business as usual”, which risks, in my view, a chaotic implosion imposed by nature, followed by geopolitical turmoil and resource wars;
6(b) Or we can come together as a society, realize the flaws in our currently globally-shared constructed vision of reality, accept what our science is telling us, and, in that context, cooperate internationally toward a well-planned orderly and cooperative descent toward a socially just sustainability for all.
7/ So, human beings must learn — if we wish civilization to continue – to live much more equitably, well within the biophysical carrying capacity, well within the means of nature.” —William Rees
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
NET ZERO — Everyone, from countries to companies, is talking about it – But what does it really mean?
NET ZERO — Everyone, from countries to companies, is talking about it – But what does it really mean?
BEWARE — Turns out that not all Net Zeros are created equal – Some are “greenwashing” with big loopholes to slip through. —
ClimateAdam
“You see, everyone from countries to companies are announcing their net zero targets. But there’s a lot hiding behind this little number. And sometimes net zero can mean nothing at all. Let’s start be looking at this crucial little word: “net”. This simply means that overall emissions have to add to zero. So there still can be some emissions, they just need to be cancelled out by absorptions…say by planting trees to suck carbon out of the air. But not all “net zeroes” are created equal. Some are cast much wider than others. And some have much bigger loopholes to slip through. Take my own country – the UK. Last year, the UK made history by setting a net zero target for all greenhouse gases by [the year] 2050. But don’t celebrate just yet. The fine print shows that the UK is happy to make others do the hard work. The target allows the UK to get other, poorer countries to clean up our mess, absorbing the carbon dioxide that we’re emitting. … But our enthusiasm should have just as many loopholes as the announcements themselves. Because if we’re not working hard to end our emissions, then these announcements really do mean zero.” —ClimateAdam
Below is my repost of an embedded 6-minute video of ClimateAdam’s expose of the fine print and greenwashing accompanying “net zero” pledges of emission reductions by 2050. Accompanying Adam’s brilliant analysis is my transcript of his narrative, some added images, and, at the bottom, an embedded video of Adam’s related flick, “Too Late to Stop Climate Change.”
Alternatively, watch Adam’s video, without my transcript of course, by clicking on the following linked title to his You Tube site.
**********
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
