Academic journal
POPULARITY
10 episodes with Nature Climate Change
3 episodes with Nature Climate Change
6 episodes with Nature Climate Change
3 episodes with Nature Climate Change
9 episodes with Nature Climate Change
3 episodes with Nature Climate Change
2 episodes with Nature Climate Change
2 episodes with Nature Climate Change
8 episodes with Nature Climate Change
En s'envolant dans l'espace avec cinq autres femmes, Katy Perry espérait devenir « un modèle de courage, de mérite et de bravoure ». Espoir déchu pour la chanteuse américaine. Son escapade à cent kilomètres de la Terre, le 14 avril, a davantage été perçue comme un signe de l'irresponsabilité des ultra-riches face au réchauffement climatique. Le bilan de ce voyage de onze minutes, à bord d'une fusée Blue Origin, s'élève à des dizaines de tonnes de CO2 brûlées.L'avalanche de critiques essuyées par la pop star fait écho à celles adressées aux plus fortunés de la planète, pour leur usage régulier de jets privés, entre autres comportements très polluants.Toutefois, les ultra-riches ne sont pas les seuls à détériorer le climat. Une étude publiée le 7 mai, dans la revue Nature Climate Change, affirme que les 10 % les plus aisés au monde sont responsables des deux tiers du réchauffement climatique depuis 1990, et d'une augmentation significative des événements extrêmes. En 2025, ces derniers représentent 820 millions de personnes.Il n'est donc pas nécessaire d'être « ultra » riche pour faire partie des plus gros pollueurs de la planète. En France, par exemple, plus de 50 % des citoyens entrent dans cette catégorie, selon un économiste interrogé par Le Monde, dont le calcul de la richesse se fonde sur les salaires et les autres revenus perçus annuellement.Comment déterminer la responsabilité de la pollution ? Peut-on parler de « dette climatique » des pays riches, du Nord, envers les pays plus pauvres, du Sud ? Et comment réduire les inégalités climatiques ? Dans cet épisode du podcast « L'Heure du Monde », Audrey Garric, journaliste au service planète du Monde, répond à ces questions.Un épisode de Marion Bothorel. Réalisation et musiques originales : Amandine Robillard. Présentation et rédaction en chef : Claire Leys. Dans cet épisode : Extraits d'une vidéo diffusée sur Instagram par Katy Perry le 15 avril et d'un discours de Chandni Raina, déléguée de l'Inde à la COP29 de Bakou (Azerbaïdjan), le 24 novembre 2024.Cet épisode a été publié le 19 mai 2025.---Pour soutenir "L'Heure du Monde" et notre rédaction, abonnez-vous sur abopodcast.lemonde.frQue pensez-vous des podcasts du « Monde » ? Donnez votre avis en répondant à cette enquête. Hébergé par Audion. Visitez https://www.audion.fm/fr/privacy-policy pour plus d'informations.
Estudo recente publicado na Nature Climate Change revela que os 10% mais ricos do mundo são responsáveis por 2/3 da poluição produzida no planeta desde 1990.
Il gruppo militare Hamas ha consegnato un prigioniero, il soldato ventunenne Edan Alexander di cittadinaza israelo-statunitense, dopo una trattativadiretta con gli Stati Uniti. Il Pkk ha deciso ufficialmente di deporre le armi e anche il suo scioglimento, dopo l'appello di febbraio del leader imprigionato Abdullah Ocalan, chiedendo al presidente Erdogan di garantire la pace nel Kurdistan turco. Il 10% dei più ricchi al mondo, cioè circa 800 milioni di persone, ha causato circa il 65% delle emissioni di gas serra degli ultimi 35 anni, conclude uno studio pubblicato su Nature Climate Change. Serena Giacomin, meteorologa, ci racconta del tempo che farà tra un mese, ossia sconosciuto. È molto difficile, infatti, avere delle previsioni per l'estate, nonostante siano molto ricercate. Puoi scriverci a podcast@lifegate.it e trovare tutte le notizie su www.lifegate.it. Rassegna stampa: Il Pkk ha annunciato il suo scioglimento e la fine della lotta armata, Luigi Mastrodonato
Die Themen in den Wissensnachrichten: +++ Jede fünfte Frau und jeder siebte Mann haben in der Kindheit Missbrauch erlebt +++ Neugier beugt Demenz vor +++ Sophia und Noah beliebteste Vornamen +++**********Weiterführende Quellen zu dieser Folge:Prevalence of sexual violence against children and age at first exposure: a global analysis by location, age, and sex (1990–2023)/ The Lancet, 07.05.2025Curiosity across the adult lifespan: Age-related differences in state and trait curiosity/ Plos One, 07.05.2025Conclave: the chemistry behind the black and white smoke/ The Conversation, 07.05.2025High-income groups disproportionately contribute to climate extremes worldwide/ Nature Climate Change, 07.05.2025No acceleration of recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage after cold or hot water immersion in women: A randomised controlled trial/ Plos One, 07.05.2025Alle Quellen findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .
Si les effets de la chaleur sur le corps humain sont bien connus — déshydratation, épuisement, insolation — ses répercussions sur la santé mentale le sont beaucoup moins. Pourtant, plusieurs études scientifiques, dont une très récente publiée en avril 2025 dans Nature Climate Change par une équipe de l'Université de Sydney, confirment que le réchauffement climatique ne menace pas uniquement notre environnement, mais aussi notre équilibre psychique.Cette étude australienne a analysé les données de plus de 2 millions de personnes sur une période de 15 ans, croisant les épisodes de fortes chaleurs avec les statistiques hospitalières liées aux troubles mentaux. Résultat : à chaque hausse anormale de la température, les admissions pour crises d'angoisse, troubles de l'humeur, insomnies sévères ou épisodes psychotiques augmentent significativement — jusqu'à 14 % dans certaines régions exposées aux canicules prolongées.Comment expliquer ce phénomène ? D'abord, la chaleur perturbe notre sommeil, ce qui joue un rôle central dans la stabilité émotionnelle. L'élévation de la température corporelle empêche l'endormissement et rend les nuits fragmentées. Or, le manque de sommeil favorise l'irritabilité, les troubles anxieux et les troubles dépressifs.Ensuite, la chaleur affecte directement le fonctionnement du cerveau. L'hypothalamus, qui régule la température corporelle, entre en tension lorsqu'il fait très chaud. Cela influence la libération de neurotransmetteurs comme la sérotonine ou la dopamine, essentiels à la régulation de l'humeur. Une altération de ces substances peut aggraver des pathologies psychiatriques préexistantes ou en déclencher chez des personnes vulnérables.Par ailleurs, les périodes de chaleur extrême sont souvent associées à une augmentation des comportements impulsifs ou violents. Une étude de 2013 par l'université de Berkeley avait déjà montré que les conflits interpersonnels (disputes, agressions, violences domestiques) augmentaient avec la température. Cette tendance pourrait s'expliquer par une baisse du seuil de tolérance au stress, combinée à l'inconfort thermique.Le stress thermique, enfin, agit comme un facteur chronique d'anxiété. Lorsqu'il devient récurrent, il peut accentuer un sentiment de perte de contrôle ou d'insécurité, d'autant plus chez les personnes déjà fragilisées (personnes âgées, précaires, malades chroniques). Ce stress est aussi alimenté par une éco-anxiété croissante, liée aux inquiétudes face au changement climatique et à ses conséquences futures.En somme, la chaleur ne se contente pas d'échauffer nos corps : elle fragilise nos esprits. Le lien entre température et santé mentale devrait devenir une priorité de santé publique, surtout dans un monde qui se réchauffe. Prévoir des espaces climatisés accessibles, repenser l'urbanisme ou intégrer ces enjeux dans la psychiatrie sont autant de pistes cruciales pour faire face à cette menace invisible mais bien réelle. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.
En à peine 70 ans, la teneur en vitamines, minéraux et antioxydants de nos fruits et légumes a nettement diminué. Une tendance confirmée par de nombreuses études, dont l'une des plus citées est celle du Dr Donald Davis, biochimiste à l'Université du Texas, publiée en 2004 dans le Journal of the American College of Nutrition. En comparant les données nutritionnelles de 43 légumes et fruits entre 1950 et 1999, l'étude a révélé des baisses significatives : -6 % en protéines, -16 % en calcium, -9 % en phosphore, -15 % en fer et jusqu'à -38 % en vitamine B2.Mais à quoi est due cette perte de qualité nutritionnelle ?1. L'agriculture intensive et la sélection variétaleDepuis les années 1950, les variétés agricoles ont été sélectionnées avant tout pour leur rendement, leur croissance rapide, leur résistance au transport et leur aspect esthétique, souvent au détriment de leur densité nutritionnelle. Ce phénomène, appelé effet de dilution, signifie que plus une plante pousse vite et produit de masse, moins elle concentre de nutriments dans ses tissus. Autrement dit : des tomates plus grosses, mais moins riches.2. L'appauvrissement des solsL'usage massif d'engrais chimiques a favorisé une production rapide, mais a aussi déséquilibré les sols, souvent privés de microéléments essentiels. Or, un sol pauvre produit des végétaux pauvres. Les rotations de cultures limitées, le labour excessif et la monoculture réduisent encore davantage la richesse biologique du sol, privant les plantes de nutriments qu'elles devraient absorber naturellement.3. La récolte précoce et la conservationDe nombreux fruits et légumes sont récoltés avant maturité, pour supporter les longs trajets ou la conservation. Or, c'est en fin de maturation que la concentration en antioxydants et en vitamines atteint son maximum. De plus, les méthodes de conservation (réfrigération, atmosphère modifiée) peuvent entraîner une dégradation progressive des nutriments.4. Le changement climatiqueDes travaux récents publiés dans Nature Climate Change montrent que l'augmentation du CO₂ atmosphérique stimule la croissance végétale, mais dilue certains nutriments, notamment le zinc, le fer et les protéines dans les céréales et les légumineuses. Une tendance préoccupante à l'échelle mondiale.Conclusion :Nos fruits et légumes sont moins nutritifs non parce qu'ils sont "pires", mais parce que les méthodes de culture modernes privilégient la quantité à la qualité. Ce constat relance l'intérêt pour des pratiques agricoles plus durables, des variétés anciennes, et la consommation locale et de saison. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.
In dieser Ausgabe von KLIMANEWS geht es um die 1,5 Grad Grenze sowie 20 Jahre Kyoto-Protokoll und was es heute noch bedeutet. Zum Schluss gibt es noch 4 Tipps wie du Klimamythen entkräften kannst. Das alles in dieser Folge KLIMANEWS am Mittwoch, den 19. Februar 2025.Für Feedback zu dieser Folge NEU NEU NEU hier entlang!Weiterlesen: Bill Hare: Reaching the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C limit: are we there yet? (Climate Analytics) Emanuele Bevacqua, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Jakob Zacheischler: A year above 1.5 °C signals that Earth is most probably within the 20-year period that will reach the Paris Agreement limit | Nature Climate Change (nature climate change) Clemens Haug: Studien: Wir betreten eine 1,5 Grad wärmere Welt – jetzt! | MDR.DE (mdr) Umweltbundesamt: Kyoto-Protokoll | Umweltbundesamt Nick Reimer: 20 Jahre internationaler Klimaschutz: Uneingelöste Verpflichtung | taz.de (taz)Alexandra Endres: Fake News: Wie Falschinformationen zur Energiepolitik den Wahlkampf beeinflussen (table media)
A paper in the journal Nature Climate Change concludes there is limited accountability for corporations that fail to achieve their climate change mitigation targets. The analysis shows 9% of company decarbonization plans missed their goals, while 31% “disappeared.” However, 60% of companies met their targets. While this might initially seem like good news, it may not be leading to genuine climate action. This week's podcast guest, Ketan Joshi, a consultant and researcher for nonprofit organizations in the climate sector, explains that many corporations are not actually decarbonizing their supply chains, but rather relying on buying renewable energy certificates and carbon credits to "offset" additional carbon emissions from their business. While carbon offsets are often touted as a way to directly fund climate action on the ground, Joshi stresses there is no verifiable way to track how much is funding these projects. Typically, credits are purchased from a broker, and 90% of these intermediaries arranging such deals on the voluntary carbon market don't share their data. Subscribe to or follow the Mongabay Newscast wherever you listen to podcasts, from Apple to Spotify, and you can also listen to all episodes here on the Mongabay website. Image Credit: The 2015 Paris Agreement stipulates that countries must reduce carbon emissions in order to limit warming to 1.5°C, or at least well below 2°C. Image by jwvein via Pixabay (Public domain). ---- Timestamps (00:00) Are companies actually decarbonizing? (16:06) The rise of climate litigation (31:00) Carbon removal tech as an offset (42:00) What is GreenSky? (50:38) Credits
Die Themen in den Wissensnachrichten: +++ In europäischen Ländern gibt es mehr Geschlechtskrankheits-Fälle +++ Weltweiter Temperaturanstieg 2024 war ziemlich sicher keine Ausnahme +++ Mensch hat Schädelform von Hausschweinen verändert +++**********Weiterführende Quellen zu dieser Folge:STI cases continue to rise across Europe, ECDC, 10.02.2025A year above 1.5 °C signals that Earth is most probably within the 20-year period that will reach the Paris Agreement limit, Nature Climate Change, 10.02.2025Roma Eterna? Roman rule explains regional well-being divides in Germany, Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, Vol. 8, 2025Vergütung im deutschen Markt für Musikstreaming, Forschungsnetzwerk Digitale Kultur, 2025Evolution under intensive industrial breeding: skull size and shape comparison between historic and modern pig lineages, Royal Society Open Science, 05.02.2025Alle Quellen findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok auf&ab , TikTok wie_geht und Instagram .
A little bit of scratching can do some good, but too much can hurtScratching an itch can feel great, so scientists decided to dig into why that is the case since we know too much scratching isn't good for us. Dr. Dan Kaplan, a professor of dermatology and immunology at the University of Pittsburgh, said they found that scratching drives inflammation to the skin, which, in light moderation, helps to fight bacterial skin infections. But he warns that continual or excessive scratching can prolong an itch and potentially damage the skin. Their study is in the journal Science. Bear hazing goes high-tech with dronesA wildlife manager in the US has found that drones can be a safe and effective way to discourage problem bears from troubling human habitation and livestock. Wesley Sarmento started working in the prairies of Montana to prevent bear-human conflicts, but found the usual tricks of the trade were not as effective as he wanted them to be. Previously he tried to use noisemakers, dogs, trucks, and firearms, but buzzing bears with flying robots turned out to work much better. Now a PhD student at the University of Montana, he published an article about his hazing research in Frontiers in Conservation Science.Ants can remember and hold grudges against those who trouble themWhen ants fight with those from another nearby colony, it makes an impression. A new study has found the insects can remember the chemical signature of the aggressors, and will respond more vigorously and violently the next time they cross paths. Dr. Volker Nehring, a researcher at the University of Freiburg, Germany, describes the phenomenon as “the nasty neighbour" where ants are most aggressive to ant colonies closest to them, and says this is due to resource protection. Dr Nehring and his team's research was published in the journal Current Biology.Scientists on the front line of permafrost thaw describe changes in the Arctic The acceleration of change in the Arctic due to global warming is transforming the landscape on a year-to-year basis, often in surprising ways. That's according to scientists who've been studying the effects of climate change in the North. One study found that lakes in Western Greenland shifted from pristine blue to dirty brown from one year to the next due to increased permafrost melting and runoff. Jasmine Saros, a lake ecologist from the University of Maine, said they were astonished by the magnitude of change they saw in all 10 lakes they studied and how quickly it happened. That study was published in the journal PNAS. We also speak with William Quinton, a permafrost hydrologist from Wilfred Laurier University and the director of the Scotty Creek Research Station in southern Northwest Territories, an area he describes as “the frontline of permafrost thaw.” Quinton was part of a research team, led by Anna Virkkala from the Woodwell Climate Research Centre, that found that 34 per cent of the Arctic Boreal Zone — a region where carbon was safely locked up in the permafrost for thousands of years — has now become a carbon source. That study is in the journal Nature Climate Change.
As notícias relacionadas ao meio ambiente costumam não ser das mais animadoras – e em 2024, não foi diferente. Com os alertas sobre o aquecimento global, as mudanças do clima e a degradação da biodiversidade cada vez mais graves, parece difícil olhar para o futuro com otimismo – mas o ano que chega ao fim também foi marcado por uma série de fatos positivos. Lúcia Müzell, da RFI em ParisNo Brasil, em meio a catástrofes como as enchentes históricas no Rio Grande do Sul ou a seca recorde na Amazônia, a notícia da forte redução do desmatamento traz esperança. Os últimos dados oficiais, revelados em novembro pelo Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (Inpe), apontam para uma queda anual de 30,6% do desmate da Amazônia em relação ao período anterior, entre 2022 e 2023. Foi o melhor resultado em nove anos, no bioma. Já no Cerrado, a diminuição foi de 25,7%.A ministra do Meio Ambiente, Marina Silva, celebrou os avanços, mas indicou que muito ainda resta a ser feito. “É claro que quando você faz um esforço e consegue um resultado significativo, cada vez mais os esforços vão ficando mais complexos, mais difíceis. Nós ainda temos muito o que evitar de desmatamento até alcançarmos o desmatamento zero. Esse é um esforço em equipe: 19 ministérios trabalhando juntos, e cada vez mais, daqui para a frente, vamos precisar dos ministérios da dinâmica do desenvolvimento, olhando para agricultura, a energia, o transporte”, salientou. “É isso que vai fazer com que o desmatamento tenha uma queda consistente, e não apenas por ação de comando e controle. Mas é muito animador e gratificante verificar que, mesmo com todas as dificuldades, é possível ter política pública que faça o enfrentamento. É assim que quem não é negacionista faz política pública.”Os dados fortalecem a posição do Brasil como presidente da próxima Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre as Mudanças Climáticas, a COP30, que acontecerá em 2025 na cidade de Belém, no Pará. Trinta e três anos depois da Rio92, o país estará de novo no centro das atenções nas negociações climáticas. Na COP30, os países deverão estabelecer novos objetivos de redução de gases de efeito estufa, que causam o aquecimento anormal do planeta.Brasileira à frente da Autoridade Internacional dos Fundos MarinhosNo ano que passou, a atuação do Brasil na diplomacia ambiental rendeu frutos: em agosto, a oceanógrafa e diplomata Leticia Carvalho foi eleita secretária-executiva da Autoridade Internacional dos Fundos Marinhos (ISA), braço das Nações Unidas sobre o tema. A sua nomeação trouxe um vento de renovação à entidade, que estava com a credibilidade atingida pela gestão do secretário-executivo anterior.Leia também‘Relevância' de minerais do fundo mar para a transição será decidida pelos países, diz brasileira na ONULeticia Carvalho tem à frente um desafio histórico: obter o consenso dos 168 membros da ISA para a definição de um código da mineração no fundo do mar, já no seu primeiro ano de mandato. Mais de 30 países, como Brasil, França, Suécia ou Guatemala, exigem uma moratória completa das prospecções nessas imensas áreas submarinas, enquanto o impacto ambiental da atividade não for esclarecido pela ciência, de modo independente. Do outro lado, o lobby industrial tem pressa.“Certamente vou levantar-me na defesa de um secretariado muito mais ativo, que busque preencher as lacunas de informação existentes entre os diferentes Estados-membros, ajudando-os a tomar decisões informadas sobre a mineração em água profunda”, disse Carvalho à RFI, em setembro. “No que diz respeito a essas áreas além da jurisdição nacional, eu queria ressaltar que é responsabilidade primária dos Estados decidir coletivamente a melhor forma de equilibrar necessidades de proteção e preservação do meio ambiente marinho e o interesse do uso comercial dos recursos do leito marinho. Não houve mudança no cronograma até agora, então estamos todos observando e trabalhando no sentido da conclusão em 2025”, apontou.“Vovós pelo clima” têm vitória judicial inéditaEssas negociações internacionais costumam ser lentas e causam apreensão e revolta nas populações atingidas pelas mudanças do clima, que não esperam para avançar. Em 2024, o planeta bateu, de novo, o recorde de ano mais quente já registrado e, pela primeira vez, o mundo experimentou o que significa ter temperaturas 1,5C acima das medições no período pré-industrial. Este é o limite de aquecimento que o Acordo de Paris busca garantir – mas, para isso, os países precisarão fazer a sua parte.Um grupo de idosas suíças decidiu cobrar na justiça que o pequeno país europeu faça mais para combater as mudanças do clima, e teve uma vitória inédita. Em abril, a Suíça foi condenada por inação climática e violação dos direitos humanos pelo Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos. A sentença gera jurisprudência e aumenta a pressão sobre os 46 Estados membros do Conselho da Europa.A Corte em Estrasburgo considerou que Berna não está respeitando os seus compromissos assumidos nos acordos internacionais sobre o tema. As 2,5 mil “vovós suíças”, reunidas no coletivo Idosas pelo Clima, alegaram que o aquecimento global já atinge a sua saúde e as ondas de calor, mais frequentes, as colocam em risco de morte.Anne Mahrer, copresidente da entidade, prometeu manter a pressão para a Suíça aplicar a decisão. Entre as medidas necessárias, ela cita a redução do impacto ambiental da construção civil e dos transportes e o fim das energias fosseis, mas também “visar a atuação do sistema financeiro, que continua financiando essas indústrias poluentes”.“São 300 páginas onde está escrito muito claramente tudo que é preciso colocar em prática e que não é feito. Um país como a Suíça não ter orçamento climático, nem objetivos claros para chegar à neutralidade de carbono em 2050, é inacreditável”, disse Mahrer à RFI, em abril. “Um país rico, industrializado há tantas décadas, deveria ser exemplar – e não é. Quem paga mais caro são os países do sul, que menos contribuíram para a catástrofe”, complementou.Reino Unido abandona a energia a carvãoEntre as economias ricas, o Reino Unido deu um exemplo importante: tornou-se o primeiro a se livrar da energia a carvão. A primeira termelétrica do mundo foi aberta justamente em Londres, em 1882. Agora, o país inova mais uma vez ao ser pioneiro no fim da energia mais poluente.A central de Ratcliffe-on-Soar será desmantelada antes do fim da década, para dar lugar a um "centro de energia e tecnologia livre de carbono". O fechamento é um passo fundamental para o cumprimento da promessa britânica de chegar em 2030 com 100% da energia neutra em emissões de CO2 e equivalentes, responsáveis pelo aumento anormal da temperatura na Terra. Até os anos 1980, o carvão representava 70% do aporte de eletricidade do país, mas caiu drasticamente a partir dos anos 2010 – graças, em um primeiro momento, à substituição pelo gás natural do Mar do Norte e, depois, por centrais eólicas e solares.Essa virada foi resultado da Lei de Energia do governo do então primeiro-ministro conservador David Cameron, que limitou a atratividade dos investimentos em fontes fósseis, em especial o carvão, ao mesmo tempo em que estimulou a produção de energias limpas. Hoje, o gás – das fontes fósseis, a menos poluente – representa cerca de um terço da matriz energética britânica. Outro terço vem do petróleo e o restante é dividido entre nuclear e renováveis (17%).“O uso do carvão é problemático na maior parte dos países do mundo, principalmente nos do G20, onde a Índia e a China ainda dependem muito dele. Os Estados Unidos o substituíram por gás natural, mas eles tinham 40% de matriz de carvão, que por sinal é a média mundial. O carvão ainda é muito presente, é uma fonte barata de energia e vai ser uma dificuldade grande continuar tirá-lo de vários desses países”, antecipa Ricardo Baitelo, gerente de projetos do Instituto de Energia e Meio Ambiente (IEMA), de São Paulo, e doutor em planejamento energético.Na cúpula do G7 deste ano, as sete economias mais desenvolvidas do globo se comprometeram a eliminar estas usinas até 2035.Outra boa notícia é que, na China, de longe a maior emissora de CO2 do planeta, mais de um quarto da energia consumida já é de fontes descarbonizadas – ou seja, renováveis e nuclear. Um relatório apresentado por Pequim informou que, na última década, estas fontes passaram de 15,5% para 26,4% do mix energético chinês. O país promete estabilizar ou começar a diminuir as suas emissões em 2030.Ansiedade climática abala confiança no futuro, mas pode mover açãoNo cenário global, o ritmo da transição para uma economia de baixo carbono caminha a passos lentos demais, diante do problema. Nas conferências ambientais deste ano, as cifras de financiamento climático oferecidas para os países em desenvolvimento enfrentarem as mudanças do clima decepcionaram. Os países não conseguiram chegar a um consenso sobre como implementar medidas para preservar a biodiversidade ou evitar o aumento das secas, que elevam os riscos de desertificação dos solos. Também adiaram a adoção de um tratado mundial para evitar a poluição por plásticos.Este contexto leva milhões de pessoas pelo mundo, principalmente as próximas gerações, a sofrerem do que a ciência já classifica como “ecoansiedade” ou “ansiedade climática”: o impacto da crise do clima na saúde mental. Um estudo de referência de 2021 da revista Lancet indicou que quase 60% dos jovens interrogados em 10 países, entre eles o Brasil, sentem-se preocupados ou extremamente preocupados com o futuro em um mundo mais quente. Outra pesquisa, publicada por cientistas da Yale-NUS College, em Singapura, revelou o quanto essa preocupação afeta os planos dos jovens de terem filhos.O coordenador do Núcleo de Estudos e Pesquisa em Trauma e Estresse (Nepte) da PUC do Rio Grande do Sul, Christian Kristensen, trabalhou no apoio psicológico às vítimas das enchentes no Estado este ano, em uma das catástrofes climáticas mais graves já vistas no Brasil.“Já há alguns levantamentos iniciais para mapear a ocorrência desses problemas na população gaúcha, mas há também muitos estudos internacionais, em outras situações de enchentes, que nos sinalizam que esses problemas podem persistir 12, 24 ou até 36 meses”, afirma. “Quando a gente passa por evento climático extremo, isso obviamente mexe muito com as pessoas e pode até alterar a perspectiva de futuro. Isso está relacionado ao aumento das manifestações de ansiedade climática”, observa o professor da PUCRS.Alguns pesquisadores sobre o tema avaliam que a ecoansiedade é um motor de ação: quem não se preocupa não muda os seus hábitos, nem batalha para que os avanços no enfrentamento do problema sejam maiores. Mas, ao mesmo tempo, Kristensen salienta a importância do acesso a informações positivas em meio a um assunto marcado por más notícias.“Quando nós estamos num certo grau de ansiedade significa que nos importamos e isso pode nos mover positivamente na vida. Pode impulsionar a pessoa a se engajar em ações sociais, comunitárias. O problema é quando ela se torna algo tenso, paralisante, e acaba trazendo sofrimento e muitos prejuízos na vida da pessoa”, diz o especialista em trauma.“Existem vários exemplos, e é importante as pessoas saberem e os veículos de comunicação divulgarem, os exemplos positivos tanto de ações individuais, quanto coletivas, comunitárias, que podem transformar esse sentimento de ansiedade e preocupação em uma coisa muito positiva, ao criar um senso de coletividade, de pertencimento”, ressalta Kristensen. “É muito importante a gente se dar conta de que é óbvio que a ação humana sobre o clima é algo inegável, mas nós ainda temos possibilidades de ter ações transformadoras.”Fim de plásticos na África, camada de ozônio se recuperandoOutras boas notícias para o meio ambiente em 2024 no ano foram que a Austrália proibiu a exploração de uma reserva de urânio, uma das maiores do mundo, situada sob uma zona do povo aborígene Mirrar. A reserva fica nas proximidades do Parque Nacional de Kakadu, tombado patrimônio mundial da humanidade.A Nigéria, potência africana, adotou o fim dos plásticos descartáveis na capital, Lagos. Desde janeiro, os comerciantes são obrigados a oferecer alternativas reutilizáveis às sacolas plásticas, por exemplo. Medidas como esta se generalizam pelo continente, onde 34 países já adotaram algum tipo de proibição ou legislação para limitar os plásticos, derivados do petróleo.Leia tambémPor que apenas 9% dos plásticos no mundo são reciclados?Pelo mundo, também proliferaram as iniciativas para controlar o turismo de massa, fonte de poluição e emissões de CO2. De Veneza ao Himalaia, passando por Barcelona, diversas cidades adotaram medidas para compensar o efeito nefasto do turismo excessivo para o meio ambiente.E uma notícia animadora sobre a atmosfera: a concentração do gás HCFC, utilizado em aerossóis e na refrigeração, está baixando mais rapidamente do que os cientistas previam. Um relatório da universidade de Bristol, publicano na revista Nature Climate Change, mostrou que o cumprimento dos compromissos internacionais para reduzir o uso deste gás, nocivo para a camada de ozônio que protege a Terra do sol, resultou em um verdadeiro sucesso.O caso ilustra o quanto a cooperação internacional é fundamental para a preservação da vida no planeta. Segundo as últimas estimativas do Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente (Pnuma), publicadas em 2023, a camada de ozônio, alvo de um protocolo de proteção adotado em 1987, deve se reconstituir plenamente nas próximas quatro décadas.
Mad Agriculture is a credit fund (think bank) that lends to farmers converting farmland to regenerative practices, at a profitable spread. Their mission is to help farmers and ranchers thrive ecologically and economically. They work on-the-ground with producers to create Regenerative Farm Plans, and don't shy away from dreaming big about the ecological, social and economic potential of regenerative farming. They are healing landscapes that have been mismanaged and need love, care, and stewardship. Philip Taylor, Ph.D., is the Executive Director of Mad Agriculture. He co-founded the organization in 2016 with his life partner, Nicole Brinks, to reimagine and restore our relationship to the land, sea, and each other through good agriculture. Philip's work has been published in numerous journals, including Nature, Nature Climate Change, and Ecology, and he has diverse international experience in both private and public sectors, having led research and business efforts throughout North America, Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. Brandon Welch is on a mission to create a regenerative revolution in agriculture. In late 2017, he helped launch Mad! to help farmers transition their land to regenerative organic agriculture by providing agronomic and business planning support, building new crop markets, and providing access to aligned capital. Brandon led the launch of Perennial Fund I and Mad Capital, which is now working with farmers on over 79,000 acres in 15 states in the US, on track to transition 10,000 acres of land to certified organic. He manages the Mad Capital team and works actively across the company, spanning sales, credit, operations, asset management, fundraising, and strategic planning.
Dear listeners, It is with a little heart pinch that we are back in the studio one last time to welcome our last guest this season, Chloé. In her thesis, Chloé studied how considerations of justice - across different dimensions and definitions of justice - are taken into account in planned relocation policies. Across two case studies in Europe, Chloe explores how, in the face of reoccurring floods, governments have organized the relocation of entire communities who were at risk, and what measures can be adopted to make these processes more fair. After taking time to understand the impacts of floods and the various adaptation responses available, we focus on planned relocation. Using Chloé's two case studies, we explore the intricacies of these policies, their impacts on different populations, and how to minimize the latter. We also explore the very notion and definition of justice in those contexts, as well as how to tangibly - and ideally - integrate them into policymaking. Here is Chloé's LinkedIn if you want to connect with her. And here are the resources she recommends on the topic: And here are the resources she recommends on the topic: Siders, A. R., Hino, M., & Mach, K. J. (2019). The case for strategic and managed climate retreat. Science, 365(6455), 761–763. Hino, M., Field, C. B., & Mach, K. J. (2017). Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nature Climate Change, 7(5), Article 5. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford University Press. Wienhues, A. (2020). Ecological Justice and the Extinction Crisis. Bristol University Press. Bower, E. R., & Weerasinghe, S. (2021). Global Mapping: Leaving Place, Restoring Home. Disaster Displacement. (Link here) As always, stay curious - and thank you so much for following us in our intellectual exploration this semester!
La ville d'Alameda, en Californie, pourrait relancer son projet controversé d'éclaircissement des nuages, un procédé visant à refroidir le climat en diffusant de l'eau salée dans l'air. Une étude publiée dans *Nature Climate Change* (21 juin 2024) et relayée par *The Guardian* éclaire ce débat en révélant les effets potentiels de cette technologie. Des chercheurs de l'université de Californie à San Diego et du Centre national de recherche atmosphérique au Colorado ont utilisé des modèles climatiques pour simuler l'impact d'ensemencements de nuages en deux zones : au large de la Californie et en Alaska.Les résultats sont frappants. Dans les conditions de 2010, ensemencer les nuages en Alaska réduirait de 55 % les risques de vagues de chaleur sur la côte ouest américaine, contre seulement 16 % pour l'opération californienne. Mais dans le climat projeté pour 2050, ces bénéfices s'effondrent. Avec moins de nuages, des températures plus élevées et un ralentissement des courants marins de l'Atlantique (AMOC), l'intervention en Alaska n'aurait plus qu'un effet limité. Plus inquiétant encore, l'ensemencement proche de la Californie risquerait d'amplifier la chaleur, inverse de l'effet recherché.Le problème va au-delà des côtes américaines : dans le contexte actuel, l'Europe pourrait aussi bénéficier d'un refroidissement grâce aux nuages ensemencés dans le Pacifique Nord. Mais d'ici 2050, cette même intervention pourrait entraîner un stress thermique global, notamment en Europe, aggravé par le ralentissement de l'AMOC. Jessica Wan, co-auteure de l'étude, résume : « L'éclaircissement des nuages marins peut être efficace pour la côte ouest des États- Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.
Die Themen in den Wissensnachrichten +++ Vor mehr als drei Milliarden Jahren brachte ein Killer-Meteorit auch einen Aufschwung für Lebensformen +++ Hilft Loslaufen dabei, im Regen trockener zu bleiben? +++ Spielfilme können Empathie fördern +++**********Weiterführende Quellen zu dieser Folge:Effect of a giant meteorite impact on Paleoarchean surface environments and life. PNAS, 21.10.2024Walk or run in the rain? A physics-based approached to staying dry (or at least getting less wet). The Conversation, 20.10.2024Global burned area increasingly explained by climate change. Nature Climate Change, 21.10.2024Attributing human mortality from fire PM2.5 to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 21.10.2024Film intervention increases empathic understanding of formerly incarcerated people and support for criminal justice reform. PNAS, 21.10.2024Alle Quellen findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: Tiktok, Tiktok und Instagram.
In 2015, 196 countries signed the Paris Agreement, a legally binding treaty with the goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.Since then, climate planning has increasingly revolved around overshooting this target, with the hope that temperature levels can be brought back down in later decades. Temperature overshoot models are now the default, but also a cause of scientific concern, as the devastating impacts of crossing this threshold may not be reversible. In their new book Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown, Andreas Malm and Wim Carton study this risky approach to policy, and the economic interests that they theorise have led to it. Alasdair spoke to them both about the new book. Andreas Malm is Associate Professor of Human Ecology at Lund University, and the celebrated author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline, among other works. Wim Carton is Associate Professor of Sustainability Science at Lund University, and the author of over 20 academic articles and book chapters on climate politics.Further reading: Buy Overshoot from Verso Books'The overshoot myth: you can't keep burning fossil fuels and expect scientists of the future to get us back to 1.5°C', The Conversation, August 2024'Why Carbon Capture and Storage matters: overshoot, models, and money', Land & Climate Review, 2022'What does the IPCC say about carbon removal?', Land & Climate Review, 2022'Global warming overshoots increase risks of climate tipping cascades in a network model', Nature Climate Change, 2022'Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate', Nature Climate Change, 2021'Carbon Unicorns and Fossil Futures: Whose Emission Reduction Pathways Is the IPCC Performing?', in Has It Come to This? The Promises and Perils of Geoengineering on the Brink, 2020How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire, Verso Books, 2020Click here to read our investigation into the UK biomass supply chain, or watch a clip from the BBC Newsnight documentary.
In hour 1 of The Chris and Amy Show, Amy tells Chris why she thinks that MLS soccer is "Un-American", and they sit down with leader author of Nature Climate Change study on hydrochlorofluorocarbons Luke Western to detail how climate change has become such a controversial topic recently.
Die Themen in den Wissensnachrichten: +++ Tauender Permafrost ist kein Kippelement im Klimasystem +++ Mr. Spocks Planet existiert nicht +++ Mehrheit der Deutschen hat keine Warnapp +++**********Weiterführende Quellen zu dieser Folge:No respite from permafrost-thaw impacts in the absence of a global tipping point, Nature Climate Change, 3.6. 2024The Death of Vulcan: NEID Reveals That the Planet Candidate Orbiting HD 26965 Is Stellar Activity, The Astronomical Journal, 26.4. 2024Haben Sie auf Ihrem Mobiltelefon eine Warnapp, wie NINA oder KATWARN, aktiviert, die Menschen vor Gefahrensituationen, beispielsweise Hochwasser oder Extremwetter, warnt?, YouGov, 3.6. 2024Onset of the Earth's hydrological cycle four billion years ago or earlier, Nature Geoscience, 3.6. 2024Iridescent harvestmen (Arachnida: Opiliones: Sclerosomatidae) from the Eocene of Messel, Germany, Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, 27.5. 2024Alle Quellen findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: Tiktok und Instagram.
Sabre tooth cats had baby-tooth backupThe fearsome canines of saber-toothed cats were terrific weapons for stabbing unfortunate prey, but their impressive length also made them vulnerable to breakage. A new study by University of California, Berkeley associate professor Jack Tseng suggests adolescent California saber-toothed cat kept their baby teeth to buttress the adult sabers, and reinforce them while cats learned to hunt. This research was published in The Anatomical Record.Global warming could swallow Antarctic meteoritesOver 60 per cent of all meteorites found on Earth are discovered in Antarctica, embedded in the ice. But a new study published in Nature Climate Change cautions that the warming temperatures are causing the dark space rocks to sink below the surface before researchers can get to them. Glaciologist Veronica Tollenaar, who is the lead author of this study, says it's important to collect as many of these meteorites as possible to avoid losing the insights they provide about the space around us. This worm's eyes are bigger than its — everythingA pair of high-functioning eyes is perhaps not something you would associate with the various worm species on our planet. But down in the depths of the Mediterranean sea lives a small, translucent worm with alien-looking eyes that weigh more than twenty times as much as the rest of its head. Now, a group of vision researchers have found that their size is not just for show. Their vision works about as well as that of some mammals. Michael Bok, a researcher in the Lund Vision Group at Lund University in Sweden, said they may be using it to detect prey at night. They report their findings in the journal Current Biology. We're breathing out an environment in which respiratory viruses may thriveOne of the questions that's been raised by the COVID-19 pandemic is just what conditions allow viruses carried in aerosol droplets to survive and spread. A new study in the Journal of The Royal Society Interface found that a CO2 rich environment — like a crowded room with poor ventilation — makes the aerosol particles more acidic, which allows the virus to remain stable and survive longer. Allen Haddrell, a Canadian aerovirologist at the University of Bristol, said this means that CO2 levels don't just tell you how well ventilated a room is, but it also tell how healthy the virus is in that air. Why an essential subatomic particle plays the fieldThe detection of the Higgs boson particle by the Large Hadron Collider in 2012 was one of the great moments for modern physics. But while many celebrated the discovery of the “God Particle,” physicist Matt Strassler was a bit frustrated by the way the particle discovery overshadowed what he said was truly important for our understanding of the universe: not the Higgs particle, but the Higgs field. In his new book called, Waves in an Impossible Sea: How Everyday Life Emerges from the Cosmic Ocean, he explains how the Higgs field literally makes the universe — and our place in it — what it is today. Listener Question — Do mated animals reject others crashing their relationships?We hear the answer from Sarah Jamieson, a behavioural ecologist and assistant professor at Trent University.
[Versión estendida] Un recente estudo publicado en Nature Climate Change atopou que un 69% da poboación mundial estaría disposta a achegar o 1% dos seus ingresos para mitigar o cambio climático. Son fiable estas enquisas? Que papel xoga a economía na loita contra o cambio climático? Conversamos coa catedrática de Análise Económica da USC María Loureiro, directora científica de ECOBAS, especialista en economía ambiental.
(2:32) Lucia Martín Cacheda da MBG-CSIC estuda os compostos volátiles orgánicos que emiten as diferentes familias de plantas da pataca para alertaren ás súas veciñas cando son atacadas . (15:29) Un recente estudo publicado en Nature Climate Change atopou que un 69% da poboación mundial estaría disposta a achegar o 1% dos seus ingresos para mitigar o cambio climático. Son fiable estas enquisas? Que papel xoga a economía na loita contra o cambio climático? Conversamos coa catedrática de Análise Económica da USC María Loureiro, directora científica de ECOBAS, especialista en economía ambiental. (44:30) Susana Ladra preséntanos o fito da computación a exaescala.
Philip Taylor, Ph.D. is the Executive Director of Mad Agriculture. He co-founded the organization in 2016 with his life partner, Nicole Brinks, to reimagine and restore our relationship to the land, sea, and each other through good agriculture. Prior to founding Mad Ag, Philip was a career global ecologist who specialized in ecosystem and soil carbon cycling. His research ranged widely, from understanding soil ecology and ecosystem biogeochemistry to exploring solutions to the sustainability challenges of agriculture. Philip's work has been published in numerous journals, including Nature, Nature Climate Change, and Ecology, and he has diverse international experience in both private and public sectors, having led research and business efforts throughout North America, Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. Now, he is bringing his entire being into Mad Agriculture—his life's work, until he returns to the soil. Links: Phil on Linkedin Mad Agriculture Mad Markets Sponsor: This episode is presented by Local Line. Learn more HERE. Check out our interview with Cole.
Die Themen in den Wissensnachrichten: +++ Indigene Gemeinschaften ohne Geld haben hohe Zufriedenheits-Werte +++ Viele Menschen wollen mehr Infos zu Klimabilanz von Lebensmitteln +++ Blaue Augen sind vielleicht ein Vorteil, wenn es dunkler ist +++**********Weiterführende Quellen zu dieser Folge:High life satisfaction reported among small-scale societies with low incomes, PNAS, 5.2.2024Jung. Kritisch. Demokratisch, Bertelsmann-Stiftung, 6.2.2024300 years of sclerosponge thermometry shows global warming has exceeded 1.5 °C, Nature Climate Change, 5.2.2024AOK-Umfrage zur klimafreundlichen Ernährung: Der Wille ist da, aber es fehlt das Wissen, AOK, 6.2.2024Associations of dietary intake and longitudinal measures of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in predominantly Hispanic young Adults: A multicohort study, Environment International, 4.2.2024Alle Quellen findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: Tiktok und Instagram.
Die Themen in den Wissensnachrichten: +++ Der Arktis-Forschung fehlen wichtige Daten aus Russland +++ Igel-Sicherheitstest für Mähroboter +++ Wie Eulen lautlos fliegen können +++**********Weiterführende Quellen zu dieser Folge:Towards an increasingly biased view on Arctic change, Nature Climate Change, 22.01.2024Applied Hedgehog Conservation Research, Special Issue of Animals, Januar 2024Making wine in earthenware vessels: a comparative approach to Roman vinification, Cambridge University Press, 23.01.2024Trailing-edge fringes enable robust aerodynamic force production and noise suppression in an owl wing model, Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 17.11.2023Modelling of longitudinally cut carrot curling induced by the vascular cylinder-cortex interference pressure, Royal Society Open Society, 24.01.2024Alle Quellen findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: Tiktok und Instagram.
Today I speak with noted researcher and scholar Ben Franta about two new articles he has written that add to his growing archive of seminal work on climate change. Ben tells us now the fossil fuel industry paid economists to join scientists in denying the true nature of the fossil fuel industry's destruction of the environment. Economists argued that even if some science were correct, implementing change would be too costly. This became a powerful tool to stall and kill climate change legislation. Franta also talks about how communities have tried to sue fossil fuel companies for damages incurred by such misinformation and disinformation. In sum, we learn about what the industry has done, and how ordinary people and municipalities can fight back.Benjamin Franta is the founding head of the Climate Litigation Lab and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford Sustainable Law Programme. The Climate Litigation Lab is a multidisciplinary research initiative to inform, enable, and accelerate climate change litigation globally. Ben is also an Associate at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School and an Associate Member of Nuffield College, Oxford. Ben holds a JD from Stanford Law School and is a licensed attorney with the California State Bar, a PhD in History of Science from Stanford University, a separate PhD in Applied Physics from Harvard University, an MSc in Archaeological Science from the University of Oxford, and a BA in Physics and Mathematics from Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He is also a former research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is the recipient of numerous academic and research fellowships including the Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship, the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, the U.S. National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship, the USAID Research and Innovation Fellowship, the University of Oxford Clarendon Scholarship, and the Coe College Williston Jones Scholarship. His research and writing have appeared in 10 languages, been featured in the Paramount+ documentary Black Gold, been cited in the U.S. Congressional Record, and been published in numerous scholarly and popular venues including Nature Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, The Guardian, Project Syndicate, and more.
Da sempre il degrado ambientale colpisce più gravemente la gente povera e i paesi poveri, e il cambiamento climatico non fa eccezione. La lotta al cambiamento climatico è per questo anche lotta alle disuguaglianze. Ma a patto di fare attenzione. Nell'articolo "Inequality repercussions of financing negative emissions", pubblicato su Nature Climate Change, i ricercatori del Politecnico di Milano e del CMCC - Centro euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici hanno dimostrato che, se mal regolate, alcune tecnologie a emissioni negative - sistemi per estrarre attivamente CO2 dall’atmosfera che dovrebbero entrare in azione tra 15 o 20 anni - possono avere effetti sociali deleteri e aumentare le disuguaglianze. Ne parliamo con Massimo Tavoni, Professore di Climate Change Economics e Direttore scientifico dello European Institute on Economics and the Environment.
In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu speaks with noted researcher and scholar Ben Franta about two new articles he has written that add to his growing archive of seminal work on climate change. Ben tells us now the fossil fuel industry paid economists to join scientists in denying the true nature of the fossil fuel industry's destruction of the environment. Economists argued that even if some science were correct, implementing change would be too costly. This became a powerful tool to stall and kill climate change legislation. Ben also talks about how communities have tried to sue fossil fuel companies for damages incurred by such misinformation and disinformation. In sum, we learn about what the industry has done, and how ordinary people and municipalities can fight back.Benjamin Franta is the founding head of the Climate Litigation Lab and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford Sustainable Law Programme. The Climate Litigation Lab is a multidisciplinary research initiative to inform, enable, and accelerate climate change litigation globally. Ben is also an Associate at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School and an Associate Member of Nuffield College, Oxford, and a former research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is the recipient of numerous academic and research fellowships including the Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. His research and writing have appeared in 10 languages, been featured in the Paramount+ documentary Black Gold, been cited in the U.S. Congressional Record, and been published in numerous scholarly and popular venues including Nature Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, The Guardian, Project Syndicate, and more. “For 40 years, the American Petroleum Institute has hired economists to argue it would be too expensive to try and control fossil fuels and that climate change wasn't that bad. The same go-to consultancy firm has been involved in every major climate policy fight from the very beginning and hired by the fossil fuel industry, but what are the courts going to do? It's not just the historical deception. It's an ongoing deception.”www.inet.ox.ac.uk/people/benjamin-franta www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/oxford-sustainable-law-programme/research/climate-litigation-labwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.comhttps://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20
In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu speaks with noted researcher and scholar Ben Franta about two new articles he has written that add to his growing archive of seminal work on climate change. Ben tells us now the fossil fuel industry paid economists to join scientists in denying the true nature of the fossil fuel industry's destruction of the environment. Economists argued that even if some science were correct, implementing change would be too costly. This became a powerful tool to stall and kill climate change legislation. Ben also talks about how communities have tried to sue fossil fuel companies for damages incurred by such misinformation and disinformation. In sum, we learn about what the industry has done, and how ordinary people and municipalities can fight back.Benjamin Franta is the founding head of the Climate Litigation Lab and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford Sustainable Law Programme. The Climate Litigation Lab is a multidisciplinary research initiative to inform, enable, and accelerate climate change litigation globally. Ben is also an Associate at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School and an Associate Member of Nuffield College, Oxford, and a former research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is the recipient of numerous academic and research fellowships including the Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. His research and writing have appeared in 10 languages, been featured in the Paramount+ documentary Black Gold, been cited in the U.S. Congressional Record, and been published in numerous scholarly and popular venues including Nature Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, The Guardian, Project Syndicate, and more. “For 40 years, the American Petroleum Institute has hired economists to argue it would be too expensive to try and control fossil fuels and that climate change wasn't that bad. The same go-to consultancy firm has been involved in every major climate policy fight from the very beginning and hired by the fossil fuel industry, but what are the courts going to do? It's not just the historical deception. It's an ongoing deception.”www.inet.ox.ac.uk/people/benjamin-franta www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/oxford-sustainable-law-programme/research/climate-litigation-labwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.comhttps://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20
In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu speaks with noted researcher and scholar Ben Franta about two new articles he has written that add to his growing archive of seminal work on climate change. Ben tells us now the fossil fuel industry paid economists to join scientists in denying the true nature of the fossil fuel industry's destruction of the environment. Economists argued that even if some science were correct, implementing change would be too costly. This became a powerful tool to stall and kill climate change legislation. Ben also talks about how communities have tried to sue fossil fuel companies for damages incurred by such misinformation and disinformation. In sum, we learn about what the industry has done, and how ordinary people and municipalities can fight back.Benjamin Franta is the founding head of the Climate Litigation Lab and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford Sustainable Law Programme. The Climate Litigation Lab is a multidisciplinary research initiative to inform, enable, and accelerate climate change litigation globally. Ben is also an Associate at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School and an Associate Member of Nuffield College, Oxford, and a former research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is the recipient of numerous academic and research fellowships including the Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. His research and writing have appeared in 10 languages, been featured in the Paramount+ documentary Black Gold, been cited in the U.S. Congressional Record, and been published in numerous scholarly and popular venues including Nature Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, The Guardian, Project Syndicate, and more. “For 40 years, the American Petroleum Institute has hired economists to argue it would be too expensive to try and control fossil fuels and that climate change wasn't that bad. The same go-to consultancy firm has been involved in every major climate policy fight from the very beginning and hired by the fossil fuel industry, but what are the courts going to do? It's not just the historical deception. It's an ongoing deception.”www.inet.ox.ac.uk/people/benjamin-franta www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/oxford-sustainable-law-programme/research/climate-litigation-labwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.comhttps://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20
In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu speaks with noted researcher and scholar Ben Franta about two new articles he has written that add to his growing archive of seminal work on climate change. Ben tells us now the fossil fuel industry paid economists to join scientists in denying the true nature of the fossil fuel industry's destruction of the environment. Economists argued that even if some science were correct, implementing change would be too costly. This became a powerful tool to stall and kill climate change legislation. Ben also talks about how communities have tried to sue fossil fuel companies for damages incurred by such misinformation and disinformation. In sum, we learn about what the industry has done, and how ordinary people and municipalities can fight back.Benjamin Franta is the founding head of the Climate Litigation Lab and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford Sustainable Law Programme. The Climate Litigation Lab is a multidisciplinary research initiative to inform, enable, and accelerate climate change litigation globally. Ben is also an Associate at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School and an Associate Member of Nuffield College, Oxford, and a former research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is the recipient of numerous academic and research fellowships including the Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. His research and writing have appeared in 10 languages, been featured in the Paramount+ documentary Black Gold, been cited in the U.S. Congressional Record, and been published in numerous scholarly and popular venues including Nature Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, The Guardian, Project Syndicate, and more. “For 40 years, the American Petroleum Institute has hired economists to argue it would be too expensive to try and control fossil fuels and that climate change wasn't that bad. The same go-to consultancy firm has been involved in every major climate policy fight from the very beginning and hired by the fossil fuel industry, but what are the courts going to do? It's not just the historical deception. It's an ongoing deception.”www.inet.ox.ac.uk/people/benjamin-franta www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/oxford-sustainable-law-programme/research/climate-litigation-labwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.comhttps://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20
In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu speaks with noted researcher and scholar Ben Franta about two new articles he has written that add to his growing archive of seminal work on climate change. Ben tells us now the fossil fuel industry paid economists to join scientists in denying the true nature of the fossil fuel industry's destruction of the environment. Economists argued that even if some science were correct, implementing change would be too costly. This became a powerful tool to stall and kill climate change legislation. Ben also talks about how communities have tried to sue fossil fuel companies for damages incurred by such misinformation and disinformation. In sum, we learn about what the industry has done, and how ordinary people and municipalities can fight back.Benjamin Franta is the founding head of the Climate Litigation Lab and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford Sustainable Law Programme. The Climate Litigation Lab is a multidisciplinary research initiative to inform, enable, and accelerate climate change litigation globally. Ben is also an Associate at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School and an Associate Member of Nuffield College, Oxford, and a former research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is the recipient of numerous academic and research fellowships including the Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. His research and writing have appeared in 10 languages, been featured in the Paramount+ documentary Black Gold, been cited in the U.S. Congressional Record, and been published in numerous scholarly and popular venues including Nature Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, The Guardian, Project Syndicate, and more. “For 40 years, the American Petroleum Institute has hired economists to argue it would be too expensive to try and control fossil fuels and that climate change wasn't that bad. The same go-to consultancy firm has been involved in every major climate policy fight from the very beginning and hired by the fossil fuel industry, but what are the courts going to do? It's not just the historical deception. It's an ongoing deception.”www.inet.ox.ac.uk/people/benjamin-franta www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/oxford-sustainable-law-programme/research/climate-litigation-labwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.comhttps://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20
In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu speaks with noted researcher and scholar Ben Franta about two new articles he has written that add to his growing archive of seminal work on climate change. Ben tells us now the fossil fuel industry paid economists to join scientists in denying the true nature of the fossil fuel industry's destruction of the environment. Economists argued that even if some science were correct, implementing change would be too costly. This became a powerful tool to stall and kill climate change legislation. Ben also talks about how communities have tried to sue fossil fuel companies for damages incurred by such misinformation and disinformation. In sum, we learn about what the industry has done, and how ordinary people and municipalities can fight back.Benjamin Franta is the founding head of the Climate Litigation Lab and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford Sustainable Law Programme. The Climate Litigation Lab is a multidisciplinary research initiative to inform, enable, and accelerate climate change litigation globally. Ben is also an Associate at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School and an Associate Member of Nuffield College, Oxford, and a former research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is the recipient of numerous academic and research fellowships including the Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. His research and writing have appeared in 10 languages, been featured in the Paramount+ documentary Black Gold, been cited in the U.S. Congressional Record, and been published in numerous scholarly and popular venues including Nature Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, The Guardian, Project Syndicate, and more. “For 40 years, the American Petroleum Institute has hired economists to argue it would be too expensive to try and control fossil fuels and that climate change wasn't that bad. The same go-to consultancy firm has been involved in every major climate policy fight from the very beginning and hired by the fossil fuel industry, but what are the courts going to do? It's not just the historical deception. It's an ongoing deception.”www.inet.ox.ac.uk/people/benjamin-franta www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/oxford-sustainable-law-programme/research/climate-litigation-labwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.comhttps://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20
This week: Marco Albani, co-founder and CEO of Chloris Geospatial talks with Innovation Forum's Ian Welsh about the trends in impact measurement and carbon accounting. They discuss the shift from an area-based approach to carbon accounting and share some unexpected carbon-positive impacts. And, report reveals UK's lack of urgency on deforestation; EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive agreement reached; and, tackling inequality crucial for net zero, according to Nature Climate Change journal, in the news digest by Innovation Forum's Bea Stevenson. Host: Ian Welsh
On the cusp of the COP28 climate talks, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres visited frozen-but-rapidly melting Antarctica on Nov. 23 and said intense action must be taken at the conference where countries will address their commitments to lowering emissions of planet-warming gases. “We are witnessing an acceleration that is absolutely devastating,” Guterres said about the rate of ice melt in Antarctica, which is considered to be a “sleeping giant.” “The Antarctic is waking up and the world must wake up,” he added. Guterres is in a three-day official visit to Antarctica and Chile's President Gabriel Boric joined him on an official visit to Chile's Eduardo Frei Air Force Base at King George Island on the continent. Guterres also was scheduled to visit the Collins and Nelson glaciers by boat. He said that COP28 is an opportunity for nations to “decide the phase-out of fossil fuels in an adequate time frame” in order to prevent the world from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures. He said it also creates the opportunity for nations to commit to more renewable energy projects and improve energy efficiency of existing grids and technologies. Warming air and ocean temperatures are causing Antarctic ice to melt. The frozen continent plays a significant role in regulating Earth's climate because it reflects sunlight away and drives major ocean currents. For years, scientists and environmentalists have kept an eye on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet as an important indicator of global warming. A study published in Nature Climate Change in October said warming has increased to the point that the ice sheet will now experience “unavoidable” melting regardless of how much the world reduces emissions of planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide. The study's lead author, Kaitlin Naughten, estimated that melting ice in Antarctica's most at-risk areas could raise global sea levels by about 1.8 meters (5.9 feet) over the next few centuries. Another study published in Science Advances reported that nearly 50 Antarctic ice shelves have shrunk by at least 30% since 1997 and 28 of those have lost more than half their ice in that short period of time. This article was provided by The Associated Press.
RETURNING guest Vlad Chituc joins us for a wide-ranging discussion about donating his kidney to a stranger, the effective altruism movement, and his sexuality. Was EA's turn to ‘long-termist' goals like preventing evil AI inevitable? Have they strayed too far from their Peter Singer/Jeremy Bentham inspired roots? And why won't David and Tamler donate their kidneys? Plus a new article in Nature Climate Change argues that neuroscience can help the environment – can I interest you in some virtual trees? Doell, K. C., Berman, M. G., Bratman, G. N., Knutson, B., Kühn, S., Lamm, C., ... & Brosch, T. (2023). Leveraging neuroscience for climate change research. Nature Climate Change, 1-10. I spent a weekend at Google talking with nerds about charity. I came away … worried. by Dylan Matthews [vox.com] How effective altruism went from a niche movement to a billion-dollar force by Dylan Matthews [vox.com] Stop the Robot Apocalypse by Amir Srinivasan [lrb.co.uk] Sponsored by: BetterHelp: You deserve to be happy. BetterHelp online counseling is there for you. Connect with your professional counselor in a safe and private online environment. Our listeners get 10% off the first month by visiting BetterHelp.com/vbw. Promo Code: VBW Listening.com: Save time by listening to academic papers on the go. Very Bad Wizards listeners get 3 weeks free when signing up at listening.com/vbw Givewell.org: Make your charitable donations as effective as possible. If you've never donated through GiveWell before, you can have your donation matched up to before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last. Just go to givewell.org, pick PODCAST, and enter VERY BAD WIZARDS at checkout.
Inom innovationsforskning pratar man om lärkurvor, ett mått på hur snabbt priser går ner som funktion av hur mycket av en viss teknik som installeras. Gemensamt för tekniker såsom solceller, vindkraft och elbilsbatterier (och som IEA bedömer kommer stå för lejonparten av världens utsläppsminskningar fram till 2030) är att lärkurvan är brant, för varje dubblering av kapacitet globalt tenderar priser att gå ner med runt 15-20%. I poddens jubileumsavsnitt (avsnitt 100!) gör vi ett djupdyk inom forskningen kring lärkurvor tillsammans med Björn Nykvist, till vardags forskare vid Stockholm Environment Institute. 2015, i en forskningsartikel i tidskriften Nature Climate Change, var Björn tillsammans med kollegan Måns Nilsson bland de första att sätta fingret på lärkurvan och de snabba prisminskningarna för litiumjonbatterier i elbilar. Sen dess har Björn följt utvecklingen och bl.a. funderat över vilka prisnivåer på batterier som innebär att även billigare personbilar och tunga lastbilar kan elektrifieras. Från 44.00 pratar vi om Björn och hans kollegors forskning kring fossilfritt stål. Björn gör en utblick av hur ståltillverkning sker globalt och argumenterar för varför det vätgasreducerade stål som satsas på i norra Sverige för tillfället är det mest framkomliga vägvalet i stålindustrins klimatomställning. Avslutningsvis, från 01.02.00, går Björn igenom slutsatserna från en rapport om en möjlig klimatomställning inom Försvarsmakten (som häromåret gjordes på uppdrag av FOI), där han bl.a. poängterar vikten av att civilsamhället och försvaret går hand i hand i omställningen och där han resonerar kring vilken av försvarsgrenarna som är mest angelägen att ställa om. Rapporter och forskningsartiklar som nämns i avsnittet: [3.30] Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles (Nykvist & Nilsson, 2015) [12.00] Assessing the progress toward lower priced long range battery vehicles (Nykvist, Sprei & Nilsson, 2019) [36.00] The feasibility of heavy battery electric trucks (Nykvist & Olsson, 2021) [51.10] Från brunt till grönt - Bedömning av av satsningarna på fossilfritt stål i Norrland utifrån ett teknik- och marknadsperspektiv (Sundén, 2023) [56.30] Phasing out the blast furnace to meet global climate targets (Vogl, Olsson & Nykvist, 2021) [1.02.10] Klimatneutral Försvarsmakt - Analys av fossilfria vägval för försvarsgrenarna (Nykvist & Mårtensson, 2021) Vill du föreslå en gäst till ett framtida avsnitt? Har du förslag på hur vi kan göra podden bättre? Fyll jättegärna i vårt feedback-formulär.
Philip Taylor, Ph.D. (he/him) is the Executive Director of Mad Agriculture. He co-founded the organization in 2016 with his life partner, Nicole Brinks, to reimagine and restore our relationship to the land, sea, and each other through good agriculture. Prior to founding Mad Ag, Philip was a career global ecologist who specialized in ecosystem and soil carbon cycling. His research ranged widely, from understanding soil ecology and ecosystem biogeochemistry to exploring solutions to the sustainability challenges of agriculture. Philip's work has been published in numerous journals, including Nature, Nature Climate Change, and Ecology, and he has diverse international experience in both private and public sectors, having led research and business efforts throughout North America, Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. Now, he is bringing his entire being into Mad Agriculture—his life's work, until he returns to the soil.
Necesitamos oxígeno para respirar, un oxígeno que abunda en forma de moléculas compuestas por un par de átomos. Pero hay otra posible asociación que agrupa a tres átomos de oxígeno y se conoce como “ozono”. El ozono es un gas que, a niveles de superficie terrestre, tiene tanto origen natural como artificial, pero su principal protagonismo lo alcanza en las capas altas de la atmósfera. Es en la estratosfera, en alturas entre los 15 y 50 km donde, gracias a la acción de los rayos ultravioleta del Sol, el ozono bloquea la radiación ultravioleta más dañina e impide que llegue hasta nosotros. Pero esa capa protectora ha sufrido cambios notables durante los últimos 70 años debido a la acción de ciertos compuestos (CFC) que destruyen en el ozono estratosférico y ponen en peligro a los seres vivos. Por suerte para nosotros los gobiernos de todo el planeta se pusieron de acuerdo para reducirlos y el ozono se está recuperando. No obstante, esa recuperación no es todo lo rápida que debiera porque los CFCs no son los únicos factores que atacan al ozono. Una artículo publicado en Nature Climate Change por nuestro invitado, Julián Villamayor, investigador posdoctoral en el Departamento de Química Atmosférica y el Clima del Instituto de Química Física Blas Cabrera, llama la atención sobre otros productos destructores del ozono que se conocen como halógenos de vida corta.
Necesitamos oxígeno para respirar, un oxígeno que abunda en forma de moléculas compuestas por un par de átomos. Pero hay otra posible asociación que agrupa a tres átomos de oxígeno y se conoce como “ozono”. El ozono es un gas que, a niveles de superficie terrestre, tiene tanto origen natural como artificial, pero su principal protagonismo lo alcanza en las capas altas de la atmósfera. Es en la estratosfera, en alturas entre los 15 y 50 km donde, gracias a la acción de los rayos ultravioleta del Sol, el ozono bloquea la radiación ultravioleta más dañina e impide que llegue hasta nosotros. Pero esa capa protectora ha sufrido cambios notables durante los últimos 70 años debido a la acción de ciertos compuestos (CFC) que destruyen en el ozono estratosférico y ponen en peligro a los seres vivos. Por suerte para nosotros los gobiernos de todo el planeta se pusieron de acuerdo para reducirlos y el ozono se está recuperando. No obstante, esa recuperación no es todo lo rápida que debiera porque los CFCs no son los únicos factores que atacan al ozono. Una artículo publicado en Nature Climate Change por nuestro invitado, Julián Villamayor, investigador posdoctoral en el Departamento de Química Atmosférica y el Clima del Instituto de Química Física Blas Cabrera, llama la atención sobre otros productos destructores del ozono que se conocen como halógenos de vida corta.
Could Restoring Animal Populations Store More Carbon? Did you know that land and ocean ecosystems absorb about half of the carbon dioxide we emit each year? But what if the earth had the capacity to absorb even more? With the help of some furry, scaly, and leathery critters, maybe it can. A recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change claims that by restoring the populations of just a handful of animals—like gray wolves, bison, and sea otters for example—the Earth could capture around 6.41 more gigatons of CO2 each year. This idea of restoring wildlife is called rewilding. Ira talks with the co-author of this study, Dr. Trisha Atwood, an associate professor at Utah State University, based in Logan, UT. They chat about what critters make the rewilding list, and how they fit into the carbon cycle. Allergy Season Is Blooming With Climate Change Spring is in the air, and for many people that means allergy season is rearing its ugly head. If it feels like your allergies have recently gotten worse, there's now data to back that up. New research shows that since 1990, pollen season in North America has grown by 20 days and gotten 20% more intense, with the greatest increases in Texas and the Midwest. This is because climate change is triggering plants' internal timing to produce pollen earlier and earlier. It's a problem that's expected to get worse. SciFri producer Kathleen Davis speaks with William Anderegg, assistant professor at the University of Utah's School of Biological Sciences about pollen counts, and pollen as a respiratory irritant. Why This Scientist Shares Vulnerable Career Moments Dr. Rachel Lupien, a paleoclimatologist at Aarhus University, makes it a point to be honest about the challenges she runs into at work. She hopes that other scientists can learn from them. So last year, when a paper she wrote was rejected from journals five times, she tweeted about the experience. While the responses ranged from supportive replies to harsh emails, Rachel says that it feels good to talk about professional headaches with peers who understand. Digital producer Emma Gometz interviews Rachel about why it's important to be honest about setbacks as a scientist, and how transparency helps all professional scientists do better work. Read more personal stories from scientists, including Rachel's experience working as a paleoclimatologist across the world, and building mentorship networks of her own, on SciFri's six-week automated email newsletter, “Sincerely, Science.” To learn more about Sincerely Science and read Rachel's paper, visit sciencefriday.com. To stay updated on all-things-science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters. Transcripts for each segment will be available the week after the show airs on sciencefriday.com.
In this episode, environmental social scientist Holly Jean Buck discusses the critique of emissions-focused climate policy that she laid out in her book Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsOver the course of the 2010s, the term “net-zero carbon emissions” migrated from climate science to climate modeling to climate politics. Today, it is ubiquitous in the climate world — hundreds upon hundreds of nations, cities, institutions, businesses, and individuals have pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. No one ever formally decided to make net zero the common target of global climate efforts — it just happened.The term has become so common that we barely hear it anymore, which is a shame, because there are lots of buried assumptions and value judgments in the net-zero narrative that we are, perhaps unwittingly, accepting when we adopt it.Holly Jean Buck has a lot to say about that. An environmental social scientist who teaches at the University at Buffalo, Buck has spent years exploring the nuances and limitations of the net-zero framework, leading to a 2021 book — Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough — and more recently some new research in Nature Climate Change on residual emissions.Buck is a perceptive commentator on the social dynamics of climate change and a sharp critic of emissions-focused climate policy, so I'm eager to talk to her about the limitations of net zero, what we know and don't know about how to get there, and what a more satisfying climate narrative might include.So with no further ado, Holly Jean Buck. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Holly Jean BuckThanks so much for having me.David RobertsIt's funny. Reading your book really brought it home to me how much net zero had kind of gone from nowhere to worming its way completely into my sort of thinking and dialogue without the middle step of me ever really thinking about it that hard or ever really sort of like exploring it. So let's start with a definition. First of all, a technical definition of what net zero means. And then maybe a little history. Like, where did this come from? It came from nowhere and became ubiquitous, it seemed like, almost overnight. So maybe a little capsule history would be helpful.Holly Jean BuckWell, most simply, net zero is a balance between emissions produced and emissions taken out of the atmosphere. So we're all living in a giant accounting problem, which is what we always dreamed of, right? So how did we get there? I think that there's been a few more recent moments. The Paris agreement obviously one of them, because the Paris agreement talks about a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks. So that's kind of part of the moment that it had. The other thing was the Special Report on 1.5 degrees by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which further showed that this target is only feasible with some negative emissions.And so I think that was another driver. But the idea of balancing sources and sinks goes back away towards the Kyoto Protocol, towards the inclusion of carbon sinks, and thinking about that sink capacity.David RobertsSo you say, and we're going to get into the kind of the details of your critique in a minute. But the broad thing you say about net zero is that it's not working. We're not on track for it. And I guess intuitively, people might think, well, you set an ambitious target and if you don't meet that target, it's not the target's fault, right. It's not the target's reason you're failing. So what do you mean exactly when you say net zero is not working?Holly Jean BuckWell, I think that people might understandably say, "Hey, we've just started on this journey. It's a mid-century target, let's give it some time, right?" But I do think there's some reasons why it's not going to work. Several reasons. I mean, we have this idea of balancing sources and sinks, but we're not really doing much to specify what those sources are. Are they truly hard to abate or not? We're not pushing the scale up of carbon removal to enhance those sinks, and we don't have a way of matching these emissions and removals yet. Credibly all we have really is the voluntary carbon market.But I think the main problem here is the frame doesn't specify whether or not we're going to phase out fossil fuels. I think that that's the biggest drawback to this frame.David RobertsWell, let's go through those. Let's go through those one at a time, because I think all of those have some interesting nuances and ins and outs. So when we talk about balancing sources and sinks, the way this translates, or I think is supposed to translate the idea, is a country tallies up all of the emissions that it is able to remove and then adds them all up. And then what remains? This kind of stuff, it either can't reduce or is prohibitively expensive to reduce the so called difficult to abate or hard to abate emissions. Those are called its residual emissions, the emissions that it doesn't think it can eliminate.And the theory here is then you come in with negative emissions, carbon reduction, and you compensate for those residual emissions. So to begin with, the first problem you identify is that it's not super clear what those residual emissions are or where they're coming from, and they're not very well measured. So maybe just explain sort of like, what would you like to see people or countries doing on residual emissions and what are they doing, what's a state of knowledge and measurement of these things?Holly Jean BuckSo the state right now is extremely fuzzy. And so I'll just back up and say that my colleagues and I looked at these long term strategies that are submitted to the UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement. Basically, each country is invited to submit what its long term strategy is for reaching its climate goals. And so we've read 50 of those.David RobertsGoodness.Holly Jean BuckYeah, lots of fun. And they don't have a standard definition of what these residual emissions are, although they refer to them implicitly in many cases. You can see the residual emissions on these graphs that are in these reports.But we don't have a really clear understanding in most cases where these residual emissions are coming from, how the country is thinking about defining them, what their understanding of what's truly hard to abate is. And I emphasize with this being a challenge, because what's hard to abate changes over time because new technologies come online. So it's hard to say what's going to be hard to abate in 10 or 20 years.David RobertsRight.Holly Jean BuckBut we could get a lot better at specifying this.David RobertsAnd this would just tell us basically without a good sense of residual emissions across the range of countries, we don't have a good sense of how much carbon removal we need. So is there something easy to say about how we could make this better? Is there a standardized framework that you would recommend? I mean, are any countries doing it well and precisely sort of identifying where those emissions are and explaining why and how they came to that conclusion?Holly Jean BuckSo there's 14 countries that do break down residual emissions by sector, which is like the first, most obvious place to start.David RobertsRight.Holly Jean BuckSo, number one, everybody should be doing that and understanding what assumptions there are about what sectors. And generally a lot of this is non-CO2 emissions and emissions from agriculture. There's some emissions left over from industry, too, but having clarity in that is the most obvious thing. And then I think that we do need a consistent definition as well as processes that are going to standardize our expectations around this. That's something that's going to evolve kind of, I think, from the climate advocacy community, hopefully, and a norm will evolve about what's actually hard to abate versus what's just expensive to abateDavid RobertsKind of a small sample size. But of the 14 countries that actually do this, are there trends that emerge? Like, what do these 14 countries currently believe will be the most difficult emissions to eliminate? Is there agreement among those 14 countries?Holly Jean BuckWell, it's pretty consistent that agriculture is number one, followed by industry, and that in many cases, transport, at least short transport, light duty transport is considered to be fully electrified. In many cases, the power sector is imagined to be zero carbon. But I will also say that the United Kingdom is the only one that even included international aviation and shipping in its projection. So a long way to go there.David RobertsAnd this is not really our subject here. But just out of curiosity, what is the simple explanation for why agriculture is such a mystery? What are these emissions in agriculture that no one can think of a way to abate?Holly Jean BuckI mean, I think it varies by country, but a lot of it is nitrous oxide. A lot of it has to do with fertilizer and fertilizer production, fertilizer over application and I think obviously some of it is methane too from the land sector, from cows. So I think maybe that is considered a more challenging policy problem than industry.David RobertsYeah, this is always something that's puzzled me about this entire framework and this entire debate is you look at a problem like that and you think, well, if we put our minds to it, could we solve that in the next 30 years? I mean, probably. You know what I mean? It doesn't seem versus standing up this giant carbon dioxide removal industry which is just a gargantuan undertaking. This has never been clear to me why people are so confident that carbon dioxide removal is going to be easier than just solving these allegedly difficult to solve problems over the next several decades.I've never really understood that calculation.Holly Jean BuckI think it just hasn't been thought through all the way yet. But I expect in the next five years most people will realize that we need a much smaller carbon removal infrastructure than is indicated in many of the integrated assessment models.David RobertsYeah, thank you for saying that. This is my intuition, but I just don't feel sort of like technically briefed or technically adept enough to make a good argument for it. But I look at this and I'm like which of these problems are going to be easier to solve? Finding some non-polluting fertilizer or building a carbon dioxide removal industry three times the size of the oil industry? It's crazy to view the latter as like, oh, we got to do that because we can't do the first thing. It just seems crazy. Okay, so for the first problem here with net zero is we don't have a clear sense of what these residual emissions are, where they come from, exactly how we define them, et cetera.So without that, we don't have a clear sense of the needed size of the carbon dioxide removal industry. That said, problem number two here is that even based on what we are currently expecting CDR to do, there doesn't appear to be a coordinated push to make it happen. Like we're just sort of like waving our hands at massive amounts of CDR but you're not seeing around you the kinds of mobilization that would be necessary to get there. Is that roughly accurate?Holly Jean BuckYeah, and I think it follows from the residual emissions analysis because unless a country has really looked at that, they probably don't realize the scale of CDR that they're implicitly relying on.David RobertsRight, so they're implicitly relying on CDR for a couple of things you list in your presentation I saw and residual emissions is only one of those things we're expecting CDR to do.Holly Jean BuckThere's the idea that CDR will also be compensating for legacy emissions or helping to draw down greenhouse gas concentrations after an overshoot. I don't think anybody is saying that exactly because we're not at that point yet, but it's kind of floating around on the horizon as another use case for carbon removal.David RobertsYeah. So it does seem like even the amount of CDR that we are currently expecting, even if most countries haven't thought it through, just the amount that's already on paper that we're expecting it to do, we're not seeing the kind of investment that you would want to get there. What does that tell you? What should we learn from that weird disjunct?Holly Jean BuckFor me, it tells me that all the climate professionals are not really doing their jobs. Maybe that sounds mean, but we have so many people that are devoted to climate action professionally and so it's very weird to not see more thinking about this. But maybe the more nice way to think about it is saying oh well, people are really focused on mitigation. They're really focused on scaling up clean energy which is where they should be focused. Maybe that's reasonable.David RobertsYeah, maybe this is cynical, but some part of me thinks, like if people and countries really believed that we need the amount of CDR they're saying we're going to need, that the models show we're going to need, by mid century they would be losing their minds and flipping out and pouring billions of dollars into this. And the fact that they're not to me sort of like I guess it feels like no one's really taking this seriously. Like everyone still somewhat sees it as an artifact of the models.Holly Jean BuckI don't know, I think the tech sector is acting on it, which is interesting. I mean, you've seen people like Frontier mobilize all these different tech companies together to do these advanced market commitments. I think they're trying to incubate a CDR ecosystem. And so why does interest come there versus other places? Not exactly sure. I have some theories but I do wonder about the governments because in our analysis we looked at the most ambitious projections offered in these long term strategies and the average amount of residual emissions was around 18% of current emissions. So all these countries have put forward these strategies where they're seeing these levels of residual emissions.Why are they not acting on it more in policy? I think maybe it's just the short termism problem of governments not being accountable for things that happen in 30 years.David RobertsYeah, this is a truly strange phenomenon to me and I don't even know that I do have any theories about it, but it's like of all the areas of climate policy there are tons and tons of areas where business could get involved and eventually build self-sustaining profitable industries out of them. But CDR is not that there will never be a self-sustaining profitable CDR industry. It's insofar as it exists, it's going to exist based on government subsidies. So it's just bizarre for business to be moving first in that space and for government to be trailing.It just seems upside down world. I can't totally figure out government's motivations for not doing more and I can't totally figure out businesses motivations for doing so much.Holly Jean BuckWell, I think businesses acting in this R&D space to try to kind of claim some of the tech breakthroughs in the assumption that if we're serious about climate action we're going to have a price on carbon. We're going to have much more stringent climate policy in a decade or two. And when that happens, the price of carbon will be essentially set by the price of removing carbon. And so if they have the innovation that magically removes the most carbon, they're going to be really well set up for an extremely lucrative industry. This is all of course hinging on the idea that we're going to be willing to pay to clean up emissions just like we're willing to pay for trash service or wastewater disposal or these other kind of pollution removal services.Which is still an open question, but I sure hope we will be.David RobertsYeah, it's totally open. And this is another area where this weird disjunct between this sort of expansive talk and no walk. It's almost politically impossible to send money to this greenhouse gas international fund that's supposed to help developing countries decarbonize, right? Like even that it's very difficult for us to drag enough tax money out of taxpayers hands to fund that and we're going to be sending like a gazillion times more than that on something that has no visible short term benefit for taxpayers. We're all just assuming we're going to do that someday. It seems like a crazy assumption.And if you're a business and you're looking to make money, it just seems like even if you're just looking to make money on clean energy, it seems like there's a million faster, easier ways than this sort of like multidecade bank shot effort. I feel like I don't have my head wrapped around all those dynamics. So the first problem is residual emissions. They're opaque to us, we don't totally get them. Second problem is there's no evident push remotely to scale of the kind of CDR we claim we're going to need. And then the third you mentioned is there's no regime for matching emissions and removals.Explain that a little bit. What sort of architecture would be required for that kind of regime?Holly Jean BuckWell, you can think of this as a market or as a platform, basically as a system for connecting emissions and removals. And obviously this has been like a dream of technocratic climate policy for a long time, but I think it's frustrated by our knowledge capabilities and maybe that'll change in the future if we really do get better models, better remote sensing capacities. Obviously, both of those have been improving dramatically and machine learning accelerates it. But it assumes that you really have good knowledge of the emissions, good knowledge of the removals, that it's credible. And I think for some of the carbon removal technologies we're looking at this what's called MRV: monitoring, reporting, and verification.Is really challenging, especially with open systems like enhanced rock weathering or some of the ocean carbon removal ideas. So we need some improvement there. And then once you've made this into a measurable commodity, you need to be able to exchange it. That's been really frustrated because of all the problems that you've probably talked about on this podcast with carbon markets, and scams, bad actors. It's all of these problems and the expense of having people in the middle that are taking a cut off of the transactions.David RobertsYeah. So you have to match your residual emissions with removals in a way that is verifiable, in a way that, you know, the removals are additional. Right. You get back to all these carbon market problems and as I talked with Danny Cullenword and David Victor about on the pod long ago, in carbon offset markets, basically everyone has incentive to keep prices low and to make things look easy and tidy. And virtually no one, except maybe the lonely regulators has the incentive to make sure that it's all legit right there's just like there's overwhelming incentive to goof around and cheat and almost no one with the incentive to make sure it's valid.And all those problems that face the carbon offset market just seem to me like ten times as difficult. When you're talking about global difficult to measure residual emissions coupled with global difficult to measure carbon dioxide removals in a way where there's no double counting and there's no shenanigans. Like, is that even a gleam in our eye yet? Do we even have proposals for something like that on the table?Holly Jean BuckI mean, there's been a lot of best principles and practices and obviously a lot of the conversation around Article Six and the Paris agreement and those negotiations are towards working out better markets. I think a lot of people are focused on this, but there's definitely reason to be skeptical of our ability to execute it in the timescales that we need.David RobertsYeah, I mean, if you're offsetting residual emissions that you can't reduce, you need that pretty quick. Like, this is supposed to be massively scaling up in the next 30 years and I don't see the institutional efforts that would be required to build something like this, especially making something like this bulletproof. So we don't have a good sense of residual emissions. We're not pushing very hard to scale CDR up even to what we think we need. And we don't have the sort of institutional architecture that would be required to formally match removals with residual emissions. These are all kind of, I guess, what you'd call technical problems.Like, even if you accepted the goal of doing this or this framework, these are just technical problems that we're not solving yet. The fourth problem, as you say, is the bigger one, perhaps the biggest one, which is net zero says nothing about fossil fuels. Basically. It says nothing about the socioeconomics of fossil fuels or the social dynamics of fossil fuels. It says nothing about the presence of fossil fuels in a net-zero world, how big that might be, et cetera. So what do you mean when you say it's silent on fossil fuels?Holly Jean BuckYeah, so this was a desirable design feature of net zero because it has this constructive ambiguity around whether there's just like a little bit of residual emissions and you've almost phased out fossil fuels, or if there's still a pretty significant role for the fossil fuel industry in a net-zero world. And that's what a lot of fossil fuel producers and companies are debating.David RobertsYes, I've been thinking about this recently in the context of the struggle to get Joe Manchin to sign decent legislation. Like, if you hear Joe Manchin when he goes on rambling on about climate change, it's very clear that he views carbon dioxide removal as basically technological license for fossil fuels to just keep on keeping on. Like, in his mind, that's what CDR means. Whereas if you hear like, someone from NRDC talking about it, it's much more like we eliminated almost everything. And here's like, the paper towel that we're going to use to wipe up these last little stains.And that's a wide gulf.Holly Jean BuckI don't want to seem like the biggest net-zero hater in the world. I understand why it came up as a goal. I think it was a lot more simple and intuitive than talking about 80% of emissions reduction over 2005 levels or like the kind of things that it replaced. But ultimately, this is a killer aspect to the whole idea, is not being clear about the phase out of fossil fuels.David RobertsAnd you say you can envision very different worlds fitting under net zero. What do you mean by that?Holly Jean BuckWell, I mean, one axis is the temporality of it. So is net zero, like, just one moment on the road to something else? Is it a temporary state or is it a permanent state where we're continuing to produce some fossil fuels and we're just living in that net zero without any dedicated phase out? I think that right now there's ambiguity where you could see either one.David RobertsThat is a good question. In your research on this, have you found an answer to that question of how people view it? Like, I'd love to see a poll or something. I mean, this is a tiny subset of people who even know what we're talking about here. But among the people who talk about net zero, do you have any sense of whether they view it as like a mile marker on the way to zero-zero or as sort of like the desired endstate?Holly Jean BuckYou know, it's funny because I haven't done a real poll, but I've done when I'm giving a talk at a conference of scientists and climate experts twice I've asked this question, do you think it's temporary or do you think it's like a permanent desired state? And it's split half and half each time, which I find really interesting. Like, within these climate expert communities, we don't have a clear idea ourselves.David RobertsAnd that's such a huge difference. And if you're going to have CDR do this accounting for past emissions, for your past emissions debt, if you're going to do that, you have to go negative, right. You can't stay at net zero, you have to go net negative. So it would be odd to view net zero as the end state. And yet that seems like, what's giving fossil fuel companies permission to be involved in all this.Holly Jean BuckYeah. No, we do need to go net negative. And I think one challenge with the residual emissions is that carbon removal capacity is going to be finite. It's going to be limited by geography, carbon sequestration capacity, ecosystems and renewable energy, all of these things. And so if you understand it as finite, then carbon removal to compensate for residual emissions is going to be in competition with carbon removal to draw down greenhouse gas concentrations. And so we never get to this really net negative state if we have these large residual emissions, because all that capacity is using to compensate rather than to get net negative, if that makes sense.David RobertsYeah. Given how sort of fundamental those questions are and how fundamental those differences are, it's a little this is what I mean when I sort of the revelation of reading your book. Like, those are very, very different visions. If you work backwards from those different visions, you get a very, very different dynamic around fossil fuels and fossil fuel companies and the social and political valence of fossil fuels, just very fundamentally different. It's weird that it's gone on this long with that ambiguity, which, I guess, as you say, it was fruitful to begin with, but you kind of think it's time to de-ambiguize this.Holly Jean BuckYeah. Because there's huge implications for the infrastructure planning that we do right now.David RobertsRight.Holly Jean BuckIt's going to be a massive transformation to phase out fossil fuels. There's a million different planning tasks that need to have started yesterday and should start today.David RobertsYeah. And I guess also, and this is a complaint, maybe we'll touch on more later, but there's long been, I think, from some quarters of the environmental movement, a criticism of climate people in their sort of emissions or carbon greenhouse gas emissions obsession. And when you contemplate fossil fuels, it's not just greenhouse gases. There's like all these proximate harms air pollution and water pollution, et cetera, et cetera, geopolitical stuff. And I think the idea behind net zero was, let's just isolate greenhouse gas emissions and not get into those fights. But I wonder, as you say, we have to make decisions now, which in some sense hinge on which we were going to go on that question.Holly Jean BuckYeah, I mean, it was a huge trick to get us to focus on what happens after the point of combustion rather than the extraction itself.David RobertsYeah, it says nothing about extraction, too. So your final critique of net zero fifth and final critique is that it is not particularly compelling to ordinary people, which I think is kind of obvious. Like, I really doubt that the average Joe or Jane off the street would even know what you mean by net zero or would particularly know what you mean by negative carbon emissions and if you could explain it to them, would be particularly moved by that story. So what do you mean by the meta narrative? Like, why do you think this falls short?Holly Jean BuckI mean, accounting is fundamentally kind of boring. I think a lot of us avoid it, right? And so if I try to talk to my students about this, it's really work to keep them engaged and to see that actually all this stuff around net zero impacts life and death for a lot of people. But we don't feel that when we just look at the math or we look at the curve and we talk about bending the curve and this and that, we have this governance by curve mode. It's just not working in terms of inspiring people to change anything about their lives.David RobertsYeah, bending the curve didn't seem to work great during the pandemic either. This gets back to something you said before about what used to be a desirable design feature when you are thinking about other things that you might want to bring into a meta narrative about climate change. Most of what people talk about and what people think about is sort of social and political stuff. Like, we need to talk about who's going to win and who's going to lose, and the substantial social changes and changes in our culture and practices that we need. We need to bring all these things in.But then the other counterargument is those are what produce resistance and those are what produce backlash. And so as far as you can get on an accounting framework, like if the accounting framework can sort of trick various and sundry participants and institutions into thinking they're in a value neutral technical discussion, if you can make progress that way, why not do it? Because any richer meta narrative is destined to be more controversial and more produce more political backlash. What do you think about that?Holly Jean BuckNo, I think that the problem is we haven't invested at all in figuring out how to create desire and demand for lower carbon things. I mean, maybe the car industry has tried a little bit with some of the electric trucks or that kind of thing, but we have all this philanthropy, government focus, all the stuff on both the tech and on the carbon accounting pieces of it. We don't have very much funding going out and talking to people. About why are you nervous about transitioning to gas in your home? What would make you feel more comfortable about that?Those sorts of relational things, the conversations, the engagement has been gendered, frankly. Lots of times it falls to women to do this kind of relational work and hasn't been invested in. So I think there's a whole piece we could be doing about understanding what would create demand for these new infrastructures, new practices, not just consumer goods but really adoption of lifestyle changes because you need that demand to translate to votes to the real supportive policies that will really make a difference in this problem.David RobertsYeah, I very much doubt if you go to talk to people about those things they're going to say, well, I want to get the appliance that's most closely going to zero out my positive conditions. You're not going to run into a lot of accounting if you ask people about their concerns about these things. So these are the problems. We're not measuring it well. We're not doing what we need to do to remove the amount of CDR we say we need. We don't have the architecture or the institutional structures to create some sort of system where we're matching residual emissions and removals.And as a narrative it's fatally ambiguous about the role of fossil fuels in the future and plus ordinary people don't seem to give much of a shit about it. So in this presentation you sort of raise the prospect that the whole thing could collapse, that the net-zero thing could collapse. What do you mean by that and how could that happen?Holly Jean BuckSo I think this looks more like quiet quitting than anything else because I do think it is too big to fail in terms of official policy. There's been a lot of political capital spent.David RobertsYeah, a lot of institutions now have that on paper, like are saying on paper that they want to hit net zero. So it seems to me like it would take a big backlash to get rid of it.Holly Jean BuckYeah. So I don't think some companies may back away from targets. There'll be more reports of targets not being on track. And I think what happens is that it becomes something like the Sustainable Development Goals or dealing with the US national debt where everybody kind of knows you're not really going to get there, but you can still talk about it aspirationally but without confidence. Because it did feel like at least a few years ago that people were really trying to get to net zero. And I think that sensation will shift and it'll become empty like a lot of other things, unfortunately.But I think that creates an opportunity for something new to come in and be the mainframe for climate policy.David RobertsNet zero just seems like a species of a larger thing that happens. I don't know if it happens in other domains, but in climate and clean energy it happens a lot, which is just sort of like a technical term from the expert dialogue, worms its way over into popular usage and is just awful and doesn't mean anything to anyone. I think about net metering and all these kind of terminological disputes. So it doesn't really I'm not sure who's in charge of metanarratives, but it doesn't seem like they're very thoughtfully constructed. So let's talk a little bit about what characteristics you think a better metanarrative about climate change would include.Holly Jean BuckFirst, I think it is important that we are measuring progress towards a goal for accountability reasons. But I think there needs to be more than just the metric. I think we have an obsession with metrics in our society that sometimes becomes unhealthy or distracts us from the real focus. But I do think there should be some amount of measuring specific progress towards a goal. I think that the broader story also has to have some affect or emotional language. There has to be some kind of emotional connection. I also think we have to get beyond carbon to talk about what's going on with ecosystems more broadly and how to maintain them and have an intact habitable planet and then just pragmatically.This has to be a narrative that enables broad political coalitions. It can't be just for one camp and it has to work on different scales. I mean, part of the genius of net zero is that it is this multi-scalar planetary, but also national, also municipal, corporate, even individual does all of that. So those are some of the most important qualities that a new frame or a new narrative would have to have.David RobertsThat sounds easier said than done. I can imagine measuring other things you mentioned in your book several sort of submeasurements other than just this one overarching metric. You could measure how fast fossil fuels are going away. You could measure how fast clean energy is scaling up. There are adaptation you can measure to some extent. So I definitely can see the benefit in having a wider array of goals, if only just because some of those just get buried under net zero and are never really visible at all. That makes sense to me. But the minute you start talking about a metanarrative with affect, with emotion, the way to get that is to appeal to people's values and things that they cherish and feel strongly about.But then we're back to the problem we talked about earlier, which is it seems like especially in the US these days, we're just living in a country with two separate tribes that have very, very different values. And so the minute you step beyond the sort of technocratic metric, which in a sense is like clean and clinical and value free and start evoking values, trying to create emotion, you get greater investment and passion in some faction and alienate some other faction. Do you just think that that's like unavoidable and you have to deal with that or how do you think about that dilemma?Holly Jean BuckI actually think people do have the same values, but they're manipulated by a media ecosystem that profits from dividing them, which makes it impossible for them to see that they do have aligned values. And I base that just on my experience, like as a rural sociologist and geographer talking to people in rural America. People are upset about the same exact things that the leftists in the cities I visit are upset about too. They really do value justice. They think it's unfair that big companies are taking advantage of them. There are some registers of agreement about fairness, about caring for nature, about having equal opportunities to a good and healthy life that I think we could build on if we weren't so divided by this predatory media ecology.David RobertsI don't suppose you have a solution for that, in your back pocket?Holly Jean BuckI have a chapter on this in a forthcoming book which you might be interested. It's edited by David Orr. It's about democracy in hotter times, looking at the democratic crisis and the climate crisis at the same time. And so I've thought a little bit about media reform, but it's definitely not my expertise. We should have somebody on your podcast to talk about that too.David RobertsWell, let me tell you, as someone who's been obsessed with that subject for years and has looked and looked and looked around, I don't know that there is such thing as an expert. I've yet to encounter anyone who has a solution to that problem that sounds remotely feasible to me, including the alleged experts. And it kind of does seem like every problem runs aground on that, right? Like it would be nice if people had a different story to tell about climate change that had these features you identify that brought people in with values and drew on a broader sense of balance with the earth and ecosystems.But even if they did, you have to have the mechanics of media to get that message out to tell that story. You know what I mean? And so you got one whole side of the media working against you and one at best begrudgingly working with you. It just doesn't seem possible. So I don't know why I'm talking to you about this problem. No one knows a solution to this problem. But it just seems like this is the -er problem that every other problem depends on.Holly Jean BuckYeah, I mean, we should talk about it because it's the central obstacle in climate action, from my point of view, is this broken media ecosystem and if we could unlock that or revise it, we could make a lot of progress on other stuff.David RobertsYes, on poverty, you name it. Almost anything that seems like the main problem you talk about. The narrative must be able to enable broad political coalitions, but you are working against ... I guess I'd like to hear a little bit about what role you think fossil fuels are playing in this? It seems to me pretty obvious that fossil fuels do not want any such broad political coalition about anything more specific than net zero in 2050, right. Which, as you point out, leaves room for vastly different worlds, specifically regarding fossil fuels. It seems like they don't want that and they're working against that and they have power.So who are the agents of this new narrative? Like, who should be telling it and who has the power to tell it?Holly Jean BuckSo I think sometimes in the climate movement we grant too much power to the fossil fuel industry. It's obviously powerful in this country and in many others, but we have a lot of other industries that are also relevant and powerful too. So you can picture agriculture and the tech industry and insurance and some of these other forms of capital standing up to the fossil fuel industry because they have a lot to lose as renewables continue to become cheaper. We should have energy companies that will also have capital and power. So I do think that we need to think about those other coalitions.Obviously, I don't think it needs to be all grounded in forms of capital. I think there's a lot of work to be done in just democratic political power from civil society too. What I'd love to see is philanthropy, spending more money on building up that social infrastructure alongside funding some of this tech stuff.David RobertsYeah, I've talked to a lot of funders about that and what I often hear is like, "Yeah, I'd love that too, but what exactly be specific, David, what do you want me to spend money on?" And I'm always like, "Well, you know, stuff, social infrastructure, media, something." I get very hand wavy very quick because I'm not clear on exactly what it would be. So final subject, which I found really interesting at the tail end, I think it's fair to say your sympathies are with phasing out fossil fuels as fast as possible. And there's this critique you hear from the left-left about climate change that just goes, this is just capitalism, this is what capitalism does.This is the inevitable result of capitalism. And if you want a real solution to climate change on a mass scale, you have to be talking about getting past capitalism or destroying capitalism or alternatives to capitalism, something like that. Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but I feel like you have some sympathy with that. But also then we're back to narratives that can build a broad political coalition, right? Narratives that can include everyone. So how do you think about the tension between kind of the radical rethinking of economics and social arrangements versus the proximate need to keep everybody on board?How is a metanarrative supposed to dance that line?Holly Jean BuckYeah, unfortunately, I think in this media ecosystem we can't lead with smashing capitalism or with socialism. It's just not going to work, unfortunately. So then what do you do? I think you have to work on things that would make an opening for that. Having more political power, more power grounded in local communities. It's not going to be easy.David RobertsEven if you let the anti-capitalist cat out of the bag at all, you have a bunch of enemies that would love to seize on that, to use it to divide. So I don't know, what does that mean? Openings, just reforms of capitalism at the local level? I mean, I'm asking you to solve these giant global problems. I don't know why, but how do you solve capitalism? What's your solution to capitalism? What does that mean, to leave an opening for post-capitalism without directly taking on capitalism? I guess I'd just like to hear a little bit more about that.Holly Jean BuckSo I think that there's a lot of things that seem unconnected to climate at first, like making sure we have the integrity of our elections, dealing with redistricting and gerrymandering and those sorts of things that are one part of it. Reforming the media system is another part of it. Just having that basic civil society infrastructure, I think, will enable different ideas to form and grow.David RobertsDo you have any predictions about the future of net zero? Sort of as a concept, as a guiding light, as a goal? Because you identify these kind of ambiguities and tensions within it that seem like it doesn't seem like it can go on forever without resolving some of those. But as you also say, it's become so ubiquitous and now plays such a central role in the dialogue and in the Paris plans and et cetera, et cetera. It's also difficult to see it going away. So it's like can't go on forever, but it can't go away. So do you have any predictions how it evolves over the coming decade?Holly Jean BuckWell, it could just become one of these zombie concepts and so that really is an opportunity for people to get together and think about what other thing they would like to see. Is it going to be measuring phase out of fossil fuels and having a dashboard where we can track the interconnection queue and hold people accountable for improving that? Are we going to be measuring adaptation and focusing on that? Are we going to be thinking more about the resources that are going to countries to plan and direct a transition and trying to stand up agencies that are really focused on energy transition or land use transition?I mean, we could start making those demands now and we could also be evolving these broader languages to talk about and understand the motion. So we have some concepts that have been floated and already sort of lost some amount of credibility, like sustainability, arguably just transition. We have Green New Deal. Will that be the frame? Is that already lost? What new stuff could we come up with? Is it regeneration or universal basic energy. I think there's a lot of languages to explore and so I would be thrilled to see the Climate Movement work with other movements in society, with antiracist movements, with labor movements and more to explore the languages and the specific things we could measure and then take advantage of the slipperiness of net zero to get in there and talk about something else we might want to see.David RobertsOkay, that sounds like a great note to wrap up on. Thank you for coming. Thank you for the super fascinating book and for all your work, Holly Jean Buck. Thanks so much.Holly Jean BuckThank you.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe
Is climate change creating a real estate bubble we shouldn't ignore? And who's going to get hurt if that bubble bursts? Yale's Climate Connections newsletter just reported on a study that claims there's a massive bubble forming because property values don't include climate risks like flooding and wildfires. The 2023 Nature Climate Change study also suggests six ways to reduce this risk and potentially keep this bubble from bursting. (1) Hi, I'm Kathy Fettke and this is Real Estate News for Investors. Please remember to subscribe to this podcast and leave us a review. Although climate change skeptics may feel we are experiencing normal weather patterns, many people are concerned that severe weather events are increasing in number and intensity. We've been seeing increased storm-related flooding in some areas and more drought-related wildfires in others. Some inland areas are also dealing with water scarcity and extreme heat while coastal areas are faced with the threat of rising sea levels. The “Brittleness Bubble” The Yale newsletter cited climate futurist Alex Steffen for his definition of the so-called “Brittleness Bubble.” Steffen says: “As awareness of risk grows, the financial value of risky places drops. Where meeting that risk is more expensive than decision-makers think a place is worth, it simply won't be defended. It will be abandoned.” He says: “That will then create more problems. Bonds for big projects, loans and mortgages, business investment, insurance, talented workers – all will grow more scarce. Then, values will crash.” Overvaluation of Homes The Nature Climate Change study pegged the overvaluation of U.S. homes in flood zones at around $200 billion, but a study done last year by consulting firm Milliman had a much higher number. In the Milliman study, researchers calculated the overvaluation at more like $500 billion. These figures apply to flood risk, and don't account for the impact of other weather-related risks like wildfires. California is suffering the impact of highly destructive wildfires that have been increasing in number and intensity. And that's pushing up insurance rates, making it unaffordable for many people to rebuild or buy homes in high-risk areas. The Southwest has also been dealing with a long-time drought although recent winter rains have helped to replenish reservoirs. But water scarcity and extreme heat are a growing problem in many areas. Reducing the Risk The report goes on to list six ways to help prevent this bubble from bursting, which I will briefly share with you. 1 - The first is to require sellers to fully disclose flood risks. The study says that, in general, properties that are highly overvalued are in coastal counties which often don't require flood-risk disclosures. Some property listing websites will show you this info however, such as Redfin and Realtor.com. Floodfactor.com also provides property-specific risk ratings. 2 - The second suggestion is to raise awareness about climate change which might lead to policy changes about development in risky areas. This will likely happen as more people suffer the impact and media attention grows. 3 - Third on the list of suggestions is to charge market-based insurance rates instead of subsidized rates provided by the National Flood Insurance Program. The NFIP has issued new risk ratings called Risk Rating 2.0. That has brought insurance costs closer to what they need to be, but it's a slow-going process because there are yearly rate-hike caps. 4 - The fourth suggestion is to reduce federal subsidies for properties in risky areas. These subsidies come in the form of supplemental disaster relief with no requirements for long-term flood-risk strategies. The study authors say it's a complex issue that will take a lot of effort to tackle because there isn't much political support or funding to get this done. 5 - Fifth on the list of actions to address the so-called climate change housing bubble is a revamping of FEMA and the creation of a National Disaster Safety Board. The report says that FEMA is “underfunded, understaffed, and has minimal authority to do what it needs to do.” A National Disaster Safety Board could help implement policy changes. 6 - Last but not least, the report suggests that we should work toward a retreat policy that would help people move from areas that have suffered multiple climate-related disasters. The strategy would be to provide affordable housing for these people which may sound like a “big ask” at a time when the nation is suffering from a huge lack of affordable housing. When Will the Bubble Burst? So when will all this become critical? The Yale article cites a NOAA prediction, that the average sea level rise by 2050 will be 10 to 14 inches for the East Coast, 14 to 18 inches for the Gulf Coast, and four to eight inches for the West Coast. It says a “rapid rise” will happen after that and claims that we'll see a rise of four to seven feet by 2100 as compared to the year 2000. The study can't predict when we might see a sudden disruption because so much depends on politics, the economy, and basic human behavior. It says we might see a period of increased risk in the mid-2030s because of a “wobble in the moon's orbit.” It's something that happens every 18.6 years and usually causes unusually high tides along the Southern and Western coastlines. If you own property in a high risk area, this topic is something that may command more of your attention. And if you're looking to buy a new property, be sure to check on the climate risks and factor that into your decision. As I mentioned, Redfin and Realtor.com both provide environmental risk factors on their property listing pages. You can also find more detailed information at floodfactor.com. If you want to read more about this study, you'll find a link to the Yale article at newsforinvestors.com. You can also join RealWealth for free if you'd like more information on how to navigate the housing market right now and find rental property that makes sense for your portfolio. And please remember to subscribe to the podcast and leave us a review! Thank you! And thanks for listening, Kathy Links: 1 - https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/04/bubble-trouble-climate-change-is-creating-a-huge-and-growing-u-s-real-estate-bubble/
俄乌冲突一年多来，不仅对全球地缘政治产生重要影响，也冲击了全球能源市场，石油、天然气、煤炭价格持续处在高位。能源价格走高带来了家庭能源消费增加和能源贫困。我们今天的播客请到了英国伯明翰大学单钰理教授和他课题组的两位同学，关玉儒和闫瑾，介绍他们最近在Nature Energy发表的关于全球能源危机下家庭能源负担的研究。讨论文章：Guan, Y., Yan, J., Shan, Y., Zhou, Y., Hang, Y., Li, R., ... & Hubacek, K. (2023). Burden of the global energy price crisis on households. Nature Energy, 1-13.嘉宾介绍：单钰理长期致力于碳排放核算、区域可持续发展、气候变化经济等研究，其结合自然科学和社会科学的多领域交叉研究成果得到学术界的普遍认可，并为各级政府在碳达峰、碳中和等方面的管理实践提供了基础数据支撑。单钰理近三年在Nature Climate Change, Nature Sustainability, Nature Food, and Science Advances等国际顶级期刊发表论文百余篇。其中12篇入选ESI热点论文，16篇入选ESI高被引论文。论文被正面引用六千余次，H指数34，被包括中国国际电视台、新华社、路透社、金融时报等在内的多家媒体报道。其参与搭建的中国碳排放数据库CEADs自2016年上线以来，注册用户1.7万人，年下载量11万次，被百余篇研究论文使用。第一部分：研究背景、结果和方法04:05 俄乌冲突如何影响了能源价格？为什么要从家庭能源负担入手？09:34 “投入产出法”如何从供应链的角度研究家庭能源影响？10:57 谈谈大家对能源危机的个人感受16:07 研究如何具体的反映出家庭和国家受到的能源消费影响？21:57 为什么中产阶级受到能源危机的影响最大？23:12 能源危机如何“间接”的影响了家庭消费？电力和食品受到了什么影响？25:20 “投入产出方法”的隐含假设如何影响结果？第二部分：政策意涵和展开讨论30:41 俄乌冲突是减缓了还是加剧了全球低碳能源转型？其对经济和能源部门的长期影响如何衡量？31:40 能源安全、平等和碳中和之间存在着什么样的协同与妥协关系？如何兼顾三者的实现？36:23 未来能源贸易如何变化？如何平衡能源安全和能源贸易？37:41 如何避免下一次能源危机？41:48 如何精准的给能源贫困户发钱？46:09 碳中和领域的整体展望碳笑风生关注全球和中国的能源转型、气候变化和可持续发展问题，特别是中国实现碳达峰、碳中和的科学、技术、政策、政治、经济、社会和文化问题。大家可以在小宇宙播客、喜马拉雅、QQ音乐、Podcast等平台收听我们，我们同步更新的微信公众号“环境科学与政策”会有更多的专业讨论。大家也可以通过留言或在微信公众号“环境科学与政策”联系我们。 开场、转场、结尾音乐来自The Podcast Host and Alitu: The Podcast Maker app.
Professor Julia Steinberger researches and teaches in the interdisciplinary areas of Ecological Economics and Industrial Ecology. She is the recipient of a Leverhulme Research Leadership Award for her research project 'Living Well Within Limits' investigating how universal human well-being might be achieved within planetary boundaries. She is Lead Author for the IPCC's 6th Assessment Report with Working Group 3.She has held postdoctoral positions at the Universities of Lausanne and Zurich, and obtained her PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She has published over 40 internationally peer-reviewed articles since 2009 in journals including Nature Climate Change, Nature Sustainability, WIRES-Climate Change, Environmental Science & Technology, PLOS ONE and Environmental Research Letters.As part of our drive towards finding the people at the leading edge of change, we wanted to connect with Prof Steinberger really to unpick the detail of personal and collective action. Each of us is only one person and the nature of the change can feel overwhelming even while it feels urgent. So we need to hear directly from the people whose entire lives are given to solving this problem and who have concrete ideas of what we can do and how, who can direct our priorities and show us where the best leverage points lie. Prof. Steinberger has clear ideas of how our culture can live within planetary boundaries and we unpick them in this podcast. Enjoy! Julia on Medium https://jksteinberger.medium.com/an-audacious-toolkit-actions-against-climate-breakdown-part-1-a-is-for-advocacy-7baa108f00e9Living Well Within Limits https://lili.leeds.ac.uk/Positive Money https://positivemoney.org/Fossil Banks, No Thanks https://www.fossilbanks.org/
Early this year, a 22-year-old bluegrass guitar player named Jake Eddy contacted clarinet player Andy Statman and asked him if he'd like to play bluegrass music together. Jon Kalish has this story about the unlikely collaboration. And, human-driven climate change is expected to cause about 110 trillion tons of ice to melt off Greenland's ice shield — and even the most drastic preventive measures can't stop it, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change this week. Glaciologist David Bahr joins us.
Human-driven climate change has set in motion massive ice losses in Greenland that couldn't be halted even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gasses today, according to a study published Monday. The findings in the journal Nature Climate Change project that it is now inevitable that 3.3 percent of the Greenland ice sheet will melt — equal to 110 trillion tons of ice, the researchers said. That will trigger nearly a foot of global sea-level rise. The predictions are more dire than other forecasts, though they use different assumptions. While the study did not specify a time frame for the melting and sea-level rise, the authors suggested much of it can play out between now and the year 2100.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On this episode of Gist Healthcare Daily, hospitals in states with strict abortion laws struggle to recruit physicians. CivicaScript starts selling its first outpatient generic drug to treat prostate cancer. And a new study published in Nature Climate Change finds climate change is exacerbating some infectious diseases. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Three men were sentenced in federal court for their role in the February 2020 murder of Ahmaud Arbery. The man who shot Arbery, Travis McMichael, and his father Gregory McMichael were sentenced to life in prison. William Bryan, who was with the McMichaels that day, got 35 years.A new study published in the Nature Climate Change journal found that climate change can worsen the spread of infectious diseases like malaria, cholera and anthrax. It also details how climate disasters can wreak havoc on healthcare infrastructure and make it harder to treat sick people.And in headlines: a nuclear power plant in Ukraine was damaged, indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran concluded, and the FBI raided Mar-A-Lago.Show Notes:AP: “Study connects climate hazards to 58% of infectious diseases” – https://bit.ly/3A8omzKCrooked's “Hot Take” – https://crooked.com/podcast-series/hot-take/Vote Save America: Fuck Bans Action Plan – https://votesaveamerica.com/roe/Crooked Coffee is officially here. Our first blend, What A Morning, is available in medium and dark roasts. Wake up with your own bag at crooked.com/coffeeFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/whataday/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday
Marnie Chesterton and guests mull over the saga of an AI engineer who believes his chatbot is sentient. Also, climate scientists propose a major leap in earth system modelling, that might cost £250m a year but would bring our predictive power from 100 km to 1km. And the story of a Malaysian Breadfruit species that turns out to be two separate strains - something locals knew all along, but that science had missed. Philp Ball's latest book, The Book of Minds, explores the work still to be done on our conception of what thinking is, and what it might mean in non-human contexts. Beth Singler is a digital ethnographer - an anthropologist who studies societal reaction to technological advancement. They discuss the story this week that a google AI engineer has been suspended on paid leave from his work with an experimental algorithm called LaMDA. He rather startlingly announced his belief that it had attained sentience, publishing some excerpts from interactions he has experienced with it. Prof Dame Julia Slingo this week has published a proposal in Nature Climate Change, co-authored with several of the world's greatest climate scientists, for a multinational investment in the next generation of climate models. Currently, models of the global climate have a resolution of something like 100km, a scale which, they suggest, misses some very fundamental physics of the way rain, clouds and storms can form. Zooming into 1km resolution, and including the smaller physical systems will allow scientist to better predict extreme events, and crucially how water interacts in a real way with rising temperatures in different climes. And can zooming in on taxonomy reveal insights in conservation and biodiversity? Researchers in the US and Malaysia have described a species of breadfruit that has hitherto been considered one species by mainstream science. Locals have long described them as different species, and the genetics proves that view correct. Can more local, granular knowledge help us get a better handle on the conservation status of our planet's biodiversity? Emily Bird Reports. Presenter Marnie Chesterton Reporter Emily Bird Producer Alex Mansfield
This week on inside science Marnie Chesterton is looking at how companies measure and account for their use of renewable energy, how politics is impacting science funding in the UK and the technology behind the Queen's holographic stand in at jubilee celebrations. Dr Anders Bjorn from Concordia university in Montreal talks us through ‘Renewable Energy Certificates' explaining how they can sometimes be disconnected from real-life reductions in emissions. As he explains in a paper in Nature Climate Change this week, this is a problem, with businesses buying renewable energy certificates that may, even with the best of intentions, mean that corporate estimates of how much they have transferred to renewable energy could be out by as much as two-thirds. For example, in Poland, where much of the grid is powered by fossil fuels, a company can buy RECs from energy producers in Norway, where so much of the grid is de-carbonised and users feel no need to purchase such a certificate. As negotiations on the New Greenhouse Gas Protocol get underway, and delegates in Bonn discuss COP 26 progress, yet more food for thought. In the UK, some long term collaborations and research structures are under threat as the ratification of UK membership of Horizon Europe continues to be delayed. This has led to some researchers running out of funds, some having to relinquish membership, and others moving to different institutions in Member Countries. Professor Nicky Clayton at the university of Cambridge has for many years run a “Corvid Palace” where she keeps very clever birds and examines their thinking. It is threatened with closure, and she is searching for funding to keep the research going, even setting up an open letter from academics around the world in support of this globally renowned facility. Carsten Welsh, a physicist at Liverpool University has also been impacted, facing a difficult decision about whether to give up leadership of his newly funded project or leave the country to pursue it. EU Horizon is one of the most ambitious and well-funded research and international collaboration schemes in science and with every EU nation signed up and countries like Canada and Japan keen to join too, it's no wonder the UK wants to take part. Martin Smith, head of policy lab at the Wellcome Trust explains what's getting in our way and what might happen next for British scientists who rely on Horizon to fund their research. And finally, celebrations last weekend for the celebration of Her Majesty's Platinum Jubilee were seemingly led by a holographic queen riding in the Golden State Coach at the head of the pageant in London. At least, that was how it was reported. But was it really? BBC Inside Science managed to track down the leader of the team that made it – whatever it was – happen, and in a generous world exclusive, Willie Williams, head of Treatment Studio, kindly spills the magic beans on quite how you make a Royal Hologram. Presenter: Marnie Chesterton Assistant Producer: Emily Bird Producer: Alex Mansfield
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
