POPULARITY
2 episodes with sixth assessment report
3 episodes with sixth assessment report
2 episodes with sixth assessment report
2 episodes with sixth assessment report
2 episodes with sixth assessment report
3 episodes with sixth assessment report
2 episodes with sixth assessment report
This week, we present two stories about confronting threats -- whether it's actual physical danger or a threat to your career. Part 1: Climate scientist Kim Cobb is exploring a cave in Borneo when rocks begin to fall. Part 2: Neurobiologist Lyl Tomlinson is startled when he's accused of stealing cocaine from his former lab. Kim Cobb is a researcher who uses corals and cave stalagmites to probe the mechanisms of past, present, and future climate change. Kim has sailed on multiple oceanographic cruises to the deep tropics and led caving expeditions to the rainforests of Borneo in support of her research. Kim has received numerous awards for her research, most notably a NSF CAREER Award in 2007, a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers in 2008, and the EGU Hans Oeschger Medal in 2020. She served as Lead Author for the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and as a member of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board under President Biden. As a mother to four, Kim is a strong advocate for women in science, and champions diversity and inclusion in all that she does. She is also devoted to the clear and frequent communication of climate change to the public through speaking engagements and social media. Lyl Tomlinson is a Brooklyn native and a post-doctoral researcher and program coordinator at Stony Brook University. He is also a science communication fanatic who often asks: “Would my grandma understand this?” Using this question as a guiding principle, he won the 2014 NASA FameLab science communication competition and became the International final runner-up. In addition to making complex information understandable, he has a growing interest in science policy. Lyl meets with government representatives to advocate for science related issues and regularly develops programs to tackle problems ranging from scientific workforce issues to the Opioid Epidemic. Outside of his work and career passions, he seems to harbor an odd obsession with sprinkles and is a (not so secret) comic book and anime nerd. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Australia's vulnerable climate and liveability won't wait for rudimentary debate and ideology. Internationally recognised climate scientist, Dr Joelle Gergis joins Zoe Daniel MP to discuss her latest release, Highway to Hell: Climate Change and Australia's Future, and what's at stake for us all if we don't act with science-led urgency.Joelle Gergis is an internationally recognised expert in Australian and Southern Hemisphere climate variability and change who has authored over 100 scientific publications and was a lead author on the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on the Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report — a global, state-of-the-art review of climate change science.You can find her latest release here Highway to Hell: Climate Change and Australia's Future. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Women and Girls on the Climate Change Frontline: Navigating Climate Change, a podcast series that shines a light on the women and girls leading the fight against climate change in the least developed countries.In this episode, we look at women and climate policy: advocating for Gender-Sensitive Solutions and Inclusive Decision-Making. This episode focused on the role of women in shaping climate policy. It examines the ways in which women are advocating for more gender-sensitive climate policies and working to ensure that their voices are heard in the decision-making process. Our Guests in this episode:Anju Sharma, is an experienced manager, researcher, writer, and editor with over 20 years of expertise in sustainable development, particularly in Asia. She showcases an extensive background in policy research, advocacy, and information curation related to sustainability. Committed to alleviating poverty while preserving the environment, Anju specializes in areas such as climate change mitigation, natural resource management, air pollution, and civil society engagement. Her work embodies a dedicated pursuit of sustainable and equitable society.https://www.linkedin.com/in/jusharma/Joelle Hangi is a refugee currently residing in Kenya, originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Joelle has worked in different research capacities with UNHCR Africa Office, Oxford's Refugee Studies Centre, University of Geneva's Human Rights Department, amongst other humanitarian organizations. All with a focus on improving and enabling refugee agency, autonomy, and rights. Currently, she is one of the 12 fellows of the inaugural RSC-BIEA Fellowship, which brings together early career researchers interested in matters of forced displacement. She also served as an Ashden judge for the Humanitarian Energy award. Her research interests include humanitarian aid, development aid particularly, the provision of and access to clean energy in displacement settings.https://www.linkedin.com/in/joelle-hangi/(E) Lisa (F) Schipper is Professor of Development Geography at the University of Bonn. Her work focuses on adaptation to climate change in the Global South, and looks at gender, religion and culture to understand what drives vulnerability. Lisa has lived and worked in Central and South America, East and West Africa and South and Southeast Asia. She was Co-ordinating Lead Author of Chapter 18 of the Working Group 2 contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (‘Climate Resilient Development Pathways') that was published in February 2022. She is co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Climate and Development (Taylor and Francis) and member of the editorial board of the journals World Development Perspectives (Elsevier) and Global Transitions: Health Transitions (KeAi). She also serves as Contributing Editor of the Carbon Brief.https://www.linkedin.com/in/e-lisa-f-schipper-5638779/A show of this quality would not be possible without the incredible talent of Sarah Harris-Simpson, as well as the extraordinary and persistent support of Sorina Crisan and Eda Isik. Leave a ReviewThanks for listening! If you found the episode useful, please spread the word about this new show on Twitter mentioning
Guest post by Dana R. Fisher. Excerpted from Saving Ourselves: From Climate Shocks to Climate Action by Dana R. Fisher (Columbia University Press, 2024). Despite numerous efforts to address the climate crisis at multiple levels of governance, policymaking has been ineffective at bringing about the emissions reductions necessary to limit global warming below the 1.5°C threshold identified by the IPCC and codified in the Paris Agreement. So many Climate Promises The call for more commitments from nations and businesses comes on top of growing concerns about the feasibility of the implementation of existing climate pledges. The UN secretary-general said the Sixth Assessment Report from IPCC Working Group 3 on mitigation documents "'a litany of broken climate promises' by governments and businesses." In short, even when countries do commit to climate goals, they are not following through on these commitments. While countries vary substantially regarding their institutional makeup, these broken promises are apparent in most nations where adequate climate action continues to be out of reach. In the United States, for example, the country is expected to overshoot its original climate commitments set by President Barack Obama at the COP21 round of the climate negotiations in Paris in 2015. These targets were classified as "insufficient" by the independent scientific team at Climate Action Tracker to keep global warming below 3°C. In 2021, the Biden administration submitted an updated commitment prior to the COP26 round of negotiations that increases the country's pledge and gets the United States closer to achieving the emissions reduction goals of the Paris Agreement. And finally, after years of failed attempts to pass climate legislation through the U.S. Congress and months of stops and starts, the Inflation Reduction Act, which aims to address climate change along with other issues, passed and was signed into law in August 2022. Although the United States having a federal climate policy that was approved by both the Congress and the president after so long is cause for celebration, this bill only made it to President Biden's desk for signature due to giveaways to the fossil fuel industry that were brokered by West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. And, even with this new policy, the country is still not on a path to fulfill its climate commitments that would stabilize global warming at the 1.5° threshold set by the Paris Agreement. Outside the United States, it is not much better. Although many other developed countries have filed Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that indicate plans to reduce their emissions in line with the IPCC's targets, the implementation of policies that achieve these intended goals are few and far between. Since the war in Ukraine began in February 2022, many countries have found meeting their climate goals even more challenging. While country responses have been insufficient, business efforts have been bipolar. In contrast to the swift and effective global response to ozone depletion, where a technological fix was discovered and companies encouraged governments to implement it, the climate crisis has no silver bullet. To date, companies representing non-carbon-emitting energy sources and technologies continue to butt heads against entrenched business interests that support an economy run on fossil fuels. Recent research has documented the fact that fossil fuel companies have been well aware since the 1970s that burning fossil fuels would lead to a climate crisis. Instead of acting on that information to limit the risk of a crisis, companies buried their findings and misled the public so they could continue to expand their businesses. At the same time that fossil fuel expansion continues, many companies and governments are investing heavily in the development of technology that will either remove carbon from the atmosphere or reduce solar absorption through geoengineering. Fossil fuel companies are t...
Thoughts on Record: Podcast of the Ottawa Institute of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
Mental health professionals have increasingly been seeing clients seeking services related to anxiety and depression stemming from serious, negative changes that have been occurring in our climate. Psychologist and professor, Dr. Susan Clayton, who is one of the world's authorities on how the environment impacts upon psychological factors joins us for a discussion in which we cover: how the environment & climate impacts upon psychological well-being and functioning generallya working definition of climate anxiety (and associated terms which are frequently used in this context)the prevalence and nature of clinically significant climate anxiety and whether our current level of anxiety about the environment should even be considered disordered given the challenges we are facinga historical & evolutionary perspective on our attunement to the environment as humans and why it is hard for us to make realistic threat appraisals the pull for current climate challenges to evoke nihilism and the role grief work could potentially play in contending with emergent distress related to the climateother forms of psychological symptoms that we know can originate from climate change aside from anxietyhelping individuals to identify resources that will augment their sense of effective copinglinking a sustainable stance towards the environment with core human values and meaning Dr. Clayton's suggestions around effective coping for those experiencing climate anxietyComments or feedback? Email the show at: oicbtpodcast@gmail.com? Finding value in the podcast? A review or rating on your platform of choice is always appreciated!Susan Clayton , Ph.D., is the Whitmore-Williams Professor and Chair of Psychology at the College of Wooster in Ohio. Dr. Clayton's research examines people's relationship with the natural environment, how it is socially constructed, and how a healthy relationship with nature can be promoted. She has written about the effects of climate change on mental health, and has developed a scale to assess climate anxiety. She is author or editor of six books, including Identity and the Natural Environment, Conservation Psychology, and Psychology and Climate Change, and is currently the editor of the Cambridge Elements series in Applied Social Psychology and on the editorial board for journals such as the Journal of Environmental Psychology and Sustainability. A fellow of the American Psychological Association and the International Association of Applied Psychology, she was a lead author on the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
NO!!! The radical left is using climate lockdowns to imprison us in communist cities where we'll be forced to walk to all the nearby amenities.Join Nebula (and get 40% off an annual subscription): https://go.nebula.tv/deniersplaybookBONUS EPISODES available on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/deniersplaybook) SOCIALS & MORE (https://linktr.ee/deniersplaybook) CREDITS Hosts: Rollie Williams & Nicole Conlan Executive Producer: Ben Boult Audio Producer: Gregory Haddock Researcher: Carly RizzutoArt: Jordan Doll Music: Tony DomenickSOURCESGoogle Trends: “15 Min City” Search term interest since 2018What Is A "15 Minute City" & Why Are They Part Of "The Great Reset"? w/ Marc Morano – Ask Dr. Drew (YouTube)AFP Factcheck: Ohio train derailment fuels 15-minute city conspiracy theories (2023) Instagram post by standupcardiff (2023)Reuters Fact Check: Fact Check-‘15-minute city' is an urban planning concept that promotes easy access to essential amenities (2023)Institute for Strategic Dialogue: ‘Climate Lockdown' and the Culture Wars: How COVID-19 Sparked a New Narrative Against Climate Action (2021) Project Syndicate: Avoiding a Climate Lockdown (2020)MarketWatch: Opinion: We need to act boldly now if we are to avoid economy-wide lockdowns to halt climate change (2020) TedTalk by Carlos Moreno: The 15-minute cityMPDI: Introducing the “15-Minute City”: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities (2021)NYT: He Wanted to Unclog Cities. Now He's ‘Public Enemy No. 1.' (2023)Teen Vogue: What Are “15-Minute Cities” and Why Are Conspiracy Theorists Worried About Them? (2023)NewsBusters: Soros/Gates-Funded Org ($6.5M): World May Need ‘Climate Lockdown' (2020)IPCC: Climate Change 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022, PDF Download)Coin Bureau: 15 Minute Cities: Oxford Won't Be the Same! (YouTube, 2023)Climate Depot: UK Guardian activists hope Coronavirus lockdown becomes climate lockdown: ‘What was once impossible (socialist, reckless) now turns out not to be, at all' (2020)Oxfordshire County Council: Consultation on trial traffic filters (2022)Oxfordshire County Council: Traffic filters: What traffic filters are and how they will work.Oxfordshire City Counci's Twitter post about 15 Minute CitiesVision News: Oxfordshire County Council Pass Climate Lockdown 'trial' to Begin in 2024 (2022)The Daily Sceptic: Oxford County Councillors to Introduce Trial Climate Lockdown in 2024 (2022) Archive.org: Jordan Peterson Tweet (2022)Twitter: The New Statesman: The 15-minute City is a working-class nightmare (2023)Forbes: Tory MP Uses Conspiracy Theory In U.K. Parliament Against 15-Minute City Concept (2023)Archive.org: Fox News: The Ingraham Angle: In a Net-Zero Economy, You'll Be Cold and Hungry (2023)USA Today: Fact Check: False claim UK city will test 'climate lockdowns' in 2024 (2022)AP News: Traffic plan in Oxfordshire, England, isn't a ‘climate lockdown' (2022)Reuters: Fact Check-Oxfordshire County Council to trial congestion-reducing traffic filters, not a ‘climate lockdown' that stops residents leaving neighbourhoods (2022)DeSmog: Revealed: The Science Denial Network Behind Oxford's ‘Climate Lockdown' Backlash (2023)Bloomberg: The 15-Minute City Freakout Is a Case Study in Conspiracy Paranoia (2023)C40: Introducing Spotlight On: 15-minute cities (2021)Portland.gov: The Portland Plan (2012) The Guardian: The Guardian view on the climate and coronavirus: global warnings (2020)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The Global Health Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade recently presented the second of its Health and Development Seminar Series: Climate Change, Health and International Development, supported by the Specialist Health Service (SHS). The seminar explored the impacts of climate change and health, its relevance to health policy and programming in the Australian aid program, and how to build climate adaptation into health programs throughout the aid cycle, from concept and design, to implementation, monitoring and evaluation.In this episode we bring you insights from Professor Kathryn Bowen, who presented on climate change and impacts on health in our region. Professor Bowen is Deputy Director at Melbourne Climate Futures and Professor with the Environment, Climate and Global Health at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne. She was a lead author on the health chapter of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group II, Sixth Assessment Report 2018-2022. Kathryn is an international expert on the science and policy of sustainability (particularly climate change) and health issues, with 20 years' experience in original public health research, science assessment, capacity development and policy advice.We encourage you to join the conversation at @CentreHealthSec. You can follow Professor Kathryn Bowen at @kathrynjbowen and Melbourne Climate Futures at @MCFunimelb. More information is also available at unimelb.edu.au/climate and www.linkedin.com/showcase/melbourneclimatefutures
In this week's episode, host Daniel Raimi talks with Jamie Van Nostrand, former director of the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development at West Virginia University and current chair of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. Van Nostrand discusses how the state government in West Virginia historically has supported and promoted the coal industry, how the state's support of coal has affected electricity prices for West Virginia residents, and how recent policies could influence the future of energy in West Virginia. References and recommendations: “The Coal Trap: How West Virginia Was Left Behind in the Clean Energy Revolution” by James M. Van Nostrand; https://www.thecoaltrap.com “What Is An ‘Energy Community'? Alternative Approaches for Geographically Targeted Energy Policy” by Daniel Raimi and Sophie Pesek; https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/what-is-an-energy-community-alternative-approaches-for-geographically-targeted-energy-policy/ Sixth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
Welcome to the Harvard Center for International Development's Road to GEM23 Climate & Development podcast. At CID, we work across a global network of researchers and practitioners to build, convene, and deploy talent to address the world's most pressing challenges. On our Road to GEM23, we strive to elevate and learn from voices from the countries on the frontlines of the climate crisis and will feature learnings from leading researchers and practitioners working to combat climate change. In this episode, we are joined by Michael Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), the Department of Geosciences, and the High Meadows Environmental Institute at Princeton University. He is also the Director of the Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment (C-PREE) at SPIA. Oppenheimer previously worked with The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) where he served as chief scientist and manager of the Climate and Air Program. He continues to serve as a science advisor to EDF. Oppenheimer is also a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, most recently serving as a Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC's Special Report on Oceans and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (2019) and as a Review Editor on the upcoming Sixth Assessment Report. Oppenheimer is joined by CID Student Ambassador Yan Liang to discuss climate adaptation policies and the systemic changes for improved mitigation and resiliency across sectors.
Did you know that climate change affects both mental and physical health? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn, for her interview with Susan Clayton, Ph.D., social psychologist, Whitmore-Williams Professor of Psychology at The College of Wooster (Ohio), and lead author of the chapter on “Health, Wellbeing, and the Changing Structure of Communities,” in the U.N.'s Sixth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . Clayton discusses “eco-anxiety,” psychological impacts, resilience, communication and hope in the face of climate change.Related website: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/ https://ecoamerica.org/
Lecture Summary: This lecture will discuss recent developments in the UN Climate Regime, focusing in particular on the mismatch between the increasing emphasis on temperature goals and target-setting under the Paris Agreement and its treatment of equity and fairness in delivering these goals and targets. Lavanya Rajamani is a Professor of International Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, and Yamani Fellow in Public International Law, St Peter's College, Oxford. Lavanya writes, teaches and advises on international climate change law. She has been closely involved in the climate change negotiations in various capacities for two decades, including as advisor to Chairs, Presidencies, and the Secretariat. She was part of the core UNFCCC drafting and advisory group for the Paris Agreement. And a Coordinating Lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report. She is also currently involved in providing the evidence base for ongoing climate change litigation in national, regional and international courts.
Lecture Summary: This lecture will discuss recent developments in the UN Climate Regime, focusing in particular on the mismatch between the increasing emphasis on temperature goals and target-setting under the Paris Agreement and its treatment of equity and fairness in delivering these goals and targets.Lavanya Rajamani is a Professor of International Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, and Yamani Fellow in Public International Law, St Peter's College, Oxford. Lavanya writes, teaches and advises on international climate change law. She has been closely involved in the climate change negotiations in various capacities for two decades, including as advisor to Chairs, Presidencies, and the Secretariat. She was part of the core UNFCCC drafting and advisory group for the Paris Agreement. And a Coordinating Lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report. She is also currently involved in providing the evidence base for ongoing climate change litigation in national, regional and international courts.
Lecture Summary: This lecture will discuss recent developments in the UN Climate Regime, focusing in particular on the mismatch between the increasing emphasis on temperature goals and target-setting under the Paris Agreement and its treatment of equity and fairness in delivering these goals and targets.Lavanya Rajamani is a Professor of International Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, and Yamani Fellow in Public International Law, St Peter's College, Oxford. Lavanya writes, teaches and advises on international climate change law. She has been closely involved in the climate change negotiations in various capacities for two decades, including as advisor to Chairs, Presidencies, and the Secretariat. She was part of the core UNFCCC drafting and advisory group for the Paris Agreement. And a Coordinating Lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report. She is also currently involved in providing the evidence base for ongoing climate change litigation in national, regional and international courts.
Lecture Summary: This lecture will discuss recent developments in the UN Climate Regime, focusing in particular on the mismatch between the increasing emphasis on temperature goals and target-setting under the Paris Agreement and its treatment of equity and fairness in delivering these goals and targets.Lavanya Rajamani is a Professor of International Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, and Yamani Fellow in Public International Law, St Peter's College, Oxford. Lavanya writes, teaches and advises on international climate change law. She has been closely involved in the climate change negotiations in various capacities for two decades, including as advisor to Chairs, Presidencies, and the Secretariat. She was part of the core UNFCCC drafting and advisory group for the Paris Agreement. And a Coordinating Lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report. She is also currently involved in providing the evidence base for ongoing climate change litigation in national, regional and international courts.
Last month the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Synthesis Report of the Sixth Assessment Report. It showed global temperatures are now 1.1℃ above pre-industrial levels. This warming has driven widespread and rapid global changes, including more frequent and intense weather extremes that are now impacting people and ecosystems all over the world. But when an extreme weather event hits, how certain can we be that it was made more likely by climate change? How do we know it wasn't just a rare, naturally-occuring event that might have happened anyway?Fear & Wonder is a new podcast from The Conversation that takes you inside the UN's era-defining climate report via the hearts and minds of the scientists who wrote it. In this episode, we're delving into one of the major shifts in the public communication of climate change – the attribution of extreme weather events to climate change.Featuring Dr Friederike Otto, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London in the UK, David Karoly honorary Professor at the University of Melbourne in Australia, and Tannecia Stephenson, Physics Professor at the University of the West Indies, Jamaica. Fear and Wonder is produced by Michael Green and is sponsored by the Climate Council, an independent, evidence-based organisation working on climate science, impacts and solutions.Further reading: Have climate change predictions matched reality?Is climate change to blame for extreme weather events? Attribution science says yes, for some – here's how it works Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week's episode is one we prepared earlier (26 March 2023 to be exact) which means past us have just found out that Labor won the NSW election, and we don't yet know the Safeguard Mechanism reforms are destined to pass Parliament with Greens support. Slightly confusing, but bear with us as we forge ahead, titillating and teasing our dear Summeruperers with the promise of Tennant's t-shirt designs invoking Die Hard/Die Harder but make it Safeguard. Folks, if you want to see the glory that is the ‘Safe Guarder' premier LMSU t-shirt design start your twitter engines and let the spamming begin!Before we dive into this week's paper we discuss the recent release of the IPCC's Synthesis report, completing the Sixth Assessment Report. The last major report we'll see from the IPCC prior to the end of this critical decade, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned, the “climate time-bomb is ticking” and we need “climate action on all fronts - everything, everywhere, all at once.” Hear, hear!This week's paper is a swashbuckling sum-up (slaying?) of Volume 6: Managing the climate transition, part of the national Productivity Commission's latest 5-yearly productivity inquiry, the 1,000 page monster Advancing Prosperity. A hard no for charismatic abatement but a yes on one economy-wide policy to rule them all, your intrepid hosts have thoughts! Many, many thoughts.Tennant's One More Thing is a shout out to the smart folks in NSW Treasury on a newly produced guideline, TPG23-08 NSW Government Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis, which bakes in a value of carbon referencing the EU ETS spot price (around $140/tonne). Super interesting prospects for government policy making. Kudos NSW Treasury peeps!Frankie's One More Thing is the recent (well it was when we recorded!) NSW election result with the NSW Labor party claiming victory for the first time in twelve years. Recapping key climate election commitments, a good foundation and plenty of room for more ambition!Luke's One More Thing completes the NSW trifecta with a shout out to outgoing NSW Treasurer, Energy and Climate Minister, Matt Kean, for championing the economic opportunities of the climate transition and his contribution to bipartisan climate policy in recent years. A hat tip to you, Matt!And that's all from us this week Summerupperers! We shall see you next time and until then, please keep tweeting your thoughts to us at @LukeMenzel, @TennantReed and @FrankieMuskovic and if you would like to weave some golden threads through our back catalogue, give us your feelpinions or suggest papers to read we are always here for that - hit us up at mailbag@letmesumup.net.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific body of the United Nations, issued a “final warning” on the climate crisis. In its Sixth Assessment Report, prepared by hundreds of scientists, eight years of research and thousands of pages, the UN panel summarised its findings in one message: act now or it will be too late. The IPCC study detailed how extreme weather has destroyed vast swathes of the world and led to deaths, wrecked homes, floods, droughts, hunger, and the loss of vital ecosystems. The point of no return for the climate's damage is if the thermometer reaches over 1.5°C higher than pre-industrial levels, so this IPCC report could be the last one if we don't step up in limiting global temperatures. Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary General, said that the report is “a clarion call to massively fast-track climate efforts by every country, every sector, and on every timeframe.” “Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.” https://todaysfocusofattention.com/final-warning-on-climate-crisis-act-now-or-its-too-late/
Alok Jha talks to climate scientist Dr Tamsin Edwards about how her pioneering work in modelling the impact of ice sheet and glacier melt on rising sea levels is predicting the future of the planet. Tamsin is an award-winning science communicator, including through her blog for the Public Library of Science, articles for the Guardian, and co-presenting the BBC Radio 4 series “39 Ways to Save the Planet”. She recently wrote an essay about the consequences of rising temperatures worldwide – and how to stop them – for Greta Thunberg's The Climate Book. Tamsin regularly provides advice on climate science to the public, policy makers, media, business and charities. She was a Lead Author of the Sixth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was published in 2021. In 2023, Tamsin will be the first Parliamentary “Thematic Research Lead” for Climate & Environment, a role based on the concept of Chief Scientific Advisers – responsible for bringing about a step change in the way climate research feeds into Parliament's scrutiny, legislation and debate. https://www.ukaht.org/antarctica-in-sight/podcasts/ Season 3 of A Voyage to Antarctica is made possible with support from Hurtigruten Expeditions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
ThoughtSpace - A Podcast from the Centre for Policy Research
In the third episode of Road to COP27, a special series as part of India Speak: The CPR Podcast, Navroz K. Dubash speaks to Rachel Kyte, Dean of The Fletcher School at Tufts University on the geopolitical context for COP27 and its implications. This series will bring leading experts in the lead up to Conference of the Parties (COP) 27, being held from 6-18 November 2022 at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. They discuss the Inflation Reduction Act, the new climate legislation passed by the United States, and what it could mean for climate diplomacy. The episode also explores questions on climate finance, whether there is a landing zone for negotiations on loss and damage and what that looks like, and delves into questions around carbon markets. About the speakers: Rachel Kyte is the 14th dean of The Fletcher School at Tufts University. Kyte is the first woman to lead the United States' oldest graduate-only school of international affairs, which attracts students from all corners of the world and at all stages of their careers. Prior to joining Fletcher, Kyte served as special representative of the UN secretary-general and chief executive officer of Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL). She previously was the World Bank Group vice president and special envoy for climate change, leading the run-up to the Paris Agreement. She was also vice president at the International Finance Corporation responsible for ESG risk and business advisory services. In her UN role and as CEO of SEforAll, a public-private platform created by the UN and World Bank, Kyte led efforts to promote and finance clean, reliable and affordable energy as part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. She served as co-chair of UN Energy. In the 2020 UK New Year Honours, Rachel was appointed as CMG for her services to sustainable energy and combating climate change. Kyte is a member of the UN secretary-general's high-level advisory group on climate action and an advisor to the UK presidency of the UN climate talks. Kyte is co-chair of the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI), and chair of the FONERWA, the Rwanda Green Fund. She serves on the boards of the Private Infrastructure Development Group (PIDG), the Climate Policy Institute and CDP. She advises investors, governments, and not-for-profits on climate, energy, and finance for sustainable development. Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, a New Delhi based think-tank and an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS. He has been actively engaged in debates on climate change, air quality, energy and water as a researcher, policy advisor and activist for over 25 years. Navroz has been a Coordinating Lead Author for the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has advised Indian government policy-making on climate change, energy, and air and water policy over the last decade. In the early 1990s, he helped establish the global Climate Action Network as its first international coordinator.
In the third episode of Road to COP27, a special series as part of India Speak: The CPR Podcast, Navroz K. Dubash speaks to Rachel Kyte, Dean of The Fletcher School at Tufts University on the geopolitical context for COP27 and its implications. This series will bring leading experts in the lead up to Conference of the Parties (COP) 27, being held from 6-18 November 2022 at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. They discuss the Inflation Reduction Act, the new climate legislation passed by the United States, and what it could mean for climate diplomacy. The episode also explores questions on climate finance, whether there is a landing zone for negotiations on loss and damage and what that looks like, and delves into questions around carbon markets. About the speakers: Rachel Kyte is the 14th dean of The Fletcher School at Tufts University. Kyte is the first woman to lead the United States' oldest graduate-only school of international affairs, which attracts students from all corners of the world and at all stages of their careers. Prior to joining Fletcher, Kyte served as special representative of the UN secretary-general and chief executive officer of Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL). She previously was the World Bank Group vice president and special envoy for climate change, leading the run-up to the Paris Agreement. She was also vice president at the International Finance Corporation responsible for ESG risk and business advisory services. In her UN role and as CEO of SEforAll, a public-private platform created by the UN and World Bank, Kyte led efforts to promote and finance clean, reliable and affordable energy as part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. She served as co-chair of UN Energy. In the 2020 UK New Year Honours, Rachel was appointed as CMG for her services to sustainable energy and combating climate change. Kyte is a member of the UN secretary-general's high-level advisory group on climate action and an advisor to the UK presidency of the UN climate talks. Kyte is co-chair of the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI), and chair of the FONERWA, the Rwanda Green Fund. She serves on the boards of the Private Infrastructure Development Group (PIDG), the Climate Policy Institute and CDP. She advises investors, governments, and not-for-profits on climate, energy, and finance for sustainable development. Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, a New Delhi based think-tank and an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS. He has been actively engaged in debates on climate change, air quality, energy and water as a researcher, policy advisor and activist for over 25 years. Navroz has been a Coordinating Lead Author for the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has advised Indian government policy-making on climate change, energy, and air and water policy over the last decade. In the early 1990s, he helped establish the global Climate Action Network as its first international coordinator.
ThoughtSpace - A Podcast from the Centre for Policy Research
In the second episode of Road to COP27, a special series as part of India Speak: The CPR Podcast, Navroz K. Dubash speaks to Saleemul Huq, Director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Bangladesh, on the loss and damage debate that is expected to play a substantial role on the agenda. This series will bring leading experts in the lead up to Conference of the Parties (COP) 27, taking place from 6-18 November 2022 at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. They discuss the growing calls from developing countries for financial support to deal with the impacts of extreme climate events, such as the recent floods in Pakistan, and the possible obstacles that could emerge at the negotiations. The episode also explores the politics of this COP and the symbolism of an African COP. Saleemul Huq is the director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Bangladesh, and is an expert on the links between climate change and sustainable development, particularly from the perspective of developing countries. He was the lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and was the lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Mitigation in the IPCC's fourth assessment report. His current focus is on supporting the engagement of the Least Developed Countries in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He is researching the least developed countries' vulnerability to climate change and the impact of adaptation measures. Prior to becoming a senior associate, Saleem was a senior fellow with IIED, and was also previously director of the Climate Change research group. Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, a New Delhi based think-tank and an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS. He has been actively engaged in debates on climate change, air quality, energy and water as a researcher, policy advisor and activist for over 25 years. Navroz has been a Coordinating Lead Author for the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has advised Indian government policy-making on climate change, energy, and air and water policy over the last decade. In the early 1990s, he helped establish the global Climate Action Network as its first international coordinator.
In the second episode of Road to COP27, a special series as part of India Speak: The CPR Podcast, Navroz K. Dubash speaks to Saleemul Huq, Director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Bangladesh, on the loss and damage debate that is expected to play a substantial role on the agenda. This series will bring leading experts in the lead up to Conference of the Parties (COP) 27, taking place from 6-18 November 2022 at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. They discuss the growing calls from developing countries for financial support to deal with the impacts of extreme climate events, such as the recent floods in Pakistan, and the possible obstacles that could emerge at the negotiations. The episode also explores the politics of this COP and the symbolism of an African COP. Saleemul Huq is the director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Bangladesh, and is an expert on the links between climate change and sustainable development, particularly from the perspective of developing countries. He was the lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and was the lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Mitigation in the IPCC's fourth assessment report. His current focus is on supporting the engagement of the Least Developed Countries in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He is researching the least developed countries' vulnerability to climate change and the impact of adaptation measures. Prior to becoming a senior associate, Saleem was a senior fellow with IIED, and was also previously director of the Climate Change research group. Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, a New Delhi based think-tank and an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS. He has been actively engaged in debates on climate change, air quality, energy and water as a researcher, policy advisor and activist for over 25 years. Navroz has been a Coordinating Lead Author for the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has advised Indian government policy-making on climate change, energy, and air and water policy over the last decade. In the early 1990s, he helped establish the global Climate Action Network as its first international coordinator.
ThoughtSpace - A Podcast from the Centre for Policy Research
CPR is delighted to launch a new series titled, Road to COP27 as part of India Speak: The CPR Podcast. Hosted by Navroz Dubash (Professor, Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment, CPR), this series will bring leading experts in the lead up to Conference of the Parties (COP) 27, taking place from 6-18 November 2022 at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. In the first epsiode of the series, Dubash speaks to Harald Winkler (Professor in PRISM, School of Economics at the University of Cape Town) on global stocktake of the Paris Agreement (GST) and its importance for climate mitigation and adaptation. They reflect on the conversations at the recently concluded Technical Dialogue, a core activity of the GST process that facilitates meaningful conversations between experts and country representatives, and how gaps in implementation of the Paris Agreement can be bridged. The episode also explores the key focus areas of this year's COP including the debate on loss and damage. About the speakers: Harald Winkler is a Professor in PRISM, School of Economics at the University of Cape Town (UCT). His research interests are at the intersection of sustainable development and climate change mitigation. His academic publications can be accessed on Scopus. Specific focus areas for future research include equity and inequality between and within countries; just transitions; the global stock-take; and low emission development strategies. Harald is joint Editor-in-Chief of the international journal Climate Policy, a member of the South African and African Academies of Science, a coordinating lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a member of the SA delegation to the negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and one of two co-facilitators of the technical dialogue of the Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement. Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, a New Delhi based think-tank and an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS. He has been actively engaged in debates on climate change, air quality, energy and water as a researcher, policy advisor and activist for over 25 years. Navroz has been a Coordinating Lead Author for the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has advised Indian government policy-making on climate change, energy, and air and water policy over the last decade. In the early 1990s, he helped establish the global Climate Action Network as its first international coordinator.
CPR is delighted to launch a new series titled, Road to COP27 as part of India Speak: The CPR Podcast. Hosted by Navroz Dubash (Professor, Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment, CPR), this series will bring leading experts in the lead up to Conference of the Parties (COP) 27, taking place from 6-18 November 2022 at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. In the first episode of the series, Dubash speaks to Harald Winkler (Professor in PRISM, School of Economics at the University of Cape Town) on global stocktake of the Paris Agreement (GST) and its importance for climate mitigation and adaptation. They reflect on the conversations at the recently concluded Technical Dialogue, a core activity of the GST process that facilitates meaningful conversations between experts and country representatives, and how gaps in implementation of the Paris Agreement can be bridged. The episode also explores the key focus areas of this year's COP including the debate on loss and damage. About the speakers: Harald Winkler is a Professor in PRISM, School of Economics at the University of Cape Town (UCT). His research interests are at the intersection of sustainable development and climate change mitigation. His academic publications can be accessed on Scopus. Specific focus areas for future research include equity and inequality between and within countries; just transitions; the global stock-take; and low emission development strategies. Harald is joint Editor-in-Chief of the international journal Climate Policy, a member of the South African and African Academies of Science, a coordinating lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a member of the SA delegation to the negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and one of two co-facilitators of the technical dialogue of the Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement. Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, a New Delhi based think-tank and an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS. He has been actively engaged in debates on climate change, air quality, energy and water as a researcher, policy advisor and activist for over 25 years. Navroz has been a Coordinating Lead Author for the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has advised Indian government policy-making on climate change, energy, and air and water policy over the last decade. In the early 1990s, he helped establish the global Climate Action Network as its first international coordinator.
A live webcast will be streamed at 1:00 PM EDT at www.eesi.org/livecast. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to join us for a briefing on the implications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) most recent report—the Sixth Assessment Report—for the upcoming international climate negotiations in Egypt (COP27) and for work on Capitol Hill. The IPCC Assessment Reports are designed to pull together information from around the globe on climate change, including on the physical science; climate impacts and adaptation; and possible greenhouse gas emission trajectories and mitigation opportunities. Panelists, who participated in drafting sections of the report, will discuss key findings from the report and how the information can be used by decision-makers at the national and international levels.
A live webcast will be streamed at 1:00 PM EDT at www.eesi.org/livecast. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to join us for a briefing on the implications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) most recent report—the Sixth Assessment Report—for the upcoming international climate negotiations in Egypt (COP27) and for work on Capitol Hill. The IPCC Assessment Reports are designed to pull together information from around the globe on climate change, including on the physical science; climate impacts and adaptation; and possible greenhouse gas emission trajectories and mitigation opportunities. Panelists, who participated in drafting sections of the report, will discuss key findings from the report and how the information can be used by decision-makers at the national and international levels.
This week, Dr. Sarah Burch (University of Waterloo, Canada) talks with Joseph Majkut (CSIS Energy Security and Climate Change Program Director) about key findings from the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, which provided an updated assessment of global climate change mitigation progress and pledges. Dr. Sarah Burch holds a Canada Research Chair in Sustainability Governance and Innovation and is an Associate Professor in the Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Canada. She is an expert in transformative responses to climate change at the community scale, innovative strategies for making progress on sustainability, and the unique contributions that small businesses can make to this solving this complex challenge. She is currently a Lead Author of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Listen to our previous episodes: Making Sense of the IPCC Report with Dr. Robert Kopp, October 11, 2021 Making Sense of the IPCC Report, Climate Change 2022 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability with Dr. Maarten van Aalst, March 21, 2022
This episode is a conversation with Samantha Suppiah, Christina Mirasol Sayson, Anna Denardin and Nolita Mvunelo of Possible Futures. We talk about colonialism and sustainability, the realities of life in the Global South and the need for communities to be able to define their own vision for a regenerative future.Note: This episode is pretty heavy and may be challenging for listeners in the Global North, who are not used to considering colonialism. I invite you to stick with it and keep an open mind. This is a really important discussion.Footnotes:In the 37th minute there is a reference to "2 degrees Centigrade". Climate scientists typically refer to temperature in Celsius in discussing climate change. Celsius is interchangeable with Centigrade. In the 41st minute there is a reference to "10 million people dying from climate emergencies" - there is actually no current consensus estimate on how many people will die at a temperature rise of 2 deg C. This is speculation only. What we do have is a consensus estimate of mass migrations: for every degree increase, 1 billion migrants. The entire issue of mass migration has notably been omitted from IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (2022).Find out more about Possible Futures: https://www.possiblefutures.earth/ Contact the Green Urbanist: https://greenurbanistpod.com/contact Follow the Green Urbanist: https://twitter.com/GreenUrbanPod https://www.instagram.com/greenurbanistpod https://www.linkedin.com/company/green-urbanist-podcast
Join CCL Research Coordinator Dana Nuccitelli for a training that will discuss all three volumes of the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of its Sixth Assessment Report. The report summarizes the latest scientific research on climate change adaptation and vulnerabilities and highlights the urgency of climate change impacts. Scientific assessment warns that missing Paris targets would harm human health and biodiversity worldwide, and risk irreversible losses sooner than previously thought. But the IPCC report does make clear how important it is that Congress pass the strongest climate package possible through reconciliation this year, ideally including a price on carbon. Skip ahead to the following section(s): (0:00) Intro & Overview (3:07) Working Group I: Causes (12:22) Working Group II: Impacts (23:35) Working Group III: Solutions (37:06) Taking Action Presentation Slides: http://cclusa.org/2022-ipcc-slides CCL Community page: https://community.citizensclimate.org/resources/item/19/260 IPCC Reports: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ Dana's Yale Program on Climate Communication Blog: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/04/new-ipcc-report-only-political-will-stands-in-way-of-meeting-the-paris-targets/ Dana's CCL Blog: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/blog/policy/the-latest-ipcc-report-has-a-lot-to-say-about-carbon-fee-and-dividend/
![[#Let'sTalk] The Mazars podcast about doing business in the time of Covid-19.](https://ivyfm.s3.amazonaws.com/i320/863975.jpg)
[#Let'sTalk] The Mazars podcast about doing business in the time of Covid-19.
Explore our interview with Louis-Henri Devant, Sustainability Development Manager, who leads on Mazars' sustainable transformation services for businesses. The recently published second part of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expresses major concerns for the global climate situation, and challenges us on global warming, and the direct consequences on our lifestyles, populations and ecosystems. Louis-Henri highlights the key messages of this report, which urges businesses to take action.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the third part of their Sixth Assessment Report last week, titled “Mitigation of Climate Change,” and with it, came the usual doom and gloom reactions. But the report itself was overflowing with reasons to be hopeful, and even excited. Ethan breaks down why he came away from the report feeling more optimistic about the climate than ever before in this week's “Tip of the Iceberg.” Plus, a first-time “Reverse Ask Me Anything” segment with Sweaty Penguin Producer Frank Hernandez that you won't want to miss! The Sweaty Penguin is presented by Peril and Promise: a public media initiative from The WNET Group in New York, reporting on the issues and solutions around climate change. You can learn more at pbs.org/perilandpromise. Support the show and unlock exclusive merch, bonus content, and more for as little as $5/month at patreon.com/thesweatypenguin. CREDITS Writers: Ethan Brown, Shannon Damiano, Maddy Schmidt Editor: Frank Hernandez Producers: Olivia Amitay, Ethan Brown, Megan Crimmins, Shannon Damiano, Frank Hernandez, Dain Kim, Caroline Koehl Ad Voiceover: Robert Branning Music: Brett Sawka The opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the host and guests. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of Peril and Promise or The WNET Group.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report, Mitigation of Climate Change, provides an update on the planet's current trajectory for global warming, the failings of governments to live up to their climate promises, and the solutions that need to be rapidly implemented to drastically reduce emissions and limit future warming. This is part three of its Sixth Assessment Report. Dr. Paulina Jaramillo joins us to discuss the report and the section of the report which she was the Coordinating Lead Author, the decarbonization of transportation. If you haven't already, listen to our conversation here with IPCC lead author Dr. Ed Hawkins on part one of Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. And be sure to check our interview with Prof. Jörn Birkmann on part two of the Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Impacts, Adaptations, and Vulnerability. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter "The Climate Weekly": https://theclimateweekly.substack.com/ As always, follow us @climatepod on Twitter and email us at theclimatepod@gmail.com. Our music is "Gotta Get Up" by The Passion Hifi, check out his music at thepassionhifi.com. Rate, review and subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, and more! Subscribe to our new YouTube channel! Join our Facebook group. Check out our updated website!
Jody Freeman, the Archibald Cox professor of law and director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University, leads the conversation on global climate policy. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Jody Freeman with us to talk about global climate policy. Professor Freeman is the Archibald Cox professor of law, founding director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program, and a leading scholar of administrative and environmental law at Harvard University. From 2009 to 2010, Professor Freeman served as counselor for energy and climate change in the Obama administration. She is a fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as a member of CFR. She also serves as an independent director on the board of ConocoPhillips, which is an oil and gas producer. Professor Freeman has been recognized as the second most-cited scholar in public law in the nation and has written extensively on climate change, environmental regulation, and executive power. So, Professor Freeman, thanks very much for being with us today. We just saw the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report, that was quite pessimistic about the outlook on the future. Can you talk a little bit about that report and connect it to what we are going to see the effects on climate policy and what we need to be doing to really remediate what's happening in the world? FREEMAN: Well, thank you very much for having me. It couldn't be a more important or interesting moment to be having this conversation, and mostly I look forward to you, students, posing some questions and us having some back and forth. So, Irina, I will be as brief as I can in trying to really encapsulate what's going on now to set the stage for the discussion that I hope we will have. First, as you noted, the IPCC, which of course is the UN-established organization that since 1988 has put out periodic assessments of the science of climate change and their consensus-based assessments written by about six—about two hundred scientists from about sixty countries, so to give you a sense of the authority of the documents they've put out. This assessment was quite bleak, and really—I can read a couple of the top line conclusions to you, but the essential message is that climate change is accelerating. It has already been wreaking havoc and doing significant damage to human health, environment, and ecosystems. It is already causing and will cause increasingly devastating wildfires, historic droughts, landslides, floods, and more intense hurricanes. The long list of things that you all are witnessing around the world—think of the Australian fires, the California fires, the historic flooding we've seen here in the United States. The report basically says this will get worse if we continue without significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions soon, beginning immediately, and cutting them quite drastically. There are many conclusions here about the need to accelerate the pace of our efforts, the need for the governments of the world to do more than they have pledged to do under the Paris Agreement, which we can talk about, which is the international climate agreement that the overwhelming majority of the world's countries have pledged, have made commitments to. And the U.S. has renewed its commitment to the Paris Agreement under the Biden administration saying that it will achieve 50 to 52 percent of emissions reductions here in the United States below 2005-levels by 2030. So a very significant upping of the U.S. commitment recently at the Conference of the Parties last year in Glasgow, Scotland. That agreement is the prevailing international agreement, but this report says it's not enough. Even if the countries of the world were to meet their pledges—and that's an open question—what the report essentially says is we need to do more, and so there's a consensus on the science. I don't think there can be reasonable disagreement about the science of climate change at this point. There is significant evidence that it is already happening, already changing the world's—the patterns that we have seen in, again, weather patterns, storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and it is already threatening communities. The question now is, how do we close this gap between what the report—what the IPCC report is telling us is happening, the risks that the report is warning us about—how do we close the gap between that and what the governments of the world have agreed to do under the Paris Agreement? And I want to note just two other contextual developments here that make this problem even more challenging. One is what I think you're all very conscious of now, as we all think about daily, the war in Ukraine, and the fact that that is scrambling in the geopolitics of energy. Russia, as one of the world's top three suppliers of oil and gas, produces about 40 percent of Europe's natural gas, and now there are sanctions that the U.S. has imposed, and that other countries have announced they will gradually phase in, against Russian oil and gas supplies. The price of gas, as you may all have noticed the United States, is sky high. That's not just because of the war in Ukraine, but it hasn't helped. And attention has moved to what this war means not just for the devastating human consequences, but also what is it doing to the—how to encapsulate this—to the power relationships among the world's nations that are anchored in oil and gas, and how is it shifting the relative power of the oil-producing countries vis-à-vis each other. That conversation about how we're going to produce enough oil and gas to meet Europe's needs in the absence of or in the presence of sanctions against Russia, where are we going to get the extra supply from? In some sense, that conversation about the short-term need for what is admittedly fossil energy has edged out, has moved out of the main frame of the climate policy discussion temporarily. And the concern among communities, institutions, organizations, people who care deeply about climate change at the moment is, that edging to the side of the climate discussion is the wrong direction to go, is an unhelpful event. And especially in the United States where we now are looking at the dynamics in Congress to see if major climate investments will be part of a legislative package that the Biden administration has been advancing— the Build Back Better package—as the discussion is focused on Ukraine, the short-term need for oil and gas, who will produce and meet the extra demand, that conversation, the worry is it's not helping climate policy move forward in the United States. And as you all know, the Build Back Better bill has essentially been shelved, and there are ongoing discussions about which pieces of it might move forward. As time passes and we get to the United States' midterm elections, which are upon us very soon in the fall, the question is, will anything significant in terms of additional climate investments and climate policy come from the United States Congress? Or are they essentially done with the pieces they put into the big infrastructure bill that, as you know, was passed this past fall? The bipartisan infrastructure bill contained significant investments in things like electric vehicle infrastructure, grid investments, and other things that are beneficial for our climate policy. But as you all know, this is not nearly enough, and nothing regulatory went into the Infrastructure Act, and just to be clear about that, there was nothing in the bill that passed Congress in November that operated—that went through a process called budget reconciliation. This really was passed as a budgeting mechanism. Nothing in there regulates industry greenhouse gas emissions, and that's because regulation can't go in a budget bill. And what this means is, in the United States we are challenged now to put in place the policies necessary for us to meet our commitment to Paris, and the main vehicle left right now, if Congress remains fairly inactive, is using existing law like the Clean Air Act by which the Obama—listen to me, the Obama administration. I'm remembering my time in the Obama—the Biden administration can use existing law to regulate sector by sector by sector the greenhouse gas emissions that come from the power sector, that come from the transportation sector, that come from the oil and gas sector. That's what the Biden administration is right now doing. They're issuing regulations through agencies like the EPA to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy on a sectoral and piecemeal basis. And what this all means is that a war is raging in the Ukraine that is refocusing attention on the need for short-term fossil fuels, while a longer-term discussion is happening about how to wean the world off fossil energy, and this dynamic is a very challenging, complicated dynamic in which to have both of those conversations simultaneously. The only thing I'd mention, before now turning to your questions, in addition, is that there is no small irony in the fact that this report that Irina cited, the new installment of the IPCC scientific assessment was issued essentially the day before the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in a really important climate case in which what's at stake is the EPA—the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set far-reaching standards to reduce our emissions from the power sector. And by all indications, the Supreme Court is poised to restrict the EPA's ability to set standards that would really force quite forward-leaning change, quite aggressive, ambitious change—speedier, deeper reductions from the electric power sector. It looks like the Court may well constrain the agency, and I can talk more about that for those who are legal eagles and want to know more. But the fact that that argument was heard the day after this report as sort of the juxtaposition of those two things was quite striking. So let me leave it there with these sort of broad observations about what's happening and turn to you all and see if we can dive deeper into some of these dynamics. FASKIANOS: Thanks a lot for that overview. You can all either raise your hand to ask your question, or you can write it in the Q&A box. So I'm going to first go to Babak Salimitari. Q: I had a question regarding the Paris climate accord. This is a non-binding agreement in which it seems like the United States is the only country going above and beyond to limit emissions and pollution and whatnot, but we're also the ones suffering the most. You have, like Germany building coal plants. China and India are extremely dirty, filthy countries, to put it bluntly. They admit they destroy environmental places, not just in their own country, but all over the world. But we're the one paying six bucks for gas. Oil is like a hundred dollars a barrel. FREEMAN: Yeah. Q: Things are getting very expensive and very annoying. So what's the point of this agreement if we're not reaping any benefits from it? FREEMAN: Yeah, I hear the question and—but let me add some perspective here. First of all, the ones suffering the most, it's not us. There are really serious consequences from warming temperatures for countries around the world that are already being inundated because their low-lying coastal populations are at risk. And they're much more vulnerable because we can afford adaptation measures, we can afford to respond to disasters, and we can afford to invest in resilience or adaptation, whereas many parts of the developing world cannot. They will be swamped. There will be massive migrations. There will be flooding, heat wave and tremendous suffering, and there already are some of these effects around the world. So I just add that perspective because I'm not sure it's quite right that we're the only ones or the ones who are suffering the most currently or that we will be in the future. We're actually, in the United States, fairly well-positioned, even if some of the worst risks we anticipate befall us. We're just a rich country compared to the rest of the world. I also would just comment that prices for gasoline are sky high here, and I understand that this is, as you say, annoying and quite difficult for folks who, you know, must purchase gas to get to work or must purchase gas in order to move around, they don't have an option. But I will say that in many parts of the world gas prices are much higher, and they're much higher in places like Europe and Canada and elsewhere because the governments have chosen to reflect in the price of gasoline more of the harms caused by burning fuel. In other words, they're internalizing the cost that otherwise people have to bear in terms of health consequences from burning gas, climate consequences, et cetera. So this is all me just saying gas may seem really high and I understand it, but actually many countries choose to impose high gas prices really as a signal to populations about the cost of being dependent on these fuels. But the point of your question, I think, is what's the value of the Paris Agreement? It's not binding, and why are we bothering to commit to do so much? And I will say we're not the only country to make a significant commitment. The EU countries have made significant commitments, even China. To put it in perspective, China's commitment to level off emissions by a deadline is important. There are very significant pledges that have gone toward this agreement, and the fact that they're nonbinding, I just want to shed a little light on that. You can say, well, it doesn't matter because nobody can force these countries to deliver on their pledges, and there is some truth to that. There's no grand international body presiding over this that comes knocking on the door of the world governments to say, you know, you said you'd pledge to reduce your emissions by X and you're not even close, so we're going to penalize you. There's no such international enforcement system. But it turns out that the format of the Paris Agreement—which is to make a pledge and then to periodically every five years have to do what's called a “stock take,” where the world countries come together and take stock of where they are in the progress—there are mechanisms to hold each other to account, that's the theory of the agreement; and that there are regular meetings of the parties called Conferences of the Parties that are meant to be the vehicle for forcing a kind of truing-up and disclosure of how far countries have come. Now that's an imperfect system, I will concede to you, but it is a big improvement over prior international climate regimes, which purported to be binding. But, for example, the Kyoto Protocol, the prior agreement to the Paris Agreement, only bound the world's developed nations, meaning the rich countries of the world, and the developing world, which was fast overtaking the developed world in the amount of emissions being produced—so think of China, think of India, Brazil, et cetera—they weren't part of the agreement. They had no obligation. So, while Kyoto was binding, it was binding on not the entire world, and it's not the even—who were soon to be the largest emitters, including China. So Paris is an inclusive agreement. China's in it. India's in it. Brazil's in it. Every country that's a significant share of the world's emissions is committed, so the inclusiveness of it is thought to be an important advance. Your question is still important. The proof is in the pudding. Are these countries going to come anywhere close to delivering on their pledges? But I guess what I would suggest is, we need an international vehicle in order to continue to press forward. And if the U.S. is in a leadership position in that international agreement, that's better for our chances than if the U.S. is not. The strongest position to be in is the U.S. and China together. When the Paris Agreement was signed, Obama and Xi combined forces and both supported it. China has now backed off. President Xi did not show up in Glasgow for the meeting personally, whereas the Biden—President Biden did. So now we're seeing a bit of a different approach. It's a very long answer, but that's because how these agreements work—their value, why they're an improvement or not over the prior—is actually quite complicated. FASKIANOS: Now the war in Ukraine and how China's going to align with Putin. FREEMAN: Yeah, I mean, this is really interesting—and I don't know if any of the students have a question about that—but everything is speculative right now. For example—I mean, in terms of how this will come out for China and China's relationship with the other powers of the world. China's in a very delicate position, and it may turn out that its alliance with Russia, depending on how that plays out, will leave it in a position of trying to look for opportunities build back relationships with the rest of the world, and it might turn out that climate policy is an opportunity to re-establish itself. And so we can't see how this will evolve, but a situation that looks at the moment like China's aligned with the bad actor—Russia in this case—may actually open up opportunities in the future for it to readjust its behavior, and climate may be one of those opportunities. Historically, the United States and China, even when tense relationships existed over trade policy and other things, cooperated on climate. It became an opportunity, especially in the Obama years when I was in the White House. We had a lot of good agreements with China around climate policy, both bilaterally and multilaterally. It was sort of an area—it was a bright spot of relations. That may turn back around and come back following this conflict. FASKIANOS: A written question from, let's see, Jackie Vazquez, who's in undergraduate school at Lewis University in Illinois, asking: Is there any possibility for all countries to come together to make a global movement to combat climate change? Would that even make a difference? FREEMAN: I think that the Paris Agreement is meant to be at least an instrument of a global movement to address climate change. But I think if you're talking about a political movement, that is people, not negotiators, representing governments, but populations and communities—I think we're seeing some of that. I mean, I think this generation, your generation, has really given voice to a real need for climate action faster. And I give a lot of credit to young people. I say this—it makes me feel 150 years old when I say this—but I think this generation, at least in the United States, it's taken the form of something called the Sunrise Movement and other youth movements. Of course, Greta Thunberg is the most famous young person putting a face on climate change, insisting that the older generations have let you all down, and I think there's something to that. I can understand your frustration, and I would feel the same way if I were younger that the people with the power have not taken the steps necessary when they should have taken the steps to mitigate a global problem. And I think that we're seeing movements all around the world; youth action all around the world. The problem comes in translating that political enthusiasm and political energy into policy, into laws and rules and requirements and incentives and subsidies and investments and inducements to change the trajectory to require over time—and quicker than—than many in industry want—require reductions faster, to translate it into investments from the private sector, because we need trillions of dollars of investments in low carbon technologies, in innovation. Translating that energy into real political action is the challenge. And I guess the one thing I'd say to you all is you have to vote. You have to put into power the people who support these policies, and you know, the youth vote is tremendously and increasingly important. So, in addition to activism, which is—which is critical, you want to vote in state, local, national elections at every opportunity. FASKIANOS: Earlier on, you talked about how the Supreme Court case is going to restrict the EPA trying to regulate. So there's a question from Nathaniel Lowell, who's at Skidmore College: Could you talk a little bit more about that Supreme Court decision, what that means for the Biden administration efforts to push forward within an act of Congress? You know, and what can be done? Because that's pretty significant, and certainly just putting in executive orders, the next administration could just roll back on those—roll those executive orders back. FREEMAN: Yeah. So here's what I'd say. First of all, I'm speculating a bit when I say the Court seems poised to restrict EPA's authority. I think most observers think that's what we got from oral argument. You know, we watched the oral argument, which is when the counsel for both sides—in this case, it was the government represented by the Solicitor General of the United States—that's how the government is represented in the Supreme Court—and the challengers from the state of West Virginia and about seventeen other states, Republican-led states, along with the coal and mining industry on the other side, arguing this case to the justices. And you know, you can listen to these arguments, by the way. You can go to SupremeCourt.gov and click on the audio portion of these oral arguments. It's fascinating. So I highly recommend and you can read the transcripts. And what we heard from the argument were the questions of the justices, the back and forth as the advocates were stating their positions, and basically, the petitioners in this case—that is, the mining industry, coal industry and the Republican-led states, including West Virginia—are basically saying the Environmental Protection Agency is overreaching. It's stretching its authority under the Clean Air Act too far, and the courts should read the language of the Clean Air Act narrowly and limit what they can do. And the government, the Biden administration, and the power sector petitioners—sorry, the power sector respondents—these are legal terms of art, but this describes who's on what side in the case—the power sector itself, this is the industry being regulated by these standards; this is the coal and natural gas plants across the country. The owners of the utilities that own these plants, they're the ones who are going to be regulated and required to cut their carbon pollution, and yet they are on the side of the Biden administration because they want to preserve EPA's power to set standards. They don't want this to be a free for all in which they get sued in a bunch of different lawsuits. They want a coherent, consistent, implementable, realistic, cost-effective set of standards, and they're prepared to make reductions. They want this done in an orderly fashion, and they don't want the Supreme Court making a mess of things by, for example, restricting the EPA so much that the agency won't take into account the reality of the power sector and how it works and allow them to average emissions—cut average emissions across their fleets; trade where it makes economic sense to trade emissions allowances. The industry wants all these flexibilities, and they're worried that the Court will be on too much of a mission to cut the agency's power, which will make the rules less economically sensible for the industry. So I hope that was an understandable explanation of what's at stake and how unusual it is that the industry being regulated is on the side of the government in this case, supporting the idea that the EPA has the authority to do this, and the consequences of the case here are quite significant. Because if the Court limits EPA, the bottom line is the standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas plants won't be as stringent as they could have been. They won't move as quickly as they could have moved, and the cuts won't be as deep as they could have been. And that's a loss—that's a loss of a tool we would have in our toolbox to cut emissions from the sector in our economy that is the second largest sector in terms of its emissions. So we want a robust program to control those, and Congress didn't pass one. And Congress doesn't look like it's passing one, so this is our second-best strategy. And if the Court crimps EPA so much that it limits the stringency, it's like losing some ability that you thought you had to constrain your domestic emissions, which means it's harder to fulfill our Paris pledge. That's the bottom line. The last thing I'll say—again, kind of a nerdy point, but for those of you who think about law and are interested in law—the Court should never have taken this case. You know, when—when people are unhappy with the decision in a lower court they can appeal to the Supreme Court. They ask the Court to grant review. Our Constitution requires that the Court only take cases where there is demonstrable harm or injury. You can't go to the Supreme Court and say, you know, I'm not injured, but I really care about this, can you—can you help me out? You have to be injured. In this case there is, actually, currently no rule regulating anybody in the power sector, no federal rule, because the prior administration's rule way back in the Obama days never went into effect. It was caught in litigation, and it was challenged in court. It never went into effect. And the Trump administration came in and repealed that and put out its own rule, which was a very minimal rule that did almost nothing to reduce emissions, and that got challenged and struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. So, as a result, the bottom line people, there is no current federal rule regulating the power sector. Why would the Supreme Court take a case from West Virginia and other states and the coal industry complaining about something when nobody is being asked to do anything? There's no harm. So it's very unusual that the Court granted review in a case like that, and that is why many of us think they're eager to do something that will constrain the EPA's authority. I hope that made sense to folks. FASKIANOS: That was really helpful to clarify and give context to what's going on. Thank you for that. So Terron Adlam has written a question, but also has a hand up. So just ask it yourself and give us your university. FREEMAN: You know, I see my former chancellor, Chancellor Carnesale from UCLA where I started my career. I'm just thrilled to see his name there. That's great. Q: Hi there. FREEMAN: Hi. Q: Hi. So my question is, do you see any possibility of change of behavior of humans, especially during the global warfare/pandemic? I mean, ice caps are melting. Greenhouse gases are rising so much that—can we go past the differences, you think? FREEMAN: Yeah, I mean it's very interesting you say that Terron. I do think we talk an awful lot about how we need to require industry to do things and that's, of course, terribly important—you know, the auto makers and the oil and gas companies and the power plants and steel companies and how we do agriculture around the world. But in the end, there's demand for energy and we are the demand. I'm sitting here on Zoom consuming a bunch of electricity. I got professional lights that you can't see that are consuming a bunch of electricity. My phone is charging next to me consuming a bunch of electricity. And you know, I'm probably going to—well, I drive a Tesla—I'm lucky enough to have a Tesla, so I won't be consuming gas later. But my point is just we all pull on energy, and you know, no one of us can transform the situation. We can't accomplish the energy transition all by ourselves. But we can start thinking about the decisions we make, and we can start thinking about those implications and consequences. Your generation—I mean, I have a niece and nephew in their twenties, and I hear a lot about how nobody really wants a car anymore, apparently. I'm shocked at this, but there are generational shifts in how people think about consumption. Do you need your own vehicle or can you do ridesharing? Are we going to see ourselves in a world in the next fifteen, twenty years with autonomous vehicles that are electric vehicles, that we essentially share, at least in concentrated urban settings? These kinds of transformations, I think, are in part being driven by the demand from your generation. Likewise, I think as you build wealth—you guys will build wealth over time, right? You're getting an education, right, and that education is directly connected to your earning power. You will build wealth over time as a result of becoming educated, and when you build wealth, you'll have a decision about where to invest that wealth. And we see increasingly, social action investors, social commitments being made through people's investment decisions, and they say we want to put our wealth into these kinds of stocks, these kinds of companies, these kinds of enterprises and not over here in these other ones. And I think that is another kind of behavior—where you put your capital is going to be another kind of decision that can help spark change. So, from the lowest level, most local decision about what you consume and how you consume it to bigger decisions later in life about where you put your money, I think there's a lot of opportunity for you to make really consequential decisions. But I'm not somebody who believes that all of this will be fine if people just stop consuming energy because we all depend on energy, and we can't stop consuming energy. For some of us, we can make decisions about where we want to get it from. Some of us live in jurisdictions where we can choose, quote/unquote, “to pay a little more” to be assured of getting more renewable energy as the provider. Not all of us can do that, and so, really, you need your governments to act. This is the kind of problem at the kind of scale where all of our individual activity can't possibly be enough. I would say we have to do all of it. FASKIANOS: Well, I am going to go to Al Carnesale, your— FREEMAN: Oh! FASKIANOS: —your former chancellor. FREEMAN: My former chancellor! FASKIANOS: Your former chancellor and a CFR member. So, Al, over to you. Q: So we—since we traded places, I left Harvard to come to UCLA, you left UCLA to come to Harvard. FREEMAN: Yes! Q: Congratulations. So here's my question is about nuclear power. For a number of years environmental groups have been opposed to nuclear power largely because of the waste problem. And then they—in light of climate change, they sort of changed their view and became reluctant supporters. And then came Fukushima and they again opposed nuclear power. Now, as we look ahead with the additional problems you've been talking about that may stymie some of our plans to deal with climate change, where do you think we might be headed on the nuclear problem? FREEMAN: You know, it's interesting—well thank you and it's just delightful to hear from you and see your—see you again. Here's what I'd say. There's a domestic conversation about nuclear and there's a global conversation about nuclear. And of course, as you know, many countries in the world have made a big bet on nuclear. France has always been dependent on nuclear power, for example. China is investing heavily in nuclear power along with every other kind of energy because of their tremendous need as the population grows, and as they, you know, grow into the middle class. So there's a lot of opportunity for nuclear to be built, especially updated sort of smaller more modular reactors, the next generation of reactors all around the world, and I think we're going to see a lot of nuclear deployment. I don't expect to see it in the United States, and the reason I don't think we're going to see it is the legacy you've cited, which is this historical discomfort with nuclear, and the ambivalence that is felt in this country about nuclear and the sort of unwillingness to tolerate the risks that are perceived from nuclear. We haven't solved our long range—our long-term radioactive waste problem. You know, we never decided on Yucca Mountain or anywhere else to put the radioactive waste, so it's being stored on site for—in large measure. And I think there's still kind of a very local NIMBYism, a bad reaction to the idea of nuclear power. The challenge for us in the U.S. is right now nuclear provides about 20 percent of our electricity, and as these facilities are retired, where are we going to get that share of our electricity from? Will it be more renewable energy supported by natural gas for baseload? These are the questions if we lose even this relatively small share of nuclear that we have. The only other comment I'd make—and you may well know far more about this than me—but from my understanding of the cost comparison now, nuclear power, at least in the United States, is just far too expensive to build and not cost-competitive with the alternatives. Natural gas has been cheap because of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. There's sort of abundant natural gas reserves released from shale. It outcompetes coal, and renewables have dropped so much in cost that they are extremely cost-competitive, so I don't think nuclear competes in the American market, at least, this is what the experts have said to me. FASKIANOS: Al, given your expertise in this field, do you want to add anything? Q: It's not to add anything, it's to agree, largely. I think the catch is, how caught up are you in climate change? Because natural gas may be better than coal, but it's not better than nuclear. But it would have to be government-subsidized, which basically in France it's a national security consideration. So it would have to be subsidized as we subsidize many other things. FREEMAN: Right. Q: But I don't see it happening. I think—I was actually on the President's blue-ribbon commission, who tried to come up with a strategy for what to do about the waste. FREEMAN: Yeah. Q: And the strategy said it had to go someplace where the people agreed to take it. FREEMAN: Yeah. Q: And that's not—that's not happening. So I think your conclusion is right, but it is a tension for those of us who are concerned about climate change. FREEMAN: Yeah, it is a tension. And I think you rightly point out the evolution in thinking in the environmental community about this that initially opposed then, sort of, wait a minute, this is a zero-carbon source of energy and we should be for it. And you know, I—this is—for the students, you know, I always say to my students you can't be against everything. You have to be for something. You can't say, well, fossil energy, a disaster; nuclear energy, we're not interested in that, that's too risky et cetera, and all we want is wind and sun, when, at least currently without storage capacity, wind and sun alone without some support—this is in the electricity sector—wind and sun alone without some baseload support to regularly supply the energy when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, you need something else. And that's what Chancellor Carnesale and I are talking about. What is that baseload? Is it going to be natural gas? Is going to be nuclear, et cetera? So you have to be for something, people, is the upshot of this exchange. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I'm going to go next—there are two written questions from Kai Corpuz and Natalie Simonian, and they're both undergrads at Lewis University. I think they must either—must be focused at Lewis University or both taking the same course. Really talking about wealthy nations helping developing countries. Developing countries are not equipped with the funds to push for a green future. How are they supposed to participate in this? And you know, what is—what are the wealthy nations' obligation to help assist developing economies in dealing with climate change? FREEMAN: Yes, I mean it's a really good question. And of course, the developed world has an obligation to assist the developing world through technology transfer, with financial support. If the developed world wants other countries that have not had a chance to get as far in developing their economies yet, if they want their cooperation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they're going to have to make a contribution to support these countries in all these ways—financing, tech transfer, help with adaptation and resilience. And that commitment is part of the Paris Agreement, but it is true that the pledges that governments have made so far to produce annually billions of dollars for the developing world have not materialized to the level that was promised. So we are behind on that, and this is a significant problem. There is a very legitimate equity claim being made here, which is that the developed world has enjoyed economic growth. GDP has risen. We've all achieved a level of wealth and middle class. I mean, I'm talking on average for the developed world, obviously not everyone. We have tremendous income inequality in this country and around the world, but relatively speaking, our societies have evolved and become richer because of industrialization. We've already produced all our greenhouse gas emissions to achieve this level of prosperity, and the notion that now countries that haven't gotten there yet should just reduce their emissions to their own economic disbenefit, I think everyone agrees that is not a legitimate position to take without offering assistance and support. So I think the leading countries of the world understand this and agree to this. The question is, how do you operationalize this? How do you best support and help the developing world? Where are the investments best made? How do we make sure the governments of the world are held to their commitments and produce the money they promised to produce? And that is an integral part of the Paris Agreement process. So, you know, I don't want to suggest this is an easy problem, but I do agree the question is absolutely the correct way to think about this, which is we do have to help the countries of the world if we expect for us to achieve our climate mitigation and adaptation goals. FASKIANOS: Thank you, I'm going to go next to a raised hand from Sally Eun Ji Son, I believe at Columbia. Q: Oh, yeah. Hello. My name is Sally. I'm currently at Stanford engineering and an incoming PhD student at Columbia in the Political Science Department. And sort of relevant—related to, like, how different countries are in different stages, what I've noticed, as someone between Gen Z and Millennial—what I've noticed is that I, as an individual, like to take environmentally-conscious decisions. Yet, there's some—there's sort of this, like—a debate going on, like your action will not do anything to the Earth, your action will not do anything to climate change. And when I sort of encounter those debates, how should I navigate myself? Like, should I say it's maybe not a direct environmental effect, but it could be a symbolic effect, political effect? Sort of, like, how do I navigate that individuals could also have power or, like, have a stance or position in shaping climate policy around the world? FREEMAN: Well, first of all, I applaud you for engaging in those debates, and you know, sometimes when we come up against viewpoints that we don't agree with, we run away because we're not interested in engaging. And I would just encourage you all to engage, and I mean in the most respectful way. I'll get to the heart of your question, but it just gives me this opportunity to make this one pitch to you. So allow me—indulge me in making this one pitch to you about engaging in the way you're suggesting. You know, my law students what I ask them to do is in the classroom if they hear something they disagree with, sometimes very strongly, I ask them to put it at its highest—in other words, make it the best version of that argument before you criticize it. So, if somebody didn't make the best version of their argument and it's easy to take them down, actually elevate it and say, I think—I think what you're saying is this, and then what I'm hearing is this and give it the best, most legitimate form you can, and then engage with it on the merits, not them as a person. You don't attack them as a person, but say here's where I think differently. Here's my perspective on these issues. So just the idea that you're prepared to go back and forth on this, I think, is very laudable, and I encourage you to do it in that very respectful way. And you may not convince people of your point of view, but you may give them something to think about. And so what I'd say is—a little bit following on my earlier comment—that individual action can be impactful cumulatively, of course it can. If an entire community makes a decision to compete in their consumption of energy—you know there are these competitions among neighborhoods to be more energy-efficient. You know, you get this little notice in the mail that says your home is good compared to your neighbors, and your home is—in some communities this works. It actually promotes competition. In other communities it annoys them. It really depends on the politics of the community. But the point of this is just to say, communities are just—it's just a cumulative set of individual actions, right? So I do think there's something to changing individual behavior, and if lots of people do that, that makes a difference. So I don't accept the idea that nothing you do matters, so don't do anything. I mean, that argument is a recipe for never doing anything about anything. That is a large problem—because your share is necessarily small, so why should you change, and that, to me, is an excuse for inaction and apathy so that can't be the right argument. But you can accept that individuals alone, even aggregated behavior alone, can't change the world's energy systems, that the scope and scale of that challenge—that's a hundred-year challenge that requires the governments of the world to lead. So you can talk about the individual difference you can make, but that's not enough, right? And all of these things have to be done at the same time, and they fit together. You know, local, national—state level, national, global, this all must be done at the same time. That's the scope and scale of this problem. It's a really—climate is a really hard problem because the world's energy system is important for everything from our economic prosperity to our national security, and you can't transform the world's energy system overnight without affecting—first of all, you can't transform it overnight no matter what you do. But even as we transition, we have to think about national security implications, which is what the Ukraine war makes us do. There are geopolitical implications to how energy moves around the world, and who has energy power around the world. And as we shift to a different energy profile, those the power dynamics will shift, and we need to think about that. You know, we need to make sure that the United States has an energy policy that is strategically in our interest, and you can't think about climate without thinking about that. Likewise, you can't think about climate change without thinking about economic development and—and the flourishing—the ability of societies to flourish. So—and you can't think about it without thinking about equality and equity and justice. So it's a really hard problem, but that's why it's so fascinating to learn about. FASKIANOS: Thank you, the next question is from Chaney Howard, who is a senior honors international business major at Howard University. Going back to the war on Ukraine, how do you feel the argument for infrastructure development can be introduced into this conversation as new strategies and allegiance pledges are emerging? FREEMAN: I'm not sure I fully understand that. Can we have a little bit of clarification? FASIKANOS: All right, Chaney, are you able to unmute yourself to clarify, because I can't divine from the written question. Q: Can you hear me now? FREEMAN: Yes, excellent. Q: OK, perfect. So my question is really surrounding ways that the conversation can be a little bit more direct. So you mentioned how there needs to be a development of infrastructure for overall environmental, like, sustainability, and you were talking about electric cars— FREEMAN: Right. Q: —and just kind of having that conversation with global powers. And so I'm curious how you think—now that we're in this transitional period and some of the nations that are supporting Ukraine are working to develop new strategies and new partnerships, what are ways that we can encourage the government and then the global commerce centers to kind of establish those new strategies for environmental sustainability? FREEMAN: So I'm not a 100 percent sure how Ukraine fits there. But let me talk more generally about this idea of infrastructure and investment because I think what the IPCC report that we were talking about that's projecting climate-related risks and saying what's necessary to do in order to avoid them and what the Paris Agreement represents and what I think the current conversation around what's necessary tells us—the strong message from all of these vehicles and processes and meetings, the strong message is we need massive investment from the private sector and government combined in partnership into what the new energy system of the globe has to look like. Meaning, you have to build the power plants of the future. You have to support commercial-scale renewable power. You have to build the charging infrastructure to electrify the transportation fleet to the extent possible. You have to build a modern grid, not just in this country but all around the world, that is capable of supporting the level of electrification that we need. Because to move sectors like transportation off oil and gas, you're going to need—off oil, rather—transportation is mostly dependent on oil—you're going to need to power them differently, and right now we're thinking of mostly powering cars and many trucks from electricity, which means fortifying the nation's and the globe's grids. All of that is infrastructure. All of that requires investment. And there are massive R&D investments, you can imagine, necessary in the low carbon technology of the future. Hydrogen—eventually producing green hydrogen as a fuel source. There are techniques for removing carbon from—direct air capture. Carbon from the atmosphere, things like direct air capture. Or, you know, other carbon removal technologies, they're controversial but they may be necessary. Carbon capture and sequestration, putting it underground, carbon dioxide underground—again, controversial. But if any of these future low-carbon technologies or remediation techniques are going to succeed, they will require trillions of dollars of investments. So, the kind of level of investment that people are talking about—I'll just give you an example. At the latest COP meeting, the Conference of the Parties, meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, which is—these meetings are part of the international process of updating and checking in on the Paris Agreement. The world's biggest companies and financial institutions came together, and 5,200 businesses pledged to meet net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and 450 banks, insurers and investors representing $130 trillion in assets. Those are the assets they invest, which is 40 percent of the world's private capital. And I'm giving you all these numbers because I want to impress you with the scale of the commitments you're seeing from the private sector, from banks and lenders, investors and businesses. They committed to making their portfolios climate neutral by 2050. My point is there is a lot of activity in the private sector, both committing to net-zero goals themselves and also committing to investing capital, big money, trillions of dollars—up to $9 trillion annually is what is projected to be needed, that's $105 trillion over thirty years. That's how much money we need to put into the infrastructure you're talking about, the new—next generation energy infrastructure. All of the things I've discussed—the future of power plants, the future of transportation, new breakthrough technologies, new remediation techniques, new resilience—all of this requires massive investment. And the governments of the world and the private sector are nowhere near what they need to do combined to pull off what amounts to a moon-shot kind of level of investment. So this is a long answer, but it's a way of saying the infrastructure we're talking about in a really concrete way is the energy system of the future, and it's going to require a massive level of investment. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We're going to go next to William Naeger, who is a law student at Washburn University. Q: Hi. Yeah, like she said, I'm at Washburn Law School. I'm wondering if your impression is that these kinds of issues will continue to mainly be governed internationally by COP or the Paris Agreement? Or, if over time, as it becomes more and more extreme, whether it will just become one factor in, like, national security and trade agreements and migration issues and kind of just run through everything else that we do already? FREEMAN: Well, I think this is very astute of you, because, in fact, I think climate change as a global challenge has actually come into the mainstream of all of these other fields. I do think that it is part of the discussion around national security. I do think that climate is part of the discussion around trade and that it will become more embedded and more central to these other domains over time. And I think that—people talk a lot about how we could pair climate commitments of countries with trade measures that countries— the trade relationships that countries have with each other. And people talk, for example, about eventually having countries pledge to reduce their emissions, and if they don't reduce them, they may suffer a border tariff on goods that are produced in countries that don't have climate policies, that impose costs for greenhouse gas emissions. So they'll have to—there'll be a tariff or a border tax on goods that are basically being produced and sold cheaper because they're not subject to carbon constraints. That's a merging of climate and trade policy that we may well see over time. Likewise, I think we're learning to talk. We're not there yet entirely, but we're learning to talk about national security and climate together. Climate is really a national security issue. And you saw the Department of Defense and its reports and testimony to Congress from members of the military who are frequently called on to testify about the impact of climate change on the—they will acknowledge that climate change is a threat multiplier for the military and it's a national security issue. Likewise, when we talk about the Ukraine conflict, the war, and we talk about the need to supply the world with oil and gas in times like this when one of the largest suppliers is engaged in very bad action and being sanctioned for it, how do we meet those short-term energy needs but stay on path with our climate goals? That's a very hard thing to do. You have to be able to talk about the short-term, the medium-term, the long-term all at the same time. So I think your question is very smart in the sense that you understand that climate has to become embedded in all of these other fields and conversations, and I think that's already happening. The Biden administration, I think, to its credit has announced what it calls a whole of government approach to climate, and I think it's trying to do basically what you're talking about, which is say the entire federal government that the Biden administration runs, right, say to all the agencies across federal government—from financial regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission, which makes sure that markets are open and transparent and investors have the right information—even the financial regulators are saying, listen, companies, if you want to trade on this exchange, you better disclose your climate-related risks so investors can make decisions that are appropriate. That's bringing climate into financial regulation. And so the Biden administration has basically said this issue should appear and be relevant to all the things we do. And so I think we're seeing what you're talking about happening to a greater extent, more and more. FASKIANOS: So, Jody, we're at the end of our time. There are a lot of questions that we could not get to, and I apologize for that. Just to sum up, what do you think we all should be doing at the individual level to do our part to affect change and to help with the climate change crisis? FREEMAN: Well, like anybody who's had media training I'm going to not answer your question and say what I want to say anyway, which is— FASKIANOS: Perfect. (Laughs.) FREEMAN: —yeah—because I actually think I've talked a little bit about what we can all do and why it makes sense to take individual action. But what I think I would say, rather, is just I know that there is a lot of reason for pessimism, and I really understand it. And I certainly sometimes feel it myself. I mean, you know, you guys have been through a very, very tough time—a global pandemic, which has been just an awful experience, scary, and disorienting. And you're doing it while you're trying to go to school and live young lives, and that's been hugely disruptive. You now see this war in Ukraine, which is deeply, deeply upsetting, a horrific assault on the Ukrainian population, and you're living at a time when you think climate change is a major challenge that, perhaps, the governments of the world aren't up to. And you see a divided country and, in fact, divisions all around the world and threats to democracy, and restrictions on voting rights. I see what you see, and I can see why you would be upset and worried. But I also want to suggest to you that things are also changing, and there are lots of opportunities for good things to happen. And there's a tremendous amount of innovation and creativity on all kinds of low carbon technologies. There are innovations all the time that open up possibilities. Just look at what's happened with solar power and wind power, renewable power over time. The costs have dropped. The potential for wind and solar has increased exponentially. That's a very hopeful thing. So technology change is very promising. There's a possibility to affect politics in a positive direction. I encourage you to affect politics—this sort of answers your question, Irina. So affect politics in a positive direction, be active, be engaged, because you can effect change by—through activism and through voting. And I also encourage you to pursue professions where you can make a mark. I mean, you can make a difference by engaging with these issues from whatever professional occupation you choose. You can engage with one or another aspect of these challenges of climate, energy, national security. So I have reason for optimism. I think, as frustrating as it is to say, well, the Paris Agreement isn't enough, there's another way to look at it, which is there is an international agreement on climate change. It does have a level of ambition that is an initial step and can be built upon, if we can keep the structure together, if the U.S. continues to lead and look for partners in leading along with the EU. Maybe China will come back to the fold eventually. In other words, things change. Stay tuned, be engaged, and stay optimistic because I, frankly, think there is tremendous opportunity for your generation to engage with these issues in a really constructive and transformative way. And that is where I would leave it. FASKIANOS: Thank you so much, and I'm glad you left it there. It was a perfect way to end this webinar, and thanks to everybody for joining. You should follow Jody Freeman on Twitter at @JodyFreemanHLS, so go there to see what she continues to say. Our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, April 6, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. We'll focus on China, India, and the narratives of great powers. And in the meantime, I encourage you to follow us at @CFR_academic and, of course, go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. So thank you again, and thank you, Professor Freeman. (END)
On 28 February, the IPCC, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,launched the second part of its Sixth Assessment Report. This part assesses the impacts ofclimate change, looking at ecosystems, biodiversity, and human communities at global andregional levels. It also reviews vulnerabilities and the capacities and limits of the naturalworld and human societies to adapt to climate change.One of the main conclusions of the report is that climate adaptation is proceeding too slowlyand that measures are being implemented on too small a scale to address the major climatechallenges we face.In this episode, we discuss the findings of the report, and the work behind it, with PRIOResearch Professor Halvard Buhaug, who is a lead author in the Sixth Assessment Report.
This week's episode is about the latest IPCC report. You're probably already aware that it's pretty pessimistic. Will the warning be heeded this time? I'll talk also about the effect of the conflict in Ukraine on global energy prices and I've followed up the question from Sophie Jarvis about infrared heating.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, provides another critical summary for policymakers on the growing threat of warming temperatures as well as the loss and damages that have already occurred. This is part two of its Sixth Assessment Report. Prof. Jörn Birkmann, one of the lead authors of the report, joins the show to discuss the IPCC latest findings, what it means for policymakers, and how the world needs to adapt to climate change, mitigate further climate risk, protect the most vulnerable communities around the globe, and recognize loss and damages. Listen to our conversation here with IPCC lead author Dr. Ed Hawkins on part one of Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Read Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Subscribe to our Substack newsletter "The Climate Weekly": https://theclimateweekly.substack.com/ As always, follow us @climatepod on Twitter and email us at theclimatepod@gmail.com. Our music is "Gotta Get Up" by The Passion Hifi, check out his music at thepassionhifi.com. Rate, review and subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, and more! Subscribe to our new YouTube channel! Join our Facebook group. Check out our updated website!
The Center for Values in International Development seeks to apply the insights, analytical frameworks, knowledge, and experience that already exist within the field of international development ethics, to guide relief and development practice. We finish this series with our fifth of five conversations with today's focus on Climate Justice, as part of The Center's ethical development series building an effective bridge between the practitioners' community and the ethicists' community, to the mutual benefit of both, and to the significant improvement in the effectiveness of international relief and development. Previous topics focused on Inclusive Development, Empowerment, Democratic Values and an Introduction to Development Ethics. To learn more about The Center for Values in International Development, visit: https://www.centerforvalues.international/ Guest Biographies Dr. Gael Giraud is the founding director of Georgetown University's Environmental Justice Program. He received his PhD in applied mathematics at the École Polytechnique in Paris, France. He also holds a PhD in theology and has been appointed as research professor at Georgetown University. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Chief economist and executive director of the French Development Agency (AFD). In 2009, he was nominated best young French economist (by Le Monde). And in 2013 he was ordained as a priest. Belynda Petrie is an environmentalist from Cape Town, South Africa and founder and director of ONE World Sustainable Investments, which is an African-based sustainable development consulting organization focused on adaptive development within the context of changing climate and resource constraints. Belynda was a contributing author to the Sixth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (the IPCC), specifically on the Governance chapter. She was also a PhD Candidate at the University of Cape Town with a focus on Cooperative Governance for Water Security in Africa.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes the most robust climate assessments. Dr. Jessica O'Reilly is a cultural anthropologist from Indiana University who has vigorously studied the decision-making process of the IPCC. In this episode, Dr. O'Reilly shares an inside look into the scientists writing the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
The Glacier Trust's UK Co-Director, Morgan Phillips interviews Dr Lisa Schipper on episode 4 of the Great Adaptations podcast. Lisa Schipper is a world leading academic on climate change adaptation. She is Co-Editor of the journal Climate and Development, sits on the Editorial Boards of two more World Development Perspectives, and Global Transitions – Health, and is Associate Editor of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Her work has taken her all over the world, including to Nepal, and she has worked at Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden and the Environment Change Institute at the University of Oxford. Lisa is also Co-ordinating Lead Author of Chapter 18 of the Working Group 2 contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which focuses on ‘Climate Resilient Development Pathways'. This report will be released on February 28th 2022.This interview was conducted remotely in December 2021.Great Adaptations artwork by Hannah Ahmed and Suzie HarrisonPodcast music by Amity If you enjoyed this podcast and would like to support the work of The Glacier Trust please text GREAT to 70085 to make a one off donation of £5 to The Glacier Trust*. RELATED LINKS@Schipper_Lisa - (Twitter)Lisa's personal website: A critical perspective on adaptation to climate change - (website)Adaptation Hive - (Website)IPCC Working Group II - (Website)@theglaciertrust - (Twitter)@theglaciertrust - (Instagram)@MorganHPhillips - (Twitter)Great Adaptations project – 2022 (The Glacier Trust)Great Adaptations - In the shadow of a climate crisis - 2021 (The Hive)Great Adaptations BEER – 2022 (The Glacier Trust) *Texts cost £5 plus one standard rate message and you'll be opting in to hear more about our work and fundraising via telephone and SMS. If you'd like to give £5 but do not wish to receive marketing communications, text GREATNOINFO to 70085. Thank you. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This time around, you'll hear from one of the country's top environmental law litigators, Sean Donahue, about various legal issues and challenges associated with climate change. Get the 60-minute version of the semester-long class on climate change law and policy that he teaches at Stanford Law School! Sean also talks about his time as a law clerk for both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, and the role that law clerks play at the Supreme Court. And we get garrulous with Sean about his experience as a political spouse, creating crossword puzzles in support of his wife's successful run for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. MORE FROM OUR GUEST Sean Donahue's law firm: https://donahuegoldberg.com/ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart: https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm CONNECT WITH THE SHOW Contact us: garrulousgavel@gmail.com Visit our website: http://thegarrulousgavel.com Follow the Garrulous Gavel on Twitter: https://twitter.com/garrulousgavel
Human actions are leading rises in global temperatures and brachycephalic (smush-faced) dogs are increasing in popularity, but these dogs are at an increased risk of developing heat-related illnesses. Therefore, it is important to know the clinical signs associated with heat stroke to help best prevent this disease. Episode Hosts: Allison Crowell, Ariana Dickson, Megan Slaughter Course Coordinators & Podcast Ringmasters: Colleen Duncan, Molly Carpenter, Treana Mayer Audio Engineer: Ethan Fagre Special Guests: Dr. Carissa Tong, DVM, DACVECC and Tricia Fry, pug owner and PhD candidate EPISODE NOTES: Brachycephalic dogs, well-known as our “smush-faced” friends (think: English bulldogs, French bulldogs, pugs, Boston Terriers, etc) have been rising in popularity in both the US and UK in the last decade. As adorable as these dogs are, both in looks and in temperament, these breeds are predisposed to heat-related illnesses. Considering this, rising global temperatures due to climate change will only increase the risk for these dogs. Join us as we explore why brachycephalic dogs are so prone to heat stroke, the signs to look for in your pets, and what you can do to help against climate change. References: Increasing Popularity in the UK: O'Neill, D.G., Darwent, E.C., Church, D.B., Brodbelt, D.C., 2016. Demography and health of Pugs under primary veterinary care in England. Canine Genet Epidemiol 3, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40575-016-0035-z Increasing registrations in the US: Humane Society Veterinary Medicine Association. The Cost of Cuteness: Health and Welfare Issues Associated with Brachycephalic Dog Breeds. (last accessed Nov 29, 2021). IPPC Report: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani,A., Connors, S.L., Péan,C, Berger, S., Caud N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy,E., Matthews,J.B.R., Maycock,T.K., Waterfield,T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B. (eds.). IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Article about increased risk of heat-related illness to brachycephalic breeds: Hall, E.J., Carter, A.J., O'Neill, D.G., 2020. Incidence and risk factors for heat-related illness (heatstroke) in UK dogs under primary veterinary care in 2016. Sci Rep 10, 9128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66015-8 Article about cooler temperatures in cities with more vegetation: Ortega-Rosas, C.I., Enciso-Miranda, C.A., Macías-Duarte, A., Morales-Romero, D., Villarruel-Sahagún, L., 2020. Urban vegetation cover correlates with environmental variables in a desert city: insights of mitigation measures to climate change. Urban Ecosyst 23, 1191–1207.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00982-8 Link to tree-planting project in Colorado: The Institute for Environmental Solutions
This week Vincent is joined by Professor Dave Frame, Director of the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute (CCRI) at Victoria University and a lead author on the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is the third part of our series on IPCC report, so Vincent asked if Dave could give us an insider's view of how the IPCC works, on the science of warming and the role of methane in global heating a topic of huge importance to NZ. We'd be hard-pressed to find someone more qualified. Dave has a background in physics, philosophy, and policy. Previous posts have included research positions at the University of Oxford's Departments of Physics and Geography, and as Deputy Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. He has also worked at the New Zealand Treasury, and served on secondment at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. https://people.wgtn.ac.nz/dave.frame (Dave Frame Profile | Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington (wgtn.ac.nz)) https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (Reports — IPCC)
Bronwyn Slater at VeganSustainability.com explains the findings in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Vegan Sustainability Magazine is a free, online, quarterly magazine for vegans and non-vegans worldwide who are interested in the Environment and Sustainability. It's rooted in a non-violent ethos that advocates love and compassion for all living beings. They promote a sustainable lifestyle that meets human needs without compromising the ability of other species to meet their needs for present and future generations. Original post: http://vegansustainability.com/ipcc-sixth-assessment-report-2021/ Follow Plant Based Briefing on social media: Twitter: @PlantBasedBrief YouTube: YouTube.com/PlantBasedBriefing Facebook: Facebook.com/PlantBasedBriefing LinkedIn: Plant Based Briefing Podcast Instagram: @PlantBasedBriefing #vegan #plantbased #veganpodcast #plantbasedpodcast #plantbasedbriefing #vegansustainability #vegansustainabilitymagazine #ipcc #climatechange #climatechaos #extremeweather #wildfires #flooding #ghg #methane #COP26 #animalag
This week Vincent is joined by Professor Dave Frame, Director of the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute (CCRI) at Victoria University and a lead author on the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is the third part of our series on IPCC report, so Vincent asked if Dave could give us an insider's view of how the IPCC works, on the science of warming and the role of methane in global heating a topic of huge importance to NZ. We'd be hard-pressed to find someone more qualified. Dave has a background in physics, philosophy and policy. Previous posts have included research positions at the University of Oxford's Departments of Physics and Geography, and as Deputy Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. He has also worked at the New Zealand Treasury, and served on secondment at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Sara Kane is the co-leader of the Power and Renewables Practice at CAC Specialty, an integrated specialty insurance brokerage business. She has focused on assessing, pricing, and insuring against climate risk for more than a decade. In this episode, Sara and Chad Reed discuss the impact of the increasing number and severity of catastrophic weather events on renewable energy projects as well as the sobering findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent Sixth Assessment Report, the promise of professional career growth from crisis situations, the difference gender diversity makes in the workplace, and much more.Links:Sara Kane LinkedInCAC Specialty Natural Resources Practice GroupIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (August 2021)NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2021)Insurance Insider: Maturing renewable energy market balances growth with sustainable pricing (August 2021)Episode recorded August 17, 2021
The IPCC's AR6 is a comprehensive analysis of the physical science associated with climate change. In the second in Energetics' series on AR6, we explore what the findings mean in physical terms for Australia and the potential impacts for our businesses and communities. Energetics' climate strategists Robyn Ashton and Anna Kuiper are joined by Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick who is an expert in heat waves and their effects. Featuring: Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, UNSW Canberra and chief investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes and Anna Kuiper, ConsultantOur host: Aidan Ashton, Head of DecarbonisationNote: The information and commentary in this podcast is of a general nature only and does not take into account the objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular individual or business. Listeners should not rely upon the content in this podcast without first seeking advice from a professional.
Hi,I had my first surfing lesson this month. I wasn’t very good.It started off okay: I was pretty good at paddling, and smashing through some (tiny) waves to get out. I managed to keep by surf board straight, and I could up sit up and turn around pretty quickly. I could even paddle and catch a wave. The problem was standing up. How in God’s name are you meant to stand up? What, you’re meant to go from this wonderful lying down position to magically standing and balancing while a wave threatens to smash down around you? In other news I had a great time and got a very chafed pink belly. It was some escapism from a month that seemed doomed. The Delta variant has been making its presence known. US hospitals are stretched. Nine Inch Nails cancelled all their shows that I was looking forward to seeing (wise), and New Zealand has gone into a nationwide lockdown (also wise).And in the midst of this, the UN’s “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” released a new report that felt like a swift punch to the face. Their reports are usually sobering reading, but this one was horrifying. A “code red for humanity” is how UN Secretary-General António Guterres put it.The climate right now is warmer than it has been in about 125,000 years. And it’s just going to keep getting worse with more droughts, wildfires and floods. We aren’t on target to stop something that now seems all but inevitable. All this was running through my head as I walked to the beach, preparing to be pummelled on my board. The sun was unrelenting, and the literal cliff to my left was a fitting metaphor for humanity’s approach to the crisis we all face. And the question running through all of our heads? “What the fuck can we do about it?” When it comes to talk of the environment, many of us are trying to do out bit. We throw our recycling in the right bin, we use those re-usable bags at the supermarkets, and maybe we try and walk to the shops instead of drive.All the things we’ve being told will help save the planet. But we’re not making a lick of difference. It’s futile, apart from making us feel good about ourselves. We are — as today’s guest Joshua Drummond writes — being denied climate agency. Because we’re trapped in a system that makes it utterly impossible to make a difference. Josh has written for Webworm before, about what QAnon has in common with Evangelical Christianity. That piece seems relevant again this week, as City Impact Church held a “special meeting” for the pastor to spread anti-vaxx messaging in New Zealand.But today, Josh writes about our total lack climate agency and how that makes us feel utterly unhinged. He also offers some ideas about what we can do. It’s a great essay, and I’m so glad to leave it with you for weekend reading. Or listening, in its podcast form. David.If you want more Webworm and to support the work I do here, you can become a monthly or yearly paying member. Only consider doing this if it doesn’t cause you any financial hardship! Imprisoned in a System That Won’t Let Us Act Sanely.an essay by Joshua DrummondI jumped off a cliff once. Everyone else was doing it.It was at Northland waterfall, and I was about 17. The place was a popular swimming hole and there were quite a few spots my mates and I would jump off and do bombs, but there’s one particular bit where — if you get enough of a run-up — you can clear the cliffside and plummet a height even greater than the falls.My mates and I worked up to it. I didn’t go first; I’ve never been great with heights, but I wanted to prove myself. Plus, I have an innate practical streak that wants to see if someone else is going to get impaled before I jump into murky water myself.They jumped, they didn’t die, it was my turn. I jumped too.I didn’t regret it immediately; that came about a tenth of a second in, when gravity grabbed my guts in an unclenching fist and squeezed and twisted and pulled down. It was a visceral lesson; the laws of physics are a pantheon of terrible gods. They’re the authority by which cause and effect abide, and they don’t care about you. I’d fucked with the great god gravity, and this was the “finding out” phase.This month started with a similar set of sensations. A lurch in my stomach, a sudden, dizzying rush of anxiety. The same sense of inevitability, of being at the mercy of a caused effect. I know the feeling well, now. I get it every time a new major climate change report is released.The IPCC has just released their Sixth Assessment Report, which draws a conclusion that will leave few surprised; climate change is real, it’s happening now, it’s getting worse, and it will get much worse if it’s not stopped. Importantly, the report takes pains to underscore the fact that there is much we can and should do to stop warming, but that ray of hope is not what brings the feeling of falling off a cliff, the sensation as inevitability sets in and gravity grabs at your guts, pulling and twisting.The problem isn’t the fall: it’s that we’re currently doing very little to break it. It’s as if (to work the cliff-jump metaphor some more) we’re in free fall and the pool’s dry, but if we’re really quick we can fill it so the fall won’t kill us or even hurt too much — but the controls for the emergency sluice-gates are kept by a very small and very rich group of people who are all saying “nah, saving you would cost us too much. We’re opting for splat.”We know exactly what’s wrong with the climate: there’s an excess of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and it’s causing the planet to heat up. We’re clear on the cause: human activity has done nearly all of it. We know the solution: swap out carbon-emitting technology, and work to draw down the excess carbon we’ve emitted.So, with the problems and solutions clear for decades, what’s being done by the engines of the economy, the leaders, and the gatekeepers: business and the government? Not nearly enough.This isn’t a sane response to an emergency. It’s inhuman. Humans are, for the most part, practical and altruistic. We are brilliant, astonishing creatures. We might be bound by gravity, but we can still fly. The essence of humanity is bound up in working together to solve problems.That’s what makes climate change so maddening. When I say to myself, as any sane person would, “what are we doing?” and “how can I help?” the answers keep coming back, “not enough” and “you can’t.” That’s not how humans work. Being shown a problem and not being able to fix it drives us mad.Anyone who understands the reality of climate change — of the necessity of action — is burning to act. Everyone wants to help, to work, to do. But we’re imprisoned in a system that won’t let us act sanely. We are being denied climate agency.We’re stuck in a system we didn’t opt for, a system built for us without due care by those that benefit from pillaging the future, a system that we are frequently told is “too expensive” to change. In the media, articles about climate change mitigation measures frequently come — absurdly — with a cost-benefit analysis. “Not contributing to cooking an entire planet” is seldom listed as a benefit.Often, taking the individual actions we are told will help ease the crisis is too expensive. Unless you’re rich, in the global scheme of things — you can’t afford an EV. Unless you’re wealthy, in terms of either time or money, you can’t afford to go waste-free, or turn your backyard into a garden, or even buy food that’s free of exploitative farming practices. Ethical behaviour has been monetised: if you want a clear conscience, you’ll have to pay for it. Even the term “carbon footprint,” now ubiquitous and synonymous with taking individual action on climate change, is compromised: it was created and propagated by (wait for it) BP, in one of the most cynical (and effective) marketing campaigns of all time. Unable even to take the drop-in-a-bucket actions that might soothe our consciences — if not actually make a meaningful contribution — the vast majority of us have to live madly, amongst madness. To drive madness, to eat and drink madness. Many simple acts of daily life are poisoned with guilt over the knowledge that not only are you not helping, you are making things worse. An omnipresent, invisible chorus of judgement screams at you for decisions you can’t help making, because our systems don’t allow any other choice. Driving? Guilty! Eating meat? Guilty! Got milk? Guilty! Got plant milk in a plastic bottle? Guilty! No wonder people embrace climate change denial, clutching it like a lifesaver. They’re just trying to stay sane.In a sane world, we’d be pivoting hard — or have pivoted long ago — having never debated whether having a liveable biosphere is good for business. Government and business alike would have switched priorities, poured their all into doing the needful. There would be jobs, endless jobs, available to do work that matters.But it’s not a sane system, and there are few such jobs available. Searching on a hellsite like LinkedIn for “climate change” or “sustainability” is an exercise in futility. Many of the jobs available are in niche positions, or start-ups, or don’t pay well enough for someone without independent means to take them. Tellingly, many climate jobs are at insurance companies — insurance being one of the few sectors that does not have the luxury of choosing not to include climate change in its business model. What we’ve ended up with is a crisis everyone knows about but is powerless to work on fixing, because it’s hard to make rent or pay the mortgage with jobs that should exist but don’t. And the great Invisible Hand of the market isn’t interested in helping out, because saving the world for future generations doesn’t pay now. The Hand would rather sell stuff. Everyone loves stuff. Absent of the ability to live sanely and purposefully in a world that’s on fire, many of us privileged enough to live out of the danger zones live muted, blunted lives.Videogames are a welcome retreat, an opportunity to save the world, albeit a virtual one. Even doomscrolling is a balm on the open sore of “what can we do?” It feels like taking action. But it’s not.This forced nihilism poisons living. Faced with making choices about the future, a lot of my peers throw up their hands. What’s the point in trying to own a house when the housing market’s been cornered and whipped into a frenzy and the government has just kind of given up on doing anything meaningful about it? Why have kids, when they’ll likely have difficult, impoverished lives? Why risk saving for a future when the financial markets are rigged casinos and you can watch your future disappearing, live-streaming, one climate-change-fuelled fire/flood/storm/heatwave at a time?Looking around, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the future is being stolen from us. Governments and businesses should be creating ways to create good futures, to live within planetary boundaries, to live sanely. But we have been deliberately, systematically conned: by fossil-fuel and fossil-fuelled businesses who have worked tirelessly to promote the status quo and remove barriers to reaping the planet for endless profit, and by governments who have eagerly acquiesced to their demands in order to promote the fairy-tale of endless economic growth.There are a few hundred companies responsible for the majority of climate change, aided and abetted by either actively denialist or intactivist governments. The people who did this knew exactly what the effects would be, and they did it anyway. Stop feeling guilty. They did this. It is their fault. Not yours. Theirs. The actions of fossil fuel companies and their enablers have murdered tens of thousands of people in the present and hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions, perhaps many more — in the future; those not yet born will bear the brunt. So will those just born, like my baby boy.And this is just the human cost; the cost to the rest of nature is literally incalculable. But it’s easy to list some of the impacts. Under business-as-usual, millions of species face endangerment or extinction. Coral reefs will die. Forests will burn and become savannah. Sea level rise will inundate cities and shorelines. Maybe this one will hit home for you, because it does for me: in the business-as-usual future, climate change will kill the beaches.“Almost half of the world’s sandy beaches will have retreated significantly by the end of the century as a result of climate-driven coastal flooding and human interference, according to new research,” writes The Guardian.Usually, when humanity faces murder and destruction on this sort of scale, we react in disgust and fury. Tribunals are formed and justice is meted out. And yet, nothing. It seems we simply don’t have laws for those that kill with commerce. When will the climate criminals and their enablers, their paid shills and useful idiots, face justice? Will they ever?Like many, I am angry about this — very angry — but it’s hard to know what to do with this fury. It runs too deep, like a hidden current in a river. Occasionally, it rises, and it’s terrible to see. To feel. And being angry, like being earnest, is not cool. It’s not done. The correct attitude is a sort of supercilious, post-ironic detachment, an “oh well, we’re all fucked, so let’s just enjoy the ride, lmao.”I’m tired of even trying to be cool about all this. The effort it takes to sustain protective detachment isn’t worth it. I am desperate to channel my fury at a stolen, broken world into something useful, something that helps, something that isn’t shouting at the wind, or just being testy on Twitter. And I worry that, deprived of justice, the collective anger and dispossession of millions will spill over into something vengeful and terrible. A quote from one of those goofy Marvel films comes to mind: “If we can't protect the earth, you can be damn sure we'll avenge it.” Such great escapism, to watch the world being saved by powerful people who, in a marked break with reality, actually do the right thing. You can see why the films make so much money for one of the largest corporations on the planet.I don’t want violence. Most people don’t, or there’d be a lot more dead fossil fuel executives. But I’m not prepared to watch business-as-usual turn our only home into hell. Because there is still time — to blunt climate change’s worst impacts, to save what can be saved, to make a better world. Denied agency, activism is the last sane position left. Leading climate scientist Michael Mann writes about the futility of “doomism” in his book, The New Climate War. He warns that the supercilious “we’re all fucked, who cares” attitude plays directly into the hands of warmist interests, those who are desperate for business-as-usual to continue so they can make and keep their billions.“This is the greatest threat and greatest challenge we’ve ever faced as a civilization,” Mann says. “If you’re not out there fighting for climate action, you’re giving up on the human race.”To disrupt business-as-usual, climate scientist and activist Peter Kalmus says “we need a billion climate activists.” And the work of activism begins with imagining a better world. It’s not even that hard; others have already done this work, and there are many good futures to choose from.Some of it is table stakes. Commonsense, good ideas. Cities would be made walkable, accessible to active transport. Public transport would be fast and free, and special accommodation would be made for those less able. Electricity would be generated renewably — we’ve got plenty of wind, ocean, and sunshine. Distributed grids and batteries would create resilient infrastructure. Farming would be made much more sustainable, becoming a carbon sink instead of a net polluter.My own personal good future has some specifics. In the near term — ideally today — the media would pledge not to run climate change denial in either news or opinion, and would refuse to take advertising or sponsorship money from fossil fuel interests. They’d abandon the senseless culture war they’re encouraging for clicks, stirring up audiences against fundamentally benign concepts like cycleways. They’d treat climate change as the epoch-defining issue it is, and cover it widely and fairly, instead of sporadically and half-heartedly. They’d stop platforming politicians and other people that lie and prevaricate about the climate crisis.The media also need to stop stirring up fear about how much this stuff costs, because the cost of not doing it is almost too much to comprehend: one estimate puts global GDP losses at $610 trillion in cumulative damages to 2100, the equivalent of at least one Covid-sized economic shock per year.This stupendous figure doubles once you factor in sea-level rise. Instead of asking “how much will this cost?” we need to ask “how much work will this be?” To paraphrase Kim Stanley Robinson in his cli-fi book The Ministry For The Future: Money isn’t real. Work is real. People are real. Governments need to assess what needs to be done in terms of climate change mitigation, and then just pay people to do it. Sure, it’s hard work, but when work is meaningful, people actually want to do it.But there’s no need to dispense with the collective fiction of money as long as we can make it work for all of us, instead of a vanishingly small minority of fixers and gate-keepers. For instance, we can take the money back from the fossil fuel companies who’ve stolen it from our future. We can set a hard limit on wealth, so the value of everything the world does can stop being hoarded by 0.1 percent of the population. The billionaire-stans may screech, but it’s the best form of justice fossil-fuel executives and their shills can hope for.And I can hear the economists stirring already, so let’s upset them some more. We need to stop treating free-market, orthodox economics like it’s the immutable law of nature. In fact, by ignoring the biosphere, by treating the environment as just an externality, orthodox economics has done more damage than perhaps any other ideology. A new economics is needed, and a new popular understanding. One that doesn’t treat economics like it’s a capricious god beyond human control. “The economy” is just a representation of humans at work, economists are fundamentally useless at predicting the future, and it’s time we stopped pretending they can.Physics, on the other hand, can predict the future. We know what’s coming, but we can do something about it. Jumping off the climate cliff wasn’t a good idea, but we can still break the fall.“There is no simple formula, no fact sheet or checklist, for figuring out our roles in the vital work to forge a just, liveable future,” says All We Can Save author Dr Katharine Wilkinson. “But I have found a series of reflections can help us arrive at some clarity and uncover ways to be of use.”When it comes to reflections, I like this one very much:So: Stop worrying and speak up. Talk about climate change with everyone you can. Join the school climate strikes. Join the general strikes that are coming. Be an activist. Organize. Become unignorable. It’s the only thing that will force the powers that be into action, that will help break the dissonance of living the way we do now, and allow us to live sanely.Words and illustrations by Joshua Drummond, August 2021.If you want to listen to this essay, check Spotify or Apple podcasts — it’ll pop up there soon. And if you haven’t already, sign up for Webworm so that any new podcast episodes get delivered direct to your inbox before they appear anywhere else.David here again. Maybe technically I was wrong: as individuals, we can do something. Something bigger than emptying the recycling bin. We can come together, and we can speak up. We can force those giant entities to create change. We can apply pressure.I don’t know what that looks like, exactly. I am not an activist. I write this newsletter to you. I feel utterly useless looking over the cliff. I feel utterly trapped in this catastrophe, forced to do things I know are wrong to kill an environment I know is wrecked. I drive a car, I drink from plastic bottles. It’s impossibly hard for people to look beyond their own timeline: their own 85 years or so. But we have the data, we have the science, and something has to give. It has to.I’m throwing this back over to Josh again. He has some thoughts on what to do.What can we do? Some more thoughts from JoshI’m aware I still haven’t entirely addressed the “how” of all this, and for that, I’ll point to others who can probably answer better than I can. If we want to play a useful role in this crisis, we should find out where our existing skills are applicable. As a writer, one of the areas I feel less uncomfortable talking about is the news media, and I’m pretty bloody angry at still seeing climate change denial being given a consistent platform in our media with the excuse of “but it’s just opinion!” The first thing I’m personally keen to do is see if with a bit of collective action we can have the news media (starting with New Zealand, and hopefully elsewhere) adopt a climate change reporting pledge, in which they’d promise not to air or print climate change denial, or give climate change deniers and fossil fuel lobbyists a platform. Perhaps we’d even see an admission of responsibility or an apology about the media’s hefty role about promulgating climate change information to date.I don’t pitch this idea with high hopes of all New Zealand media happily signing on, but I think even choosing not to take a pledge would be telling. To those that’d start banging on about freedom of speech, I’d say: “No.” This is about the media choosing to act ethically and responsibly, not about governments choosing what you can and can’t say. Most media don’t give a lot of space to praising fascism anymore, and it’s time the lying liars of climate change denial got the same treatment. Let’s see what we can do about it. I’m particularly keen to hear from climate activists, climate scientists, and media people. I would love to get media people’s true feelings on what it’s like to see their publications, editors and owners continually giving climate change denial a platform. I'm happy to keep correspondence anonymous or off-the-record where necessary. Hit me up at josh@joshuadrummond.com if you want to talk, or let’s have a yarn in the comments below.David here again. What a ping pong match this newsletter has been!I find Josh pretty incredible in the various creative ways he finds to help. During Australia’s raging bushfires, he painted a kookaburra to raise money in the firefighting efforts.I think Josh is bang on about the media’s role in platforming misinformation (and sometimes blatant disinformation) about the climate crisis.In New Zealand, climate change denier Peter Williams has been given a platform by Mediaworks (the same company caught up in allegations of sexual harassment, racism and bullying from its top dogs) to, well, spread his bullshit. I won’t link to it, but he wrote this in June about the last climate change report:Peter Williams: Why you should be sceptical about the Climate Change Commission ReportOPINION: So now we know what the Climate Change Commission is recommending what the government does to stop the planet warming. It is gross interference in the way we are expected to live our lives, the way we will travel around, the way we will keep ourselves warm and the way we will earn our living as an exporter of food. To me — this kind of rhetoric is just so fucking dumb. Our future generations are literally destined to doom. This has to stop.Sound off in the comment below. Let’s talk this out. I hope you enjoyed Josh’s essay — I loved it and glad he’s here. If you listened to it instead on the podcast, I hope my droning voice didn’t put you to sleep.Talk below. Try and have a safe weekend. David. Get full access to Webworm with David Farrier at www.webworm.co/subscribe
If we've learned anything, in this almost year and a half since the pandemic, it's that having more skills for relating, for coming together, for getting along, and for collaboration is key to the complex issues we're all navigating at work and in the world. I have found that the inner game of emotional intelligence leads to empathy and leadership. You simply can't have one without the other. These two qualities are some of the most important skills leaders, managers, and individual contributors need to learn in this poignant time. As the world continues to transition toward the future age of work- a hybrid remote environment in which human connection is more important than it has ever been before, it will require emotionally intelligent workers. It is essential that we gain more self awareness and self management so that we're able to really pay attention to how we're showing up, at work and in the world. On this solo episode, I want to define emotional intelligence and define how it's linked not only to empathy and leadership, but to successful, thriving teams. I also want to give you some simple and powerful ways that you can begin to practice more empathy at work and in your life. The Importance of Empathy in Leadership SEO Description: On this solo episode, I want to define emotional intelligence and define how it's linked not only to empathy and leadership, but to successful, thriving teams. I also want to give you some simple and powerful ways that you can begin to practice more empathy at work and in your life. The inner game of emotional intelligence leads to greater empathy and greater leadership. These two qualities are some of the most important skills leaders, managers, and individual contributors need to learn in this poignant time. It is essential that we gain more self awareness and self management so that we're able to really pay attention to how we're showing up, at work and in the world. Resources mentioned in this episode: The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis The Center for Generational Kinetics Study on Gen Z Google's Aristotle Project Center for Creative Leadership Empathy Study Conscious & Inclusive Leadership Retreat Leading from Wholeness Executive Coaching Leading from Wholeness Learning and Development Resources Shine: Ignite Your Inner Game to Lead Consciously at Work and in the World by Carley Hauck Contact Carley Hauck The Imperfect Shownotes Carley Hauck 00:01 Hi, this is Carley Hauck. Welcome to another episode of the amazing and inspiring SHINE podcast. This podcast is all about the intersection of three things- conscious and inclusive leadership, the recipe for high performing teams and awareness practices. I will be offering three episodes a month. And before I tell you about our topic today, I would love if you could go over to Apple podcasts and hit the subscribe button so you don't miss any amazing episodes. After listening to this episode, or other episodes that you enjoy and find value in, I would be so grateful if you would write a positive review, and or share it with friends, colleagues, your favorite social media channel, it helps so much. Thank you. Our topic for today is the importance of empathy and leadership. If we've learned anything, in this almost year and a half since the pandemic, we've learned that having more skills for relating, for coming together, for getting along, for collaboration is key to the complex issues we're all navigating at work and in the world. And the inner game rules the outer game. And I've been writing a lot on this topic in my recent book Shine: Ignite Your Inner Game to Lead Consciously at Work and in the World , also the name of this podcast, and a lot of the work that I've been facilitating and learning organizational development, executive and team coaching in the last decade. And what I have found, and my experience is that the inner game of emotional intelligence, which I'm going to unpack leads to empathy and leadership, you can't have one without the other. And I feel that these two qualities are some of the most important skills leaders, managers, and individual contributors need to learn in this poignant time. The reason? We are facing some of the largest challenges in history of any time before us. We have literally our survival at stake with climate change. This is one of the reasons that I wrote my book, I spent four years writing it, because I wanted to help the human species develop more consciousness so that we could solve these problems together. And the UN Climate report, the most recent the sixth version of it, they've been saying this for quite a long time, but this is the most updated version was released the week of August 9. And we need more than ever, to be able to communicate, to share empathy to understand the other person's perspective and views, even if it's not our own, so that we can solve these complex problems together of racial inequities and social and environmental responsibility and aligning with greater sustainable development for our entire worlds because, as we've learned, in the last year and a half, we are all in this together. 3:51 So I want to define emotional intelligence and how it's linked to empathy and leadership. I also want to give you some ways to practice more empathy at work in your life. Emotional intelligence is the ability to identify and manage one's personal emotions and the emotions of others. So having self management, and then social awareness. Knowing how you'd feel in a certain situation helps you to gauge how others will feel in a similar environment, thus enabling favorable social interactions and evoking positive reactions from others. emotionally intelligent people gain social aptitudes, such as the ability to resolve conflict, teach others or manage teams. In my book, Chapter Two is devoted to the inner game of emotional intelligence. And I break down the four dimensions of emotional intelligence. So the first two are self awareness, self management. And the last two are social awareness and relationship mastery. I really think of these four dimensions as being the inner and the outer game. So being that self awareness, self management, it's an inner quality, we're developing it first on the inside. Self management is referred to as self control and self regulation. It's the ability to regulate our emotions or thoughts or behaviors effectively in different situations. It includes managing our stress, delaying gratification, motivating ourselves, setting and working toward personal and academic goals. It's learning how to navigate our triggers and how to express our feelings skillfully. And if we don't have self awareness, the ability to watch and observe our thoughts or feelings or sensations, we're not able to self manage, so they are intrinsically linked. And if you don't develop those first two qualities of emotional intelligence, then you can't show up with the last two, the social awareness and the relationship mastery. So when we gain more self awareness and self management, we're able to really pay attention to how we're showing up, then we're able to apply those same skills to others. Oh, I wonder what's happening for them. Oh, I'm watching their nonverbal behavior. Hmm, this is not the right time to probably have a conversation- they're triggered. That is going to help with relationship mastery. Many of us in the year of the pandemic and ongoing have brought more of ourselves to the workplace than ever before. We've been living and working from our living rooms or bedrooms or basements. And we've all been navigating different levels of uncertainty, grief, anger, volatility, ambiguity. We are human beings, not human doings. We feel discomfort. When there is uncertainty when there is change, even if it's a good change, we think, oh, how am I going to navigate this. And we have been navigating some big feelings, big emotions. And it requires more empathy, more compassion in our leadership and how we relate to one another. 7:41 So let's talk a little bit about the business case for emotional intelligence and empathy in defining it for you. But let's talk about why this really matters at work. And then at the world, because the workplace is a microcosm for the world. In the midst of the pandemic, researchers found that we as a world have rising rates of loneliness and depression makes sense, we've been socially isolated. We've been going through big challenges, and it was already high, but it's gone up higher. This means that mental health concerns represent an opportunity for companies and leaders to embrace emotional intelligence in order to re-engage people at work and life. Additionally, Gen Z, which will be one of the largest populations of the workforce, has been found to be the loneliest generation. With 73% reporting, sometimes or always feeling alone. According to the Center for Generational Kinetics, which was a 2020 study, solving the remote work challenge across generations, it was found that more than any other generation Gen Z wants their managers to be empathetic. If the youth is the future, which it is, they are the leaders that our world needs now. And they're lonely and psychologically stressed than the future of work, must have emotional intelligence and empathy. And again, if we don't cultivate those inner game skills of emotional intelligence and empathy, then we're not able to create psychological safety in our teams or one on ones and in the greater culture. And that's really important for high performance, innovation for creativity, for collaboration. I talk a lot about the concept of psychological safety, and I write a lot about it in my book. I was trained in the psychological safety scan by Dr. Amy and Dr. Amy and Edmondson and her 25 years of research on this important topic at Harvard, and in worksites. Psychological safety is one of the first things that I measure when I'm brought in for any team development, when I'm looking to design and implement a large scale learning or leadership development program, or really focusing on supporting the culture to flourish. For those that are not familiar with the concept, or the definition of psychological safety, here's a summary. According to Google's famous project, Aristotle initiative, a high performing team needs three things: strong awareness of the importance of social connections, or social sensitivity, an environment where each person speaks equally. And lastly, psychological safety, where everyone feels safe to show and employ themselves without fear of negative consequences. To harness these three elements of a successful team, it takes an emotionally intelligent and empathetic leader. People feel cared for when these three items are present among a team or an organization. And guess what? People who feel cared for are more loyal, engaged, committed, productive. In fact, employees who feel cared for by their organization are 10 times more likely to recommend their company as a great place to work. Whoo, nine times more likely to stay at their company for three or more years, we want that. Seven times more likely to feel included at work. We want people to feel like they have belonging, they can bring their whole and best selves to work. They're four times less likely to suffer from stress and burnout. And they're two times as likely to be more engaged at work. 12:15 Well, that feels like a no brainer for developing a culture of greater emotional intelligence and empathy. The three core human needs of work and life are to survive, belong and become. Much like Maslov's hierarchy of needs, once humans fulfill the need for food, water, shelter, they then seek to be accepted for who they are belonging, and then finally learn to grow to become their best selves. That's the self actualization at the top of the pyramid. As the world advances more and more, our survival needs are being consistently met. But for some, they're still in survival mode. Many of us are, since the pandemic. And so that's another reason why it's important to have emotionally intelligent leaders that are capable of showing empathy, and extending belonging to their teams. I believe that humane technology has the possibility to advance humanity. The Industrial Revolution requires strong workers, the Information Age required knowledgeable workers, but this future age of work that we're in- hybrid remote, it will require emotionally intelligent workers. Because as we become more sophisticated, technologically with AI and 5g, the human skills, the soft skills, some people call them, the inner game skills, I called them, they're the real skills, like compassion and empathy. This is going to define the competitive edge of workers and entire organizations. As the world becomes more high tech, we will need more high touch. As technology advances, it will take on some of the skills that humans aren't good at, or we don't like or too dangerous, but then it gives us the opportunity to have more capacity to relate to one another and be empathetic towards one another. So, let's talk about building empathy. A study by the Center for Creative Leadership found that managers who show higher levels of empathy towards their team are viewed more positively overall on their performance of decision making coaching, engaging meant planning and organizing. Developing greater capacity for empathy becomes even more important. With all of these distributed teams around the world, working remotely, phone and zoom are the normal. But we can often miss emotional cues nonverbal cues. If we're not being mindful of how this other person might be feeling, thinking, perceiving. Daniel Goleman and Paul Ekman have identified three different types of empathy. Now, I'd like to read more about them for you. So we have cognitive empathy. And this by the way, is taken from my book in chapter three. Cognitive empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else's place and understand their perspective. This quality enables leaders to assess what others are feeling is also a natural outgrowth of self awareness. The executive circuits in the brain that allow you to notice your thoughts and monitor your feelings give you the ability to transfer these skills from yourself to another. One way to grow your cognitive empathy is to ask what would happen if I put myself in this person's shoes? Or what might I have done? If I had this experience? Emotional empathy. This is the second kind of empathy. This is the ability to feel what someone else feels. Another name for this is emotional contagion. This is what happens when you are interacting with a distraught colleague and begin to feel down and distraught too. It is important that you connect with what people are feeling, but you don't want to be rocked by their feeling state. One way to grow your emotional empathy is to allow your positive or negative feelings to surface while listening to a co-worker's emotional experience. So this really comes down to having a self awareness practice really noticing what's happening in my body. What am I really noticing and the other? And some questions you might ask yourself to grow your emotional empathy is, when have I experienced a similar story? How did I feel when this happened to me? Here's an important distinction. Cognitive empathy is empathy by thought. And emotional empathy is empathy by feelings. And the third type of empathy is compassionate empathy. This is the ability to move into action with empathic concern. This is what many co-workers typically react to in the workplace. For example, when a team member reports that he or she doesn't have the complete information to finish the deliverable. A leader might jump in, or assign someone to help with one of the related tasks. A question that can help you build compassion. Empathy is, what supportive action would I want or need, if I were in this person's shoes? We all want to be seen, felt and heard. and developing empathy supports appropriate boundaries, while allowing you to be with and to acknowledge another's range of experiences. Empathy says, I am here with you, and I know the struggle and have lived this experience. 18:48 So as you're listening, I'd love to guide you through a practice to develop your empathy. Take a moment and find a place where you can actually drop in close your eyes. So don't do this if you're driving. But really give yourself a chance to pause. Notice your feet connected to the floor. Notice your body posture. sitting up nice and tall. Bring your shoulders up and back. Open your jaw. Maybe move your head from side to side. Relax. Bring your attention into your body. And start to notice the rhythm of your breath. Breathing in, feel the stomach rise, breathing out, feel the stomach fall. Breathing in, breathing out and out. Breathing in and as you exhale out, breathe out. Let's do that two more times. In and out, getting all the attention from the day. I mean negative experiences just release from the body. And one more time breathing in, out. Now, I invite you to bring to mind a colleague at work. Maybe it's even someone at home, this person is experiencing some difficulty. Ask yourself the following questions to help develop your empathy. What would I do? How would I feel in a similar situation? What would I want? or expect from my manager? What would I not want? If you like, you can journal about this. This exercise comes directly from my book. And there's a journaling opportunity, but I'll say the questions one more time. So that you can really build your inner game of empathy. What would I do? How would I feel in a similar situation? What would I want or expect from my manager? What would I not want? 21:45 If this was a little difficult for you, this exercise or a little challenging, you might be naturally low on the empathy scale. So this is an opportunity for you to grow it. You can learn to check yourself and do what doesn't always come naturally. So here's some tips. Before you act, you can pause when you're relating with another and ask how am I what I'm about to do or say, impact others. We can't always, you know, be the people pleaser. And we don't really know how our thoughts and behaviors are going to impact another because everyone has their own lens that they view it from and their own worldview and lived experiences. But if your intention and motivation is coming from care, and truth, then that's the best that you can do. But it is I think important to pause and really be skillful in how we're relating to everyone right now, more than ever, because we're all navigating so much complexity and uncertainty. You can also develop your inner game of self awareness, self management, by really noticing your thoughts, your feelings, your body sensations. A meditation practice is one of the best ways you can grow your self awareness and you can start to develop greater self management, because you're able to pause and refrain from speaking, when maybe you're triggered or the other person's triggered. You can take care of yourself and the relationship when you have these two skills. And then the other two dimensions of emotional intelligence is that you show up with greater social awareness and relationship mastery. Another way to grow into a more emotionally intelligent and empathetic leader is to have a trusted advisor or coach that can help you see your blind spots and support you to develop greater skill and your emotional intelligence, empathy and communication. I have been working as an executive coach now for 15 years, serving all types of leaders, emerging. middle managers, CEOs, founders, HR business partners. And I have often supported these folks, and up leveling the skills because we can't change what we don't see, which is always great to have a coach to reflect back to us, love and truth and challenge us to be our best selves. I will always challenge my clients to grow with compassion and truth. If I see a mindset or action that is hindering them to show up in the best of ways I name it, I investigate it, I mirror it back to them. So that there's the ability for them to shift and change, and be in service of their greatest possibility and potential for their teams, their life, their organization. 25:25 So that's what I have for you on this important topic. If you would like support around creating a culture with more emotional intelligence, empathy, and our psychological safety in your organization and your leadership team, I would love to help you. Please reach out to me and book a free consultation, and the link will be in the show notes. As I shared before, I also do a lot of coaching with folks on these important skills. And I would love to support you. I have a whole page on executive coaching on my website, and there is a coaching application you can fill out and be happy to book a free consultation to talk with you more. I also am often asked to conduct trainings and workshops and keynotes on this topic for lots of different organizations. And I would be delighted to serve you in this capacity. Additionally, if you are seeking someone to support you to build this more human centered leadership and organization on a more full time capacity, please feel free to contact me. Again, I'd be happy to book some time with you. And if I'm not the right person to help you, I'd love to put you in touch with someone who might be a better fit, because I have a big network. And I like to help people. A couple other resources on how you can grow this and yourself. I write a lot about this topic in my book Shine: Ignite Your Inner Game to Lead Consciously at Work and in the World. I also have many free articles on my website on emotional intelligence, empathy. I encourage you to check all of that out. If you have any questions, comments or topics that you feel you'd really love to learn more about and have me address on the podcast, please email me at support@carlyhauck.com. And as always, thank you so much for tuning in and being part of this wonderful community and until we meet again, be the light and shine the light.
Earlier this month, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) released the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report on the state of climate change globally. The report relies on advanced climate modeling to illustrate where global warming is headed. In this installment of Model Talk on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Nate Silver and Galen Druke are joined by two climate modelers and authors of the latest IPCC report, Friederike Otto and Baylor Fox-Kemper.
This week Chef Chris Galarza & Juice discuss the bombshell climate change report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nation's climate science research group. Chef Juice also tests Chef Chris' knowledge on food myths and what does Juice and Caribbean vampires have to do with each other. One way to find out! Greenbiz Article: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/california-just-took-huge-step-towards-building-electrification (California just took a huge step towards building electrification | Greenbiz) Vox Article on report: https://www.vox.com/22613027/un-ipcc-climate-change-report-ar6-disaster (UN climate report: IPCC says humans caused “unequivocal” warming - Vox) IPCC Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ (Sixth Assessment Report (ipcc.ch)) Interactive Atlas: https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ (IPCC WGI Interactive Atlas) Phipps Conservatory class registration: https://3989p.blackbaudhosting.com/3989p/Lunch-and-Learn-Webinar-Series-The-Sustainable-Kitchen Netzero Conference registration is now open! Use NZCCFR15 when signing up to get 15% off you registration Here's a direct link to the registration site: https://lnkd.in/g5QqJHgH (https://lnkd.in/g5QqJHgH) Join the conversation: Subscribe to Sustainable Overload Podcast on YouTube, Twitter, & TikTok by searching S_O_Podcast. Instagram: Sustainable Pod Please consider Subscribing, sharing, and leaving us your feedback on Apple podcasts and everywhere you get your podcast. Chef Chris Socials: Instagram: @ForwardDiningSolutionsLLC Twitter: @DiningForward LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chef-christopher-galarza-8a632742/ (Chef Christopher Galarza | LinkedIn) www.ForwardDiningSoultons.com Chef Juice Socials: @XanderWaynerxrx on all social platforms www.Rxmusic.us Sustainable Overload is a product of Forward Dining Solutions LLC. and brought to you by RX Music “healing the world with sound”. This podcast is made possible because of listeners like you. Your listens, feedback, and patronage is this podcasts exists.
Angus Emmott (pictured), a board member with Farmers for Climate Action, is thoroughly disappointed with the Federal Government's response to the Sixth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Angus, a grazier from near Longreach in Queensland, laments the lack of leadership from the Scott Morrison led-LNP Government and that inadequacy leaves him feeling embarrassed to be an Australian. Angus has been involved with many water-based organizations in the northern parts of Australia and has worked closely with the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES). Enjoy "Music for a Warming World". Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/climateconversations
Since the withdrawal of US and allied troops from Afghanistan, the Taliban's military offensive across the country has seen the group capture a number of provincial capitals over the past week, including Afghanistan's third largest city, Herat. Anastasia Kapetas speaks to counterinsurgency expert Dr David Kilcullen about the future of governance in Afghanistan. They also discuss the geopolitics of the region, including China and Pakistan's interests, and how the United States could respond as the Taliban continues to advance toward the capital. Earlier this week, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Sixth Assessment Report. The report found that the world is likely to hit 1.5 degrees of warming by 2030 if we continue on our current trajectory. Dr Robert Glasser speaks to one of the report's contributing authors Professor Mark Howden about the report's findings, climate risks for Australia and the policy responses required to address this global challenge. Mentioned in this episode: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ Guests in this episode (in order of appearance): Anastasia Kapetas: https://www.aspi.org.au/bio/anastasia-kapetas Dr David Kilcullen: https://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/david-kilcullen Dr Robert Glasser: https://www.aspi.org.au/bio/robert-glasser Professor Mark Howden: https://iceds.anu.edu.au/people/academics/professor-mark-howden
The International Panel on Climate Change - otherwise known as the IPCC - just released their Sixth Assessment Report and it is pretty much all the various news outlets, politicians, and talking heads can discuss. But, it's a big report. The full report is thousands of pages long with hundreds of authors and well over 10,000 source citations. When all the headlines seem to say is something like IPCC Report Confirms We're All Gonna Die, it can be difficult to parse out what is important, what is relevant to you, and how much of the catastrophizing to believe. That's where Dr. Sam Montano, the disasterologist herself, comes in. She's back to tell us what this report means, which parts she and other researchers are focused on, how alarmed we should be, and what the average consumer can do. We discuss issues like the California wildfires, the Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota, and even touch upon the current wave of COVID resurgence here in the United States. Find more of Dr. Montano's work here. If you like this show and want to support it, there are a number of ways to help. Consider liking and sharing it on social media. You can also rate the show 5-stars on Apple Podcasts and leave a review. Help keep the show free and producing on a regular basis by chipping in whatever you can. You can buy me a Ko-fi (a one time donation of your choosing) https://ko-fi.com/incitingariot or join my Patreon on a monthly basis. Patrons receive additional audio and video content as well as archived episodes, a private Discord server, and monthly chats with special guests! Sign up at Patreon.com/IncitingProjects. Pre-order my book, The Dabbler's Guide to Witchcraft, here: https://bit.ly/DabblersGuide Love and Lyte, Fire Lyte IncitingARiot.com FireLyte@incitingariot.com Social Media & Podcast Subscription links: https://linktr.ee/IncitingARiot
In this bonus episode, Audrey breaks down the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report, "a high-level summary of the understanding of the current state of the climate, including how it is changing and the role of human influence, the state of knowledge about possible climate futures, climate information relevant to regions and sectors, and limiting human-induced climate change." To weigh in, email: imafraidofclimatechange@gmail.com Transcript: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XVY_gDsZsCT7TNOHeZiYsWvn39iiakMZ8G7pHk8jWtA/edit?usp=sharing Resources: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/about/ https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/ National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
It's getting hot, and according to the latest IPCC report, it's only getting hotter. Sam sips on a cool low dose Green Monkee beverage while Tianna enjoys Cherry Moon. An indica dominant strain that is actually recommended for social gatherings for its euphoric stimulation. Ah social gatherings, will they last? Not if we don't! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published their Sixth Assessment Report and uh, it doesn't look too good. Biden's administration while doing some good, is simply not doing enough. They're currently mum on Line 3, a tar sand pipeline that threatens wild rice and drinking water. Governor Hutchinson of Arkansas goes on the apology tour for signing an anti mask law in his state, and boy is he lucky a judge blocked this completely reckless law. The ladies also address the energy inefficient elephant in the room: large grow operations. It is an environmental palooza ya'll! Light up & Tune in.
Scott Morrison (pictured) has effectively dismissed the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Australian PM has donned his PR hat to talk his way beyond the report and claim Australia is among the world's best at combating climate change and will "meet and beat" is Paris commitments. Australia is not what Mr Morrison claims and nor will it meet and beat its Paris targets. Stories about the latest Sixth Assessment Report, and Australia's laggard-like performance have flooded the media. They continue to roll in, but Climate Conversations has picked on just a few: From The Guardian - "IPCC report shows ‘possible loss of entire countries within the century'"; From SBSNews - "Global warming of 1.5 degrees could be reached a decade earlier around 2030, major climate report finds"; From ABC News - "IPCC report shows Earth's temperature is rising, and the heat is on Scott Morrison and Coalition's climate policy"; From the Independent - "IPCC report 2021: ‘Cost of inaction keeps mounting' says Biden amid ‘irreversible' sea level rise warning"; From the World Resources Institute - "5 Big Findings from the IPCC's 2021 Climate Report"; From Inside Climate News - "Global Climate Panel's Report: No Part of the Planet Will be Spared"; From Reuters - "U.N. climate change report sounds 'code red for humanity'"; From The Saturday Paper - " IPCC warns of climate breakdown"; And finally, from Real Climate - "We are not reaching 1.5ºC earlier than previously thought". Those who want to read the report for themselves can do so by visiting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/climateconversations
We're back after our last vacation of the summer. Tonight we want to hear what's on your mind. Join in the chat or call-in on Riverside.fm. We'll be talking about the dire warnings in the newly released IPCC Climate Report. It's not looking good for business-as-usual. Plus, as schools plan for the coming school year, the idea of masking has sent groups of parents into a feverish frenzy. And, let's not forget about the QAnon-flavored outrage about CRT and DEI initiatives. Tonight's Pennridge School Board meeting is preparing for a full culture war around the issue of making our schools welcome for all students. Welcome to the PA-01. Resources: Kate Aronoff, "Playing nice with the fossil fuel industry is climate denial," The New Republic New York Times, "A hotter future is certain, climate panel warns. But how hot is up to us" IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report
The IPCC's powerful latest report on the science of climate change lays out - in the clearest possible terms - the details and impact of man made climate change. We hear from a young activist in Uganda, and also ask whether China will emerge as a climate leader. Also in the programme: we report from Greece, where fires continue to devastate forested areas; and on the first anniversary of his disputed election victory, President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus takes aim at his critics - and the West. (Image: a participant studies the presentation of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, as the report is streamed to a press conference of the Swiss Academy of Sciences in Bern, Switzerland, 09 August 2021. / Credit: EPA/ALESSANDRO DELLA VALLE)
Welcome to the 221st day of the year, at least, that’s the spot on the annual timeline upon which this script was written and the chronic coordinates when this recording was made. We can also just go ahead and say it’s August 9, but where would the fun be in that? In any case, this is the 229th edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement, which is also perhaps an unnecessary numerical signifier. Either way, I’m Sean Tubbs, your two syllable host. On today’s show:The General Assembly signs off on Governor Northam’s $4.3 billion ARPA spending plan, but makes a few adjustmentsOne Albemarle Supervisor warns about dry conditions And a federal partnership is seeking volunteers to help map urban heat island conditions in CharlottesvilleIn today’s Patreon-fueled shout-out: The Rivanna Conservation Alliance is looking for a few good volunteers to help out on Clean Stream Tuesdays, a mile and a half paddle and clean-up to remove trash and debris from popular stretches of the Rivanna River. Trash bags, trash pickers, gloves, and hand sanitizer/wipes will be provided, though volunteers will need to transport themselves to and from the end points. Kayaks for the purpose can be rented from the Rivanna River Company. Visit the Rivanna Conservation Alliance's volunteer page to learn more about upcoming dates.The seven-day average for COVID cases in Virginia continues to rise with the Virginia Department of Health reporting that number as 1,626 today. On Saturday, there were 1,784 new cases reported, 1,573 cases reported Sunday and 1,298 today. The seven-day percent positivity rose to 7.3 percent. As of Friday, 98.55 percent of cases since February have been in people who have not been fully vaccinated. There are 51 cases reported in the Blue Ridge Health District today and the percent positivity rose to 4.5 percent. On Friday, leaders at the University of Virginia announced they would begin requiring masks indoors in order to prevent the spread of the Delta variant of COVID-19. UVA is still preparing to begin the fall semester later this month. According to UVA Today, the policy applies to indoor spaces owned or leased by the University, but are not required when eating or drinking. The policy also does not apply outdoors.The General Assembly has passed a marked up version of a plan to spend $4.3 billion of state funding that comes from the federal American Rescue Plan. The legislature’s changes include $2.5 million for grants for community-based gun violence prevention reduction and $3,000 bonuses for officers who work in Sheriff’s offices and regional jails. The General Assembly also wants the Department of Motor Vehicles to submit a plan within 30 days to serve walk-in customers at service centers. Currently all visits are made by appointment only.Around $761 million in funds will not be programmed at this time depending on the direction of the ongoing pandemic, according to a release from Governor Northam’s office. Areas with high amounts of asphalt and pavement are less healthy places to live, and a hotter climate will exacerbate the problem. The city of Charlottesville is participating in a federal program to map urban heat islands and is looking for volunteers to provide data on temperature and humidity levels. The National Integrated Heat Health Information System is a partnership between the Centers for Disease Control, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other partners across the world. According to the website, the idea is to “understand this problem, develop a robust and science-informed response, and build capacity and communication networks to improve resilience.”The effort is seeking people who are willing to take samples on three different occasions in the last two weeks of August. If you’re interested, there’s a volunteer interest form to fill out. If you need more information, that’s available on the city website. Learn more about the NIHHIS program in a brochure on their websiteOn Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finalized the first section of their Sixth Assessment Report titled Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. A 39-page Summary for Policymakers describes in detail how human activity since the beginning of the industrial age has contributed to the gradual warming of the planet. The Arctic sea ice is melting, sea level is rising, and the report indicates that warming will continue throughout the mid-century even if greenhouse gas emissions can be cut severely. (view the various reports on the IPCC website)Earlier this month, Governor Ralph Northam announced five new historical markers will be placed across the Commonwealth to commemorate contributions Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have played. One of them will celebrate the life of W.W. Yen, a Chinese man who graduated from the University of Virginia in 1900.“Virginia has about 2,500 historical markers across the state but not enough are dedicated to sharing [Asian American and Pacific Islander] history,” Northam said in a ceremony announcing the new markers, each of which was submitted by students across Virginia. “This is a problem because AAPI history is Virginia history.”Take a look at the release to find out who else has been recognized. W.W. Yen is the subject of one of five new historic markersThe rest of the newsletter is a review of last week’s Albemarle Board of Supervisors meeting. That was August 4 for anyone who needs a time stamp. At the top of the meeting, Supervisor Ann Mallek wanted people who don’t live in the rural area to know there’s a problem.“Urban people who have not been out in the countryside may not be aware of how severe this dryness is,” Mallek said. “We have streams drying up all over the place in the countryside and pastures are gone, hayfields are gone, cornfields are gone.” According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, Albemarle County is either in the Abnormally Dry or Moderate Drought. All of Nelson County is marked as Moderate Drought, while Fluvanna and Greene counties are Abnormally Dry. Mallek warned that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority be clear in reporting conditions to the city of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County Service Authority. “If we don’t start getting rain there is going to be a precipitous drop in supply,” Malelk said. “It happens very fast, like two, three, four feet a day at South Fork [reservoir] when things get to that saturation point.”According to today’s water report from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, South Rivanna is full, as is the Totier Creek reservoir that serves Scottsville. Sugar Hollow is down over ten feet and Ragged Mountain is 2.31 feet below the usual level. Today’s reservoir report from the RWSAAlbemarle County has hired a new director of the Human Services Department. Ti-Kimena-Mia Coltrane will take over the position on September 20, 2021, succeeding Lorna Gerome who will retire that month. Coltrane’s most recent position was as the Organizational Learning and Development Administrator for the city of Roanoke. She has worked in human resources for 17 years and has a Bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of North Texas, a Bachelor of Science in Human Services and religious studies from Indiana Wesleyan University, and a Master of Public Administration from the University of Maryland. “I look forward to applying my experience in developing current and future catalyst leaders to services,” Coltrane said in a press release. Supervisors also agreed to schedule a public hearing on September 1 on whether to adopt an ordinance to levy a cigarette tax, a power that counties in Virginia only just received from the General Assembly this year. The work is being coordinated by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, who will be administering a regional board to collect the tax. Lori Allshouse is the Assistant Chief Financial Officer for Policy and Partnerships for Albemarle County. “The ordinance would establish a regional board which would efficiently administer the collection, accounting, disbursement, compliance monitoring, and the enforcement of cigarette taxes assessed by localities that desire to join the board,” Allshouse said. Fluvanna, Nelson and Greene counties have expressed interest in joining the board. Madison, Orange, and Augusta counties are also considering the board, even though they are not part of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. The city of Charlottesville is also interested. I’ll have more from the Board of Supervisors meeting and from other recent meetings in future installments of the newsletter.Thank you for reading. Did you know this is a podcast, too? Every installment of CCE (but not the Week Ahead) is a podcast as well, building off my years in audio production. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts or on Spotify! This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe
Suzi speaks to Meleiza Figueroa and Ali Meders-Knight — they both work with the Chico Traditional Ecological Stewardship Program — about the recently leaked Sixth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with its dire warnings about the coming consequences for the planet. Hundreds of millions of people live in areas at risk, and as these areas become unlivable, we see population dislocation and migration, species extinction, and widespread disease. These effects have led to social unrest and demands for systemic responses. Meleiza Figueroa and Ali Meders-Knight give us the broad takeaways from the IPCC report, the dangers we face, and their own work on climate catastrophe mitigation.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science of climate change. During the last 4 years, scientists from around the world have been working on the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), that will provide key information about the current state of climate change, future projections, adaptation and mitigation. Dr Amanda Maycock, Associate Professor in Climate Dynamics at the University of Leeds, has been a lead author in Working Group I, which assesses the physical science basis of climate change. She shares with us her experience as a first time lead IPCC author and a sneak peek of AR6.
How quickly can we achieve climate justice? Does climate justice mean we need to be careful and considered and/or hurry up? In what ways does declaring and responding to the 'climate emergency' contribute to climate justice, or potentially undermine it? What steps need to be taken to ensure that declaring a climate emergency doesn't lead to ‘states of emergency' and authoritarianism? Recent events in Australia highlight the need to consider the pros and cons of declaring a ‘climate emergency'. Efforts to outlaw climate protests demonstrate that some groups are threatened less by climate change than protests about it. Yet ‘climate emergency' was the Oxford English Dictionary's 2019 Word of the Year, demonstrating the reach and power of this phrase to capture the world's imagination and inspire urgent climate action. Join leading climate change researchers and practitioners as we tackle the pressing questions that the ‘climate emergency' raises. Panelists (Recently added) Dr Briony Towers, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Social and Urban Studies (GUSS), RMIT UniversityBriony has been conducting disaster risk reduction research with children and young people for over ten years. Her PhD in socio-cultural psychology at the University of Tasmania involved an in-depth investigation of children's knowledge of vulnerability and resilience to wildfire risk in south eastern Australia. She is currently the lead investigator on the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project 'Building Best Practice in Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction'. She is also a member of the National Disaster Resilience Strategy group and a research advisor on the European Commission's CUIDAR project. Briony's primary research interests concern the root causes of disasters and how these can be addressed through place-based critical pedagogies and children's genuine participation in disaster management policy, research and practice. She is also interested in intergenerational climate justice and student-led climate activism. Associate Professor Lauren Rickards, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies (GUSS), RMIT University.A Lead Author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's forthcoming Sixth Assessment Report on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation, Lauren co-leads the Climate Change Transformations research program at the Centre for Urban Research and teaches on climate change into undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the Sustainability and Urban Planning area of GUSS. Among other realms of climate in/justice, Lauren's research has investigated climate change's ‘slow emergencies' such as drought, as well as the logics through which societies ignore, normalise, deny or tolerate the harms climate change inflicts on marginalised people and the non-human world. Dr Bronwyn Lay, Ecological Justice Coordinator for Jesuit Social Services and Coordinator of the Climate Change Exchange at RMIT University.Bronwyn has engaged with the intersection of grassroots communities and ecological justice for the past 13 years. With a background in criminal and family law she completed her PhD on land governance and ecology at the European Graduate School in 2014 with a focus on ecocide law. While living in France she worked as a legal consultant for international NGO's and expert organisations on environmental crime at the Hague and United Nations and was the Director of the International Caux Dialogue on Land and Security. She has published in a wide variety of forums on the subject of ecological justice, including her book Juris Materiarum: Empires of Earth, Soil and Dirt.
How quickly can we achieve climate justice? Does climate justice mean we need to be careful and considered and/or hurry up? In what ways does declaring and responding to the 'climate emergency' contribute to climate justice, or potentially undermine it? What steps need to be taken to ensure that declaring a climate emergency doesn't lead to ‘states of emergency' and authoritarianism?Recent events in Australia highlight the need to consider the pros and cons of declaring a ‘climate emergency'. Efforts to outlaw climate protests demonstrate that some groups are threatened less by climate change than protests about it. Yet ‘climate emergency' was the Oxford English Dictionary's 2019 Word of the Year, demonstrating the reach and power of this phrase to capture the world's imagination and inspire urgent climate action.Join leading climate change researchers and practitioners as we tackle the pressing questions that the ‘climate emergency' raises.Panelists(Recently added) Dr Briony Towers, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Social and Urban Studies (GUSS), RMIT UniversityBriony has been conducting disaster risk reduction research with children and young people for over ten years. Her PhD in socio-cultural psychology at the University of Tasmania involved an in-depth investigation of children's knowledge of vulnerability and resilience to wildfire risk in south eastern Australia. She is currently the lead investigator on the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project 'Building Best Practice in Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction'. She is also a member of the National Disaster Resilience Strategy group and a research advisor on the European Commission's CUIDAR project. Briony's primary research interests concern the root causes of disasters and how these can be addressed through place-based critical pedagogies and children's genuine participation in disaster management policy, research and practice. She is also interested in intergenerational climate justice and student-led climate activism.Associate Professor Lauren Rickards, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies (GUSS), RMIT University.A Lead Author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's forthcoming Sixth Assessment Report on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation, Lauren co-leads the Climate Change Transformations research program at the Centre for Urban Research and teaches on climate change into undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the Sustainability and Urban Planning area of GUSS. Among other realms of climate in/justice, Lauren's research has investigated climate change's ‘slow emergencies' such as drought, as well as the logics through which societies ignore, normalise, deny or tolerate the harms climate change inflicts on marginalised people and the non-human world.Dr Bronwyn Lay, Ecological Justice Coordinator for Jesuit Social Services and Coordinator of the Climate Change Exchange at RMIT University.Bronwyn has engaged with the intersection of grassroots communities and ecological justice for the past 13 years.With a background in criminal and family law she completed her PhD on land governance and ecology at the European Graduate School in 2014 with a focus on ecocide law. While living in France she worked as a legal consultant for international NGO's and expert organisations on environmental crime at the Hague and United Nations and was the Director of the International Caux Dialogue on Land and Security. She has published in a wide variety of forums on the subject of ecological justice, including her book Juris Materiarum: Empires of Earth, Soil and Dirt.
How quickly can we achieve climate justice? Does climate justice mean we need to be careful and considered and/or hurry up? In what ways does declaring and responding to the 'climate emergency' contribute to climate justice, or potentially undermine it? What steps need to be taken to ensure that declaring a climate emergency doesn't lead to ‘states of emergency' and authoritarianism? Recent events in Australia highlight the need to consider the pros and cons of declaring a ‘climate emergency'. Efforts to outlaw climate protests demonstrate that some groups are threatened less by climate change than protests about it. Yet ‘climate emergency' was the Oxford English Dictionary's 2019 Word of the Year, demonstrating the reach and power of this phrase to capture the world's imagination and inspire urgent climate action. Join leading climate change researchers and practitioners as we tackle the pressing questions that the ‘climate emergency' raises.Panelists (Recently added) Dr Briony Towers, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Social and Urban Studies (GUSS), RMIT University Briony has been conducting disaster risk reduction research with children and young people for over ten years. Her PhD in socio-cultural psychology at the University of Tasmania involved an in-depth investigation of children's knowledge of vulnerability and resilience to wildfire risk in south eastern Australia. She is currently the lead investigator on the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project 'Building Best Practice in Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction'. She is also a member of the National Disaster Resilience Strategy group and a research advisor on the European Commission's CUIDAR project. Briony's primary research interests concern the root causes of disasters and how these can be addressed through place-based critical pedagogies and children's genuine participation in disaster management policy, research and practice. She is also interested in intergenerational climate justice and student-led climate activism. Associate Professor Lauren Rickards, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies (GUSS), RMIT University. A Lead Author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's forthcoming Sixth Assessment Report on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation, Lauren co-leads the Climate Change Transformations research program at the Centre for Urban Research and teaches on climate change into undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the Sustainability and Urban Planning area of GUSS. Among other realms of climate in/justice, Lauren's research has investigated climate change's ‘slow emergencies' such as drought, as well as the logics through which societies ignore, normalise, deny or tolerate the harms climate change inflicts on marginalised people and the non-human world. Dr Bronwyn Lay, Ecological Justice Coordinator for Jesuit Social Services and Coordinator of the Climate Change Exchange at RMIT University. Bronwyn has engaged with the intersection of grassroots communities and ecological justice for the past 13 years. With a background in criminal and family law she completed her PhD on land governance and ecology at the European Graduate School in 2014 with a focus on ecocide law. While living in France she worked as a legal consultant for international NGO's and expert organisations on environmental crime at the Hague and United Nations and was the Director of the International Caux Dialogue on Land and Security. She has published in a wide variety of forums on the subject of ecological justice, including her book Juris Materiarum: Empires of Earth, Soil and Dirt. Dr Mittul Vahanvati, Lecturer at RMIT University in the Sustainability and Urban Planning Discipline. Mittul completed her PhD research in 2018, investigating the long-term impacts of post-disaster housing reconstruction projects in terms of building community resilience. She entered academia after 10 years of practice in architecture industry in Australia, Switzerland and India. She is co-founder of a Melbourne-based design + build studio Giant Grass (GG) and coordinator of RMIT's Urban Futures Early Career Researchers' Network. She is currently the lead researcher working with rural communities in Victoria to co-produce their climate resilience action plan. She is also part of a team of researchers involved in a large-scale action-research project in the Solomon Islands, 'Climate Resilient Honiara', funded by the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund and administered by UN-Habitat. Her teaching, practice and research lies in co-creation of knowledge around issues of housing, ecologically sustainable built environment, urban design, disaster recovery and community resilience. David Mieklejohn, Executive Officer of the Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (NAGA) and PhD Candidate in RMIT's Centre for Urban Research. David currently works as the Executive Officer for the Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (NAGA), a network of nine Melbourne metropolitan councils working together on climate change projects. In this role, David coordinates climate action among a broad range of Victorian actors. David's research as a PhD student investigates how local councils in Australia are implementing behaviour change programs to respond to climate change, as well as how their declarations of a climate emergency are changing their governance practices. Moderator Dr Blanche Verlie, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Sydney Environment Institute, the University of Sydney. Blanche has been teaching climate change mitigation and adaptation at RMIT University in the Sustainability and Urban Planning Discipline since 2015, and completed her PhD in climate change education at Monash University in 2019. Her research investigates people's emotional responses to learning about climate change, and how this affects their identity and relationships, including how this is an issue of intergenerational in/justice, which you can read about here: https://theconversation.com/the-terror-of-climate-change-is-transforming-young-peoples-identity-113355. Blanche has recently moved to the University of Sydney to continue her research, and is working on the Multispecies Justice research program there. **This event is part of the 2020 National Sustainable Living Festival. We acknowledge this event is taking place on stolen and unceded Wurundjeri Country. This event is free but we encourage you to donate to Seed Youth Indigenous Climate Network https://www.seedmob.org.au/donate** Special Guest: Dr Blanche Verlie. Support Climactic Support the show: https://www.climactic.fm/p/support-the-collective/
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
