#Global Warming Mitigation Project

[hylianengineer]

Hey, happy Earth Day! Who wants to talk about climate change?

Yeah, okay, fair, I kinda figured the answer to that would be "ugh do we have to?" What if I told you I have good news though? Good news with caveats, but still good news.

What if I told you that since the Paris Agreement in 2015, we've avoided a whole degree celsius of global warming by 2100, or maybe more?

Current projections are 2.7C, which is way better than the 3-5C (with a median of 3.7C) we were expecting in 2015. It's not where we want to be - 1.5C - but it is big, noticeable progress!

And it's not like we either hit 1.5C and avoid all the big scary consequences or fail to hit 1.5C and get all of them - every tenth of a degree of warming we avoid is going to prevent more severe problems like extreme weather, sea level rise, etc.

This means that climate change mitigation efforts are having a noticeable impact! This means a dramatically better, safer future - and if we keep pushing, we could lower the amount of global warming we end up with even further. This is huge progress, and we need to celebrate it, even though the fight isn't over.

It's working. Keep going.

[reasonsforhope]

The 1987 Montreal Protocol, which phased out the production and use of chemicals that were depleting the ozone layer, has long been considered one of the most successful environmental treaties in history. New research finds that the global pact achieved another unforeseen benefit: delaying the melting of Arctic sea ice.

In a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from the University of Exeter and Columbia University found that the implementation of the Montreal Protocol is delaying the first ice-free Arctic summer by up to 15 years. That’s because the chemicals banned under the agreement are also potent greenhouse gases.

“Our results show that the climate benefits from the Montreal Protocol are not in some faraway future: the protocol is delaying the melting of Arctic sea ice at this very moment,” Lorenzo Polvani, one of the study’s authors, said in a press release. 

The study authors ran a series of climate models based on two different scenarios: one that included levels of ozone-depleting substances that would be expected if the Montreal Protocol never existed, and another accounting for the global treaty. The researchers concluded that the protocol is postponing the first ice-free Arctic summer by a decade or more, and entirely due to the phasedown of ozone-depleting chemicals. 

The Montreal Protocol was created to address a hole in the stratospheric ozone layer over the Antarctic. The ozone layer protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation that causes skin cancer and cataracts in humans. The treaty phased out almost 100 chemicals — including aerosols used in hair spray and other products, refrigerants, and solvents — that were found to be responsible for destroying stratospheric ozone.

Those banned chemicals, collectively called ozone-depleting substances, or ODS, are also potent greenhouse gases, with up to tens of thousands times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. The report authors estimate that 1 metric ton of avoided ODS emissions leads to 7,000 square meters (more than 75,000 square feet) of avoided Arctic sea loss. By way of comparison, 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions results in about 3 square meters (about 32 square feet) of sea ice loss. 

Given the potency of ODSs as a greenhouse gas, the authors are not surprised at this outsize impact on Arctic sea ice levels. “Nonetheless, such a large mitigating impact of the Montreal Protocol on Arctic sea ice loss is remarkable if one keeps in mind that the protocol was aimed at preventing ozone depletion in the Antarctic stratosphere, and little was known of its effect on Arctic sea ice when the protocol was signed,” the authors noted.

According to their projections, the Montreal Protocol has already prevented more than half a million square kilometers (about 193,000 square miles) of sea ice loss. By 2030, that amount will rise to more than 1 million square kilometers, and to 2 million square kilometers of prevented Arctic sea ice loss by 2040.

-via Grist, 5/24/23

[darkmaga-retard]

A US start-up, ArkeaBio, has created a prototype vaccine that it claims cuts methane emissions by 13% in a first trial involving 10 cows. The vaccine targets methane-producing bacteria in a cow’s digestive system.

“When it comes to climate change, a simple vaccine can be a powerful tool,” ArkeaBio says.

Climate cultists praise the development as significant because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential much higher than carbon dioxide.

However, the very process they are trying to stop – the production of methane from methanogens in animals’ gut biome – is also the same microorganisms and process that has the potential to capture carbon dioxide and produce a renewable energy source – methane.

As usual, the climate change cultists are making no sense.  Perhaps it is because it is Bill Gates backing the project and it has nothing to do with “climate change mitigation” and everything to do with vaccines.  So how safe are these vaccines?

[hassamkhalidsaidfuckyet]

Authorities have earmarked close to 33,000 trees in Bengaluru, which could face the axe, for the construction of the Suburban Network Project to begin. The 148-km long Bengaluru Suburban Rail Project (BSRP), which is being implemented by Rail Infrastructure Development Company-Karnataka (KRide), requires four corridors to be constructed.

While the project is significant to reduce dependence on private vehicles and enhance sustainable mobility and efficient commute alternatives, the ecological cost is mammoth! At a time where the consequences of global warming are so evident, trees are helping us mitigate the heat-island effect. It is imperative to undertake rigorous measures to ensure ecological preservation, keeping the Karnataka Tree Preservation Act of 1976 in mind. To make your voice heard, we have provided an email template that you can use to send your objections and request for re-alignment of the project line. Currently, the forest department has received only 389 objections.

For them to take any action, they need many more objections from concerned citizens. We’re setting a target of at least 1,000 emails that must reach them so they can consider re-aligning the routes of the project and re-consider its ecological impact. Let's work together to ensure a more sustainable and environmentally conscious approach to the Bengaluru Suburban Rail Project.

[rjzimmerman]

Climate Workers Wanted. (New York Times)

Excerpt from this New York Times story:

Three years ago, Alexsandra Sesepasara moved home to American Samoa, a remote chain of Pacific islands, with her family after more than a decade of military service. She took a job as a water resources engineer for the utility that provides power, cleans up trash and manages drinking water for the more than 49,000 residents of the territory.

But soon after she arrived, she realized that rising seas and worsening storms, fueled by climate change, had brought new problems to her homeland, while exacerbating old ones. Saltwater was seeping into the islands’ fresh water supply, shutting down schools and leading to boil water notices. In December, the issue caused a nearby hospital to close all nonessential services for nearly a week.

There was another problem, Sesepasara said: American Samoa didn’t have enough workers to fix its water issues.

But this summer, the American Samoa Power Authority, her employer, became one of nine entities across the country to receive funding under a $60 million federal program intended to help train workers to combat the growing challenges of climate change.

The climate jobs of the future, experts told me, may mean adjusting how we think of the jobs of the past: Electricians may need to learn to install solar panels, construction workers may need to deal with new engineering requirements and bankers may need to manage climate risk.

“This is a model of us adapting our jobs in real time to the reality and need of the moment,” said Ned Gardiner, a program manager for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Program Office, which is coordinating technical assistance for the grantees.

The funding comes as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which included hundreds of billions in tax incentives for clean energy and climate programs across the country.

While most of the applications NOAA received for the grant program focused on coastal resilience and protecting marine economies, the agency was open to proposals from sectors like shipping, engineering and finance, Gardiner said.

“Every job will be affected by climate change,” said Lara Skinner, founding executive director of the Climate Jobs Institute at Cornell University. “We look at every sector of the economy, and every sector will have to change. This isn’t some little transition.”

The tax incentives in the I.R.A. could ultimately help fund more than 6,200 projects in utility-scale clean energy and storage and almost four million jobs, according to the Climate Jobs National Resource Center, a labor organization educating workers on climate action.

NOAA’s work force program isn’t the only funding for jobs included in the I.R.A. Hundreds of millions of dollars are also available to hire employees in the National Park Service and workers to expedite clean energy projects in rural America, as well as to train a new generation of Indigenous workers through the Indian Youth Service Corps.

Last year, the Biden administration also launched the American Climate Corps to put 20,000 young Americans into jobs addressing global warming.

In the short term, there’s a lot of physical work that can be done to mitigate the climate crisis, like building more flood-resilient communities.

[doomer-diva]

"A 63 year-old climate activist and professional cellist faces up to seven years in prison after being arrested on Thursday, August 8th 2024, while performing a Bach solo outside the headquarters of one of the world’s largest fossil fuel financier Citibank in downtown New York"

This is why groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion continue to block roads, highways, glue themselves to art, and throw paint on private jets.

Since June, climate protesters have been protesting institutions funding fossil fuel projects and almost no coverage has reached the mainstream media. These are scientists, activists, and indigenous peoples asking for the bare minimum of ending fossil fuel funding that are met with extreme violence.

They are risking their comfort, their foundations, their very lives to tell you that we are in an emergency, that we are in dire times that needs addressing right now. You keep requesting protesters target the "main culprits" of Climate Collapse instead of throwing soup on paintings and they are! So please, support them!

Also, please remember the desperation of the people that are gluing themselves to paintings because we are trying to warn you. We want you to be angry, to ask questions, to be afraid, because these are the emotions that stur into actions. Fear isn't a moral failing, it is the very basis of humankind's reaction to their surroundings. If you are afraid, there is a reason, and you should analyze and acknowledge that fear. It is okay to be afraid, because you deserve to be.

You have been misled, gaslit, and lied to about the crumbling biosphere around you and you deserve to know the truth. You deserve to decide your future and humanity's future. You deserve a just and honest collapse. You deserve freedom and control of your lives.

1.5C degrees of warming, as decided by the Paris Agreements in 2015, was the threshold to mitigate dangerous climate change feedback loops such as ocean heat+deoxygenation (probably the worst of climate collapse due to the fact that the oceans absorb most of climate change heating, have only been getting hotter, and the ocean accounts for 50-75% of all life on Earth), permafrost melting, glacial melt, and forest desertification. It wasn't some ambitious goal that would be okay if we missed it, because 1.5C degrees of warming spells catastrophe for modern, globalized civilization. So far, fossil fuel use has only increased with no indication of slowing AND we've been past 1.5C warming for over a year, and this is why we protest.

We are asking for the bare minimum and are still ignored. We are polite and still ignored. We assert direct, unconventional action and are condemned.

We are trying to save you. We can decarbonize, degrow, and depave anything we put our minds to. This is the unifying crisis of our time and you should listen to the young adults throwing soup on Van Gogh paintings, because we are desperately trying to just warn you. Ask yourself what people who genuinely believe we are in mortal, existential danger would do to warn their fellow humans to the danger, what desperate displays of attention would look like, and ask yourself why they want your attention so bad.

Please, read and follow scientists like Peter Kalmus and Gianluca Grimalda and activists like Roger Hallam, that have dedicated their lives to climate collapse. They have been protesting for years for exposure to our impending collapse.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Two PNW tribal nations sue oil companies over costs of climate change

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/two-pnw-tribal-nations-sue-oil-companies-over-costs-of-climate-change/

Major oil companies for decades deliberately sought to downplay and discredit scientific warnings about the central role of fossil fuels in causing climate change, alleges two lawsuits filed this week by the Makah and Shoalwater Bay tribes.

The lawsuits filed in King County Superior Court name ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 as defendants, and seek compensation for the millions of dollars already spent, and likely to be spent in the future, for the tribes to respond to climate-induced disasters such as extreme heat, drought, wildfire, shoreline erosion, sea level rise and flooding.

The lawsuits allege the companies have known fossil fuels would cause catastrophic climate change since at least 1959, but continued marketing massive quantities of oil and gas. They allege the oil companies tried to mislead the public by funding op-eds and advertisements in Seattle and national newspapers that claimed the science of climate change was uncertain or lacking evidence.

The complaints outline the companies’ research and misleading marketing around their products’ role in causing climate change and the sea level rise, extreme weather, public health harms and other climate effects on the tribes and their lands.

With both the Makah and Shoalwater Bay reservations on the Pacific Ocean, they are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, the lawsuits state. Both tribes have already incurred the costs of moving their citizens to higher ground, and ocean acidification “at an alarming rate” from burning fossil fuels has endangered the tribes’ coastal ecosystems and economy, according to the lawsuits.

“We are seeing the effects of the climate crisis on our people, our land, and our resources. The costs and consequences to us are overwhelming,” said Makah Tribal Council Chair Timothy J. Greene, Sr. in a statement. “We intend to hold these companies accountable for hiding the truth about climate change and the effects of burning fossil fuels. And we aim to force them to help pay for the high costs of surviving the catastrophe caused by the climate crisis.”

The lawsuits also cite a report by the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington that suggests with global warming of at least 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, Washington is projected to experience a 67% increase in the number of days per year above 90 degrees, relative to 1976-2005, leading to an increased risk of heat-related illness and death, warmer streams and more frequent algal blooms. 

The report also found warming would fuel a decrease of 38% in snowpack, relative to 1970-99, leading to reduced water storage, irrigation shortages, and winter and summer recreation losses, as well as increases in winter streamflow, decreases in summer streamflow, leading to reduced summer hydropower, conflicts over water resources and negative effects on salmon. 

“These oil companies knew their products were dangerous, yet they did nothing to mitigate those dangers or warn any of us about them, for decades,” said Shoalwater Bay Chair Charlene Nelson in a written statement. “Now we are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to relocate our community to higher ground and protect our people, our property, and our heritage. These companies need to be held accountable for that.”

The tribes bring their claims under Washington’s Products Liability Act for failure to warn, misrepresentation and intentional concealment. The complaints request jury trials, and ask the court to order the companies to create a fund to be managed by the tribes to remediate and adapt reservation lands, natural resources and infrastructure to climate change.

[warningsine]

As children, many of us played the “telephone” game – a message is whispered from one person to the next, invariably getting distorted as it passes along the line. In this game, people’s perception and understanding matters more than the original message, but as the US Secretary of Defence James Schlesinger said in 1975, “everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts”.

Today, this statement applies to climate change. While there is broad scientific consensus that human action has contributed decisively to warming the atmosphere, ocean and land, causing widespread change in a very short time, public opinion is less clear. At least 97% of scientists agree that humanity contributes to climate change, but the same cannot be said for society at large.

Same facts, different perceptions

Various studies and surveys show that social consensus on climate change is stronger in Europe than in the United States, where only 12% of citizens are aware of the scientific community’s near-total unanimity. This is a result of, among other things, disinformation, media portrayals, and cognitive bias.

Presenting climate change as a legitimate debate undermines the value of scientific consensus, often validating climate denialism – or its more recent iteration, delayism.

Moreover, there is a tendency to present ideological interpretations of the evidence as mere scientific disagreement: 82% of US Democratic voters believe that human activity contributes significantly to climate change, compared to just 38% of Republicans. This division also extends to responses to the crisis.

No enforcement, no accountability

The international community’s overall response has not been slow. As governments and multilateral bodies have become more aware of the issue they have committed themselves, albeit unevenly, to mitigation and adaptation plans.

This has also happened with decarbonisation plans, though, for the most part, commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, like those laid out in the 2015 Paris Agreement, are not binding.

This illustrates a clear obstacle to change: these commitments include no legal obligations, no effective enforcement mechanisms, and no accountability measures. This undermines any agreements, and their uneven and inconsistent implementation allows some countries to be “free-riders”, reaping the benefits of reduced emissions while contributing little to the costs.

Transition plans in companies and countries, and even in the global energy sector, consist of detailed strategies towards carbon neutrality and the goal of net zero. These cover a range of measures, from technological innovation to regulatory instruments, investments, and changes in individual and collective behaviour. However, confusion surrounding objectives like carbon neutrality and net zero is also a deterrent in many cases.

There has been some progress since the Paris Agreement in 2015, which projected emissions in 2030 under then current policies to increase by 16%. Today, a 3% increase is projected in the same period, but emissions would still have to fall by 28% to stay within 2°C of global warming, and by 42% to stay under 1.5°C.

Carbon dioxide emissions from China’s energy sector, for instance, increased by 5.2% in 2023. This means that an unprecedented 4-6% reduction in 2025 would be needed to meet the target.

Why can’t we slow down emissions?

There is no simple or singular explanation for humanity’s inconsistent attitudes towards climate change. It is an immensely complex issue, and only by recognising its complexity can we understand and try to change behaviours.

Despite slowing annual growth, global demand for fossil fuels has not peaked. It is expected to do so by 2030, but only if electric vehicle uptake increases, and if China’s economy grows slowly and it deepens investments in renewable energy.

Substantial amounts are still being poured into oil and gas investments. Between 2016 and 2023, they reached an annual average of around $0.75 trillion.

In 2023, global investment in clean energy reached an estimated $1.8 trillion, although concentrated in a few countries: mainly China, the European Union and the USA. For every dollar invested in hydrocarbons, approximately 1.8 dollars are already going into clean energy, but not all of it into renewables.

It should also be noted that long term “rebound effects” can often offset successful reductions in use of certain raw materials such as coal.

Furthermore, the benefits of carbon emission reductions are global and long-term, while the associated costs are often local and immediate.

Meanwhile, in low-income and emerging countries a lot of development is still less environmentally friendly – such as India’s ongoing dependence on coal – despite evidence that the co-benefits of reducing carbon emissions outweigh the cost of mitigation in a number of sectors.

Solutions remain elusive

It seems clear that there is no single solution. Some possible solutions require infrastructure or technologies to manage resources more efficiently, but more and more involve changes to our lifestyles and values.

In classical economics, the idea of rationality assumes that, with adequate information and income, an individual will always choose that which maximises their wellbeing. However, this explanation falls short – it assumes that people only live to maximise satisfaction through consumption, and ignores dreams, expectations and goals that may include other human beings.

The work of Herbert Simon in the 1950s demonstrates that our decisions are more accurately explained by what is known as bounded rationality: our cognitive capacity, information and time are limited, so we simplify reality and adapt.

For his part, Zygmunt Bauman’s conception of “liquid modernity” envisaged the transition from a solid modernity to a more fluid, unstable form, unable to maintain one set of behaviours for long, and much more prone to change.

In the same vein, Gilles Lipovetsky speaks about the individualism and hedonism of a culture that prioritises the immediate fulfilment of individual desires, as opposed to commitment and sacrifice in service of ethical principles.

How do we reconcile these ideas that explain the way we respond to imperatives of sacrifice that, implicitly or explicitly, appear in the narratives of climate action and just transition?

Perhaps recognising complexity and trying to understand how we decide is part of the answer. Biases and inconsistencies are easier to detect in others than in oneself.

[warsofasoiaf]

If I recall correctly, you aren't a fan of the Green New Deal. What problems do you have with it specifically? I don't think it is a secret or a hot take to suggest that the United States needs to invest more in renewable clean energy to combat global warming (more like mitigate it). But what about the details of the GND do you have an issue with?

If all it ever did was chart a method to carbon neutrality or carbon-negative power generation, that would be one thing. It doesn't do that, it's a policy as grandiose as it is threadbare. What little we have is very weak on substance, ignores a great deal of substantive and effective environmental reforms (carbon taxation, adjustable border rates) and carbon-neutral energy generation (nuclear power), and devotes massive spending to policies that are politically unworkable and do little if anything to help reduce carbon emissions. In short, the GND is a deeply unserious proposal from deeply unserious people.

My problem is that the economic underpinnings of the proposals outlined in the GND rely on MMT, which is fringe economic pseudoscience. It rests on a misunderstanding of fiat currency and has a long track record of its concepts not panning out in practice. It's central premise of currency valuation being fixed due to its utility in the satisfaction of public debt (taxation), is invalidated for the fact that currency is often used in the satisfaction of private debt (purchasing of goods and services between consumer and seller) due to its utility as a convenient medium - hence why when more money is printed, prices rise in the form of inflation, to maintain the currency's utility in the satisfaction of private debt. While L. Randall Wray might argue that there is no "simple proportionate relationship exists between rises in the money supply and rises in the general price level," history and the economic present handily rebut this thesis. Printing money doesn't change overall supply, and so prices adjust to compensate for the eroded worth of currency; this has been proven time and time again. We've seen what elevated inflation rates do to countries that feel their sting - they reduce climate targets and restart coal energy to boost energy production to reduce energy costs and stave off domestic discontent. Moreover, the idea of a 10-year national mobilization will simply fail to sustain itself when inflationary pressures force a change of government and the project is cancelled, which means a whole lot of wasted time and wasted resources on a vanity project. As long as this pseudoscience continues to dominate their thinking, I must accept that GND proponents are an obstacle to substantive climate reform.

Thanks for the question, Bruin.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[jordanianroyals]

18 September 2023: Queen Rania took part in the first meeting of the World Economic Forum’s Giving to Amplify Earth Action (GAEA) initiative, which aims to forge public, private, and philanthropic partnerships (PPPPs) to combat climate change and nature loss.

She will serve as a Global Co-Chair of GAEA, where she will contribute to steering its strategic priorities alongside Forum Founder and Executive Chairman, Professor Klaus Schwab, who stated that Her Majesty’s leadership role in the initiative “will be instrumental in driving impactful climate action with partners.’’

Speaking at the meeting, Her Majesty noted that, since the Forum announced its intention to launch GAEA during its annual meeting in January, the world has seen a number of climate disasters, with July being named the hottest month in Earth’s recorded history.

“My region is warming at twice the global average, and experts predict that extreme heat will make large areas literally unlivable before the century is through.” (Source: Petra)

The Queen noted that less than 2% of global philanthropy funding goes to climate and nature, adding, “If the end goal of philanthropy is to create impact, then there is no better place to start than with our planet.”

 “That’s why I am proud to be joining GAEA as a Global Co-Chair,” Her Majesty said. “Because we have a collective responsibility – and the collective ability – to meet our climate ambitions.”

During the meeting, Professor Schwab explained that, ‘’multiple global crises continue to threaten efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, and the climate crisis is front and center.”

“The World Economic Forum, with its commitment to improving the state of the world through multistakeholder collaboration, is convening leaders from philanthropy, governments, and the private sector to mobilize and accelerate action for the highest-impact interventions for climate and nature through the GAEA initiative,” he said.

A first-of-its-kind global initiative, GAEA aims to grow new and existing public, private, and philanthropic partnerships to help unlock the financing needed to reach net-zero emissions, reverse nature loss, and restore biodiversity by 2050.

The meeting, held during the Forum’s Sustainable Development Impact Meetings on the sidelines of the 78th United Nations General Assembly, brought together more than 30 leaders from government, business, and civil society to discuss ways to leverage philanthropy to drive climate-related partnerships.

Utilizing a new framework developed in collaboration with McKinsey Sustainability, GAEA has identified a number of key industries where philanthropic capital would have the greatest impact. Through this framework, it aims to allow governments and corporates to deliver climate action faster and more effectively.

 A number of environmental projects, each with the potential to be scaled, were presented during the session. These included efforts to promote the transition to green energy in developing nations, accelerate the market adoption of plant-rich diets, scale clean power, and conserve coastal forests.

Over the coming months, GAEA will work with key partners to incubate a new generation of public-private-philanthropic partnerships, with the Forum helping to identify key corporates and governments willing to match philanthropic commitments and action for climate mitigation and nature preservation.

[hidenobu-suzuki]

Our Story

In recent years, the number of natural disasters has been increasing all over the world. Global warming is thought to be one of the causes. Considering the effects of global warming, it is important to raise awareness of keeping the temperature down by using fans that are made from eco-friendly natural materials. We believe that by increasing the number of people who are aware of global warming, we can contribute to the mitigation of global warming, even if it is just a small effort. When I thought about what I could do, I came up with a project that fuses traditional folding fans with modern digital photography. This is a combination of ancient traditions and contemporary artistic expression, resulting in innovative works of art, aiming to evoke feelings of appreciation and appreciation for the earth through folding fans. Beautiful images captured with digital photography are a visual reminder of the beauty of nature and the importance of sustainability. By blending traditional craftsmanship with modern creativity, I believe this project can evoke a universal understanding and passion for protecting the planet. Our ultimate goal is to spread this project around the world and to evoke the sympathy of people from all walks of life. Reminiscent of the shape of an ogi, our sense of responsibility for the environment will ripple through, hoping that the impact of this project will spread far and wide, inspiring people to become advocates for positive change.

HIDENOBU SUZUKI

Our Story

近年世界中で自然災害が増え続けています。

その一つの原因として地球温暖化が考えられています。

地球温暖化の影響を考慮して、環境に優しい天然素材を使用した扇子を使用することで、気温を抑える意識を高めることが大切です。  温暖化を意識する人の数を増やすことで、たとえ小さな取り組みであっても、地球温暖化の緩和に貢献することに繋がると考えています。 私が出来ることを考えた時に、私は伝統的な扇子と現代のデジタル写真を融合するプロジェクトを考えました。  これは、古くからの伝統と現代の芸術表現の組み合わせにより、革新的な芸術作品が生まれ、 扇子を通じて、地球を大切にし感謝の気持ちを呼び起こすことを目指しています。 

デジタル写真で撮影された美しい画像は、自然の美しさと持続可能性の重要性を視覚的に思い出させてくれます。私は、このプロジェクトが伝統的な職人技と現代の創造性を融合することによって、地球を守ることに対する普遍的な理解と情熱を呼び起こすことができると信じています。

私たちの最終的な目標は、このプロジェクトが世界中に広がり、さまざまな立場の人々の共感をよぶことです。 おうぎの形を連想するように、私たちの環境に対する責任感が波紋のように広がり、このプロジェクトの影響が広範囲に広がり、人々の心を動かし、前向きな変化の支持者となるよう促すことを願っています。 

HIDENOBU SUZUKI

[llewelynpritch]

https://lnkd.in/eP7s6ZZb https://lnkd.in/eRNmpWNP

i) Explain how and why the Muskrat Falls lower Churchill industrial project, Labrador, NL, Canada is a valid, reliable example of unrealistic hydro 'megadam', methane-generating, methyl-mercury, neurotoxic poison-producing, corrupting, colonial, constitutionally corrosive construction.

ii) An unrealistic project that exists within shameful British Crown, Canadian, NL Provincial and Federal ‘legal’ mismanagement tradition.

iii) A contradictory unethical, immoral, constitutionally corrosive, criminal jurisdiction.

iv) A capitalist, corporate, fossil fuel unsustainable development.

v) Enforced by corrupt criminal justice systems, immoral failed leadership UK CA: a root cause of our planet's cost of living climate crisis.

vi) Rapid disinvestment and no new investment is imperative.

vii) Why not protect our sacred waters by draining, mitigating such unconscionable Muskrat Falls megadam reservoirs without delay and revoke similar unsafe hydro megadam operating licences worldwide to prevent further ecological, ecocidal and climatic suicide?

viii) No such new fossil fuel, megadam methane developments should be licensed - assisting Mother Earth stay within 2 degrees Centigrade average global warming by rapidly cutting, rapidly accelerating, atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. #AI #OpenSource #ChatGPT #Perplexity Llewelyn Pritchard MA 17 July 2023

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

The non-profit that restores the Brazilian Amazon

Organization Rioterra works with socio-environmental and restoration chain projects in the Amazon and has recovered over 6,000 hectares in the Brazilian state of Rondônia alone.

In a world threatened by forest loss and global warming, a non-governmental organization based in the state of Rondônia, Brazil, carries out a persistent daily work against deforestation, bringing the forest back to where it belongs. Rioterra is dubbed the largest restorer of the Brazilian Amazon and is responsible for having restored 6,000 hectares.

Rioterra works with socio-environmental projects, and besides working on reforestation, it has supported the state of Rondônia in developing the climate change law that was approved late last year. Rioterra founding partner & president Fabiana Barbosa (pictured) gave an interview to ANBA during the Rondônia Rural Show, a multisectoral trade show that took place in Ji-Paraná last month.

The nonprofit was founded in 1999, and its work for restoring the Amazon has been developed for over 12 years. “Twenty-three years ago, a group of friends teamed up, and together we founded Rioterra. I was 17,” said Barbosa. The organization has three main areas of activity: reducing social vulnerability, preserving biodiversity, and mitigating climate change by incentivizing reforestation and keeping the forest standing. The ONG has received the title of public interest organization from the Ministry of Justice of Brazil.

“We’ve worked against social vulnerability because for understanding the importance of environmental and biodiversity conservation, those living in the forest first must have their basic needs met. The biodiversity conservation is the environmental area of activity, which now include lines of products where we can get more resources and investments,” said Barbosa.

Continue reading.

[mariacallous]

In the lead up to the COP27 climate summit, the urgency of climate change had never been clearer. A third of Pakistan had submerged under water, half of China’s landmass was parched by drought, and repeated heatwaves set Europe ablaze with some regions losing up to 80% of their harvest.

Despite this, the global community in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt was unable to muster the financial commitments needed to adequately respond to the climate crisis. Achieving the Paris Agreement’s temperature and adaptation goals requires an estimated global investment of $3-6 trillion a year until 2050, but current investment levels are nearly a tenth of that, just around $630 billion. Further, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), annual climate finance to developing countries needs to increase by four to eight times by 2030, yet COP27’s new finance pledges came nowhere near this target, and no headway was made on a new 2025 finance goal.

There were some victories, like the establishment of the Global Shield fund for climate risk, and a historical Loss and Damage Fund to help countries recover from climate impacts. But the details of these funds could take years to formalize before any country sees the proceeds. In the meantime, emerging market and developing economies will continue to face the brunt of the impacts of climate change with the fewest resources, while also being the least responsible for warming the planet.

Given this context, a new tool, debt-for-adaptations swaps, could be a game changing way to accelerate the lethargic pace at which climate finance is made accessible to countries desperately in need.

In a debt-for-adaptation swap, countries who borrowed money from other nations or multilateral development banks (e.g., the IMF and World Bank) could have that debt forgiven, if the money that was to be spent on repayment was instead diverted to climate adaptation and resilience projects. This has an opportunity to both alleviate debt distress and increase funding to adaptation which has proved far more difficult to finance than clean power. There has been a lot of interest in debt swaps from developing countries and multilateral development banks, especially at COP27, but not specifically focused on adaptation.

The U.S. should take on a leading role in this effort, not only because it is the right thing to do but also because it advances U.S. interests in its geo-strategic rivalry with China. As developing nations look to see who will help them out of the climate catastrophe, the U.S. has a chance to pioneer an alternate model to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which is entrapping developing countries into loans and debt distress.

Moreso, the sovereign debt burden of developing countries is largely a historical product of colonialism. By championing debt-for-adaptation swaps, the Biden administration can advance its environmental justice objectives and quickly channel critical resources to vulnerable communities.

The State of Play: Loans and Mitigation Dominate, Grants and Adaptation Lag Behind

There is no common, universal definition for what “climate finance” means but it generally refers to two types of financial flows: (1) climate investments which seek to generate financial returns, and (2) climate aid which is given as a grant with no expectation of repayment.

Nearly 94% of existing climate finance is in the first category[1]—an investment through either debt or equity where the funder is expecting some financial return. These funders include commercial banks and investors, governments, and multilateral and national finance institutions (e.g., World Bank, International Monetary Fund, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation).

The expectation of revenue generation for climate investments structurally binds the success and likelihood of deals to broader macroeconomic and political trends. Therefore, climate investment has been slow in developing countries due to a real and perceived risk of doing business in countries which may be involved in or adjacent to armed conflicts, face political or economic instability, or experience humanitarian disasters. While private investors do want to invest in the developing world, most such projects are at very high-risk levels, well above what is considered “investment grade.”

Projects that do meet the “investment grade” criteria are almost all focused on renewable energy. Indeed, 90% of all climate finance last year went exclusively to activities which mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This makes sense from an investor perspective because electricity can be bought and sold, generating predictable cash flows to yield returns.

The tradeoff is that climate adaptation has been almost entirely neglected in climate finance flows despite being more urgent for many developing countries. Roughly $50 billion in adaptation finance was tracked between 2019-2020, compared to $571 billion for mitigation. The U.N. estimates that developing countries already need $70 billion per year to cover adaptation costs now and will need $140–$300 billion in 2030, rising to $280-500 billion by 2050. The damage from this year’s monsoon flood in Pakistan alone will exceed $40 billion.

There are a range of reasons why adaptation projects like drought-resistant seeds, resilient buildings, environmental restoration, or sea walls have struggled to attract private sector financing. At its core, it is more difficult to capture the benefits of adapting to climate change in a way that generates revenue. Suffice it to say, as long as profit-motive drives the majority of climate finance flows, adaptation finance will lag behind.

What adaptation lacks in revenue generation opportunities, though, it makes up for in avoided damages. Adaptation finance can help avoid the costs of infrastructure collapse, climate refugees, and potential failed states. A conservative estimate finds that by 2050, the economic cost of climate change will be between $1 trillion and $1.8 trillion (not including non-economic losses like loss of cultural sites).

The hope is that climate aid, or money that’s given without expectation of financial return (e.g., grants), can fill this gap in climate adaptation finance. Unfortunately, developed countries have channeled a comparatively meager amount of overall climate finance through grant-based instruments. In total, grants currently account for only 6% of climate finance. Between 2016-2018, grant-based bilateral climate finance accounted for 34% of all U.S. contributions ($645M), 12% of Japan’s ($1.2B), and only 3% of France’s ($146M). There have been some bright spots, however, with 91% of the U.K.’s contributions coming through grants ($1.3B), 99% of Australia’s ($111M), and 100% of Sweden’s ($482M). At COP27, developed countries failed to make headway on the Glasgow Climate Pact to double adaptation finance, nor did they define the Global Goal on Adaptation (equivalent to the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C mitigation target).

In the U.S., there has been political reluctance to legislatively disburse funds for climate aid grants. President Biden requested $11.4 billion in climate aid every year till 2024, but Congress has authorized just $1 billion total. The politics of grant-based aid remain controversial, as Republicans and Democrats are virtually in different worlds on how to address the climate crisis and the role of the U.S. in supporting other countries.

Therefore, in the absence of a significant inflow of grant money, innovative solutions are needed to overcome the barriers to scaling up climate finance for adaptation. By using debt-for-adaptation swaps, climate finance for adaptation can be mobilized while

[continuations]

Termination Shock (Book Review)

Over vacation I read Termination Shock by Neal Stephenson. Unlike many other recent books tackling the climate crisis, it is entirely focused on the controversial issue of geoengineering through solar radiation modification (SMR). The basic idea of SMR is to let slightly less sunlight into the Earth's lower atmosphere where it can heat things up. Even a tiny decrease in solar radiation will have a big impact on global warming.

To put upfront where I stand on this: I first wrote about the need to research geoengineering in 2009. Since then Susan and I have funded some research in this area, including a study at Columbia University to independently verify some chemistry proposed by the Keith group at Harvard. The results suggest that using calcite aerosols may not be so great for the stratosphere which includes the Ozone layer that protects us from too much UV radiation. That means spreading sulfites is likely better -- this is what happens naturally during a big volcano eruption, such as the famous Mount Pinatubo eruption.

Artificially putting sulfur into the stratosphere turns out to be the key plot device in Termination Shock. Delays by governments in addressing the climate crisis have a rich individual start to launch shells containing sulfur into the stratosphere. In a classic life imitating art moment, Luke Iseman, the founder of Make Sunsets, is explicitly referring to reading Termination Shock as an inspiration for starting the company and releasing a first balloon carrying a tiny amount of sulfur into the stratosphere.

Termination Shock does a good job of neither praising its lone ranger character for attempting to mitigate the climate crisis, nor condemning him for kicking off something with obviously global impact. Instead, the plot extends to several nation states that might be positively or adversely affected and the actions they take to either support or interfere with the project. While these aren't as fully developed as I might have liked (the book still clocks in at 720 pages), they do show how different the interests on SMR might wind up across the globe.

In that regard I loved that India gets a starring turn, as I believe we are about to see a lot more of India on the global stage. I only wish Saskia, Queen of the Netherlands, played a more active role, like the female protagonists of Seveneves do. To be fair, she is a very likable character, but mostly with events happening to her. As always with books by Neal Stephenson, there are tons of fascinating historical and technical detais. For example, I had no idea that there were tall mountains in New Guinea.

Overall Termination Shock is a great read and an excellent complement to Ministry for the Future in the climate crisis fiction department (can't believe I didn't write about that book yet).

[123567-9qaaq9]

Detailed Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Market | BIS Research 

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) refers to the process of extracting carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and storing it to reduce the overall concentration of CO₂ in the air. The goal of CDR is to mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming. 

At BIS Research, we focus exclusively on technologies related to precision medicine, medical devices, life sciences, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), Internet of Things (IoT), big data, blockchain technology, Carbon Dioxide Removal    Material , advanced materials and chemicals, agriculture and FoodTech, mobility, robotics, and aerospace and defense, among others.

The global carbon dioxide removal market is projected to reach $2,083.4 million by 2031 from $462.0 million in 2022, growing at a CAGR of 18.2% during the forecast period 2022-2031. 

Carbon Dioxide Removal Overview  

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) encompasses a range of strategies aimed at actively reducing the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere, which is a key driver of climate change. 

Unlike emission reduction, which focuses on lowering the amount of CO₂ being released, CDR removes existing carbon dioxide from the air and stores it, either temporarily or permanently. 

This process is essential for achieving net-zero carbon emissions and for mitigating the effects of climate change, especially as global temperatures continue to rise due to accumulated greenhouse gasses.

Grab a look at the report page click here ! 

Two Broad Categories for Carbon Dioxide Removal 

1 Natural Solutions 

Afforestation and Reforestation

Wetland Restoration and Ocean Based Methods  

2 Technological Solutions 

Direct Air Capture 

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage 

Enhanced Weathering 

Market Segmentation 

1 By Technology Type 

Biochar

Direct Air Capture (DAC)

Enhanced/Carbon Mineralization

Ocean Alkalinization

Others

2 By Carbon Credit Buyer 

Finance Sector

Technology Sector

Others

3 By Region 

North America 

Europe 

Asia Pacific 

Rest of the world 

Demand Drivers and Limitations 

Following are the demand drivers for the global carbon dioxide removal market

Favorable Government Policies Drive the Development of Carbon Dioxide Removal Introduction of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Launchpad Investments and Collaborations Drive the Growth of Carbon Dioxide Removal

The market is expected to face some limitations too due to the following challenges:

High Cost and Energy Usage Associated with Direct Air Capture (DAC) Lack of Proper Mechanism for Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV)

Have a look at the free sample click here ! 

Key Companies 

Climeworks

Global Thermostat

Carbon Engineering Ltd.

Arca

Cella Mineral Storage Inc.

Bussme Energy AB

Carbofex Ltd.

Visit our Next Generation Fuel/ Energy Storage Solutions 

Conclusion

The carbon dioxide removal (CDR) market is poised to play a pivotal role in global efforts to mitigate climate change and achieve net-zero emissions. As the urgency to address rising atmospheric CO₂ levels intensifies, the demand for both natural and technological CDR solutions is expected to grow rapidly. 

The carbon dioxide removal market holds immense promise in the global fight against climate change, but its success will depend on sustained investment, policy support, and technological advancements.