Unite behind the science event with greta thunberg At COP-25 in Madrid in December 2019.#4Pamphleteers @GrubStreetJorno @wiki_ballot @financialeyes @JoeBlob20 #ClimateChange #Science #PolitcalEconomy #CarbonCurrency #EnergyEconomics #CircularEconomy #Technocracy #Eugenics #LimitsToGrowth #ClubofRome #CFR #NaomiSeibt #GretaThunberg


created at TagCrowd.com

Highlights Video



created at TagCrowd.com

unite behind the science event with greta thunberg At COP-25 in Madrid in December 2019

WHO: ● Greta Thunberg (Sweden) and Luisa Neubauer (Germany), climate activists ● Ko Barrett, IPCC Vice-Chair ● Rachel Cleetus, Union of Concerned Scientists ● Sivan Kartha, Stockholm Environment Institute https://www.sei.org/people/sivan-kartha/ ● William Moomaw, The Fletcher School, Tufts University ● Youba Sokona, IPCC Vice-Chair

Ko Barrett Remarks.

last 15 months we’ve released


reports about 1.5 degrees of warming



“As for the future, it is not a question of foreseeing it, but of making it possible. “

– Antoine de Saint ExupéryCitadelle, 1948

One will weave the canvas; another will fell a tree by the light of his ax. Yet another will forge nails, and there will be others who observe the stars to learn how to navigate. And yet all will be as one. Building a boat isn’t about weaving canvas, forging nails, or reading the sky. It’s about giving a shared taste for the sea, by the light of which you will see nothing contradictory but rather a community of love.[1]

interactions between climate change and





impacts of climate change


on the ocean and the frozen parts of our





these reports show

Claim 1.

pretty much everywhere we look we see the effects of

human-caused climate change

Claim 2

even and especially in the most remote corners of our planet


our most recent report found that for decades the ocean and

frozen parts of our planet have been taking the heat for climate change which

is melting ice sheets shrinking glaciers warming our oceans and rising our seas

our oceans have been acting like a sponge absorbing twenty to thirty

percent of total anthropogenic co2 emissions over the last decades changing

ocean chemistry and making it more acidic this has effects on fisheries and

impacts millions of people who depend on the ocean for sustenance these are just


Sivan Kartha, Stockholm Environment Institute

there was a report focused on 1.5

degrees and what it would mean to keep

warming below 1.5 degrees and what it

would mean to exceed warming of 1.5 degrees


it’s hard for normal people living their

normal lives to really get worked up

about a few degrees because so much

bigger temperature swings happen every

single day everywhere in fact the

temperature is gonna warm by more than

10 degrees here in Madrid today between

the morning when we woke up and mid

afternoon or so and in fact if we

decided not to worry about climate

change at all if we didn’t bother about

greenhouse gases whatsoever and we just

continued to dig up fossil fuels and

burn them and to leak methane from

pipelines if we did nothing at all to

stop climate change best estimate is

that the world as we released more and

more greenhouse gases would warm maybe

five degrees or so


where there are now major cities with huge populations and when

coastlines were tens of kilometers or

hundreds of kilometers from where they

are now the world was only about five

degrees colder than it is now that’s

right the temperature only had to warm

by about five degrees

just nudge up by five degrees to come

out of that frigid state to melt those

several kilometer thick ice sheets to

rearrange ecosystems across continents

to drive some species extinct and to

allow others to emerge


the earth

then settled into a nice stable climate


that as it turned out was hospitable to


the emergence of human civilization


so what will happen if we humans cause


that to happen again another five

degrees of warming

This next point is not a scientific Point it is a Political, Geo Political

and Political Economy Point. (ed)


the richest 10% gets more than half of the world’s income each year

and causes more than half of the world’s pollution each year but emissions

Net Zero? all around the world not just among that 10%

needs to get to zero even among those whose emissions come from daily

activities that merely help them get their basic needs met and merely help

them make a modest livelihood the only way that we can make emissions go to

zero around the whole world is if the world’s more privileged inhabitants

those who have benefited as their societies have developed and gotten

prosperous and burned lots and lots of fossil fuels if they eliminate their




William Moomaw,


let’s be clear we’re no longer talking about climate change the climate has changedthis change in the climate is actually a symptom it’s a symptom of the

unsustainable way in which we have been unraveling the fabric of life on this


the forests that like the oceans are

responsible for absorbing more than a

quarter of all the carbon dioxide that

we emit every single year

isn’t it amazing we put 11 billion tons

we humans put 11 billion tons in the

atmosphere and it only increases by less

than 5 who has been helping us the

oceans the forests the wetlands the

grasslands and we are in the process of

destroying them


the United States one of the worst offenders

obviously the European Union actually in

second place in terms of total emissions

of carbon dioxide since the Industrial

Revolution  obviously we have to

reduce emissions reduce emissions of all

our all our energy use not go to Net

Zero go to zero let me say something

about the myth of climate neutrality

climate neutrality means that I can

continue emitting now not all of you may be


proficient in higher mathematics but you

don’t need to be to understand the

simple fact that in order to meet the

one and a half degree goal we must

reduce our our emissions by seven point

six percent a year for the next ten years

seven point eight you cannot do

that with carbon neutrality

in places like Estonia and


Lithuania but in the United States we

ship 12 million tons a year for a single

power plant in the UK that’s out of our

forests UK doesn’t get charged with that because

of the fault of the mistaken accounting



Rachel Cletus I’m with the Union of Concerned Scientists I’m an economist

significant people are

already suffering and dying because of climate change

many millions of people are being displaced by extreme weather and


climate related disasters water supplies

are being threatened food supplies

ecosystems are in distress The Lancet

countdown report just released pointed


out the public health impacts of climate change

at the rate we’re going we’re set for over three degrees maybe

even four degrees Celsius rise in



Youba Sokona, IPCC Vice-Chair

Three special


report focusing on warming of our planet


and how climate change is interacting


with the land the ocean

it found that limiting warming to 1.5 is


possible within the laws of these


chemistry and physics

every bit of warming





created at TagCrowd.com

Dr Thomas Newsome from the University of Sydney is co-author of a paper published in BioScience that outlines the data that shows it is clear we are facing a climate emergency. It has been endorsed by more than 11,000 scientists from 150+ countries. Dr Newsome outlines the six steps we can take to reduce the impact of climate change.


Research interests

Dr Newsome’s research addresses how species respond to human-induced changes to the landscape. He is particularly interested in how humans and top predators shape and drive ecosystem processes.

His doctoral research focused on the ecology and behaviour of the dingo in theTanami Desert of central Australia. As a Fulbright Postdoctoral Scholar he investigated the ecological role of grey wolves and other large carnivores.

Dr Newsome currently co-leads studies assessing (i) how mountain lions and other species are responding to the return of grey wolves in Washington State USA, (ii) the ecological role of carrion in Australia, (iii) human-carnivore conflicts globally, and (iv) how to resolve the global extinction crisis.

In 2018 Dr Newsome established the Global Ecology Labat The University of Sydney.


11,000 scientists warn: climate change isn’t just about temperature

Click to access charney_report1979.pdf







Published today in The Conversation

Exactly 40 years ago, a small group of scientists met at the world’s first climate conference in Geneva. They raised the alarm about unnerving climate trends.

Today, more than 11,000 scientists have co-signed a letter in the journal BioScience, calling for urgently necessary action on climate.

Why reducing our carbon emissions matters (a little story about climate change)

The Conversation

The Conversation is a global, independent source of analysis, commentary and research from academics – written for the public. Our team of professional editors works experts to make sense of the big issues of the day and share the latest research and breakthroughs. Our channel includes explainers and videos generated as part of research.



created at TagCrowd.com

While it’s true that Earth’s temperatures and carbon dioxide levels have always fluctuated, the reality is that humans’ greenhouse emissions since the industrial revolution have put us in uncharted territory.

Written by Dr Benjamin Henley and Assoc Prof Nerilie Abrams.

Animated and edited by Wes Mountain for The Conversation.

Music: Kevin Macleod – Faster Does It


Issue Section:


Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.


Population, Resources, and Energy in the Global Economy: A Vindication of Herman Daly’s Vision Jonathan M. Harris February 2013







Global Development and Environment Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Global Development And Environment Institute
GDAE (Global Development And Environment Institute) at Tufts University Logo.jpg
Abbreviation GDAE
Formation 1993
Type research center
Headquarters Tufts UniversityUnited States
Neva Goodwin
William Moomaw
Website ase.tufts.edu/gdae/

The Global Development And Environment Institute (GDAE, pronounced “gee-day”) is a research center at Tufts University founded in 1993. GDAE conducts research and develops teaching materials in economics and related areas that follow an interdisciplinary approach that emphasizes ecological, cultural, social, and institutional factors. The Institute has produced more than twenty books and numerous articles, policy documents, and discussion papers. These materials are being used in academic settings, to enhance the teaching of economics and related subjects, and in policy circles, where GDAE researchers are recognized leaders in their fields.

Texts and educational modules developed at GDAE are now being distributed and managed through Boston University’s Economics in Context Initiative. This carries forward the effort to develop a truly “contextual economics” – one that takes full account of humanity’s social and physical environments.

GDAE’s current research and educational efforts are centered in three areas: “Land, Energy, and Climate”, Green Economics, and educational materials in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics.  GDAE researchers present their research in a series of policy briefs, working papers, and at numerous conferences. Publications reflecting GDAE’s earlier research in areas such as globalization, trade, and feminist economics are frequently cited and are available for download.


Neva Goodwin and William Moomaw are Co-Directors of GDAE. Other members of the research team are Jonathan M. Harris, Brian Roach and Anne-Marie Codur. Monica Barros is responsible for administration and communications. Gillian Davies, Andrew Tirrell, and David Sussman  are Visiting Scholars at GDAE, and Jeronim Capaldo is a research fellow. Bethany Tietjen and Josephine Watson are GDAE Research Assistants.


GDAE’s research program emphasizes ecological health and the correlation between social and economic well-being. They view economic systems in physical contexts of technology and the natural world, as well as in the social/psychological contexts of history, politics, ethics, culture, institutions, and human motivations.


GDAE has extensive publication record, including the production of the ‘In-Context’ series of textbooks and free teaching modules which are now managed by the Economics in Context Initiative at Boston University.


The textbooks in question include Microeconomics in ContextMacroeconomics in ContextMacroeconomics in Context (European Edition)Principles of Economics in ContextEnvironmental and Resource Economics and the soon to be published Essentials of Economics in Context.

These textbooks present all the content required of a standard text yet also go beyond this material to offer a more holistic approach to understanding economic processes by integrating aspects of history, institutions, gender, inequality, and the environment.

The texts come with a full set of supplementary materials including instructor resource material with lecture outlines, a test bank of over 2,000 questions, and PowerPoint slides. Detailed student study guides are available for free download.


GDAE has also produced an extensive set of teaching modules that are designed for use as stand-alone supplements in undergraduate or graduate-level courses. These modules are available as free downloadable PDFs.  They range from 25-60 pages, and most include discussion questions and glossary. The teaching modules are designed to allow instructors to easily incorporate the teaching modules into one or more weeks of weeks of semester alongside whatever textbooks they are using.

Frontier Issues in Economic Thought[edit]

GDAE produced the six-volume series, Frontier Issues in Economic Thought, which was published by Island Press. The articles that GDAE researchers selected and summarized for this project focus on the limitations of the mainstream economic paradigm and a wide range of creative efforts that have been and are being made to extend economic understanding.

Social Science Library: Frontier Thinking in Sustainable Development and Human Well-being[edit]

GDAE has produced an electronic collection of publications that are available for free to universities in 138 nations, with special attention to those institutions that are most in need of library resources. The collection, or the Social Science Library (SSL), contains over 3,400 full-text journal articles, book chapters, reports, and working papers in anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, social psychology, sociology and political science. It also includes full bibliographic references (including abstracts) to more than 6,000 additional articles. The SSL is available upon request to those that qualify for access. For people who are not in the recipient countries, a web-based version, with the 10,000+ bibliographic entries, but without the full text PDFs is available on request.

Neva Goodwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Neva Goodwin
Neva Goodwin Rockefeller

June 1, 1944 (age 75)

Spouse(s) Walter J. Kaiser
Bruce Mazlish (?–2016; his death)
Children 2
Parent(s) David Rockefeller
Margaret McGrath
Relatives See Rockefeller family

Neva Goodwin Rockefeller (born June 1, 1944) is co-director of the Global Development And Environment Institute (GDAE) at Tufts University, where she is a research associate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy[1] and director of the Social Science Library: Frontier Thinking in Sustainable Development and Human Well-Being.[2]

Goodwin works towards a contextual economics theory that will have more relevance to contemporary real-world social and ecological concerns than does the dominant economic paradigm.[3] To this end, Goodwin is the lead author of two introductory university-level economics textbooks as well as online teaching modules,[4] along with editing two six-part series among other publications (see below).

Goodwin is also involved with efforts to motivate business to recognize social and ecological health as significant, long-term corporate goals. She is involved in socially responsible investing[5] and served in leadership roles at organizations such as, most recently, the New Economy Coalition,[6] Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Ceres, and the Sustainable Endowments Institute.[7][8]


This is the second of a pair of books by Robert Lane. The first was
, published by Michigan Press in2006 as the sixth in a series called
NevaGoodwin was the editor of the series as well as working closely with Lane on these twobooks.
 After the End of History
is now available
as an eBook atAmazon.com.
 I saw how ordinary men were corrupted by opinions of the most foolishkind in every walk of life. I longed to find a remedy more than I hoped forsuccess. And then I believed I had found a means whereby I couldinsinuate myself into those over-indulged souls and cure them by givingthem pleasure. I had often observed how a gay and amusing form ofadvice like this had happy results in many cases.
Desiderius Erasmus, “Letter to Dorp” (1515)
 on the publication of
 In Praise of Folly
To Neva GoodwinEconomist, Ecologist, Editor, and Friend, she first made possible the publication of
 Afterthe End of History
 and then helped me to see
 and to say
 what I wanted to say in
 Are Humans Misfits in Market Democracies?
Tolerant of a mix of familiar speech, deviantcharacters, and heterodox ideas, Neva Goodwin has interrupted her own important workto help me pursue my own idiosyncratic telos. I am grateful.Copyright © by Robert E. Lane 2014, all rights reserved
Copy-editor: Samuel Willsea

The Limits to Growth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Limits to Growth
Cover first edition Limits to growth.jpg

The Limits to Growth first edition cover.
Language English
Published 1972
Publisher Potomac Associates – Universe Books
Pages 205
ISBN 0-87663-165-0
OCLC 307838
digital: Digitized 1972 edition

Logo of the Club of Rome.

The Limits to Growth (LTG) is a 1972 report[1] on the computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth with a finite supply of resources.[2] Funded by the Volkswagen Foundation[3] and commissioned by the Club of Rome, the findings of the study were first presented at international gatherings in Moscow and Rio de Janeiro in the summer of 1971.[1]:186 The report’s authors are Donella H. MeadowsDennis L. MeadowsJørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III, representing a team of 17 researchers.[1]:8

Since its publication, some 30 million copies of the book in 30 languages have been purchased.[4] It continues to generate debate and has been the subject of several subsequent publications.[5] The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update was published in 2004,[6] and in 2012, a 40-year forecast from Jørgen Randers, one of the book’s original authors, was published as 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years.[7]


After reviewing their computer simulations, the research team came to the following conclusions:[1]:23–24

  1. Given business as usual, i.e., no changes to historical growth trends, the limits to growth on earth would become evident by 2072, leading to “sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity”. This includes the following:
    • Global Industrial output per capita reaches a peak around 2008, followed by a rapid decline
    • Global Food per capita reaches a peak around 2020, followed by a rapid decline
    • Global Services per capita reaches a peak around 2020, followed by a rapid decline
    • Global population reaches a peak in 2030, followed by a rapid decline
  2. Growth trends existing in 1972 could be altered so that sustainable ecological and economic stability could be achieved.
  3. The sooner the world’s people start striving for the second outcome above, the better the chance of achieving it.


LTG provoked a wide range of responses, including immediate strident criticism.

Peter Passell and two co-authors published a 2 April 1972 article in the New York Times describing LTG as “an empty and misleading work … best summarized … as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out”. Passell found the study’s simulations to be simplistic, while assigning little value to the role of technological progress in solving the problems of resource depletion, pollution, and food production. They charged that all LTG simulations ended in collapse, predicted the imminent end of irreplaceable resources. In fact, only about half do, and those simulations that end in collapse closely match the population growth and resource use that have occurred since publication. Passel also charged, that the entire endeavor was motivated by a hidden agenda: to halt growth in its tracks.[18]

In 1973, a group of researchers at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, published Thinking about the Future; A Critique of The Limits to Growth, published in the United States as Models of Doom. The Sussex group examined the structure and assumptions of the MIT models. They concluded that the simulations were very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggest that the MIT assumptions were unduly pessimistic. The Sussex scientists expressed their opinion that the MIT methodology, data, and projections were faulty and do not accurately reflect reality.[19]

The LTG team, in a paper entitled “A Response to Sussex”, described and analyzed five major areas of disagreement between themselves and the Sussex authors.[20] The team asserted that the Sussex critics applied “micro reasoning to macro problems”, and suggested that their own arguments had been either misunderstood or wilfully misrepresented. They pointed out that the critics had failed to suggest any alternative model for the interaction of growth processes and resource availability, and “nor had they described in precise terms the sort of social change and technological advances that they believe would accommodate current growth processes.”

The report has been criticized by academics, economists and businesspeople.[21][22] Critics claimed that history proved the projections to be incorrect, which was specifically based on the popular belief that The Limits to Growth predicted resource depletion and associated economic collapse by the end of the 20th century.[23]:23 The Limits to Growth faced ridicule as early as the 1970s.[24][25] Attacks were made on the methodology, the computer, the conclusions, the rhetoric and the people behind the project.[26] Yale economist Henry C. Wallich agreed that growth could not continue indefinitely, but that a natural end to growth was preferable to intervention. Wallich stated that technology could solve all the problems the report was concerned about, but only if growth continued apace. By stopping growth too soon, Wallich warned, the world would be “consigning billions to permanent poverty”.[26]

Julian Simon, a professor at the Universities of Illinois and, later, Maryland, argued that the fundamental underlying concepts of the LTG scenarios were faulty, because the very idea of what constitutes a “resource” varies over time. For instance, wood was the primary shipbuilding resource until the 1800s, and there were concerns about prospective wood shortages from the 1500s on. But then boats began to be made of iron, later steel, and the shortage issue disappeared. Simon argued in his book The Ultimate Resource that human ingenuity creates new resources as required from the raw materials of the universe. For instance, copper will never “run out”. History demonstrates that as it becomes scarcer its price will rise and more will be found, more will be recycled, new techniques will use less of it, and at some point a better substitute will be found for it altogether.[27] His book was revised and reissued in 1996 as The Ultimate Resource 2.[28] The LTG ideas are becoming again popular Robert Solow from MIT argued that prediction in The Limits to Growth was based on a weak foundation of data. Allen Kneese and Ronald Riker of Resources for the Future (RFF) stated, “The authors load their case by letting some things grow exponentially and others not. Population, capital and pollution grow exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in discrete increments.”[citation needed]

Critics also argue that the authors of the report claimed to accept that the then-known resources of minerals and energy could, and would, grow in the future, and consumption growth rates could also decline. The theoretical expiry time for each resource would therefore need to be updated as new discoveries, technologies and trends came to light. Writing in Forbes, one critic[who?] pointed out that “while we do indeed face hard limits to the availability of metals and or minerals these hard limits are so far away that they’re not … something we should worry about” and that “everything is substitutable. Absolutely everything is, no exceptions.” Thus substituting metals and minerals for fossil fuels is the very basis of renewable energy.[29]

In 1997, the Italian economist Giorgio Nebbia observed that the negative reaction to the LTG study came from at least four sources: those who saw the book as a threat to their business or industry; professional economists, who saw LTG as an uncredentialed encroachment on their professional perquisites; the Catholic church, which bridled at the suggestion that overpopulation was one of mankind’s major problems; finally, the political left, which saw the LTG study as a scam by the elites designed to trick workers into believing that a proletarian paradise was a pipe dream.[30]

In a 2008 paper, Ugo Bardi commented that “By the 1990s LTG had become everyone’s laughing stock,” and noted that much of the criticism was based on gross misrepresentation of the actual content of the report, and claimed that “the LTG ideas are becoming again popular.”[30]





Re-framing the War on Carbon. The Carbon Surplus Question?

On Global Warming and the War on Carbon , or what I would re-frame as the Carbon Surplus Problem.



Admiral Titley’s Whopper, where’s the Beef in the Hansen Feint? Climate Debate of the Decade, Mann, Titley, Curry and Moore. Textual Analysis PArt 2.


Admiral Titley and Dr Mann clearly double tagged on their Communication with the flock and studiously observed the Niceties of Climatology Fight club, The word tags for each segment of the debate make the point regarding storytelling absent facts and real-world observation but very strong on the monsters of the Crisis mythology.

In Part one we established that the first Rule of Climate Communication Club is not to communicate Climate Science.

#Wasssupppp Putting it all together, Energy, Debt, War, Sanctions, Elitism, Money Money Money. #Trump #Hall #EROI #EmboddiedEnergy #CircularEconomy


Click to access Alternatives-to-Growth_final.pdf





Author: rogerglewis

https://about.me/rogerlewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

8 thoughts on “Unite behind the science event with greta thunberg At COP-25 in Madrid in December 2019.#4Pamphleteers @GrubStreetJorno @wiki_ballot @financialeyes @JoeBlob20 #ClimateChange #Science #PolitcalEconomy #CarbonCurrency #EnergyEconomics #CircularEconomy #Technocracy #Eugenics #LimitsToGrowth #ClubofRome #CFR #NaomiSeibt #GretaThunberg

Leave a Reply