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 Exupéry, Citadelle, 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.
interactions between climate change and
impacts of climate change
on the ocean and the frozen parts of our
these reports show
pretty much everywhere we look we see the effects of
human-caused climate change
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
NOVEMBER 5, 2019 9:03 PM / LEAVE A COMMENT
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 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.
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
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
Jump to navigationJump to search
|Headquarters||Tufts University, United States|
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 Context, Macroeconomics in Context, Macroeconomics in Context (European Edition), Principles of Economics in Context, Environmental 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
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
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.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Neva Goodwin Rockefeller
June 1, 1944
|Spouse(s)||Walter J. Kaiser
Bruce Mazlish (?–2016; his death)
|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 and director of the Social Science Library: Frontier Thinking in Sustainable Development and Human Well-Being.
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. To this end, Goodwin is the lead author of two introductory university-level economics textbooks as well as online teaching modules, 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 and served in leadership roles at organizations such as, most recently, the New Economy Coalition, Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Ceres, and the Sustainable Endowments Institute.
The Limits to Growth
Jump to navigationJump to search
The Limits to Growth first edition cover.
|Publisher||Potomac Associates – Universe Books|
|digital: Digitized 1972 edition|
|Part of a series on|
Humanity’s economic system viewed as a
subsystem of the global environment
The Limits to Growth (LTG) is a 1972 report on the computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth with a finite supply of resources. Funded by the Volkswagen Foundation 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.:186 The report’s authors are Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III, representing a team of 17 researchers.:8
Since its publication, some 30 million copies of the book in 30 languages have been purchased. It continues to generate debate and has been the subject of several subsequent publications. The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update was published in 2004, 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.
After reviewing their computer simulations, the research team came to the following conclusions::23–24
- 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
- Growth trends existing in 1972 could be altered so that sustainable ecological and economic stability could be achieved.
- 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.
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.
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. 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. 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 The Limits to Growth faced ridicule as early as the 1970s. Attacks were made on the methodology, the computer, the conclusions, the rhetoric and the people behind the project. 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”.
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. His book was revised and reissued in 1996 as The Ultimate Resource 2. 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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Rare Climate Science Public Debate, Mann, Titley , Curry and Moore. #SpilmaLaw https://t.co/bf8vKVaC91 #BitChute
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) March 9, 2020
GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A CRISIS IQ Squared debate https://t.co/5jQ5zCT2Fq #BitChute
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) March 9, 2020
The Brave New World of Carbon Trading . Banned paper criticising Carbon Trading #WrongKindofGreen https://t.co/se5Bt2JZYC #BitChute
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) March 9, 2020
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
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”