Holy f!&$%# talking on national radio is nerve-wracking...
(especially when your fellow radio guests are climate gurus @KHayhoe and @KenCaldeira!)
Blanked a few times there, but fun discussion nonetheless.
There’s so much more to say about this, so thread coming soon...
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira OK, in the same vain as my previous thread “Should I cut out meat and dairy for the climate?” (bit.ly/2TJQh2l), it seems like the time is now right for a NEW THREAD:
“Should I stop flying for the climate?”
Here're my 2 cents... BUCKLE UP!
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira 1/ First, let’s acknowledge (own?) some ‘problems’ with #FlyingLess. As @drvox implies in this long thread, an individual's decision to fly will add an INFINITESSIMALLY SMALL amount of CO2 to the atmosphere (akin to adding a pebble of sand to a beach):
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox 2/ In other words... WE WILL NOT SOLVE THE CLIMATE MITIGATION PUZZLE through individual action. We ultimately need COLLECTIVE-SCALE changes (to business-as-usual capitalism): regulating corporations; pricing incentives; smart investments; good policy! bit.ly/2PjDLrZ
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox 3/ As @MichaelEMann points out in the above article, there’s also a DANGER in placing the onus for change on consumers (instead of CORPORATIONS, decision-makers, etc.)... that's a potential outcome when people become FIXATED on their carbon 'lifestyles'.
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann 4/ Another problem: Only a small % of the population are responsible for the bulk of aviation emissions. Most people don’t fly, or just once/year. So there’s a danger in coming across as “preachy” to EVERYONE, when in fact it’s (usually) the WEALTHIEST few who are the problem.
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann 5/ Aviation offers tremendous benefits and opportunities which a majority of world hasn't experienced. As @arvindpawan1 has pointed out, there’s a risk that #FlyingLess takes on an IMPERIALIST tone (if it fails to differentiate WHO it’s asking to change). bit.ly/2MpQtmF
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1 6/ And another challenge (in some geographical contexts): There are sometimes NO VIABLE low-carbon alternatives to flying. This is a REAL PROBLEM in Canada, where LONG-DISTANCE train travel is often WORSE than flying on a per-passenger basis!
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1 7/ So.. #FlyingLess needs to tread carefully in its messaging. The research shows that if people feel ‘attacked’ or their identities called into question, it can result in a “boomerang effect” wherein they just return to their original behaviour. bit.ly/2MoR6Ni
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1 9/ Before we get to THE VALUE OF FLYING LESS, let’s talk about WHY aviation specifically is a PROBLEM. As @Peters_Glen has pointed out, at a global level aviation is only really a sliver of the CO2 pie...
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen 10/ BUT... CO2 is only PART of the problem. The world-leading authorities on aviation & climate (David Lee et al.) noted that in 2005 aviation was responsible for 4.9% of RADIATIVE FORCING. It’s 15 years later now, and that’s gonna be higher I’m sure...
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen 11/ 4.9% may not SOUND like a lot, but consider that only 6% of the world flies each year. That makes aviation an activity with an OUTSIZED impact (compared to, say, meat consumption - in which 95% of the world participates – at 14.5% of global GHGs). bit.ly/2HdM6a0
I wonder... what’s the carbon footprint of the ENTIRE AVIATION SUPPLY CHAIN?
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen OK, but isn’t TECHNOLOGY reducing aviation emissions? To an extent, yes. Biofuels (especially new gen. which don’t impact food supply); low-weight materials; baggage surcharges; improved air traffic ALL help. BUT these efficiency gains are being outstripped by DEMAND GROWTH.
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen 14/ Right... but what about global governance? Doesn’t the UN’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for Aviation (CORSIA) plan to achieve “carbon-neutral growth from 2020”? Yeah, about that...
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen 15/ So... Despite its many benefits, aviation is PRESENTLY a real challenge for climate change mitigation – this may change in a few decades w electric ✈️, but as the IPCC has pointed out, we need to start rapid DECARBONIZATION NOW:
1) The thread noted a divide between what I called “accelerationists” who were sounding alarm that 2023’s remarkable warming was the beginning of SOMETHING NEW, and those I (later) called “observationalists”, who claimed 2023’s extreme warmth fits within EXPECTED WARMING trends.
2) These positions continue to be expressed. @MichaelEMann, for instance, is adamant that “the truth [about global warming] is bad enough”; that the warming we saw in 2023 can be explained by known climate physics; and that 2023 fits within the modelled warming.
This post by @FoodProfessor claims that the Trudeau Government purposely built the @ClimateInstit and @SP_Inst as part of its "lobbying machine" and that they are "mandated to advocate blindly" for the carbon tax.
This is a baseless claim.
Thread...🧵
1) This story starts in 1988 when the Mulroney government created an Independent advisory council of experts called the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. For 25 years it produced numerous reports on environmental policy, advising governments.
2) Then in 2013 the Harper government cancelled the NREE's funding because it did not like the advice it was receiving (in particular regarding carbon pricing). News story about it here: cbc.ca/news/politics/…
I don't know if the left has ever been unified, but today there seems to be a massive and growing rift about the environment - and especially climate - amongst socialists.
I now worry these differences are irreconcilable...
2. The discord seems to come down to fundamentally different worldviews shaping interpretations and definitions of modernity, development, progress, capitalism, justice, Marx's intentions, strategy, the future...
Many people seem absolutely fed up with "the other side". FED. UP.
3. The Degrowth Left (and this is sure to be a caricature of 'the ideology', not thinking of any one individual) seems FED UP with what it believes Ecomodern Socialism is: a sort of capitalism-as-usual in disguise...
It's worth emphasizing that because the scheduled carbon tax rate increase is flat ($15/tonne/year through to 2030), the *relative* weight increase declines over time.
There's a few ways that the carbon tax increase may *feel* less consequential as time goes on. Mini 🧵
First, as Chris has pointed out, this year it's a 23% increase on the tax rate relative to last year. But next year it will be an 18.75% increase and so on until it just stays fixed at $170/tonne - no longer increasing any more, year after year...
Second, due to inflation, the relative weight of an increase could also decline.
Ex: Currently the tax *increase* adds about 3.3c per litre ($17.6c/L). A 50L tank of gas has $8.80 tax. If the avg pre-tax gas price goes up, the relative size of the tax increase per tank declines.
Here's the abridged story of how NEOLIBERALISM became dominant (as I understand it). This is also a story with CLIMATE implications.
I draw on works by Harvey, Klein, Helleiner, Ruggie, and others.
(Keen to hear amendments, additions, critiques from fellow political economists)
1) It's 1944 and the soon-to-be victors of WWII gather at Bretton Woods to design the Post-War global economy. They develop an international monetary system largely seeking stability; one that fosters cooperation and prosperity through international trade and growth.
2) This model of 'embedded liberalism' sought a balance between what was seen as volatile laissez-faire market capitalism on one hand, and protectionist (even authoritarian) state interventionism on the other. In domestic terms, it lent itself to Keynesian 'demand-side' policies.
1. Speaking of tipping points: I believe the world has recently tipped into the early stages of one of the most profound transformations humanity has ever endured. It will take place over the next 50 years or so.
🧵on this fascinating and terrifying time to be alive!
2. The transformation is being ushered in by major demographic, technological, and ecological changes. These are mutually-reinforcing in some ways, making the transformation feel lightning fast (in human terms). The late 21st Century will look fundamentally different from today.
3. First, two demographic shifts which are profoundly consequential: i) Global population will for the first time in human history peak and *trend* downward (the rate of growth already peaked years ago) ii) the shift from a mostly-rural to mostly-urban population continues.