and love this writing. Whoever said academic writing must be boring. Ocean acidification vs. Plastic pollution — the battle is still David vs. Goliath, but this dramatically improves the odds... /#Plasticene
So, here's a really worthwhile discussion to engage in, dear academics, if you want to make a difference (oh and maybe help preserve life on Earth :-) esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-…
"UC police officers had as part of their 'false persona', entered into intimate relationships with members of targeted groups & in some cases proposed marriage or fathered children with protesters who were unaware their partner was a PO in a role as part of their official duties"
This is common knowledge. Get a grip pls, anyone who reports / researches / cares about global problems, and start to face the full complexity of our task. Continuing to play naive will not help anyone, nor give you much meaning or relieve your conscience. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_underc…
This is why I quote-RT so much :-) but agree - it feels subtler & more conducive to exchange in an—then smaller but more respectful—online environment to go the subtweeting road
To pick an easy example: it should be obvious to anyone who’s spent quality time pondering climate dilemmas that we are entering the next stage of denial, where planetary inaction morphs into planetary greenwashing, without ever once stopping to examine the underlying problem
The next stages after that can become profoundly dark, and I’d like to think we can warn clearly & effectively - inshallah - to make people at least aware of the problem
My Very Scientific Take on Nordhaus: what could possibly wrong with a climate model that runs in Excel? #DICE
(Nothing against Excel, nor of course GAMS—simple models are great if they capture dynamics correctly) econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/home…
Modeling catastrophic concentrations of 850 ppm CO2, and 4C warming, equivalent to the end of civilization, in 2100 as "optimal." Thanks for nothing, Nordhaus
"Optimal" carbon prices: It's important for populations to understand these basics, and that current mainstream climate economics, the basis of current policy, is incompatible with livable futures.
Oil & energysplaining are terms of art. I admire fantastic writer @emorwee’s presence & quickness of mind on all climate questions. Yet here I agree with both bubbles. Quel climate conundrum!
I feel the climate movement & particularly, stunningly, climate science hasn’t yet realized how vital fossil fuels are to hold civilization together. Good luck us all if 85% of primary energy consumption—a % that’s been stable for many decades—suddenly were shut down in decades🔥
To all who argue we could replace this mindbogglingly large energy flux with renewables within 10-30 years: great, show us how!
Also—have you ever worked in renewables??? This is not remotely an option, whatever IPCC & “models” that everyone uses made you believe
The feedback structures in high-order nonlinear feedback systems persistently draw attention away from high-leverage points (social change), towards low-leverage points (technology, consumption).
We need to learn to distinguish symptoms (greenhouse gas emissions) from causes (structures that generate activities causing direct or embodied GHG emissions). Yet most sustainability and climate science focuses on symptoms that cannot possibly solve deeper structural problems.
just a quick reminder to whomsoeverhereontwitter it concerns that when we call out <deep structural systemic problems that currently have no solutions> that may sound like 'giving up' to y'all (but just because you read shallowly); I never say that, it's lit a problem of language