City climate plans that do not involve massive and rapid building — tons of new housing for all incomes and household types, low-carbon infrastructure, streetscape investments, and real ruggedization measures — are just urban planning triangulation.
They allow planners and their constituencies to feel virtuous about embracing the big goal of climate action (or climate justice), then make small steps into evidence of commitment.

They defend rent-seeking and opportunity-hoarding behaviors from demands for disruptive change.
Climate triangulation, in another context:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alex Steffen

Alex Steffen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexSteffen

13 Nov
I'm inclined to think that the biggest ratcheting up we've seen at #COP26 is the increased pace of NDC submissions, which at least carries the possibility of a stronger debate about accelerating progress.

Convince me something else in #glasgowclimatepact was a big win.
This part
"requests Parties to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their nationally determined contributions as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022"

unfccc.int/sites/default/…
Public discussions of targets, timelines, curves and the tempo of needed actions are themselves disruptive, as I've discussed before.

alexsteffen.substack.com/p/all-real-sus…
Read 6 tweets
11 Nov
New podcast for supporters: the decade after COP 26.

[Quick thoughts about the strategic landscape, now.]

alexsteffen.substack.com/p/climate-stra…
The "real progress" vs. "blah blah blah" debate is pointless.

The structures we have to pursue climate policy and diplomacy are incapable of delivering rapid and bold action.

Most of those working within them to deliver change are not to blame for the structures themselves.
There is no movement that can be built that is going to pressure those within these systems to move fast enough, in part because these systems are designed to facilitate delay.

Mass movement --> government action/international agreements --> an orderly transition won't happen.
Read 4 tweets
3 Nov
We need to do a much better job at communicating that all good climate futures now involve an absolute fuck-ton of new buildings and major infrastructure investments.

A giant building boom is what successful climate action looks like on the ground.
I mean, I'm a lifetime fan of electrification and demand reduction, and the one billion machines frame is great.

But decarbonizing energy is only one part of the job we face; ruggedizing ourselves will be a bigger and just as pressing task as cutting CO2.
saulgriffith.medium.com/one-billion-ma…
Then in the U.S., there's rebuilding all the degraded systems around us, paying off technical debt and deferred maintenance, building out of the current housing shortage, preparing to accommodate millions of new refugees and welcoming 10s of millions of internal climate migrants.
Read 4 tweets
3 Nov
I'm sorry to be impolitic, but, if — in 2021, as the biosphere unravels before our eyes — your call to action is for more dialogue between those seeking to prevent planetary catastrophe and those profiting from it, then YOU are part of the problem that needs to be fixed.
There is no middle ground between predatory delay and action at the pace demanded by the crisis we face.

There's fast enough, and too slow. That's all.

The idea that we should seek out that middle ground is itself a tactic of predatory delay.
More on predatory delay in this newsletter...

alexsteffen.substack.com/p/the-last-hur…
Read 4 tweets
1 Nov
60% of IPCC authors think we're headed for 3ºC warming.

My sense:

1.5º is barely even within possibility, and certainly extremely likely.

2º is possible, requires massive shifts in climate politics, business and finance... and luck.

2.5º is doable with rapid, spiky action.
Informed intuition at work.

Nobody can predict the real outcome, given the sheer complexity of the human systems being modeled and the magnitude of discontinuity involved.

Which is why we need to fight as if the best outcome were still possible.

It might be.
Also, we should see how much progress has been made.

Even if we still face catastrophic perils, I believe we no longer face an extinction-level event, or even an apocalyptic civilization collapse.

Our future is now *transapocalyptic*, which, while grim, is actually a huge win.
Read 6 tweets
31 Oct
Climate action is a steepening curve.
So, too, is literally every other aspect of the planetary crisis.

Speed is everything.
Also, it's not just that actions become, of necessity, faster and more disruptive.

It's also that increasingly massive resources must be devoted to ruggedizing in the face of impacts, and ever-greater discontinuities shake society as people and institutions scramble to keep up.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(