Salta al contenuto principale





New report warns of critical climate risks in Arab region


An excerpt:

The 22 Arab region countries covered in the WMO’s new State of the Climate report produce about a quarter of the world’s oil, yet directly account for only 5 to 7 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions from their own territories. The climate paradox positions the region as both a linchpin of the global fossil-fuel economy and one of the most vulnerable geographic areas.

WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo said extreme heat is pushing communities in the region to their physical limits. Droughts show no sign of letting up in one of the world’s most water-stressed regions, but at the same time, parts of it have been devastated by record rains and flooding, she added.



New report warns of critical climate risks in Arab region


An excerpt:

The 22 Arab region countries covered in the WMO’s new State of the Climate report produce about a quarter of the world’s oil, yet directly account for only 5 to 7 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions from their own territories. The climate paradox positions the region as both a linchpin of the global fossil-fuel economy and one of the most vulnerable geographic areas.

WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo said extreme heat is pushing communities in the region to their physical limits. Droughts show no sign of letting up in one of the world’s most water-stressed regions, but at the same time, parts of it have been devastated by record rains and flooding, she added.

in reply to Linearity

No. The middle east (people and governments alike knew the consequences of fossil fuels and they knew their precarious nature.

Make your choice. Live with the consequences of your actions.

in reply to StinkyFingerItchyBum

😝
earth.org/global-carbon-emissi…

Don’t get me wrong, I hate the use of fossil fuel as much as the next guy, but you can’t blame a people for the consequences of everyone’s actions

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Linearity

Yes and no. How popular do you think ending oil extraction is in those areas? Whatever the percent, that's also a level of consent.
in reply to StinkyFingerItchyBum

Future generations born in the region, i.e., the people who are actually going to suffer, had nothing to do with this shit.

I know moralizing gives a hit of dopamine but let's just do better.

in reply to acargitz

Current generations made the choice for their progeny.

It's not exactly moralizing. Actions have consequences. *Gestures broadly out the window. Let's stop doing the obviously bad things and clutch our pearls at the obvious and predictable consequences.

in reply to StinkyFingerItchyBum

Actions have consequences. *Gestures broadly out the window. Let’s stop doing the obviously bad things and clutch our pearls at the obvious and predictable consequences.


Yes, of course 100%. We are together shoulder to shoulder on this. With you 100%.

their progeny


This is where we are having our small difference. The word "their". I say "our". I am not going to wash my hands off of the future humans of the MENA region just because the rulers of their direct ancestors are doing shitty things.

in reply to acargitz

Sure. All future generations everywhere are condemned. MENA is going to get it worse faster, but big oil fought against sustainability globally, for a global problem.
in reply to Otter Raft

Republicans finally believing in Climate change as long as it hurts places they don't like.




Blind Spots in the Climate Movement | too intense a focus on emissions conceals the ongoing harms of expanded land use and the damage caused by "renewable" energy development


A very long essay, but I think worth a read - for solarpunks especially - even if you end up disagreeing with the anti-growth and anti-renewables conclusion.

Tldr: the first blind spot is that land disturbance (such as, for example, turning forests into agricultural land) is the "other leg" of climate change: it disrupts the water cycle, making some areas drier and some areas wetter, leading to, eg, crop failures and natural disasters.

Why don't we hear more about land disturbance as the other leg of climate change? Because capitalism demands growth. Capitalism can "solve" emissions with "green growth" - replacing old fossil fuel power plants with shiny new solar panels, and making a bunch of companies and developers richer in the process. But capitalism can't make more land. It can't solve the land disturbance problem by growing - it can only solve it by not growing. And that capitalism cannot do.

And the second blind spot is the tremendous ecological, environmental, and human harm done by the capitalist growth of "renewable" energy - from the slave children digging rare earths in the Congo to the pristine deserts paved over for giant solar projects. But because we are so single-mindedly focused on cutting emissions, we think "at least renewable energy doesn't produce carbon dioxide, so that's better, right?" And we put a nice green coat of paint on the world-destroying von Neumann machines of capitalism.

So what's the solution?

That being said, personally I propose: Let’s start with the goal of no new energy infrastructure whatsoever from any source, make do with what we have now, and shut down infrastructure from there as we eliminate frivolous use. This is an attainable goal. What are examples of frivolous use? Here’s a few candidates: AI, next day shipping, cheap plastic shit from China, cut flowers imported from South America on airplanes, perishable food shipped halfway around the world, commercial air travel, weed-free mown lawns, streaming movies and music, fast fashion, video game consoles, big screen TVs, f’ing single-use coffee pods, and the list goes on and on and on.
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)

in reply to silence7

Do i extrapolate too much but doesn't it meanspither hemisphere will get colder when northern get hotter ?
Ir's it like a climate inversion between south north ?
This would be fucked
in reply to Diurnambule

Yeah, and there's data that it happened in the past. And we are seeing the same signals that happened in the past before the thing stopping happen again. It might have happened naturally but we are artificially inducing it in an accelerated pace, of course.

~~It was one of the major reasons for the heavy and long winters in the dark ages iirc.~~ I didn't recall correctly.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to silence7

Not the past few, I was remembering wrong that one. Apparently around 500 years it weakens but the last shutdown was 12k years ago:

The most recent evidence of an AMOC shut-down is the Younger Dryas period, which occurred about 12,000 years ago. climate.sun.ac.za/uncategorize…



in reply to schizoidman

I am not overly surprised by this. The humanitarian response funding has been absolutely gutted this year, and not only by Trump (for example German gov. funding is down by 50% since 2022).

Thus organisations are struggleing to keep the lights on in the many emergency responses they already previously committed to, and have also not yet structurally adjusted, so there is an administrative overhang that further swallows what little funding remains.

And without NGO pushing for it, the shallow self of what journalism has become is totally oblivious to such relatively slow moving disasters. But it also becomes a self-reinforcing death spiral with no media coverage there is little non-government donations, thus further reducing the funds available.






'Scumbag': Texas candidate skewered for running as Republican after fundraising off Dems


100% illegal, but expect more of this shit because the DOJ won't prosecute, and in this case, Texas certainly won't.


Why Are Some Democrats Backing MAGA's Anti-LGBTQ+ Censorship?


Top Democrats are continuing to enable Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ tech agenda in three key ways. The first is through misguided attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, known as the “First Amendment” of the Internet. Section 230 specifies that online platforms like TikTok and Instagram can’t be held legally responsible for content that their users upload. It’s what prevents tech companies from being sued by billionaires and the government when people share content they don’t like. It’s why you can post on social media about a protest, or link to information on abortion and LGBTQ+ health care, and the company that owns the platform can’t be held liable and pressured to take it down. It also protects platforms from being prosecuted under discriminatory state laws that criminalize LGBTQ+ content and other “forbidden” topics and resources.





in reply to silence7

C.R.M.L.S. and a few homeowners told The Times they questioned the validity of property-level forecasts, and C.R.M.L.S. said it grew “suspicious” when models showed high flood risk in places that hadn’t flooded in decades.


Who wants to tell them that floods don’t always just target the same places all the time?

in reply to silence7

The indisputable fact that flood maps are going to have to be updated based on climate change makes some people uncomfortable: especially those whose activities are worsening climate change, and those whose income will be greater if they sweep the bad news under the rug.

Well, fuck them. People are entitled to the best information so they can make informed decisions.









EU climate chief criticises China, India and Saudi pushback on carbon tax


cross-posted from: mander.xyz/post/43026095

Web archive link

...

The carbon border tax, which comes into force from January, was behind an attempt by the big exporters to scupper wider negotiations on climate action at the latest UN summit in Brazil.

Speaking in the aftermath at COP30, Wopke Hoekstra told the Financial Times that the petrostates had also been “more assertive” across the board in a bid to thwart climate agreements as the shift to cleaner energy systems accelerates.

“Some of those making money out of [fossil fuels] are seeking to prolong that process. We have seen this quite explicitly,” he said. “Some of the petrostates are seeking to at least slow down rather than speed up [the energy transition].”

He added: “I have sensed a certain sense of assertiveness that might not have been there five or 10 years ago.”

...

During public and closed-door meetings at the two-week talks, some of the developing countries argued the tax, or carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), was a unilateral measure that would drive up costs, restrict trade and hinder their ability to grow their economies.

The tax will initially apply to products such as steel, cement and fertilisers, and aims to ensure imported goods meet similar green standards to those produced inside the EU or face an additional charge.

...

Hoekstra said the criticism was “clearly not very credible”, adding that in one-on-one conversations many countries “acknowledge it is clearly a climate tool” rather than a trade measure.

...

More than 80 countries had rallied around a proposal at COP30 for a so-called road map to help countries wean their economies off fossil fuels.
But the plan failed to appear in the final agreement after objection from more than 30 other countries [particularly China, Russia, and petro-states in the Middle East].

...








Global race to secure critical minerals for weapons threatens climate, warns report


The study from the Transition Security Project – a joint US and UK venture – reveals how the Pentagon is stockpiling huge stores of critical minerals that are needed for a range of climate technologies including solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and battery storage.


If Cars Are Too Expensive, Just Pump More Gas. What?


The net benefit is put at just $24 billion or, using households as a proxy for families, a princely $181 per household spread over five years. The $925 figure, meanwhile, equates to less than 2% of today’s average vehicle price. Even assuming it were actually realized, at $3 per gallon it would be eaten up by extra gasoline costs within three years.

...

In the real world, relaxing mileage standards, along with the earlier removal of penalties for missing them, will spur Detroit to sell more of the higher margin, lower fuel-economy, trucks and SUVs at the core of its business model, as opposed to shifting production toward smaller, cheaper models.


The fuel economy standard being repealed is one that's incredibly beneficial to consumers — it both encourages the production of less expensive vehicles, and saves on fuel costs.

in reply to silence7

This is the end of US car makers besides Tesla. Very few countries like to buy those massive American trucks and SUVs and without EVs selling normal cars is going to be difficult in many large markets, such as China and Europe. GM has basically left Europe already and Ford is firing workers like crazy. Stellantis is very likely to follow, but they have strong European brands and probably manage a bit longer.

in reply to silence7

"A major reason for this unusual build-up of heat may be changes to the Atlantic Ocean that buffets the New England coastline. The oceans are absorbing more than 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, with recent years seeing record-breaking ocean temperatures."


in reply to silence7

They just want to huff those fumes, in their case it might increase brain cells
in reply to silence7

Pretty soon it will be illegal to have state laws crippling gas vehicles.