Rigid I was about , when I was younger, and I rode framed . With experience, my opinions may have become stronger, but I’ve also learned to fold them down in order to make my way through the intellectual traffic jams. Thus it suits me well to ride a these days. Bike and live to fight another day!

Interesting interview, despite the F-word: "If you are interested in ’s survival in the Middle East, the first thing you need to realize is that it can’t survive as a fascist theocracy." (Frances Raday) verfassungsblog.de/an-existent

The will give birth to a mouse. My editorial in today's , about 's stakeholder negotiations and the elephant in the room (in French).

Les empreintes qui nous guident... a été mon héros, le ma bête noire. Mais dans le woxx de cette semaine, les rôles sont plutôt inversés. Encore que... Disons que les positionnements et les analyses, au fil des ans, nous permettent d'y voir plus clair. woxx.lu/le-csdd-et-la-transiti

Not a ‘great game’ between nations anymore, but a challenge to humankind as a whole. (translation of Yoo'shû's statements) wirdrichtiger.wordpress.com/20

: It saved and it will save the world! ;-( "Nicolas Mackel warned that 'we will not reach the Paris [climate] goal if we deglobalise' the financial sector."

" loves to talk about and science fiction books and I can never tell which one he's talking about." I'm feeling a bit jealous there. ;-)
(Emil describing Jeffrey 'The Brain' in "My favorite thing is monsters")

Three eminent climate scientists have published an important article that is both an analysis of the present climate emergency and a call to action directed at their colleagues in the scientific establishment.

Although I've quoted extensively from the article, what you'll read here leaves out most of the details. I *strongly* urge you to read the whole thing.

Let's get started...

The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it follows that we must stop emitting more and even remove some of it. This idea is central to the world’s current plan to avoid catastrophe. In fact, there are many suggestions as to how to actually do this, from mass tree planting, to high tech direct air capture devices that suck out carbon dioxide from the air.

The current consensus is that if we deploy these and other so-called “carbon dioxide removal” techniques at the same time as reducing our burning of fossil fuels, we can more rapidly halt global warming. Hopefully around the middle of this century we will achieve “net zero”. This is the point at which any residual emissions of greenhouse gases are balanced by technologies removing them from the atmosphere.

This is a great idea, in principle. Unfortunately, in practice it helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now.

We have arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future.

To understand how this has happened, how humanity has gambled its civilisation on no more than promises of future solutions, we must return to the late 1980s, when climate change broke out onto the international stage...

The bulk of their article fits in this gap, giving us a history of efforts to understand how we might combat climate change and the rise of support for the idea of achieving "net zero."

Now to their conclusion, and the call to action...

In principle there is nothing wrong or dangerous about carbon dioxide removal proposals. The problems come when it is assumed that these can be deployed at vast scale. This effectively serves as a blank cheque for the continued burning of fossil fuels and the acceleration of habitat destruction.

The only way to keep humanity safe is the immediate and sustained radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in a socially just way.

As scientists, we are taught to be sceptical, to subject hypotheses to rigorous tests and interrogation. But when it comes to perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces, we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis.

In private, scientists express significant scepticism about the Paris Agreement, BECCS, offsetting, geoengineering and net zero. Apart from some notable exceptions, in public we quietly go about our work, apply for funding, publish papers and teach. The path to disastrous climate change is paved with feasibility studies and impact assessments.

Rather than acknowledge the seriousness of our situation, we instead continue to participate in the fantasy of net zero. What will we do when reality bites? What will we say to our friends and loved ones about our failure to speak out now?

The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over.

One more look at those crucial two sentences:

"Current net zero policies will NOT keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They are driven by a need to protect business as usual, NOT the climate."

Again, please do read the full article. You can find it here -- theconversation.com/climate-sc

#ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #GlobalWarming #Science

Revolution forever! While working on this week's analysis of strategy for , I reread my former “ report” articles. The ideas expressed are still valid, and I had a good laugh with this cartoon (Schneider and Rifkin) by our late colleague Guy Stoos.

And yes, I know, that kind of talk on New Year’s Day brings bad luck. But can humankind’s luck get any worse?

Show thread

We would have been incapable of living on Earth for most of its existence. We only lived here for 0.01% of the time since Earth was created. The mass extinctions events Earth saw were caused by comparably minor environmental changes. There is no Planet B for us. #PlanetB #CO2 #climatecrisis


Peace and prosperity, that’s what a is supposed to bring. Reality may differ. Frieden und Gedeihen, das ist es was ein Jahr des Kaninchens uns bringen sollte. Die Realität könnte anders aussehen. Mein Ausblick auf das Jahr #2023 für China und die Welt (in der von Freitag). Nichtsdestotrotz: Ein glückliches neues Mondjahr! My 2023 preview article about and the world (in this Friday’s woxx). Happy New Lunar Year nonetheless! woxx.lu/jahr-des-kaninchens-ch

Show more

Join us to help build a more sustainable planet by addressing climate change, inequality, and systems of oppression.