#climate stability

[namanmalhotra1]

So, let's join forces! Dynamic Carbon Credits is ready to demonstrate how we can tackle your most pressing business challenges together. 

[delicatelysublimeforester]

The Dance of Weather: How Trees and Forests Shape Our World

[furiousgoldfish]

I'm noticing that adults are often very offended when they see a child who has something they themselves didn't have in their childhood. I've had someone randomly start ranting about how their own grandchildren have 'too much toys', and how they don't appreciate any of it. They went on to explain how they, as a child, only had one toy, and they had to play with that one alone. They're also upset that children can now use phones, which also wasn't an option in their own childhood.

This is concerning to me, because while busy noticing all the things that children have, which are toys and phones, people don't tend to notice the things we had that are no longer available to the new generations. Planet free of pollution, free of climate change, adults got to experience that. Economy that isn't in this bad of a state, availability of jobs, education being worth something, financial safety, probability of owning a home. All of this has critically declined and turned into unstable, unreliable and difficult to manage situation for children, to the point where there's no clear path to a safe future anymore, for anyone. Current children have to invent jobs and find a way to produce a safe future without relying on an existing path, something that was available for most of the population in the past.

And the availability of phones and toys is not necessarily a luxury; back then nobody had a phone, or a mountain of toys, so it would be unusual and privileged for just one child to have it. But when everyone has that, it would be unusual and almost humiliating not to have it. The prices of these had reduced, they're more available and easy to get. The phones connected to the internet will ensure that the child will be exposed to a lot of information every day, and they'll have to find a way to deal with all that, it can become overwhelming and damage their attention span and emotional stability, if they're constantly exposed to distressing or disturbing information, which often finds its way to kids.

What will it mean for their life, if they had toys and phones as kids, but later on, they don't have a safe job? They can't hope to have a home of their own? They are not at freedom to financially plan their futures, their families, they have to depend on their own parents or relatives to get by? What will it feel like when they can't count on the climate and safe and reliable food sources? What when they're suffocated by the financial demands of just staying alive and fed? What if they don't have anyone to help financially? What if they're rendered mentally ill by the stress and perils happening in the world, all of it so close to them via constant overload of pain and suffering?

Having toys and phones is nothing compared to having an experience of a safe, stable, predictable life, on a planet with a normal, stable climate. We failed to secure this to our children. We have no business being jealous that they now have a phone.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Trajectories for the Future

In "Dark tidings: Anarchist Politics in the Age of Collapse," Uri Gordon paints an ominous picture: "industrial civilization is coming down," so "anarchists and their allies are now required to project themselves into a future of growing instability and deterioration."[20] I am not so sure about the imminent downfall of industrial civilization or the collapse of capitalism, but I concur that we need to project ourselves into some image of the future in order to prepare for it.[21] A complication is that the future is partially decided by how we project ourselves into it and how we imagine it. There is not a predetermined future that we merely need to prepare for. It will be shaped by how we prepare for it and by what future we prepare for. To fixate ourselves on a particular vision of the future could affect us by constricting our capacities in the present to those actions that lead to that future, blinding us to other possibilities.

Gordon mentions some possible future scenarios, summed up as "grassroots communism, eco-authoritarianism, or civil war."[22] As the ecological crisis becomes more clear and people demand change, global capitalism might attempt to recuperate by making minor adjustments and putting on a "green face" without any changes in the system that is actually causing the crisis: capitalism itself. This can only buy time, and as the crisis intensifies capitalism will employ more authoritarian and repressive measures to stay in power. It can do this either in an authoritarian, neoliberal form, deploying superficial, liberal "progressive" rhetoric while preserving existing hierarchies; or it could instead turn to "eco-fascism," combining nationalist, racist and misogynist ideas of population control and "belonging" with the need to protect nature by totalitarian means. Both are tendencies that exist in the present.[23] In either case, it can only be a matter of buying time by managing the crisis until the inevitable collapse. In his piece Gordon suggests a number of praxises that are necessary in order to resist the authoritarian tendencies during this period of interregnum as well as to build alternative communities that prefigure a new way of life, independent of global capitalism.

Another, more recent, theory of possible futures is Geoff Mann and Joel Wainwright's (M&W) "Climate Leviathan."[24] They see four different trajectories: Either the capitalist order will continue under an increasingly authoritarian global sovereign - a planetary regulatory regime that decides who gets to pollute and at which cost ("Climate Leviathan") - or it will continue without such a sovereign as reactionary and nationalist movements refuse any serious collective efforts to mitigate climate change ("Climate Behemoth"). The global sovereign might also emerge as a non-capitalist world order: the state-socialist dream of a global centrally planned economy but with an emphasis on reducing carbon emissions ("Climate Mao"), and finally there is the more unknown path which involves a rejection and transcendence of both capitalism and political sovereignty ("Climate X").[25] Although climate denying "anti-globalist" right-wing movements have gained political power in several countries in recent years, the authors doubt this "Behemoth" will be long-lived: at some point the climate crisis will become so apparent it cannot be ignored.[26] They find the capitalist "Climate Leviathan" the most likely scenario as it can be built on global institutions and structures that already exist.[27] Climate X is less certain but is the only scenario the authors see as a viable strategy for the future.[28]

There are several overlaps between Gordon's and M&W's theories. Gordon's vision of eco-authoritarian capitalism is not that far from their Climate Leviathan: an attempt to manage the escalating crisis while preserving the existing structures of inequality. In his updated version, he admits that the prediction that capitalism would adapt by accommodating environmentalist and progressive concerns has not been realized. Instead capital has tended to "opt for full-blown reaction" expressed in climate denial and national chauvinism[29] - a trend that aligns with their vision of Climate Behemoth. The main point of convergence in the two theories is the hope for "Climate X" / "grassroots communism" - a movement of movements struggling for social justice, equality and self-management. My own theory is close to these. I also think we will see an increase in authoritarianism and inequality, but I posit that this is not really a change in the system but merely an intensification of the tendencies already contained within it. But the growing crises do give room for and force into existence other forces with the potential to create something new. I too, place my hope in "Climate X" - not as a utopian unknown but as concrete and existing praxises that can be expanded and amplified.

My aim here is thus not to critique the previous theories but to supplement them with empirical cases of what is already happening as the world responds to climate disaster - how the state and capital tries to consolidate the existing political structures on one side, and, on the other, how communities are responding by changing their social relations. Examining these cases from the present can give us a better idea of what to expect from the future and where to focus our struggles. I also add an element to "Climate X" that is under-emphasized in the aforementioned works, which focus primarily on protest and resistance to the dominating powers with the goal of preventing the destructive course.[30] Given the fact that climate disasters are already happening we also need to take into consideration how we are going to survive in the future. The politics of adaptation must be considered from the grassroots level.

[ifindus]

is it competitive in the archeology industry, or is it little demand for archaeologists? (just curious, no harm intended with my question🩵) seems like it's hard getting a job in that field😔

wish you luck though!

In Norway the archaeology is a government-funded field where all the universities are responsible for all digs in their own regions. This means that the archaeological each year is determined by 1. how much of a budget they get, and 2. the ammount of building projects started (either by the government or private). The Norwegian currency have been weaker than normal and the interest rates bad the last two years, which means less projects and digs, and thus less work for archaeologists. We can also only dig during summer and autumn here, when the ground is not frozen, so the time frame for jobs is a bit limited.

Thanks!!

[m00ngbin]

They are going to fuck up huge portions of the state parks in Florida I'm going to lose my mind

(link to petition protesting the GOI)

^That is an except from a PDF describing the details of the Great Outdoors Initiative (the thing the DEP announced) that I can't get the link to here, but IS linked in the petition site I put up there

Plans for a favorite park of mine ^^

Sorry I like really fail to see how a plan to increase tourism and build on acres of state park land will help aid conservation

[flystill]

can someone explain something to me? how can you be interested in wildlife and nature in general and also only experience pessimism regarding Earth's future? if you care for creatures, ecosystems, natural beauty, then is there any option but to fight and hope for their best outcome?

I just ... maybe I've consumed too much pop sci and positive speculative fiction re:climate change, maybe i am too comfortable with the idea of change not being bad in and of itself. Of course I think oil companies are bad and need to close up shop asap, and of course there is and will be a lot of ugliness in the world. there will be species we lose due to climate change, and there will be death in general. the entire economic system will need to change, and it will be rough.

we need to mitigate loss of life and habitat and focus on sustainable resource use strategies. but without hope that any mitigation is possible, how can you claim to care about the natural world at all? ecosystems are pretty good at adapting. humans can adapt pretty well too.

it just makes me sad that people who are intelligent and claim to care about the Earth can simultaneously shrug their shoulders and say "yep, it's going to shit". I used to think this way to some extent, but maybe this is part of that 'hope/optimism takes maturity' thing. anyway, i just found my recent conversation with a 'pessimist' disconcerting. thinking that way is not useful or personally fulfilling, even though I know it can be easy to fall into it. there already is and there will continue to be much to grieve regarding the state of the natural world and human society, but if the majority of us believe there is no reason to fight for our planet's future, then that degrades the quality of life in that future even further.

[tomorrowusa]

Fossil fuels are not just terrible for the planet, they are bad for democracy. A disproportionate number of major oil and gas exporters are autocracies such as Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

Russia in particular uses fossil fuel sales to fund repression at home and imperialism abroad.

Putin appears weaker than ever – and for a ruler who relies on projecting strength, that’s a bad look. To further dull Putin’s fading aura of invincibility, and to ultimately lead to a reversal of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we need to undermine the pillars his strongman myth is based on: colonial conquest, unregulated capitalism and climate abuse. As questions are raised about his ability to rule, Putin will claim that despite the efforts of the nefarious “collective west”, the Russian economy can stabilise because the world needs Russian fossil fuels; that the need of western companies to make money in Russia means it will never be truly isolated; that for all his blunders on the battlefield, he can still hold on to swathes of Ukraine and its resources, which he will dole out between the Russian system’s stakeholders for whom the risk of sticking with Putin will thus still be smaller than the risk of going against him.

No matter what the source of the oil or gas we consume, we push up the international price of those commodities whenever we use them. It's supply and demand; when we reduce our demand, the price goes down and dictators/theocrats get lower profits.

We need to recognise the fact that human rights, security and economic ties are deeply intertwined, and to alter our behaviour accordingly. Let’s stop selling dictators the rope with which they hang people: our neighbours – and ultimately us. And if there’s one base element that powers Putin’s claims to invincibility, it’s reliance on fossil fuels. The battle against Putin is also the battle against climate crisis. As Prof Alexander Etkind lays out in his new book, Russia Against Modernity, Putin’s economy has been up to two-thirds dependent on oil and gas exports, largely to Europe, and crucially through pipelines that cross Ukraine. Etkind argues that Putin launched his invasion in part to control this flow. Moreover, he wanted to destabilise Europe, flooding it with refugees and instilling so much chaos and fear that Europe would be forced to abandon plans for net zero carbon emissions by 2050. As so often in the course of this war, Putin’s aims have backfired. The invasion has led to a decrease in dependence on Russian energy. Putin’s aura of fossil-fuelled invincibility has been shaken, but we are only part of the way there. Faster decarbonisation is the most sustainable way to not only undermine Putin, but also to limit the opportunity for future Russian leaders and other resource-rich authoritarians to wage aggressive wars.

Decarbonization is also de-Putinization. We contribute to peace and stability when we lessen the amount of fossil fuels we consume. And, of course, we slow down and eventually halt the warming of our planet.

Using these late 19th century sources of energy encourages despotic autocracies while making Earth less livable. It's time to say до свидания to fossil fuels.

[queen-mabs-revenge]

.

[schrankartoons]

My cartoon for The Times, London, 1/8/23. Rishi Sunak seems to be politically tone-deaf when it comes to the environment.

[latinokaeya-moving]

you know. i wouldnt get so privately frustrated everytime i talk with my mum abt me and my brother paying ‘rent’/helping out w food or bills once we both have full time jobs if she at least had the decency to admit she just wants to use the money to pay off her and my dads debts quicker

[delicatelysublimeforester]

Unveiling the Wonders: Celebrating World Wildlife Day

[stinkybreath]

we might have to live in Sweden 😔

[dailyanarchistposts]

Another Present is Possible

These examples of events in the recent past give us a terrifying image if we extrapolate them into the future. Assuming they will only intensify with climate change they in no way show us the collapse of civilization as we know it - i.e. a world order of economic and political inequality (inside and between nations), domination and exclusion. On the contrary, this "realist" model shows us that it is not the collapse of order we need to fear but its continuation. But the picture I have presented of the present is only partial and therefore misleading. In recent years we have seen many other social reactions to disasters which point towards a completely different future.

During Hurricane Katrina thousands of volunteer activists arrived in New Orleans, not to distribute charity but to offer their solidarity. They helped the communities who were already coming together to set up local information centers where people could find their loved ones, offer their skills, leave or take supplies, etc. The same happened during the other disasters mentioned here. This spontaneous "disaster communism" or "disaster anarchism" has a long history: when the imposed order of the state and capital retreats people rarely react the way Leviathan assumes - when people find themselves in shared circumstances they are at least as likely to start helping each other as they are to start fighting.[54] A crucial difference over the recent years is that it is no longer spontaneous: communities are learning from past events are preparing for the next; they are practicing the skills required and building communities and networks that prepare them for the future by changing how they relate to each other in the present.

This is about more than surviving during a disaster. In New Orleans the organizations Common Ground Relief and the Common Ground Health Clinic were established to provide immediate relief and mutual aid, but they continue to this day long after the disaster as community led organizations for social justice and self-management. They are now part of the growing network Mutual Aid Disaster Relief which help communities prepare for disasters before they happen, using principles of mutual aid and self-empowerment instead of dependence-creating, top-down "charity."

During Hurricane Sandy in New York, thousands of volunteers came together to organize the relief effort. Their efforts were helped by existing networks of communication and trust established during the Occupy Wall Street protests. The movement Occupy Sandy organized around 60,000 volunteers in an effective relief effort that outperformed both the Red Cross and the government agency FEMA.[55] A report from the Department of Homeland Security praised the decentralized, horizontal and transparent model: "We can learn lessons from Occupy Sandy's successes to ensure a ready and resilient nation."[56]

When the state's branch of repression has such praise for decentralized structures there is reason to be weary of co-optation. Governments could use the potential for community self-organizing to justify neoliberal austerity policies. But since top-down government "rebuilding" efforts have also been used to implement neoliberal policies this is only a reason to further insist on strengthening and radicalizing the grass roots movement and combining the emergency relief and post-disaster rebuilding with an egalitarian anti-capitalist practice. The activists in Occupy Sandy had seen what happened after New Orleans and were from the beginning focused on preventing and resisting the gentrification that often follows with the recovery process.

Furthermore, these movements are not merely reacting to emergencies, trying to survive in the disaster. They are also engaged in climate mitigation by focusing on the environmental surroundings of their communities. Common Ground in Louisiana runs a program for wetlands restoration which is necessary for mitigating the effects of climate change (the wetlands protect against hurricanes and land-loss) and play a part in reducing climate change (by storing CO2). Most importantly though, these movements are building new praxises and social relations that are necessary parts of a different social order beyond capitalism and the Leviathan.

This is not political idealism as in the opposite of "realism" - I have again merely pointed out things that actually exist in the real world and many more examples could be given from many other parts of the globe. As Martin Buber noted,[57] all societies contain to some degree both the "political principle" (organization characterized by domination) and the "social principle" (association based on common needs) and any realistic analysis would be lacking if it merely focused on one, not merely because it would miss part of reality but because it would affect our actions and thus shape reality. The two narratives give us radically different affective states and have the potential to shape our ideals for the future and our capacities in the present. Both principles will likely be intensified with climate change; which one will be stronger depends on what we do.

The movements described may not today be big enough to replace the system in its entirety and stop climate change but they do provide us with a lived and "concrete utopia"[58] which can give us the hope and trust necessary to break the paralysis caused by an overpowering fear of climate induced societal apocalypse. They show us that it is not the breakdown of the current order we need to fear. If we are to avoid climate catastrophe the social order must be radically changed. Communities and movements like these are part of determining the direction of that change - they allow us to prepare for the future by changing the present, thereby expanding our collective imagination of what is possible. Their most important function might be to dispel the Hobbesian fantasy.

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

Amid Immigration Debates, Americans Are Considering Life Beyond the U.S

I Wonder Why Searches for “Immigrate” Spiked 90% After Trump’s Announcement — and Where Americans Might Go. As an Aussie with a fondness for Canada, I’m proud to see both countries at the top of the list for those seeking a new beginning. Australia and Canada have shaped their modern identities around inclusivity and opportunity, making them natural choices for people in search of multicultural,…

[trendynewsnow]

European Leaders Meet in Budapest to Address Challenges of the Trump Era

European Leaders Converge in Budapest: Navigating the Trump Era A significant gathering of European leaders, including representatives from most EU member states, has convened in Budapest for a crucial high-level meeting. Central to the discussions will be the pressing question: How do we effectively manage our relationship with Donald Trump? From Brussels to Warsaw, European capitals are…