#intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC)

[puc-puggy]

that’s literally the shit farming methods. you know how you think of fields as long straight rows of a single plant? that is an ecological wasteland that WILL go fallow because it’s not engaging in any resource EXCHANGES. european farming method is “use the land until it’s literally dead, then wait 10 years & do it again.”

compare this to a self-sustaining food forest that is still producing food after almost 300 years without active cultivation. do you see the difference? a dead land cycle of extraction vs the cultivation of life cycles.

I said EUROPE is shit at farming because EUROPE is shit at farming. and they forced their shit farming practices on the entire globe. which is obviously causing problems. europeans are exceptionally bad at agriculture and the only reason you’re familiar with their farming methods as scientifically grounded and efficient is white supremacy.

edit: don't want it on my blog but the person this is in response to put in a whole big thing about how europe can't support food forests and chinampas don't belong in finland. and 1) humans can cultivate the life cycles of any ecosystem and 2) take the principle of the chinampa (utilizing and reinforcing existing life cycles of the ecosystem) but do it in finland. and france. and the uk. this is like. not complicated. seriously did not expect that referencing a more sophisticated agriculture system would break their brain that bad but white supremacy is a hell of a drug

I love when people from first world countries decide to share on tumblr for the bilionth time that they're using animals products since they're "sooo enviromentally friendly and use the WHOLE animal uwu"

Meanwhile, 80% of the deforested area of the amazon rainforest is used for cattle ranching. But sure, feel free to tell me how eco-friendly your leather is as the tanning poisons our rivers or how important meat is for european culture while latin america burns for your double cheeseburger.

Don't worry, I totally understand it's too much to ask for you to stop eating meat in the name of the planet, animals, and us third-worlders who will be affected the most by global warming.

[thoughtlessarse]

The UN’s climate science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is currently meeting in Bulgaria to decide on a timeline for its next “cycle” of reports over the rest of this decade. That decision should have been taken in January, but government divisions arose over aligning IPCC outputs with UN climate negotiations, at a meeting that the IPCC chair described as “one of the most intense” he had experienced. Political struggle over the final wording of IPCC reports is well known, but this division at the start of the process reflects the organisation’s achievements. The more successful it becomes in disseminating climate knowledge, the more deeply imbued in climate politics it becomes. I have studied the IPCC for 15 years and think these political factors are often overlooked. For instance, though the reports are written by scientists, governments play an integral role throughout the process. The IPCC is after all an intergovernmental body – it’s governments that decide to produce the reports and give the final approval, not scientists. Most notably, this involves the final line-by-line approval of a report’s key findings in the “summary for policymakers” (the only bit most people read). Media reporting and accounts by IPCC authors frequently reveal the extent of negotiation over how the latest knowledge of climate change is presented to the public. This has lead to whole sections being deleted and open conflict between scientists and government delegates. However, decisions made at the start of an assessment cycle are equally fraught with politics. These include electing the bureau and approving the report outline. The politics sometimes come to light, as it did when Wikileaks revealed US manoeuvring to secure the election of the US co-chair candidate for a previous round of reports which were published in 2013 and 2014.

continue reading

We're being lied to, in case you were wondering.

[wastelesscrafts]

New IPCC report (March 20, 2023)

The newest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published on the 20th of March 2023.

Read the synthesis report, or check out the IPCC's YouTube channel if reading isn't your thing.

Climate YouTubers Zentouro and ClimateAdam have also released a short summary video of the report.

(If you're currently dealing with climate anxiety, you may want to skip these reports.)

[aperint]

Reprobados en cambio climático

Reprobados en cambio climático #aperturaintelectual #vmrfaintelectual @victormanrf @Victor M. Reyes Ferriz @vicmanrf @victormrferriz Víctor Manuel Reyes Ferriz

12 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2023 Esto es para ti papi POR: VÍCTOR MANUEL REYES FERRIZ El día de hoy culmina la cumbre del clima “Conferencia de Partes” (COP) en su edición número 28 que comenzó el pasado 30 de noviembre en el “Expo City” de Dubái y ésta reúne a los delegados de 197 países, organizaciones no gubernamentales, empresas, científicos, representantes de la industria, activistas y por supuesto…

[man-and-atom]

Quite a few people have seen this image, and said “well clearly wind and solar are the way to go, there’s no need or role for nuclear”.

Look again at that headline.

“Relative potentials and costs will vary across countries and in the longer term compared to 2030.”

Simply put, although in broad strokes the industrial potential of the world is equal to installing (say) 10 GW of new nuclear-electric capacity a month, which would make a vast difference to global emissions, getting to that point by 2030 would be exceedingly difficult and costly.

Even if we imagine all the legal barriers swept away ― if we imagine, for instance, Germany to say “well, now that the nuclear power plants have all been shut down, you can start building new ones as of July” ― it takes time to build or expand the necessary production facilities, train personnel, and so on. Likewise, a programme of building power stations must begin at a modest pace and ramp up, so that designs can be optimized.

If we extend the time horizon just to 2035, the situation looks very different. Again, of course, that assumes we start now, and don’t allow ourselves to be lulled into inaction.

[carolkeiter]

How to Persuade Others to Care about Biodiversity?

Back in Rhode Island when I was bicycling 6 or so miles from Providence – to swim in the only nearby lake at Lincoln Woods State Park – I encountered a dead deer along the road. The Police were already standing next to it. It was upsetting. It’s an area where Power lines cut through the trees, which in fact provide space to allow animals (with no residential properties or fences blocking their…

[omg-erika]

Who is afraid of CO2?

by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext What the mainstream media is hiding Why we should fear and hate carbon dioxide – A guest article by Elena Louisa Lange about the sense and folly of worrying about “man-made climate change.” In September, the world witnessed five minutes of climate ideology at its finest. Apple, the world’s most capitalized company, produced a promotional film designed to…

[irreplaceable-spark]

Hot or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology| Uncommon Knowledge

Steven Koonin is one of America's most distinguished scientists, with decades of experience, including a stint as undersecretary of science at the Department of Energy in the Obama administration. In this wide-ranging discussion, based in part on his 2021 book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Koonin gives a more refined look at the science behind the climate issue than the media typically offers, guiding us through the evidence and its implications. As Koonin explains in this interview, he was “shaken by the realization that climate science was far less mature than I had supposed” and that the “overwhelming evidence” of catastrophic implications of anthropogenic global warming wasn’t so overwhelming after all.

[n0thingiscool]

Last week, the judge in Held v. Montana handed down a victory for the 16 young plaintiffs, who argued that the state’s continued production of fossil fuels violated their constitutional rights. Advocates say the landmark ruling could have broad ramifications for future climate litigation. But it’s also clear that Montana was woefully unprepared to face climate science on trial.

[rodgermalcolmmitchell]

How to be a climate and COVID denier by calling warnings, "panicked fearmongering."

If you were in a burning building and people yelled at you, “Get out, the building is on fire,” I assume Bjorn Lomborg and Jordan B. Peterson would call that “panicked fearmongering.” It is the only conclusion I can draw from the ridiculous Trumpian article published under their names. Stop the panicked fearmongering if we want to make the world better By Bjorn Lomborg and Jordan B. Peterson…