Dec 7, 2023Liked by Emily Atkin

I like the message that ending fossil fuels is a moral choice. Even if there is a genuine breakthrough in something like carbon capture, the whole life cycle of fossil fuels is still a problem for numerous reasons.

For example having to deal with oil spills, even if the emissions are captured at the end, is still immoral imo considering there are alternatives.

And I always appreciate links to papers so thank you for those!

Expand full comment
Dec 7, 2023Liked by Emily Atkin

"I encourage him to read the paper, it’s very good!"

Expand full comment

Classic gaslighting. Acting shocked is a dramatic touch. We all need to keep the pressure on — the absurd, irrational thing is to burn away our future. The sane, necessary thing is to phase out fossil fuels as fast as we possibly can.

Expand full comment

From Bob Dylan, Slow Train Coming, 1979

All that foreign oil controlling American soil

Look around you, it's just bound to make you embarrassed

Sheiks walkin' around like kings, wearing fancy jewels and nose rings

Deciding America's future from Amsterdam and to Paris

And there's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend

Expand full comment
Dec 8, 2023·edited Dec 8, 2023

I also like the message that fossil fuels are a moral choice. Pope Francis provides a different framework for understanding the choices. He asks that we work for sustainability in the spirit of integral ecology. For that to happen, we have to consider the second part of Sultan Al Jaber's comments: "Show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development..." To put that in other words, how can we get to 0 emissions, or even net 0, in a timely fashion if we force developing countries to live in an energy limited economy while the developed countries continue with an energy unlimited mindset? This requires an ecological conversion that includes both an adoption of simpler lifestyles for those who have more than they need and adequate development for those who have less than they need. It's hard to build a scientific model that includes changing people's hearts so that they are willing give up what they consider their right to a particular lifestyle. That's the work of faith leaders in conjunction with strong government policy.

Expand full comment

I am trained in the physical sciences, but I'm not a climate scientist. Because the major fossil fuel using countries have delayed taking action for so long, my assessment is that it will not be possible to keep the global average temperature at 1.5 degrees or below. When people say it is still possible, I interpret that to mean that it is theoretically possible, which is probably true.

Expand full comment

Wasn’t it at the last COP that there was a lot of discussion that many felt that 1.5 deg was barely still feasible? I guess another way of asking would be if all fossil fuel burning stopped tomorrow, would we hit 1.5 deg C yes or no? I thought that was the root of the discussions at the last COP, concerns about built in momentum. It is really hard to understand such a complex situation via one statement. Meeting 1.5 would require eliminating emissions from fossil fuels is a bit different than 1.5 won’t be breached if we stop tomorrow. Or am I messed up on this interpretation?

Expand full comment

Loved the box turtle! My cat, Chocolate, found one in the fall leaves in our backyard in Taos, NM. Our vet said someone had probably transported it to northern NM from a more southern county/ecosystem! Oscar lived with us a very long time!


Expand full comment

Carlin!!!!!! Those EYES! Be still my 💚

Expand full comment

COP28 will make sausage with out a recipe but us individuals can do much much more. We can get this ball rolling by electrifying our homes or work place our cars. We can put solar on our roofs enough solar that produces more than what is consumed the extra going back onto the grid. We can champion the expansion of Green energy rather than being NIMBYers. Champion storage champion off shore wind. As individuals we can do what COP28 can't. We can make it happen.

Expand full comment

I think the comments made by this guy was spot on!

Look… its very clear that we have significant dissension in the scientific ranks with many now saying ….

1. We do NOT have a climate emergency with many showing data that supports that most of the climate change is not driven by CO2 and therefore not humans, and that in the main it’s a good thing with no adverse effects.

2. Further, even if we do have such an emergency we don’t have the capability to mitigate it without prostrating our civilization even if it were an emergency. And that selective adaption is far easier and probably the best course of action.

Many of these scientists are what I call climate realists.

They also maintain that much of the science is subjugated with political and institutional suppression which makes any formal peer review process meaningless.

They have asked for an open scientific hearing but this has been avoided by the climate emergency groupthink.

To say they should not be listened too via a very well orchestrated scientific review is in its own way a high form of denialism….. far worse than what is leveled at these realists by the alarmists.

We know that the UN IPCC reports that most of the compliant scientists use to support the emergency rhetoric is suspect in that it keeps defending the position of a climate emergency with scientific papers that try to prove dangerous CO2 causation on global temperature using over-stated climate models that keep getting proved wrong, or discredited hockey stick trend charts, or the politicalized summary documents from the IPCC with recommended policies that in most cases are not supported by the scientific backup documents.

The best course of action is STOP all this NetZero action until a true review of the climate situation is held

The way forward is to stop listening to anyone other than the top scientists on BOTH sides of the climate change emergency argument, and let’s convene a well-organized scientific review without the current political subjugation or confinement of the truth.

This review should be facilitated by the best, and included should be experts in the science of risk assessment.

This process must not be anything to do with The UN or the IPCC as they are far too biased to be objective.

The western nations that have the most to get right should host this process.

It should invite all factions of the scientific spectrum.

The outcome should be journalized by the best media entities so that the funding can be communicated without censorship to the general public in their own language.

What’s interesting is that the scientific data is mostly not in dispute, but the interpretation and the weight of the risk management is where the dissent resides.

I would lock out any activists or lobbyists from this review process as they have been most of the problem in distorting facts and have had far too much say already.

Then, at the conclusion of this process a summary report signed by all will be produced that will summarise the findings into a “range” of concurrence and risks.

This will then be presented to national governments that will have to craft what is hoped will be meaningful and manageable policies that balance the environmental versus economic risks on behalf of their populations.

Anything less than this attempt at a future plan is irresponsible, and without such a review process we will continue to follow dissent and ineptitude leading to the destruction of our civilization.

More at… https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism

Expand full comment