@bertie_nuttall
Bertie Nuttall
37 w
The last three months of climate disasters alone have felt like the prelude to a classic disaster movie; warning signs that are leaving a breadcrumb trail towards an inevitable and irrevocable disaster. Wildfires in Greece, Maui, and Canada, record-breaking global temperatures, Pacific Ocean sea levels rising well beyond the average. And with it, there seems to be a growing sentiment of "Climate Doomism" that is spreading as quickly as wildfire amongst the younger generations as they grow apathetic towards the increasingly dangerous inaction of governments, businesses, and peers. But is Doomism a luxury we can afford? The Lancet, a planetary publication, recently surveyed 10,000 children and young people (aged 16–25 years) in ten countries on their "thoughts and feelings about climate change, and government responses to climate change." The study found that while nearly everyone felt at least moderately worried about the climate crisis, a whopping 83% of respondents believed that governments and policy makers have failed - with little to be done now to solve this crisis. The study's findings are upsetting, but they are hardly surprising, especially when, in relation to the climate crisis, the one thing global governments can be consistently defined as is: Inconsistent. I believe it's partly why activist activities have also reached a tipping point, as they now stand in direct antagonism to civil life, discourse, and dialogue. And this makes sense when you look at certain polls or studies on youth attitudes towards climate action, or rather, inaction. A recent Science Direct poll of young people in Norway found that "anger" was the most prevalent emotion amongst young people. "People should feel angry because they had been deliberately deceived by fossil fuel companies and governments had let that happen, said Dr Laura Thomas-Walters, a social scientist at the Yale Programme on Climate Communication and an activist with Extinction Rebellion, who was not involved in the studies. The link from anger to activism was logical, she added. “It’s in the name that activism is an ‘active’ behaviour, and anger can spur action.” Yet at the same time, anger and frustration can lead to as much inaction as not. For many young people, a state of apathy seems to be the most appropriate response to global temperatures. So, it seems like there are really only two options: Defect towards green extremism or embrace apathy and give up. But is the only response that one can or should have to the climate crisis? Or is it simply a inevitable result to the sensational way in which media portrays global warming? The unsung successes of the climate crisis As Pilita Clark's FT article points out: "It is not hard to see doomist thinking spread, especially in a year such as this when a warming El Niño climate pattern is adding to a baseline of human-caused higher temperatures." But with that being said, it is often the case that climate disaster takes centre stage over climate solutions. In other words, the negative is far more tractional in a media setting, that it overshadows all the amazing work being done for climate action. So, naturally, this leads to a far more skewed perception of the state of the climate crisis than what is reflected in reality. To the point where the negative sentiment races ahead of even the dire warnings of scientists. When in reality, there is a constant stream of reasons to be "climate-positive", from investments into new solar projects, to innovations like water batteries, and wind farms having the potential to generate 33% of all energy. Yet it's incredibly difficult for people to access these stories, because every second headline on their newsfeed or For You page bends the narrative towards despair rather than hope. And this is dangerous, because the reality is that neither Doomism nor marginalizing activism provides a through-lane for collective climate action. Why Doomism is as bad as Denial The Doomist mentality is not something that is exclusive to the climate crisis. Young people have warranted reasons to be apathetic about many things. House prices, job opportunities, AI turning them into batteries to power their automatons... etc, etc. But as pointed out in a recent Washington Post article on the matter, "the problem with climate “doom” — beyond the toll that it can create on mental health — is that it can cause paralysis." What's more, it has reached such a state of apathy that many have taken to perpetuating it as hard and as dogmatically as climate deniers spread their denial. So much so, that they actively combat hopeful rhetoric or attempts at reducing hysteria... even if they come from climate scientists themselves. “It’s fair to say that recently many of us climate scientists have spent more time arguing with the doomers than with the deniers,” said Zeke Hausfather, a contributing author to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, in certain cases they outright accuse climate scientists who try and calm the climate worry down as corporate oil shills who are somehow furthering the carbon agenda. Regardless of the severity of their accusations, though, the reality stays the same: There's no solutions from a Doomist society. Extreme action or extreme inaction? On the other side of the activity spectrum naturally lies the climate activists. However, while this can be a very broad term describing anyone from an IPCC scientist to a Just Stop Oil advocate, the most common association with the term in the news and headlines at the moment is the latter, not the former. Indeed, these are the most vocal and emotive groups when it comes to climate action, but their format of solutions seems to be entirely anti-establishment and in many cases anarchistic. At the present moment, from a PR standpoint, these groups are doing a better job at alienating the everyday person from the climate crisis discussion, as their modus operandi is disruption rather than dialogue or lobbying. But with these two groups being the most vocal and passionately disimpassioned, it leaves real estate for solutions-based dialogue and climate positivity to take place. We should not be in a position where a solutions society is backseat to a Doomist or activist one. A concerted effort for solutions Climate solutions are being discovered every day, every week, every month. Some of them are quite literally ground-breaking, like the recent study that highlighted the potential of soil as a carbon sequestration tool. However, even the most amazing climate solutions won't take centre stage if they're not giving the spotlight they deserve. This isn't to say that climate disasters and tragedies shouldn't get the attention they deserve either, but part and parcel of changing the narrative is making sure that climate love gets appreciated in the ways that it should, particularly when it's love that inspires positive, collaborative action. We don't have the luxury of Doomism if we actually want to solve the climate crisis.
Bertie Nuttall
37 w
A big climate love to Downforce and Jacqueline McGlade for their recent work that has uncovered the potential net-zero solution hiding right underneath our feet: Soil. Downforce’s research suggests that making marginal improvements to agricultural soils worldwide could be the key to keeping global heating within the critical 1.5°C threshold. Apparently, by making improvements that result in 1% more carbon being stored in approximately half of the world's agricultural soils could absorb a staggering 31 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide annually. This amount nearly aligns with the 32 gigatonnes gap between current emissions reduction plans and the targets set to limit global heating. By embracing innovative farming techniques and investing in the health of our soils, we can take significant steps towards closing the gap to net-zero and securing a more sustainable future for generations to come. And this isn’t the only study that corroborates this finding, as Beef Central’s recent study has outlined some similar, albeit modest carbon sequestration improvements in Australia. As the World Economic Forum's Tania Strauss rightly stated, "Soil is like a bank account" - it's time we invest in its richness for the benefit of both the planet and ourselves.” By adopting smarter farming techniques that enhance fertility, yield, and carbon storage, we can potentially close the gap between planned emissions reduction and the carbon cuts needed by 2030 to stay on track for a safer climate future. And what this discovery truly showcases is that there are more solutions out there waiting to be discovered. We’re already harnessing the power of renewables, circular economies & business models, and carbon reduction, and yet there’s still more we’re uncovering that helps inch us closer to our net zero goals. In other words, We Can Do It! https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/improving-farming-soil-carbon-store-global-heating-target
109 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
•
37 w
👍
•
•
•
37 w
Very interesting. Would love to know more about this study.
•
37 w
This is astonishing and amazing; WOW I will immediately contact my farmer friend - farmer with an a ! - to discuss this
Bertie Nuttall
38 w
The consensus on how problematic climate change is on the left end of the political spectrum is pretty resolute: They see it as the problem of the century. The consensus for many conservatives is just as resolute, albeit a little less impassioned, falling somewhere between, “So what?” and climate change being a left-wing authoritarian conspiracy. Granted, this perception was created by viewing online debates on the subject, which as we all know, definitely don’t highlight the most extreme opinions on each end of the political spectrum. …Right? However, the general trends I’ve been seeing across more conservative spaces online (outside of Infowars or Fox News) is a genuine sense of disenfranchisement with the issue. They understand that climate change is bad, most sensible people do. But the issue seems to be the pundits that are put up to push the issues onto the general public. Rather, it’s how the problem is conveyed to the general public that seems to turn right-wingers off faster than picturing Donald Trump in a thong. The problem with moralizing the climate crisis: No-one likes to be lectured at. No-one likes to be told they're part of a problem solely by going about their day to day. Life is pretty hard as it is. Especially for the everyday person. The last thing you want to think about while bills go through the roof, the property ladder slips continuously out of reach, and your job market becomes ever narrower is that the planet is on fire. Or worse yet, that you’re part of the reason it’s on fire because you decided to eat out at McDonalds twice in a row last week. And when that opinion comes from a group of people gluing themselves to the tarmac of the motorway you use to drive to work, or from a teenager yelling at you from the podium of a UN conference, it only makes it easier for you to dismiss the problem out of hand. Emotive actions tend to yield emotive responses. If someone on the street started yelling at you all the reasons why you’re a bad person, you’d likely start yelling back. You’re also far less likely to try and engage that person to figure out any kind of common ground - which is exactly what is needed to fight the climate crisis at full tilt. And in relation to climate change, it makes the opinions of smartly dressed, well-spoken, climate deniers that much more attractive to the average joe or jane. Even though when it comes to the collective well-being of the entire planet, they don’t have your interests in mind at all. There was a very recent example of this that went viral was an interview that went on between MP Jacob Rees-Mogg and a Just Stop Oil activist, Phoebe Plumber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AbAurKzI48 The interview quickly heated up, as Mogg made several dismissive and critical comments of Just Stop Oil’s activist practices, challenging Plumber on how we can realistically “just stop oil” without bringing the world economy grinding to a halt. To which, Plumber had no direct answers aside from “I’m not a scientist” and several appeals to morality, such as, “people are dying”, or “think of your children”. While from a scientific standpoint, Plumber is right, this sort of emotions-based appeals sadly have the opposite effect that you’d want them to have. You can be sympathetic to it, after all, scientists have been presenting data year after year about the damage that we’re doing to the planet and it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. But when rhetoric becomes impassioned and emotional, it puts more of a sense of control in the hands of people who favour inaction in the climate crisis, because they appear more measured, controlled, and sensible. And in many ways, their position is far more comfortable and attractive. Rather than advocating for a radical change to our economies, systems of governance, and lifestyles, what Mogg and others like him are suggesting is that stability and lack of change are okay. The current “popular” climate solutions don’t speak to conservative values: Here’s a little insight into what many conservatives hear when you talk about specific climate issues. 1. “We need smarter systems of transportation.” - “You want me to get rid of my car.” 2. “Air travel needs to be reduced.” - “You’re trying to make my next holiday unaffordable - or even canceled.” 3. “We need more policies to protect the planet.” - “You’re trying to restrict my freedoms.” 4. “We need to consume more plant-based foods.” - “You’re trying to regulate my diet. And the reason that this happens is because of who is delivering this message and the tone of the message itself. A lot of the rhetoric is about restriction: “Reducing fossil fuel consumption”, “Eating less meat”, “Going on fewer holidays”. And in a very red, white, and blue way - this is anathema to anyone who holds individual liberty very close to their heart. But is this really because climate change is a tree-hugging, hippie-attracting, intersectional, ultra-progressive, communist movement? Many conservatives see it marketed as such - but the reality is that it isn’t. The climate crisis represents challenges but also massive opportunities and that’s where it currently needs a correction in messaging. The four tenets of conservative values: "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." - William F. Buckley Jr., conservative intellectual. To really get to grips with how climate action and climate arguments can be made to appeal to the average climate skeptic or conservative, I believe we need to change the narrative from that of life-threatening moralization to that of long-term opportunities. Defacing world-famous art or spraying a building with orange paint while chanting “Just stop oil” while effective to an extent, are sadly now doing more harm than good. At best, they’re going to make people laugh and sneer at you, and at worst, they’re going to push people ever further away from climate action. So, here are some frameworks you can use to understand how a conservative mind tends to think: Preference for stability and tradition: Conservatives often value the stability and continuity provided by existing social, economic, and political systems. They believe that long-standing institutions and traditions have evolved over time and embody the wisdom of the past. They may view changes to the status quo as disruptive, potentially leading to unintended consequences and undermining societal order. Skepticism of rapid change: Conservatives tend to be cautious about rapid or radical transformations, preferring incremental and gradual modifications. They argue that abrupt changes can disregard historical context, disregard potential negative consequences, and fail to consider the unintended impact on established values and social structures. Value preservation: Conservatives generally prioritize the preservation of traditional values, cultural norms, and institutions. They often view societal changes as eroding these values, potentially leading to a loss of social cohesion, moral relativism, or dilution of cultural identity. Consequently, they may resist changes that challenge or deviate from their perceived core values. Limited government intervention: Many conservatives advocate for limited government intervention and emphasize individual freedom and personal responsibility. They may be skeptical of policy changes that increase the scope of government involvement, seeing them as encroachments on individual liberties and free-market dynamics. Changes to the status quo that involve government regulations or interventions may face resistance from conservatives who prioritize limited government involvement. With these values in mind, it’s actually really easy to see why conservatives tend towards an aversion to climate action. To many of them, it’s a government-mandated upheaval of the systems, values, and structures that they’ve lived in their entire lives. Then, when that opinion is touted by leaders who routinely do the opposite of what they’re preaching, either with a private jet or an under-the-table oil deal, it becomes even harder to come onside for climate action. Now obviously, this is painting the situation with a very broad brush. Not all conservatives or right-leaning people feel this way about climate action. Not all conservatives are pro-life or pro second amendment. Despite what online social media platforms would have you believe, people are capable of many nuanced opinions. But when it comes to an issue like climate change, which should be the most impartial, objective and logical issue to have an opinion on, you need to take note when an entire wing of political thought is feeling disenfranchised. At this point, if you’re still reading that is, you might be asking: So, what can we do about this? The answer: Make climate action appeal to a conservative mind. The opportunities of the climate crisis: There was a time in the early 20th century where the idea of a single person using a petrol-powered vehicle to travel from place to place by themselves was laughable. During the early days of automobiles, they were considered expensive, unreliable, and difficult to operate and maintain. Many people were accustomed to horse-drawn carriages, and the idea of motorized vehicles seemed strange and impractical. A famous newspaper article published in the States, for example, told automobile fans to just “Get a horse!”. Now, that sort of skepticism seems dated and even a little bit funny. But the same pattern is repeating now… only the problem is that it’s at the expense of the planet. Worse, the opportunities that come with a green transition are easily overshadowed by over-emotional rhetoric and doomsday warnings. When the reality is, there are limitless opportunities and benefits to a green transition that would get any frontier libertarian to give a standing ovation. From energy independence, natural preservation, technological innovation, green sector jobs, increased life expectancy, and lower energy costs. And we also get to save the planet. The issue as I see it is that the entire argument has become a polarized political position, like gun control or pro-choice vs pro-life. Is the climate crisis a marketing problem? We need to reclaim the opportunities of the climate crisis if we’re going to make a total shift globally towards a greener society. Like it or not, too, we need every end of the political spectrum on-side to solve it. So, maybe, the best solution is to change how we’re currently communicating the problem… by seeing it as ONLY a problem.
Bertie Nuttall
40 w
The world has entered a new and alarming phase of climate change as global temperatures continue to rise, leading to what the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has aptly termed the "era of global boiling." The scorching temperatures that July 2023 has brought have broken records, and scientists warn that this month is set to be the hottest ever recorded. As the mercury climbs, so does the urgency for immediate and dramatic climate action. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the EU’s Copernicus Earth observation program have confirmed the relentless surge in global temperatures, attributing it to the burning of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect. Humanity is now facing extreme weather events on a scale that poses a significant threat to lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems worldwide. The evidence is unequivocal - humans are to blame. The call for climate action is not new, but the situation has become more urgent than ever. The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is now a must, and leaders worldwide must act decisively. Guterres stresses that climate action is not a luxury but a necessity. The consequences of inaction are already manifesting in deadly heatwaves that have struck continents like southern Europe, North America, and China, causing temperatures to surge to levels that would have been virtually impossible without human-caused climate change. Climate scientists warn that if we don't act swiftly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, we will continue to face even deadlier and more frequent extreme weather events. The longer we delay taking action, the more frequent and severe these conditions will become. Yet, despite the dire situation, there is a glimmer of hope. Could climate inaction have reached a tipping point? The global effort to transition away from fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy sources has shown progress, albeit not fast enough. The robust rollout of renewables and some positive steps from sectors like shipping are commendable, but they fall short of what is required to avert catastrophic climate change. World leaders have a crucial opportunity to make a difference at the United Arab Emirates meeting in November, where they will discuss strategies to prevent further planet heating, adapt to extreme weather events, and provide financial support for damage mitigation. One of the central challenges is breaking free from the grip of the oil era. The fossil fuel industry has been a dominant force in global economies, but its negative impact on the climate has become undeniable. Transitioning to cleaner energy sources is not just inevitable but also essential for the survival of our planet and future generations. There are voices of reason emerging, even from within the oil industry. The president of the Cop28 summit and head of the United Arab Emirates' national oil company, Sultan Al Jaber, acknowledges that phasing down fossil fuels is both inevitable and essential. The urgency to plan and cooperate in this transition cannot be underestimated, and financial support must be scaled up to ensure a smooth shift away from fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency's roadmap to net-zero emissions highlights the need to halt the approval of new oil and gas fields, yet some governments have granted licenses for more drilling. However, amidst the alarming warnings and dire predictions, there are voices and actions that offer hope and direction in the fight against climate catastrophe. One such voice is Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, who speaks candidly about the urgent need for climate action and the inability to wait for people like former President Donald Trump and "knucklehead" to understand the gravity of the situation. The time for action is now, and that action begins with voting against climate deniers and leaders who refuse to address the climate crisis. The urgency of the climate crisis is further underscored by Christiana Figueres, who has long advocated for cooperation with the oil and gas industry to achieve a sustainable future. However, recent trends in the industry's behaviour have changed her perspective. "Their unprecedented profits over the past year have shown their unwillingness to adapt. It’s now D-Day for them," says Figueres. Despite unprecedented profits, many oil companies are not prioritizing meaningful decarbonization efforts. Instead, they are cutting back on commitments, paying out higher dividends to shareholders, and exploring new sources of fossil fuels. So, if fossil fuel won't adapt to a climate-positive future, we need to focus our attention on those industries and policymakers who are. And the momentum for renewable energy is undeniable, as the world is witnessing exponential growth in clean energy investments. For every dollar invested in fossil fuels, $1.7 is now going into clean energy projects. Solar energy is projected to attract more capital than oil production this year, and greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector are expected to fall for the first time as renewables continue to gain market share. Consumers are also benefiting from significant savings, as wind and solar energy help keep electricity prices down. In other words, the world is moving against fossil fuels, we just need to increase our momentum towards a green, renewables-based future. Balancing the planet on a knife's edge The era of global boiling is upon us, and there is no room for hesitancy, excuses, or waiting for others to act. The time for accelerated climate action is now, and the decisions we make in the coming years will determine the future of our planet. Let us embrace renewable energy, support sustainable practices, and protect the environment for the sake of current and future generations. We still have time to turn the tide and ensure a liveable future for all. Which is exactly why business leaders and climate activists have come together to sign the We Can Do It pledge to put pressure on governments and businesses to move away from a fossil-driven economy. If the events of the last month alone are any indication, too, we don't have the luxury of time to wait. So, make sure you check out our pledge, sign, and share it, so we can expedite the end of the fossil fuel era. https://www.wecandoit.tech/
•
39 w
We all need to work as an individual first then as a group and stop making excuses
•
•
•
40 w
No more hesitancy or excuses. The consequences are tragic we all need to join this call of change makers and demand for action now. Indeed time is not in our side, failure to that we will get ourselves to catch 22 situations, whereby all of us we will say, we got more than what we bargain for, sadly,maybe it will be too late.
•
40 w
Climate is changing
Bertie Nuttall
43 w
As the climate crisis intensifies, innovative solutions are needed to combat rising carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon capture technology, specifically Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), holds immense potential in our fight against climate change. With recent advancements and increasing momentum, BECCS is poised to play a transformative role in our journey towards a sustainable future. Understanding BECCS and Its Current Progress: BECCS involves capturing carbon dioxide from biogenic sources and storing it permanently. Currently, the annual capture of biogenic CO2 stands at approximately 2 Mt, primarily in bioethanol applications. However, based on ongoing projects, carbon removal through BECCS is projected to reach around 40 Mt CO2 per year by 2030. While this falls short of the estimated 250 Mt/yr target for BECCS in the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, the momentum behind BECCS has grown significantly in recent years. Although, according to the IEA by 2030 we will need to remove 250 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year through BECCS compared to the mere 1 million tonnes today. But how does it actually work? How Carbon Capture Works Carbon capture technology, specifically Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage, works by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from biogenic sources and permanently storing them. The process can be broken down into three simple steps: 1. Capturing CO2: First, carbon dioxide is captured from biogenic sources like power plants or industrial facilities. These sources produce CO2 as a byproduct of their operations. Specialized equipment is used to trap and separate the CO2 from other gases before it is released into the atmosphere. 2. Bioenergy Production: In the next step, bioenergy comes into play. Instead of relying solely on fossil fuels, bioenergy uses renewable sources such as plants, crops, or organic waste. These biomass materials are converted into energy through processes like combustion or fermentation. This bioenergy production generates CO2 as well. 3. Storage and Permanent Removal: Here comes the crucial part. The captured CO2 from both the biogenic sources and bioenergy production is then transported to storage sites. These sites can be deep underground, such as depleted oil and gas fields or saline aquifers. The CO2 is injected into these storage reservoirs, where it remains trapped and isolated from the atmosphere, effectively removing it from the carbon cycle. By combining the capture of CO2 emissions from biogenic sources and the use of renewable bioenergy, BECCS enables the removal and storage of CO2 that would have otherwise been released into the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect and climate change. Rapid Growth and Deployment: The interest in BECCS has surged, with plans for over 50 new facilities involving BECCS announced between January 2021 and June 2022. These projects, across various BECCS applications, are expected to contribute to a biogenic capture capacity of approximately 20 Mt CO2 per year. The increased focus can be attributed to the net-zero commitments made by companies and countries worldwide, recognizing the urgency of addressing climate change. Scaling Up for a Sustainable Future: To effectively mitigate climate change, the scaling up of BECCS and other carbon capture technologies is paramount. While the current progress is promising, it is crucial to accelerate the deployment of BECCS to meet the ambitious targets set for 2030 and beyond. Collaboration between governments, industries, and research institutions is essential to foster innovation, optimize efficiency, and overcome existing challenges. The Moonshot Mentality: Just as the moon landing exemplified the extraordinary achievements possible through determination and collaboration, the scale-up of carbon capture technologies embodies a similar spirit. The urgency of the climate crisis necessitates bold and transformative solutions. By embracing the potential of BECCS and other carbon capture techniques, we can pave the way for a sustainable future, ensuring the well-being of our planet and future generations. Conclusion: Carbon capture technology, particularly BECCS, offers a ground-breaking approach to addressing the climate crisis. With the capacity to capture and permanently store biogenic carbon dioxide, BECCS has the potential to make a significant impact on reducing emissions and stabilizing the Earth's climate. The growing momentum behind BECCS, evident in the increasing number of projects and commitments, signifies a collective determination to combat climate change. You can read more here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/07/pioneering-carbon-dioxide-moonshot-tackle-climate-change/
•
•
43 w
With the implementation of carbon capture techniques, we could greatly impact our emission numbers and reduce carbon footprints
Bertie Nuttall
46 w
Amongst IPCC reports, growing green initiatives, and climate transformations, there still seems to be an undercurrent of climate cynicism that is poisoning the well for the next generation. Granted, it’s a far cry from the 1980s or 1990s, where climate change was seen as some ephemeral scientific myth or pretext for a piece of Science-Fiction writing. At the very least, the general public and the younger generations know that climate change is an issue… however, on many platforms it seems to be treated with at best, a casual dismissal, and at worst, outright cynicism. Go to TikTok or YouTube Shorts and type in "climate change debate". It won't be long before you come across a number of clips, mostly at university campuses, with (usually conservative) political commentators "exposing" or "DESTROYING" climate change. Right-wing internet personalities such as Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Ben Shapiro are able to, in 60 seconds or less, supposedly undermine the notion that climate change is a problem. While they have become somewhat progressive in their thinking; they don't outright say that man-made climate change is a hoax, for example, their rhetoric is often dismissive, politicized, and based more on "gotcha" intellectual wins than any actual data. Their general consensus seems to be that while the climate is indeed changing, humans are either A: not responsible for it, or B: it's not a big deal. They also tend to go one step further, especially when they're presented with actual data such as the reports from the IPCC, and will flat out deny the data's validity, because it comes from the left-wing, despite the fact that the latest report alone was based on 66,000 peer-reviewed studies and validated across 150 countries. Dr Jordan Peterson is one big example and despite being a psychologist and scientist who prides himself on informed and data-driven opinions in a number of areas, argues that while climate change is real, the climate is, for one, always changing outside of human control, and for another, that the solutions are somehow part of a globalist conspiracy to manipulate society into a collectivist herd. Speaking at the Cambridge Union in 2018, one of his initial comments when asked about climate change was that "it's very difficult to separate the science from the politics" and that switching to wind and solar are not going to work. Even more volatilely, he stated that in regards to climate data, “following the science is bullshit”. As a climate scientist, Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, from the University of New South Wales Canberra pointed out swiftly after, “He sounds intelligent, but he’s completely wrong.” But the fact is that he does sound intelligent, whether what he’s saying is or not. And narratives start with who says it and how well they spread it. You can see the results for yourself online. Despite being debunked by actual scientists, comments like Dr. Peterson’s are still being repurposed today into 30 second video-bites that flood For You pages everywhere, gaining millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes. It seems that while climate denial is out, climate dismissal is in. And one of the big problems with this in 2023 is that these kinds of views are easier to sell than ever due to the state of modern social media. One minute videos are now the norm, especially for the younger generations. Nuance is out. Speed is in. And if you're able to poke a hole in climate science fast enough without rebuttal, it can be quite easy to change narratives in your favour. Of course, this is frustrating considering that every economic assessment of climate change suggests that it’s going to cost the world economy more than if we didn’t fix it. But at the same time, it’s understandable. Why? Well, there are two big reasons, in my opinion. For one, the current state of online media heavily favours short form content. Since TikTok went live in 2016, every “For You” page from YouTube to Instagram has adapted their format to conform to a younger, shorter attention span. For another, authority beats data. Our collective perceptions of who is right or who is wrong is predicated fundamentally on who has the biggest presence and who we identify with. A study published in the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition found, for example, that people tend to rely on short, easily digestible information when forming opinions, especially in fast-paced online environments. And this plays right into the people whose currency is controversy and opinion-based echo chambers. So, who’s voice is going to cut through the noise on the climate crisis? The controversial media personality pumping out a dozen 60 second “debate” videos every week to his 2 million followers? Or the scientific report explained in detail in a two hour livestream lecture? The reality is that climate change is complex, from the data curated by scientists, to the reports detailing what it means, to the solutions put in place to combat it. Not to mention, it’s incredibly understandable why these opinions are so popular. Climate anxiety is on the rise and there’s no better way to remedy it than to have someone you perceive to have authority on the matter tell you that it’s not a big deal. But the concerning reality is that it could easily lead to a generation that is as apathetic about the state of the planet as their grandparents in the 80s. A recent Hubhub study found that while “there is undoubtedly a large group of young people who are highly concerned and vocal about climate change… overall they are actually less concerned than the older generation (55% of 16-24 year olds compared with 66% of over 55s)”. So, how do we combat this? By playing the narrative game better than those who dismiss the climate crisis. This requires bridging the gap between scientific research and public understanding through engaging and accessible means of communication. The power of short-form content and the authority it carries in shaping public opinion cannot be ignored. In other words, we need to make climate science and climate action Gen-Z friendly. This requires advocacy from individuals who do not inherently conform to either ends of the political spectrum and to whom young people connect with authority and who are able to diversify their content beyond the long-form video or the written word. You can see the impact this has even if only one of those conditions are fulfilled. Take for example the traction of David Attenborough with younger generations, or the advocacy done by Professor Brian Cox. These individuals aren’t necessarily TikTok celebrities, but their ability to command respect and advocate still attracts more attention for climate change and climate solutions. But sadly their ability to influence will continually diminish unless advocates are able to adapt to the media consumption preferences of the younger generations. With the lack of representation from individuals debunking climate dismissal both on the left and the right, it may be time for new advocates to take to the stage.
•
42 w
A very important article. Thank you Bertie!
•
46 w
Very good article Bertie. It took me longer than 30 seconds to read it, but read it to the end I did. When I was director of comms at UNEP, I always thought that somehow if we get the public behind us then governments would have to do the right thing, and then the cities and business in short order. Why? cause especially the current young and next generations have the most to lose. Then I realized that perhaps moving the public would not work, the public is too distracted not just by social media, but by staying alive in developing countries and the rich ones trying to hold down one or two jobs especially when they hit the marriage and kids stage. But there are others who have alot to lose. Companies who have now invested in the science, who fear extreme weather will trash their supply chains and so on. So I think they know what is at risk, and some have the power and the influence to force governments to ask if they choose too (knowing full well that on the other side are some big companies that do not want us to change cause they get and sell the shit that is causing climate change in the first place). I suppose, when it comes to the public maybe we need less to back climate action to change the world than we think.....the BBC reported that 3.5 per cent is need, another report from the world economic forum put it at 25 per cent....I think the issue is that has to happen in every country, everywhere in my opinion..and we are not there yet..but we could be nearer than we think. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/want-to-change-society-s-views-here-s-how-many-people-you-ll-need-on-your-side/ A great article, and excellent debate!
•
•
46 w
Very well written and I agree with everything here- I can't believe how climate has become politicised and how much weight people attribute to the opinions of people who have no expertise other than being all over social media. Very frustrating..
Bertie Nuttall
129 w
Live now! 13:15-13:45 Nordic Pavilion: Daily briefing from COP26: We open the backdoor to the UN Climate Change Negotiations and give you the latest updates straight from the Nordic Pavilion in Glasgow. Tune in! Live from the Nordic Pavilion in Glasgow we give you access to the ongoing negotiations at COP26. In a joint event with the Nordic COP26 Hub in Helsinki we give you a unique opportunity to ask your questions straight to the people in charge. Speakers: Tinna Hallgrímsdóttir, chairperson of the Icelandic Youth Environmentalist Association and UN Youth Delegate for Sustainable Development Finnur Ricart Andrason, climate representative of the Icelandic Youth Environmentalist Association and UN Youth Delegate for Climate Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytSPG4fP9JI
Bertie Nuttall
129 w
“The Australian Government came to Cop26 to get away with doing as little as possible. It only agreed to net zero by 2050 two days before Prime Minister Scott Morrison took off [for Glasgow]." These are the words of former Australian COP negotiator Richie Merzian in response to Australia's presence at the summit, and he added that “the Australian government has over 100 new fossil fuel projects in the pipeline. It is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world after Russia and Saudi Arabia and it should be seen in the same grouping as Russia and Saudi Arabia.” This is a frustrating depiction of the country, as they are indeed one of the lynchpin states that holds many of the conversations between key players together as permanent chair of the "umbrella group" of nations that aren't part of the EU - and the fact that they aren't leading by example shows that they are fundamentally unphased or unwilling to commit to the same goals, deals and pledges of other nations, despite their massive carbon impact. Indeed, Merzian added that, due to its own inaction, Australia is setting an unhealthy expectation for the rest of the world who look to it as a model example. stating that: ‘If Australia doesn’t do it as a wealthy developed country, why should [other states]?’ And as of now, Australia is ranked in the bottom 60 of countries for its policy reformations in response to climate change, both at the COP and in general. Australia’s resources minister, Keith Pitt, actually stated that as the country is such a major fossil fuel exporter, they would continue to produce as much coal as other countries would buy, flying in the face of the pledges of so many other big nations to massively reduce or completely phase out their coal production. And the best report the country got in terms of its green action, came in the renewable energy category, where it narrowly missed an overall “low” rating. With other countries settling their differences, like the United States and China, and even small nations stepping up to massively reduce their dependency on fossil fuels, it is incredibly frustrating to see one of the largest emitters on the planet dragging its heels and refusing to take significant action. You can read more on the story here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/australia-ranked-last-of-60-countries-for-policy-response-to-climate-crisis And this video really encapsulates the Australian attitude to the summit and climate change in general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyKmqEdgR4
39 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
129 w
Brilliant but sad that it’s true…
Bertie Nuttall
130 w
Live! 18:00-19:00 Nordic Pavilion: No climate policy is gender neutral. Here is why — How climate policies impact gender in a Nordic context No climate policies are gender neutral. Still gender-neutral thinking tends to threaten socially responsible climate policies. This COP26-event will shed light on how climate policies impact gender in a Nordic context. We raise the critical question of who enjoys the benefits of the transition to a carbon neutral Nordic region? Speakers: Rikke-Fischer Bogason Katrine Weber Nina Lander Svendsen Aaron Tuckey Organizer: The sustainable consultancy PlanMiljø https://youtu.be/y0AwfoCegZQ
Bertie Nuttall
130 w
The British Government has given Rolls Royce the contract and capital (£210m) to complete "mini" nuclear reactors in an effort to reach net carbon zero faster. These new, smaller reactors supposedly take a fraction of the time to construct, and can be transported to relevant power sites, rather than having to build a whole new reactor from the ground up. Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said that this funding would be a "once in a lifetime opportunity" for the UK, and that these nuclear stations are also set to receive £250m worth of private sector funding on top of the capital of the government. Additionally, the Business Secretary cites that this new funding and creating of these mini plants could create as many as 40,000 new jobs in the nuclear sector, as there are plans to have as many as 16 of these smaller reactors built by 2030. Nuclear energy is certainly "green" in the sense that it doesn't burn fossil fuels in order to produce energy, but there are valid concerns that leaning on this form of energy, with its inherent risks, are simply "workarounds" from making the necessary effort required to completely transition to renewable energy sources. But Conservative MP Chris Skidmore says that this shouldn't be seen as an all or nothing strategy, and that the Britain needs to "open its eyes to the combined value of nuclear and hydrogen as a complementary strategy alongside renewable energy". It's difficult to know how to feel about this situation, because on the one hand, any expediting of the transition to a Net Zero economy is vital for Britain's net zero goals, but relying too heavily on nuclear energy in the short term could make the ultimate transition to renewables delayed, more difficult and expensive in the future. You can read more here: https://news.sky.com/story/cop26-government-gives-210m-backing-for-mini-nuclear-reactors-to-hit-net-zero-more-quickly-12464233 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD0lx_b8jNM
68 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
129 w
Hmm. Nuclear may not be perfect, but allusions to its "inherent dangers" reflect mainly the efforts of irrational anti-nuclear fanatics over the past half century. Every coal-fired power plant in the world has killed more people with its pollution than died as a direct result of Chernobyl, which was the ONLY reactor accident to ever kill ANYONE directly. In fact, there have been more fatalities in the wind and solar power industries than from reactors. This nonsense has to stop! Meanwhile, if nuclear takes up the load and proves both safe and economical in the long run, WHY do you think it should only be a stop-gap measure until we can replace it all with "renewables"? Wind & solar absolutely have a place, but their place is not to push every other option out forever. We're in a war; don't shoot at the guys wearing the same uniform as you!
Bertie Nuttall
130 w
Live now! 18:15-19:0 Nordic Pavilion: What is the role of carbon capture and storage in climate mitigation? — Dialogue on frameworks to scale carbon capture and storage and Negative Emissions Technologies Technologies to capture carbon for storage (or use) and Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) are critical to reach 1.5°C pathways. Join us for an evening reception and dialogue on possible enabling frameworks for scaling NETs and CCS or CCU, and their role in broader mitigation strategies. Speakers: Ruth Herbert Kiane de Kleijne Matthias Honegger Hanna-Mari Ahonen Vincent de Gooyert Organizer: Climate Strategies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq7EY_KLerc
Bertie Nuttall
130 w
Youtubers aren't often people you associate with activism, but there is one internet star who has created a pretty ambitious mission. He is planning on cleaning the entire ocean. Mr. Beast rose to fame when he created a series of challenge emails, such as staying in a swimming pool for 24 hours, or trying to drive a tank through a city centre. But now he's turned his attention to the plastic-ridden seas and beaches of the world, partnering with a former Nasa Engineer to execute a massive fund-raising operation that will completely rid the ocean of its trash. The initiative, called Team Seas has already removed over 13million pounds of trash from the ocean, and has a direct, simple pledge system where donators can see exactly how much trash they've helped clean from the seas. Mr Beast has already raised over $12m dollars through a series of videos and challenges online, one of which was cleaning the world's dirtiest beach, which puts him halfway to his goal of raising $30m total to clean as much of the ocean as possible. Pledgers can also receive merchandise, such as hoodies, jumpers, and hats - all the proceeds of which go directly to the fundraise - and it's really impressive to see just how much capital, action and hype one person can create by turning eco-friendly action into an exciting challenge. You can check out TeamSeas here: https://teamseas.org/ And watch one of Mr Beast's latest vids where they clean the dirtiest beach in the world, coast to coast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV2gBU6hKfY
78 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
130 w
Mr. Beast, you are a BEAST. This world needs more like you. 👏🙏
Bertie Nuttall
130 w
Greta Thunberg is set to lead the climate action protests today in Glasgow during the continuing talks at COP26. There seems to be a massive disconnect between the activists protesting the Summit and the politicians and world leaders inside - despite the fact that they are essentially pushing for the same results. Greta has famously said that she, and other youth activists, have had enough "blah blah blah" from politicians, and that what the activists are doing is "leadership", while the deals being agreed upon at COP26 are simply grandstanding by politicians. But there have been a lot of successes already from pledges, deals, and roadmaps that have been agreed upon by those at the COP, and it's disheartening to see a narrative of "us" vs "them" seeming to drive the disparity between these two groups. Today, an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 people are walking from Kelvingrove Park at 11.30am before making their way to George Square in Glasgow’s city centre, coinciding with Youth and Public Empowerment Day. To help close the chasm between the world leaders and the activists, it would be nice to see some of the big players at COP26 engage in dialogue with these youth activists, both to establish mutual understanding and to prevent a continued narrative of adversity between two parties that are both fighting for our planet. Sure, the COP isn't without its fair bit of "blah blah blah", but concrete promises and the sums that have been released to make those promises a reality is better than no action at all. After all, we all want the same thing, to prevent a temperature rise higher than 1.5 degrees, to transition away from fossil fuels as an energy source globally, and to make sustainable economies the status quo. So, hopefully these protests won't simply end with more discontent between those inside the COP and those in George Square, but with an open dialogue that allows both sides to close the gap between their aims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGryhvkKIC0
88 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Bertie Nuttall
130 w
Live now! 11:30-12:30 Nordic Pavilion: Data for forest and farming – building from below — Digital and other innovative solutions to smallholders for climate action Data is needed for result-oriented climate action. We present cases on North-South collaboration using data to engage smallholders. The Vietnam case presents a digital solution in smallholder forestry and the Kenyan cases the digital platform for grain producers, the application of precision farming and the participatory forest inventories. Moderator: Tiina Huvio, FFD Speakers: EAFF/PAFO – Elizabeth Nsimadala FFD, Noora Simola IFFA - Lennart Ackzell DAFC - Niels Peter Nørring Organizer: Food and Forest Development Finland Co-organizers: International Family Forestry Alliance, Farm Forestry Smallholder Producers Association of Kenya, Simosol, East African Farmers Federation, Danish Agriculture and Food Council https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8o9whww8ZQ
Bertie Nuttall
131 w
I just read a startling report on the potential effects of rising sea levels here in the UK. For so long, the effects of climate change have been an ephemeral threat seen through newspapers and headlines, but potentially by the year 2030, large swatches of coastal land across the North-East of England could be underwater. Coastal cities like Blackpool and Liverpool are the most visibly under threat, with large stretches of beaches that are currently hubs of tourists and inhabitants could quickly be swallowed by the rising sea levels. It's easy to downplay the effects of climate change when you can't witness them first-hand, but seeing global warming quite literally devouring our shorelines truly brings the issue home. As this doesn't just affect city centres, shipping hubs, or coastlines, but small towns, villages and areas of arable land. Let's not lose our coastlines through inaction! Here's the report: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cop26-parts-north-west-could-22052446
79 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
131 w
It truly brings the issue home! 👍
Bertie Nuttall
131 w
I was reading a fantastic article by The Guardian on how indigenous and native nations/cultures have been providing a unique perspective on climate change and how it affects all of us at COP26. The initiative, called The Living Language Land Project identifies with 25 words from native languages that relate each's ties to the natural world. It got me thinking about how climate change is approached in general, as a battery of nations, political leaders, and corporations who approach the issues at hand from quite centralised places - often thinking about what their country is doing first, and what's happening to the world second. But this movement has uniquely repositioned my perspective, and reaffirmed the collective struggle we all face, as climate change knows no borders, and has no regard for different nations, businesses or political regimes. Moreover, it's interesting to see how the environment is perceived by these smaller indigenous nations, who often live in areas where the effects of climate change are so prominent . In the words of one of the artists presenting as part of The Living Land Project, “[We’re] trying to say part of the solution is a change of thinking, which can be inspired by other communities who have lived with nature in a very different way to our own." And in particular, this movement reaffirms how fighting climate change is truly about living in nature, not trying to get around it. You can read more about the story here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/03/indigenous-languages-project-urges-cop26-leaders-to-rethink-ties-to-the-land And check out The Living Land Project's site here: https://living-language-land.org/
81 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Bertie Nuttall
131 w
It's very sad to see that India, the third largest contributor to emissions globally, has committed to some of the weakest Net Zero Carbon goals of all the nations present at COP26. Although this is a marked improvement over the vague promises made by India's government at Paris 2015 to generally lower emissions, having the most distant climate goals of any nation at the talks, despite being one of the largest, is quite disappointing - especially as they are now asking for $1trillion from developed nations to help reach this far target. One activist commented that this is another "blah blah" addition to the rhetoric made by some of the leaders of the COP. I am sympathetic to India to a certain extent, as they are still in the midst of developing more comprehensive energy systems for themselves, and still rely on coal to generate 60% of their electricity, but the impact of such a large country's emissions effectively negate the green pledges of a dozen smaller states. What makes this particularly relevant is that many of India's regions are directly suffering the effects of extreme climate change, such as the rural regions of Kolkata, and although the Indian government is dedicated to lifting their 1.3billion citizens who live below the poverty line out, the negative effects of extreme weather are a far more pressing concern for them. https://news.sky.com/story/cop26-india-has-given-a-distant-net-zero-target-and-is-now-asking-the-world-for-cash-12457388 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YATwasHMfKo
55 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
130 w
The promised investment for clean energy never held up to what the rich countries promised. Sure India needs to also act. But it has it's limits. I hope they get there funding. And that they can get in the nuclear supplier group, to be able to achieve there clean energy goals faster and with less cost.
•
•
•
131 w
Each person involved in this so-called "pledge" will be dead by then – leaving it up to the generation of not-yet-borns to try to deal with the mess.
•
131 w
Any goal that doesn't need to be completed by 2030 AND have an enormous, binding penalty for failure (no moving goalposts!) is not actually serious or valuable, it's definitely not going to be enough to save the human race from extinction.
Bertie Nuttall
131 w
I loved this recent Wired post on how children as young as 6 are as aware of the negative effects of climate change on our planet. What's interesting is how they're getting access to this information, through half-heard news on the radio, through hearing their parents talk about it, and at school. But Climate Change is a complex issue, and often the more "scary" or "clickbaity" pieces of information reach the ears of the younger generation, without any of the necessary nuance to truly understand the state of climate action in 2021. And you can say the same for many adults, those who don't understand why a 2 degree change in temperature would be so catastrophic, or exactly how greenhouse gases are heating the world up. But being in the corner of the younger generations could actually be a fun and beneficial way of empowering yourself. We've all helped our kids or younger siblings with the occasional bit of math homework (even if our rusty brains need to do a quick Google search beforehand to understand the math problem they're solving), and in the process, not only do we help that family member - we educate ourselves. And what better way is there of becoming more understanding of the issues facing our planet? Sounds like a win-win to me. Source: https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-talk-to-children-about-climate-change/
46 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
131 w
Great resource, @wedonthavetime had a webinar with Our Kids Climate some months ago about that topic if you missed it :) https://app.wedonthavetime.org/posts/7831e0db-0d7c-4643-8820-f386796ea99c
Bertie Nuttall
131 w
Ahead of his appearance at the COP26 Summit in Glasgow, Joe Biden has both made a 10,000 mile trip around from the United States to Europe, while also being seen with a 85 car presidential escort in Rome ahead of his meeting with the Pope. It's a contradictory message for sure - to attend a summit designed specifically for nations to collaborate on means of reducing emissions as a whole - and then to be the product of so much pollution en route. Logistically speaking, it isn't easy to make the trip from across the pond to Europe, but with so many leaders of the world also making the trip in climate friendly manners - it would be nice to see the head of one of the biggest Co2 contributing nations taking steps to be as conservative as possible when making these large scale trips themselves. Greta Thunberg and many other environmental players have already shown that there is a more climate friendly way of making the trip, as she arrived in style by train to Glasgow City Station ahead of the summit. It may be a less convenient form of travel for many international arrivals, but the examples leaders set before talks even begin are vital if clear actionable, climate-friendly steps can be taken in the future. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10145929/Joe-Biden-blasted-making-10-000-mile-return-trip-Air-Force-One-CLIMATE-CHANGE-summit.html
44 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
131 w
I’m sick to death of them all! They just pollute in a huge way, why do we have this lot of charlatans leading the world to destruction! all totally unnecessary!
Bertie Nuttall
131 w
Plastic rings are one of the most iconic and horrific forms of plastic pollution in the ocean - effectively choking and slowly killing many forms of sea life, from turtles to seagulls. There are a ton of videos online showing fishermen or activists cutting these rings off the necks, fins and bodies of aquatic animals, but these acts alone don’t stop fish, turtles or seafaring birds from eating the toxic plastic. So Saltwater Brewery created an ingenious solution that actually gives back to the ocean, rather than pollute it. Edible 6-pack rings. Not only are these biodegradable, but when they enter the ocean, they actually provide a safe food source for sea life, rather than a toxic plastic guillotine. Effectively killing two birds with one stone - polluting the ocean and endangering aquatic animals. Not to mention the beer itself is really good.
48 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
131 w
Remember to cut the loops on disposable face masks before tossing them - birds & other animals can get stuck in them.
•
131 w
Really great
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
•
•
•
36 w
Doomers are worse than deniers,but none of them is better... They should all see the light of day,so that we can all solve the spirit of doom and denial together.
•
•
36 w
Absolutely agree. Climate doomism might be understandable, but it's a luxury we can't afford. Instead of succumbing to hopelessness, let's focus on actionable solutions and progress being made. We need to be louder than them.