@nils_fischer
Shared by Nils Fischer
35 w
•
Embracing, loving, enjoying the river yet swimming along the flow during low tide and the swimming against the current during high tide teaches so many things in life. Work for environment and climate change demands endurance and passion. Congratulations for greeting the ocean where river meets it. Gratitude for sharing this beautiful journey with all of us.
147 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
Shared by Nils Fischer
35 w
•
A huge global investment bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), has released their newly drafted energy strategy outlining what projects they’re willing to lend money to. The draft strategy fails to signal an absolute end to fossil fuel financing or even stop new fossil fuel infrastructure. But the good news is that they've asked for public input on the draft [1] - which means we have 3 days to tell them before the consultation closes: No more investment in fossil fuels! Send an email* to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) as part of their official public consultation and tell them: no more fossil projects - not now, not ever! This could be a huge win for our future. The EBRD has invested almost 3 BILLION euros in fossil fuel energy in just a few years.2 The bank is probably hoping this opportunity to comment goes largely unnoticed by the public over the summer holidays. But if we can overwhelm the consultation with demands to shift away from fossil fuel, we could soon see their investment money pouring into renewables instead. To do that, we need your help to flood their inboxes with public submissions before the consultation closes in 3 days. Let's make sure they hear our voice loud and clear: remove all fossil fuel funding from their new strategy! Deborah for https://350.org P.S If you want to understand what's at stake here in more detail, check out this great analysis of why the EBRD's draft energy strategy doesn't go far enough on fossil fuels by climate and energy policy expert Natalie Jones. Sources: [1] Have your say on the EBRD's work [2] How the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Can Shift Millions From Fossil Fuels to Clean Energy Through the Glasgow Commitment
350.org: A global campaign to confront the climate crisis
We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy future for all.
https://350.org
17 more agrees trigger social media ads
Shared by Nils Fischer
37 w
•
In a meeting of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)’s Seventh Assembly in Canada, representatives from 185 countries agreed to launch a new global conservation fund, with Canada pledging 200 million Canadian dollars and the United Kingdom contributing 10 million pounds. The new Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) has been designed to mobilize and accelerate investment in the conservation and sustainability of wild species and ecosystems, whose health is under threat from wildfires, flooding, extreme weather, and human activity including urban sprawl. The GBFF is seeking monetary support from governments, philanthropic donations and the private sector. The GEF Assembly was attended by 1,500 people, including representatives of government, academia and business, Indigenous Peoples and environmental leaders. The meeting, which is held every four years, comes during what is predicted to be an active hurricane season and the record wildfire season in Canada, which have been influenced by global heating and rising ocean temperatures. Countries have come together in Vancouver to turn things around for the health of the planet and its people. This is a hugely positive moment that will be remembered far into the future. Biodiversity is the critical foundation of our well-being and the health of our planet. The new Global Biodiversity Framework Fund will play a key role in addressing biodiversity loss. It will address it in developing countries, where the impacts of nature loss are highest; it will address it in a gender-responsive manner, including through cross-sectoral partnerships; it will address it in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples, the original guardians of the lands and seas. Canada is making a significant contribution to this new fund and continuing to show our support for the GEF’s eighth replenishment to ensure the protection of our planet’s biodiversity for generations to come. https://www.ecowatch.com/biodiversity-protection-fund-global-environment-facility.html Contributions to the GBFF will go toward stopping and reversing biodiversity loss globally by 2030, as well as placing nature on a path to recovery by 2050.
Environmental Leaders From 185 Countries Launch Biodiversity Protection Fund - EcoWatch
Representatives from 185 countries agreed to launch a new global conservation fund, at the Global Environment Facility meeting in Vancouver.
https://www.ecowatch.com/biodiversity-protection-fund-global-environment-facility.html
11 more agrees trigger social media ads
Shared by Nils Fischer
2030 is fast approaching, and we still have a lot of work to do if we’re going to reach our sustainable development goals. Through impact investing, we can support solutions that enable a sustainable future while making competitive returns, but not enough investors choose buying opportunities with deeply transformative impact. This has to change. As we move ever closer to the milestone year of 2030, the urgency to reach our sustainable development goals (SDGs) is ramping up. The solutions we need to reach our goals already exist, but they need to be rapidly scaled and implemented across the world to achieve the systemic change we need. We need to transition to a regenerative and circular economy, an endeavor that so far has relied on philanthropy and charity. At Chi Impact we believe that in order to scale these solutions fast enough, we need stronger financial incentives in the form of impact investing. The prevailing global macroeconomic climate has sowed seeds of caution among investors, particularly those venturing into impact-focused avenues during their inaugural forays. It's imperative that this status quo shifts, as research underscores the considerable potential of first-time funds to outperform. Furthermore, the significance of initial funding cannot be overstated – it's a pivotal enabler of the solutions that hold the promise of achieving our SDGs by 2030. Paving the way through the Burning Issues Impact Fund The Burning Issues Impact Fund (BIIF), advised by Chi Impact, provides professional investors with the possibility to create place-based and deep impact in Europe while helping to contribute to the most critical and “burning” SDGs and to reverse climate change. Through comprehensive impact analysis tools, we can report to investors the financial, social, and environmental impact of their investments based on their own specifications. In the first round of investments of the BIIF, we have already found great success investing in companies such as Mosa Meat, Neoom and We Don't Have Time. By investing in these companies early, we are demonstrating that it is possible to support solutions that have high impact as well as financial returns, and at the same time we enable a faster transition to the low carbon future we need to combat climate change. To learn more, feel free to check out our 2022 impact report. As Chi Capital, we stand resolute in our mission to galvanize systemic change by empowering enterprises that embody the spirit of transformation. Our dedication to impact investment shapes the present and paves the way for a future where sustainable development isn't just an aspiration but a resounding reality.
Shared by Nils Fischer
38 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.
Shared by Nils Fischer
37 w
•
In the face of escalating climate change threats, a new solution against global warming has emerged - the courtroom. Increasingly, communities, governments, and even young activists are turning to the legal system to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their contributions to the climate crisis. And when you look at the death tolls in Maui, it’s no surprise that people are looking to hold wrong-doers accountable. At least 114 people have died in the wildfires, and with an additional 850 still missing after nearly two weeks of active searching, this number is expected to rise a lot. Not to mention that the damage to 3,000 buildings, to the natural landscapes, and survivors is estimated to equate to around $6bn dollars annually already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94kIfNmh7xE So in many ways, it’s no wonder that these lawsuits, scattered across the globe, seek not only to seek reparations for damages but also to change the narrative around climate change denial and force the fossil fuel industry to take responsibility for their role in exacerbating the crisis. But the implications of these lawsuits and their success belies a shift in the tangible wrong-doing of big players contributing to global warming. The Maui Lawsuit: A Glimpse into a Changing Landscape This is not the first time that Maui has raised concerns against big oil and its government for the risks they expose their local communities to, either. In fact, there were alarm bells ringing for the climate risks caused by fossil fuel industry impacting the region as early as 3 years ago in 2020 that held big oil and other climate-negative practices “directly responsible for a substantial portion of the climate crisis related impacts in and to the County”. It claimed that these companies were well aware of the dangers posed by their fossil fuel products and their contribution to climate change, yet engaged in a campaign of disinformation and denial. While the initial lawsuit was fraught with procedural issues and scepticism, the devastating wildfires that struck Maui this year provided tangible evidence of the climate crisis actually causing fire and posing a existential threat to the county, lending renewed weight to the county's claim in their lawsuit from 2020. This shift from scientific data to concrete impacts is significant, highlighting the potential power of these lawsuits to reshape public perception, as they “are clear and concrete evidence of something that otherwise might seem and feel abstract”, as Naomi Oreskes, Harvard Professor pointed out. Youths vs. Montana: A Landmark Ruling And this renewed energy for climate lawsuits has already been marked by a landmark success that also took place in the states, albeit in Montana. A historic ruling emerged from a courtroom in the state, where a group of young plaintiffs won a landmark lawsuit asserting that the state's failure to consider climate change impacts when approving fossil fuel projects was unconstitutional. Twenty-two-year-old Rikki Held, the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling confirms what scientists have been saying for decades. This ruling marked a significant victory for climate activists, establishing a precedent that young people have a fundamental right to a stable climate system. The case hinged on the argument that the state's disregard for long-term climate impacts violated citizens' right to a clean and healthful environment, thereby asserting the legal system's role in curbing climate change. And while these two lawsuits alone have made the headlines in the last few weeks, there are far more ongoing climate lawsuits happening globally, many of which have been put in place this year. In total, globally there have been 2,365 climate change lawsuits and nearly 200 (10%) of them were filed in the past year. They’ve “covered a wide range of ground from government carbon reduction targets and strategies to corporate inaction and misinformation and claims for climate-related damages.” Recent ones outside of the United States are the Aurora case in Sweden, which purports that “young people under 26 living in Sweden are at risk of having their human rights violated by the negative effects of climate change”, and is suing the Swedish government as a result. And you can find a holistic list of the global cases currently being leveraged against governments and international bodies right here! Implications for the global climate fight These lawsuits are transforming the climate crisis from a scientific debate into a legal battleground. By attributing specific disasters and extreme weather events to global warming, scientists are providing courts with factual bases for attributing blame. As judges become increasingly educated on climate science, the gap between abstract claims and concrete consequences narrows, empowering legal arguments for accountability. Moreover, the victories in the courtroom signal a growing shift in public opinion and a potential erosion of the tactics long used by fossil fuel industries to sow doubt about climate science. Challenges on the Horizon Despite these victories, challenges persist. Fossil fuel companies attempt to move climate-related cases to federal courts, where they believe outcomes may be more favourable. They argue that these cases overstep the court's jurisdiction by demanding stricter regulation of emissions. This underscores the need for a comprehensive legal framework that clarifies the responsibilities of both industries and governments in addressing the climate crisis. While these cases are novel and ground-breaking, they are just the beginning of a broader movement to reshape global climate policy through legal means. What we can do as a community The emergence of climate-related lawsuits globally is a testament to the growing recognition of the role the legal system can play in combating the climate crisis. From Maui to Montana, these cases are reshaping public discourse, bringing the climate crisis from scientific models into the courtroom. Victories in these lawsuits not only hold industries accountable for their contributions to global warming but also shift the narrative around climate change denial. And if you follow the link below, you can find out more about the ongoing litigation going on in your local community and create a climate love to showcase your support for the cases’ success! Together, we can help push for the fight against climate change in our courtrooms! https://climatecasechart.com/
Shared by Nils Fischer
37 w
•
Renewable energy sources such as solar power are vital for a sustainable future, but that energy needs to be available also when the sun is not shining. That's why Alfa Laval has entered into a strategic joint venture agreement with Aalborg CSP, a Danish concentrated solar power technology company. By teaming up, Alfa Laval will be able to advance the development of long duration energy storage (LDES) heat exchanger solutions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that energy efficiency and renewable energy sources are crucial for decarbonization, and that solar and wind power are set to more than double in just five years. By 2027 they will make up nearly 20 percent of global power generation, which in turn will boost the demand for new technologies and capacities in energy storage. "By joining forces with Aalborg CSP we are taking a significant step towards achieving our shared vision of a sustainable energy future," says Thomas Møller, President of the Energy Division. "Together, we will drive the development of cutting-edge long duration energy storage solutions because we believe we need to combine knowledge and resources to solve some of the big challenges we are facing." Read more about the joint venture agreement here https://www.alfalaval.com/media/news/investors/2023/alfa-laval-in-new-partnership-on-energy-storage/
Shared by Nils Fischer
Emissions generated by how banks manage corporates’ cash holdings can significantly add to a company’s reported greenhouse gas emissions, but currently escape reporting. A new guide details actions companies can take to reduce these emissions and by doing so support accelerating the decarbonization of the financial sector. The new guide examines a critical yet overlooked driver of corporate greenhouse gas emissions – the emissions associated with how banks manage and repurpose the cash deposits of their corporate clients for emission-producing activities. A critical revelation of this guide is that if emissions from corporate cash holdings in the bank were counted, many businesses would see a notable surge in their overall greenhouse gas emissions. The guide provides actionable advice for how climate-leading companies can be frontrunners in recognizing, measuring and mitigating these emissions. That’s although they are not yet required to report such emissions along their financial supply chains, as the relevant Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Scope 3 guidance applies only to financial institutions and investors, but not to real-world companies. The Greening Cash Action guide: How to reduce emissions from companies’ cash deposits in the bank outlines seven actions companies can take to assess and curtail emissions associated with how banks manage their corporate cash. By proactively engaging with their banks and encouraging better data disclosure and climate practices, companies can use their role as corporate customers to send important market signals to their banks to reduce the carbon intensity of their loan and investment portfolios, which, in turn, helps accelerate the broader decarbonisation of the financial system. The guide was developed for business leaders, sustainability managers, board members and employees and was authored by Johan Falk, Exponential Roadmap Initiative, Jakob König, Fair Finance Guide / Swedish Consumers’ Association, Paul Moinester, TOPO, and Allison Fajans-Turner, BankFWD. “Companies have to reduce emissions along their full value chain and that includes emissions in their financial supply chains. This guide gives practical and actionable recommendations on how to measure and reduce the emissions they indirectly finance through their cash holdings in the bank,” said Johan Falk, CEO and Co-founder of the Exponential Roadmap Initiative. “This guide addresses a problem that we encountered when talking to the wealthiest companies in the world: that they are not aware of the magnitude of these emissions, and don’t know what to do about them,” said Paul Moinester, Executive Director, TOPO. “What banks choose to finance is key for the climate transition. With this guide corporate clients can help to accelerate their banks’ transition and in turn banks have an opportunity to add value for their clients. It’s a clear win-win that benefits the climate,” said Jakob König, Fair Finance Guide / Swedish Consumers’ Association. “Companies committed to driving climate progress have left a major lever on the table: namely, their power and influence on banks as major clients. By using this guide, companies can take steps to ensure that the banks that get their business are using company cash in ways that support and don’t undercut a company’s wider climate goals. This guide will help to cement climate safe banking as a new pillar of corporate sustainability and net zero planning,” said Allison Fajans-Turner, Managing Director, BankFWD. James Varkey, CFO at Icebug, a member of the Exponential Roadmap Initiative who reviewed the guide said: “At Icebug, we have already started implementing the actions outlined in the guide and can see that we are contributing to improving our bank’s climate practice. We see a big potential for companies as bank customers to drive meaningful change in the financial sector.” WHAT OTHERS SAID: “This guide addresses two crucial levers for scaling and accelerating the transformation needed to stay within safe planetary boundaries: science aligned climate leadership from companies and financial actors. Its value lies in providing concrete actions companies can take with their banks to reduce financing of new emissions – and through these accelerate the transformation of the financial sector.“Professor Dr Johan Rockström, Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research: “Beyond their organisational inventory, corporations may not realise the emissions financed by their cash. This guide provides them with practical recommendations to start considering and driving down financed emissions.” Kaya Axelsson, Net Zero Policy Engagement Fellow, University of Oxford “Business is a crucial player in the Net Zero transition. This guide shows what actions companies can take to reduce the emissions they finance indirectly through their corporate cash. By taking these actions, business can help the transformation of yet another crucial player - the financial sector.” Nigel Topping, UN Climate Change High-Level Champion at COP26 “We welcome all feedback from our corporate customers that can help us in improving our climate-related initiatives. The practical support provided by this guide helps companies engage effectively with their banks and also ensures that banks who perform better on climate issues receive the positive feedback needed to accelerate and further develop their climate action.” Catharina Belfrage Sahlstrand, Chief Sustainability and Climate Officer, Handelsbanken "Our banking choices are an enormous lever for change, but it can feel a bit overwhelming to figure out where, how, and when to move to a more aligned bank partner (and to put positive pressure on your existing bank in the process). The Greening Cash Action Guide is an invaluable how-to that breaks it down so you can take action and become a powerful changemaker." Kate Williams, CEO, One Percent for the Planet Download the Greening Cash Action Guide:
Shared by Nils Fischer
Nyombi Morris is a Ugandan climate activist who has become a leading voice for African youth on the issue of climate change. He is the founder of Earth Volunteers, and an Ambassador for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), where he advocates for the rights of climate-affected communities. Nyombi Morris has been recognized for his work on climate change by CNN, LinkedIn Africa, Population Matters, and earth org. He is a fellow of Climate 2025, a youth advocate for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, and a youth council advisor for New Zero World. In this interview, Nyombi Morris discusses his journey to becoming a climate activist, the challenges facing African youth in the fight against climate change, and what needs to be done to amplify the voices of young people on the global stage. Aniebiet: You have become a leading voice in the global climate discourse and the leading voice for African Youths. You have spoken out about the disproportionate impact of climate change on Africa and the need for urgent action. What inspired you to become a climate activist? Nyombi: Actually, I never imagined myself as a climate activist because it was not my vocation, but as you know, in Africa, it is possible to graduate and spend more than ten years at home without a job. This happened to me in 2019 when I finished my IT and computer science diploma and had no way forward, so I used social media and worked as an affiliate for betting companies until I came across a post by my neighbour Vanessa Nakate, who is now well known as Uganda's leading climate activist. I was surprised since she came from a wealthy family with access to everything; I never anticipated her to take to the streets and protest, so this compelled me to pay close attention. To some extent, I decided to message her on Facebook and ask if we might meet. Because we were already connected on Facebook, it took her two weeks to respond, but she agreed and invited me to a street clean up in our hometown of Luzira, which is where I first learned about climate change because we shared so much, and since then I've been involved in so many climate action activities. Aniebiet: Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to the climate crisis. We can even say that Africa is the most vulnerable to climate change. The continent is already experiencing the effects of climate change. These effects are having a disproportionate impact on the continent's most vulnerable people, including young people, women, and the poor. What can be done to help Africa adapt and mitigate the effects of the climate crisis? Nyombi: I agree with you, but you forgot to mention that it is the richest continent of all. To understand why we are so susceptible, we must first agree to disagree that we have had very weak leadership who have shown no compassion for humanity. I say this simply because the greatest challenges we face today, such as starvation, hunger, water scarcity, poverty, floods, droughts, epidemics, and so on, are all linked to the exploitation of our minerals, the destruction of our natural resources, such as forests, which is causing drought in some areas and floods in others. We also need to understand that when these types of events occur, we lose our cultures, history, and biodiversity. So, who is responsible for taking steps to adapt and mitigate to this climate? Who was the main cause of these disasters? The first is our leaders, who do not care about people when investors arrive, even though their investment has a direct impact on people; they simply sanction it because they are looking for money. So, in order to get back on track and adapt to the climate crisis, we need committed leaders who are willing to accept green investments. We also need to prepare for the worst by constructing strong infrastructure such as drainage systems, schools, roads, and large walls, because just because we are waking up does not mean that the climate will stop immediately. We also need to signal to the West what kind of investments we want immediately; the burning of coal, oil, and gas is the major contribution to climate breakdown today; as temperatures increase, so will our suffering. Fossil fuels have no place in our future; renewables have proven that they can be trusted for our survival as long as we spend heavily in them. Africa has a huge opportunity to lead this energy transformation since we can have everything from wind energy to solar energy to geothermal energy. Our temperatures are beneficial, and we receive sunlight throughout the year, so the possibilities are good that we can right the planet with this clean energy sources rather than rely on fossil fuel expansions, which have serious consequences. Aniebiet: As the custodians of tomorrow's world, young people's insights and contributions are indispensable in shaping the policies, decisions, and actions that will determine the trajectory of our society. Their unique perspectives, innovative ideas, and passion for positive change hold the potential to address pressing global challenges, from environmental sustainability to social equality. For example, at the upcoming critical climate negotiations at COP28 in Dubai, the voices of young people will be essential to ensuring that the world takes decisive action to address climate change. However, as we saw last year at COP27, many African youth climate advocates were unable to get their accreditation on time, effectively shutting them out of the negotiations in their own house, an event branded as “the African COP”. In the context of Africa, what strategies and measures can we implement to amplify the influence of young individuals, granting them the authority and tools needed to actively participate on the global stage? Nyombi: Someone will call me crazy if I say this, but it is our governments that are silencing our voices when it comes to climate negotiations participation. Governments are given accreditations to supply within the people they know who are capable, instead of giving a chance to young people who are actually on the ground implementing actions, they give it to their friends who are interested in free trips, and I am not surprised that sometimes those we send to represent us do not come out with clear statements.What we need to do is ask our governments to share opportunities equally because there is nothing about us without us. We must also begin to raise funding through local initiatives rather than from afar. I am one of those activists who always strives to raise finances to attend climate talks, and when I do, the cash does not come from our local organisations; instead, it comes from abroad, sometimes from individual friends. I'm not sure who is to blame, but both our government and the UNFCCC need to plan and fund more such events so that young people can apply for them and attend climate talks. There are several local organisations that have finances, but the standards are so stringent that the number of young people who apply and participate is limited.
Shared by Nils Fischer
39 w
•
Last year, Congress took a significant step forward in the fight against climate change by approving billions of dollars for clean energy projects. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides a historic opportunity to scale renewable energy investment, spur economic growth, and create millions of jobs. However, there's a major obstacle standing in the way of fully realizing these benefits: permitting. To maximize the advantages of renewable energy and ensure equitable distribution, we must strengthen and modernize our electric grid. This involves tackling large power line projects that cross city and state lines to deliver clean energy to communities. Yet, these projects face the challenge of obtaining permission to build from all levels of government. What is “permitting” in an energy context? Permitting refers to the process by which energy projects, particularly clean energy projects like renewable energy facilities and transmission lines, obtain the necessary approvals and permissions from various levels of government to be built and operated. The permitting process involves obtaining licenses, clearances, and environmental approvals to ensure that the proposed projects comply with regulatory requirements, environmental standards, and public safety measures. Permitting is a crucial step in the development of energy infrastructure because it ensures that projects meet the necessary criteria for environmental protection, land use, and public interest. However, as highlighted in this article, the current permitting process can be slow and cumbersome, leading to lengthy delays that hinder the progress of clean energy projects. The current state of the permitting process The current permitting process presents a significant problem. The timeline for obtaining permission for an energy project is painfully long, sometimes spanning a decade or more due to extensive environmental and judicial reviews. For example, the Grain Belt Express, a transmission line project to connect renewable energy from Kansas to surrounding states, has been tangled in permitting since 2010, wasting thirteen years of potential progress for clean energy in the Midwest. To overcome this barrier, we urgently need permitting reform. With the impending threat of climate change and the importance of maximizing IRA funds, time is of the essence to rapidly scale renewable energy investments. Our current electric grid is outdated, fragmented, lacks resilience, and is ill-equipped to handle increasing catastrophic weather events. To truly capitalize on the historic opportunity for emissions reductions and clean energy deployment that the IRA provides, we will need to break down barriers to collaboration and help utilities, state and local governments, and clean energy providers build a connected grid that’s ready for a clean energy revolution. Now is the time for legislators to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and maximize climate funds by streamlining permitting for clean energy projects. However, permitting reform is a contentious issue, particularly for communities that have borne the brunt of pollution from fossil fuel infrastructure for decades. For these communities, the lengthy permitting process has been their only defense against harmful energy projects. A just approach to permitting reform must not perpetuate disparities; instead, it should empower these communities to have a say in the planning and approval of projects. To ensure a just transition, the reform must consider the input of directly impacted communities experiencing environmental concerns. Early community engagement and technical assistance should be prioritized in these communities. Moreover, rural states should economically benefit from providing renewable energy to denser population centers, and workforce opportunities should be created through investments in low emission, zero-emission, and resilient technologies and infrastructure. Join the Fight for Permitting Reform The stakes are high. Without permitting reform, we risk squandering the historic opportunity to combat climate change effectively. As other nations seize the lead in the clean energy economy, the U.S. will be left behind, missing out on clean energy jobs and investments that could benefit communities nationwide We need a diverse group of advocates to engage in this issue, participate in the dialogue, and advocate for the policies that align with our collective vision of a more sustainable, equitable future. We won’t be able to tackle the climate crisis without making big changes to the electric grid. Grid and environmental issues cannot be solved by postponing action, and an equitable transition to a net-zero future requires a coalition of voices advocating for the changes that will impact us all positively. Permitting reform is not just about reducing emissions and pollution; it's about ensuring opportunities for all in the clean energy economy. By advocating for a well-crafted permitting reform, we can protect communities from pollution, create green job opportunities, and unleash the potential of climate funds. Sign our petition today and join us in this vital fight for permitting reform. Together, we can reshape the energy landscape, build a more sustainable future, and lead the charge towards a green energy revolution. Let's leave behind the red tape and welcome a future with more green projects, fewer emissions, and thriving communities. https://act.dream.org/sign/tell-congress-less-red-tape-more-green-projects/
Shared by Nils Fischer
With the pressing need to address climate and energy crises, a diverse range of clean energy technologies is essential to transition away from fossil fuels and mitigate climate change. While renewable energy sources have made significant strides, they have not yet achieved the scalability needed to curb greenhouse gas emissions while meeting global energy demands. Nuclear energy is a much-needed option, offering clean baseload energy to supplement renewables, and with the world's escalating demand for energy, the more options we have, the more resilient we are. Fusion, the process that powers the sun, presents an alternative nuclear energy approach that could offer a safe, abundant, and environmentally friendly solution. However, traditional hot fusion, which requires extreme temperatures and pressures to initiate and sustain fusion reactions, has faced significant technical challenges and remains uncertain in terms of commercial viability within the next decade. A possible shortcut to conventional fusion lies in Solid-State Fusion (SSF), a budding field that is rapidly gaining attention as a potential solution for global clean energy demands. SSF involves nuclear reactions occurring in the solid phase of matter, releasing heat in excess of the input energy. Unlike hot fusion, SSF does not require extreme temperatures, and unlike nuclear fission, SSF does not require radioactive elements like uranium or plutonium, making it a safer and more sustainable energy option. Foundational Understanding of SSF Solid-State Fusion encompasses various nuclear reactions (fusion, fission, transmutation, beta decay, alpha decay) that occur in the solid-state, including condensed phases that are not strictly solid. It is crucial to clarify SSF from related terms like "cold fusion" and "low energy nuclear reactions (LENR).” Cold fusion gained media attention in 1989 when electrochemists Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced a sustained nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature. However, subsequent skepticism from the scientific community led to the term becoming associated with dubious science. LENR is a broader term adopted by many practitioners in the field, covering various nuclear reactions that occur at low energies. SSF encompasses both cold fusion and LENR, focusing on nuclear reactions in the solid-state. SSF Milestones and Developments SSF research dates back to the 1980s when various groups reported observations of excess heat in metal-hydrogen systems. In 1989, the announcement by Fleischmann and Pons led to intense criticism, overshadowing private efforts in SSF development that continued over the following decades. More recently, a consortium of researchers led by Google conducted SSF experiments over five years, resulting in a publication in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. Although the paper did not conclusively prove SSF, it legitimized the field and attracted greater scientific, investment, and government interest. The US Department of Energy (DOE) has also recognized the potential of SSF and issued a $10 million project through its Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) program to fund researchers from multiple universities to conduct SSF research. SSF Process and Energy Production SSF experiments typically involve metal catalysts and isotopes of hydrogen. Researchers use various techniques, including calorimetry, ICP-MS for elemental analysis, and neutron detection, to measure heat production, transmutations, and nuclear emissions. The origin of excess heat in SSF is still a subject of investigation. While some mass is converted into energy, the exact mechanisms and whether the process is fusion, fission, or a combination of both remain uncertain. SSF's Safety and Commercial Potential As of now, SSF research experiments have not shown any unsafe radiation or radioactive products. Neutrons, gamma radiation, and other hazardous elements have not been detected in SSF experiments, suggesting a safe and waste-free pathway to energy generation. While excess heat has been plausibly demonstrated in various SSF experiments, decisive evidence of a nuclear reaction and the ability to self-power or produce useful electrical energy are yet to be publicly shown. Nonetheless, significant funding, both from governments and private investors, has been allocated for SSF development, indicating its potential as a viable energy source. SSF's Commercial Applications and Ongoing Research SSF holds promise for various commercial applications, including boilers, chemical and metal processing industries, direct air capture for carbon removal, agriculture, and power generation. The technology has attracted investments from a major boiler company in Japan and continues to garner interest from various research institutions, government bodies, and private industry players worldwide. SSF is an exciting area of research at the forefront of understanding how matter works at the nanoscopic and quantum levels. The potential to confine nucleons to enable fusion or transmutation of elements and release usable heat energy holds significant promise. Researchers from diverse disciplines, including materials science, quantum physics, electrochemistry, nano-science, nuclear and electrical engineering, and more, are essential to unlock the full potential of SSF. In conclusion, Solid-State Fusion emerges as a viable contender in the pursuit of a global clean energy economy. With its potential for safe, clean, and inexpensive energy production, SSF presents a pathway to address our climate and energy challenges. As the field continues to evolve, further scientific exploration and investment will be critical to unlock the full potential of this promising technology. To learn more about the potential for safe fusion energy systems, click below! https://anthropoceneinstitute.com/innovations/ssf/
Shared by Nils Fischer
39 w
•
•
Climate experts agree that to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, we must cut emissions in half by the year 2030. By scaling up climate solutions like Tradewater’s that have an immediate impact, emissions can be lowered to reach 2030 goals, buying more time to build green infrastructure and support long-term climate solutions to help reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Climate change is the biggest crisis mankind has ever known, and to solve it, climate solutions are being developed and implemented across the globe, resulting in impacts that will be felt in both the near-term and long-term. For instance, there have been investments in climate solutions like direct air capture and nuclear energy, which have great climate benefits, but can be expensive to scale and won’t be able to achieve real gains in emissions reduction by 2030. While these long-term solutions are critical to our net-zero future, the situation we are in is urgent. We need to prioritize near-term impact solutions that reduce our emissions today. We can address the climate crisis more impactfully by implementing these fast-acting, effective climate solutions, also called emergency brake climate solutions. In this article, we’ll explain why emergency brake climate solutions are important and illustrate how Tradewater’s work plays an important role as an emergency brake climate solution. Why are Emergency Brake Climate Solutions Important? To make an immediate impact on climate change today, it’s critical that we scale emergency brake climate solutions. Dr. Jonathan Foley, Executive Director of Project Drawdown, explains the importance of this category of solutions, saying, “These are climate solutions that help us bend the curve on emissions, immediately. They’re solutions that we can adopt now but also have a fast response in the atmosphere.” Emergency brake climate solutions target the “worst of the worst” problems in the climate crisis. But the key difference between emergency brake climate solutions and typical climate solutions is the timing of the impact. Like how pulling an emergency brake in a vehicle creates an instantaneous stop, emergency brake climate solutions work similarly by having an immediate effect on emission reductions once enacted. Additionally, emergency brake climate solutions are meant to be complementary since their immediate impact on emissions now can support other climate solutions that are still taking hold. Tradewater Focuses on Emergency Brake Climate Solutions To see how we play a role in the broader emergency brake climate solution ecosystem, you should learn about the havoc that methane and other harmful non-CO2 gases like halons and refrigerants are wreaking on our environment. - The problem with methane: Methane is the second leading cause of climate change after CO2. In the United States, there are over 3 million abandoned and orphaned oil and gas wells, and many of these wells are leaking methane gas into the atmosphere. Methane has a 84 times greater global warming potential than CO2 in the short term, and it’s responsible for at least 25% of today’s global warming. - The problem with halons: Halons are potent greenhouse gases that are depleting the ozone layer and are worsening the climate crisis. Halons are up to 6,290 times more potent than CO2. Although the production of new halons is illegal, existing halon gases can be used under current EPA regulations. Even so, the equipment that uses halons to put out a fire is at least 30 years old, and halons released into the atmosphere cannot be recovered. - The problem with refrigerant gases: While the Montreal Protocol finalized the phase out of production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances, such as CFCs and HCFCs, there was never a mandate created to destroy these substances. These refrigerants cause irreparable damage to the atmosphere and they are up to 10,200 times more powerful than CO2. Without an end-of-life mandate for these refrigerants, they’re poised to eventually leak out from the aging containers they’re in right now. The climate solutions we offer are considered emergency brake climate solutions, since our climate action addresses these harmful gases today. Our work prevents these non-CO2 gases from being released into the atmosphere, thus creating immediate climate benefits and emissions reduction. Project Drawdown, which is one of the world’s leading resources for climate solutions, has indicated that work to destroy and minimize the impact of refrigerants over 30 years to 2050 would save up to 571.15 gigatons of carbon dioxide emission equivalents. Our work finding, collecting, and destroying refrigerant gases and controlling methane releases is ongoing. It's a race against the clock since we have to reach them before these gases release into our atmosphere. You can help us with our work by purchasing Tradewater carbon credits, which are among the highest quality credits out there. Each carbon credit that is purchased pays for our work to seek out, collect, and destroy these refrigerant gases and helps us to plug more leaking methane from orphaned oil and gas wells. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fnR3TEswU Interested in learning more about our work? Check out our website.
Shared by Nils Fischer
143 w
•
•
A lonesome fifteen-year-old girl carrying the world on her shoulders outside the Swedish parliament. I was there on the first day of “the school strike for the climate” which started exactly five years ago. You all know her name by now and so do powerful people acting in self-interest to control the world order of status quo. This text was originally published on the 20th of August 2019. Many many more people are aware of the climate crisis today, but we are still increasing the emissions. Nothing has really changed. yet! But my own conviction, however, is that before sunshine comes more rain. What Greta started three years ago will be judged by historians as the moment in time that led to the necessary changes we will see in the near future. The fossil fuel interested is fighting to protect the status quo, business as usual. But they are beginning to lose. And the more people that join the fight. The quicker it will get. And that is important. Because We Don't have Time on our side. We Don't Have Time to wait and the climate movement needs you that read this text. Get active. Get involved. Act! Together we will win. Another world is possible. Below is my story of how it all began on the 20th of August 2018. Her message was clear. “Since you grown-ups don’t care about my future, I won’t, either.’’ Greta’s candour and firm resistance in the face of ecological breakdown continue to inspire millions to rise up and demand action. She has since become the symbol and the lightning spark that so many of us had been waiting for. In 2017 I had decided to quit a successful career in finance to found the organization We Don’t Have Time. The election of Donald Trump was a wake-up call for me. Living on Earth will not be meaningful, or even possible unless we focus all our attention on solving the climate crisis . Politicians and the people in power are not reacting to the immense threat that global warming poses. In our social network, we want to encourage people to take climate action and share it with a global audience. We support those who speak up against the status quo. We want to amplify and spread their message. And we’re not overly respectful of the rules and the mindset that protect business as usual. You can see why I took an interest in Greta. But on that Monday morning in August 2018, I couldn’t in my wildest imagination predict her impact. Being part of the Swedish climate community, I was tipped off about a school strike outside the Swedish parliament. Together with my colleague, a photographer, we went there on our way to work to speak to the kids and document their protest. It was not what I had expected, at all. Instead of a group of loud activists there sat a silent and lonely girl. Next to her she had the now-famous sign “school strike for the climate” and in front of her a pile of leaflets weighted down by a stone to keep the wind from carrying them. People passed by, rushing to work. I stood there for a while, contemplating what I saw. No one seemed to care. Those who at all noticed her pretended she, or the problem she was raising, didn’t exist. Being a father of three, and once myself that kid in school no grown-up listened to, I found the scene hurtful. This lonely girl was carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders and no one was giving a damn. I remember finally walking up to her and talking to her. A shy but polite young girl handed me one of her leaflets. I asked her what her friends made of her striking from school and she told me she didn’t have any friends and no one at school cared, either. The message on the leaflet was strong and to the point. “We children don’t do what you tell us to do. We do like you do. And since you grown-ups don’t give a damn about my future, I won’t, either. My name is Greta and I’m in ninth grade. And I’m on school strike until election day.” Then followed some scientific facts about climate change. We talked for a while, and then I asked her if she would agree to be filmed reading her statement. In English, I stress, since most of our followers don’t speak Swedish. She agrees, and I’m impressed by how she, with no preparation, reads her message in fluent English.' https://twitter.com/WeDontHaveTime/status/1031556480238080000 Back at the office, I couldn’t let go of the thought that I needed to help this solitary girl who’d impressed me so. It didn’t feel right that she was supposed to sit there all on her own carrying such an important message. I posted this in my personal Facebook feed, telling my friends about my emotional morning and encouraging them to show the young girl their support. The post went viral, generating thousands of shares and likes. Later that same day I published the video of her reading her message. It didn’t take long until journalists from all over the world reached out and the day after she was joined by young people who shared her conviction. Greta was no longer alone. I want to be clear that I helped her get her message out, but if I hadn’t shared it, she would, of course, have gained support anyway. The very first person to share the action on social media was probably Greta herself in this tweet. People got inspired and was fascinated by the story of how one brave teenager refused school for the climate. But it didn’t take long before Greta’s critics started lurking around in commentary sections. Many complained that Greta’s parents were at fault for not forcing her to attend the school which, in a sense, was close to the point she was making herself. Indeed, not going to school is bad but look at the bigger picture. There’s a crisis happening and going to school is pointless unless this crisis is addressed. But there were also voices that went beyond this criticism, attacking Greta’s character and wilfully misinterpreting her motivations. In order to support Greta and advance the climate cause We Don’t Have Time co-hosted a free street concert on September 7th, the last day of the “full-time” part of Greta’s strike (that is, before she went on to strike only on Fridays). The concert was titled “Our challenge, not the children’s” — the message being that while we adults must listen to the younger generation, it’s also our responsibility to act. Greta’s strong speech at the concert moved the audience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGp56ViaJs At this point in time, Greta had achieved far more than she could ever have hoped for. Her story had been picked up by national and international media and with it her message that we adults are failing future generations on the climate. Her candour, clear-sightedness, and persona made people listen. She was constantly surrounded by fellow strikers and supporters. But she was not the international climate super-icon she’s become since then. Her mission aligns extremely well with that of We Don’t Have Time. Our goal is to raise awareness, change the status quo and amplify the voices of climate advocates all over the world, be they business leaders, parents, students or activist teenagers. The WeDontHaveTime Foundation seeks to support the younger generation and give serious weight to their perspective, which is pretty obvious considering that today’s youth will face the worst consequences of a climate breakdown. On October 2nd I sent an invitation to Greta Thunberg to join our foundation board as a youth advisor (you need to be over 18 years old to become a legal member of the board) that she accepts. Not long after, she attends the UN Climate Summit in December. A fellow board member, Stuart Scott arranges for Greta to receive an invitation to the UN climate meeting in Katowice (COP24) where she attends several meetings, for instance below press conference hosted by Stuart Scott. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqlTtZ0UyFE Update: Unfortunately. Stuart Scott died of cancer in July 2021. Read my tribute to him here. His own words about him helping Greta was: "I also remember saying to a colleague after the fourth press conference in four days with Greta, that "If I die tomorrow I will have fulfilled my purpose in this life." I guess intuitively, I knew my pain was grave and that I had ignored it for the sake of my work." May you rest in peace Stuart! You will always be missed in climate action! It’s also at COP24 where she gives her speech to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, in which she asks the crisis be treated as a crisis, and that particularly the rich countries must reach net-zero emissions quickly. The climate negotiations in Katowice in December 2018, meant a significant bump in international attention for Greta. Not all of which was benevolent in kind. Something was set in motion. A wide variety of alternative and social media joined in an effort to debunk Greta. Various lies and deliberate misconceptions appeared simultaneously and from a variety of sources. The claims made were out of touch with reality and had the clear aim of making trying to make Greta less, or something else, that what she was: an extremely independent and headstrong adolescent whose climate protest just happened to go viral. No, the detractors said, Greta’s action was a PR coup carefully planned and executed by myself and Al Gore. Some claimed that I had ghost-written Greta’s speeches and social media posts. There were conspiracy theories according to which Greta’s ulterior motive was, in fact, to promote free immigration. Professional pundits and politicians also ventured into the debate, spreading false information or heavily biased articles intended to discredit, mislead or confuse. Even propaganda agencies such as state control media in some totalitarian countries and blogs with extremist links helped create and spread false and misleading articles. And their actions stretch beyond falsehoods. The negative articles started to appear suddenly, within a few days and were joined by threats. It began with hateful posts across commentary sections but soon I started receiving personal messages and even phone calls. Below is one example. There is worse. “ If you want to listen to the voices of lonely girls, you can start with those who have been group raped by immigrants. It would be a little more dressy, damn hypocrites. Hope you happen to suffer an accident. “ Being personally threatened is an experience no one deserves. The threats escalated into sophisticated hacking attempts. We Don’t Have Have Time social media accounts were subjected to sophisticated hijacking efforts where, among other things, someone pretending to work for Facebook requested administrative status to our Facebook account. In our webmail log, an unknown mobile phone was logged in all of a sudden. We took steps to increase security and block unauthorized access. I also have very strong reasons to believe that my mobile phone and those of my colleagues had been tampered with. The attacks and the social media hate storm escalated and on December 14 I penned an open letter to our supporters. Shortly thereafter the threats, hacking attempts and social media activity ceased. All of a sudden, as if someone waved a magic wand, everything returned to normality. For a while. On January 25, 2019, Greta gave her “We need to panic” speech at Davos. The old lies and misconceptions from back in December resurfaced but this time around the hatred was more focused at Greta Thunberg herself. The critics took aim at the connection between Greta and We Don’t Have Time and claims to the effect that we paid her, or she paid us, circulate. Totally untrue of course. Meanwhile, Greta continued her ascent into international stardom. The school strike movement now counted millions of young people and the media attention was huge. The situation was very different from October 2018 when she accepted an advisory role at the board of directors of the WeDontHaveTime Foundation. She decides to leave the board. In order to concentrate on her own initiative, she needs to be independent of other organizations. I understand — and support — this decision of hers. We Don’t Have Time helped her reach out but the initiative is hers and hers alone and part of what makes it so powerful is that she represents no one but herself. An article in a major Swedish newspaper (SvD) falsely claimed that We Don’t Have Time used Greta’s in marketing campaigns for a fundraising, when in fact we had reported about our activities related to Greta in our financial prospectus — a legal document in which we are obligated to detail the operations of the company, including persons that serve in various positions within our organization. A prospectus is required by Swedish law when raising money from the public. The newspaper had to back down from their claims and issue a correction. Unfortunately, these falsehoods still linger uncorrected on the internet. We have, however, apologized to Greta Thunberg and her family for failing to inform them beforehand that Greta, a minor, was mentioned when we reported on our activities in the financial prospectus. Media around the world are now writing various versions of this news instead of talking about what was actually said in Davos. During the first months of 2019, the falsehoods and conspiracy theories continued to circulate. This intensified as the first global school strike approaches. New threats. Renewed hacking attempts. And it becomes even more sinister in nature with an email containing serious threats against the climate youth movement. Media around the world are now writing various versions of this news instead of talking about what was actually said in Davos. During the first months of 2019, the falsehoods and conspiracy theories continued to circulate. This intensified as the first global school strike approaches. New threats. Renewed hacking attempts. And it becomes even more sinister in nature with an email containing serious threats against the climate youth movement. The event was reported to the police, of course. These new threats seemed to be designed to provoke a reaction. That whoever sent them wanted them to become public. On March 15, the first global Fridays For Future strike was held, one of the largest manifestations for the climate cause ever. We Don’t Have Time attended the Stockholm protest but had no hand in organizing the event nor any collaboration with Greta around it. Seeing so many come together to protest the status quo gave me so much hope! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXfaVRFbB2w The threats, however, became even more sinister. Greta was scheduled to give a speech in front of the European parliament in April. Two weeks before we received a new email from the same sender. This time around a copy of the mail is also sent via bcc to local news media, and directly to the Swedish Security Service. The sender was obviously seeking attention and media publicity. But no one took the bait. Again, the police were informed. And so it continued. Falsehoods, hatred, misleading claims and threats. Greta’s on-going trip to the United States has led to an increase in this activity. Blogs and alternative news outlets continue to repeat falsehoods and misconceptions, while the established media primarily focus their attention on Greta herself and not her message. When Greta does something the activity increases. It seems coordinated, sophisticated and sinister. Who’s really behind those threats? - Who initiates the assaults on Greta’s character and the character of those who support her? - Who supports and guides right-wing bloggers and internet trolls against the climate movement? - Who attempts to hack our social media accounts? - Who tried to tap into my phone? I don’t know, and will probably never find out. I’m certain though that the people behind these anti-Greta propaganda operations act in callous self-interest and have reason to consider the global climate movement a threat to their vested interests. Not knowing who they are, let’s call them out for what they do. Having observed their actions for several months, myself in the crossfire at times, their strategy has become evident to me: Divert focus from Greta’s message. Make it about her — not the cause. To understand this one needs to look at what Greta actually does. She leverages her outsider position as a minor, with no affiliations, to challenge the system that upholds the status quo. By claiming the position as a representative for a generation that has no future due to climate change, and by harvesting the explosive potential of the contemporary media landscape, she becomes an icon on which we can project our fear of global warming and our anger at those most responsible for it. She taps into, amplifies, directs, and radicalizes the global climate movement. The defenders of the status quo are right to be afraid because her impact is real. She is to the climate movement what Trump is to the alt-right movement. The method is similar, they both communicate directly with their followers and show little respect for conventional behavior if it stands in the way of their aims, although their respective agendas and personas couldn’t differ more. Which is the most sophisticated method, then, for taking the edge off someone who, as an activist strategy, becomes a symbol for a cause? You can’t claim she’s in the wrong — the denialists lost that battle years ago. Ignoring her is not an option since the contemporary media logic allows her to completely dominate the scene. Her detractors are left with one option: Make everything about Greta, not her cause. Don’t challenge her message. Focus on her and those around her. Disrupt, mislead, lie, distract. If you can somehow make it all about her choices, her appearance, her affiliations, her family, her age, the way she travels, the plastic wrapping around her sandwich, her Asperger’s — at the expense of focusing on her cause: avoiding climate breakdown — they’ve won. And we must not let them win. In fact, Greta’s not the target of these lies and distractions. Their goal is to distract the established media. When Greta sat down outside the Swedish parliament a year ago she was very open about her strategy. She wanted to use the media attention her action gained to talk about the climate crisis, thereby increasing the media coverage of it. The anti-Greta propagandists seek to shortcut this logic. They use her strategy — the attention she receives — against her. Flow the airwaves with junk about Greta and her message must compete with it, clouding it in the process. Feed the meme to contain the movement. Sadly, established media is prone to fall into this trap. One big reason why is because the media does not treat the climate crisis for what it is, namely, the greatest news story of this century. This is unsurprising, considering that news stories typically deal with particular, recent events, not on-going systematic shifts with enormous consequences for our future. Greta, the icon, her movement, her detractors are much more click-baity than the deaths caused by recent and future heat waves, the current Arctic sea ice extent, the threat against the Amazon or the increased amount of wildfires and their effect on the climate and our societies. Did you know that Indonesia plans to move its capital because Jakarta is literally sinking into the sea? What can be a greater news story than an entire city sinking into the sea? Everything from Trump tweets to boat crews taking flights, it seems. Distractions, distractions. This does not have to be so, and it proves that Greta’s — and our — mission is far from completed. Our movement for climate action, net zero emissions and a safe future will continue to grow. But we don’t have time to wait. Every action, every reformed climate ignorant, every ounce less of carbon in the atmosphere counts. Let’s join Greta in her fight for a new and radically different media landscape, one that truly deals with the crisis as a crisis and not a click-bait, one in which news outlets compete with one another to offer the broadest and most in-depth coverage of the effects and the solutions to climate change. You can help by sharing news about the ongoing crisis and the solutions available to avoid the catastrophe. If someone takes climate action, it is important to encourage it. You can also reach out to your local newspaper or TV broadcaster and help them vastly improve their climate coverage. A media landscape that focuses fully on this crisis and its solutions is possible, likely even, given the nature of the issue, but the sooner it materializes the better, because it would help push world leaders towards negotiating real solutions. In this imagined world, Greta receives significantly less coverage. Nothing scares the enemies of the climate movement more. No one — I think — would welcome this world more than Greta herself. Ingmar Rentzhog CEO & founder of We Don’t Have Time David Olsson, co-founder of We Don’t Have Time, contributed to this article. This text was originally written in 2019. A lot of things have happened since then. Greta is not at the center of world attention anymore. Instead, a pandemic took most of the media's attention. But the climate crisis has not paused, and after a summer with climate-fueled extreme weather worldwide, we will see a shift of focus, hopefully about how to solve the climate crisis. The fossil fuel interests will do everything they can to resist, and it is up to all of us, not Greta, to stop them. Everyone should ask themself, "If I don't act. Who will?". We Don't Have Time to stand on the sideline anymore. We must pressure and encourage our political and corporate leaders to do more—That's why we founded https://WeDontHaveTime.org - the world's largest review platform for climate action. Let's encourage good climate action with Climate 💚 and urge bad climate practices to stop with Climate ⚠️. We can do this. Another world is possible.
Shared by Nils Fischer
39 w
•
Great outcome for young people whose health has been affected by fossil fuel industry! https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/14/youths-win-montana-climate-trial/
36 more agrees trigger social media ads
Shared by Nils Fischer
43 w
The world's energy landscape is witnessing a major transformation with the advent of a pioneering startup, Airthium. Committed to revolutionizing energy storage, Airthium has developed a groundbreaking mechanical ‘battery’ that boasts 100% recyclability, a longer lifespan, and 1/100th the cost of lithium-ion batteries at $2/MWh. The startup recently launched on Wefunder, which means anyone can invest in Airthium for a limited time. https://www.benzinga.com/startups/23/07/33241822/new-battery-beats-teslas-lithium-ion-by-a-mile-with-100x-cheaper-price-tag-100-recyclable-and-longer
70 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
Shared by Nils Fischer
The rush to mine the deep sea is reminiscent of the gold rush of the 1800s, with everyone racing to stake their claim on a new frontier. Recently, a UN deadline for finalizing regulations on deep-sea mining in international waters expired without an agreement. This creates a state of uncertainty and allows countries to apply for mining licences, potentially triggering an ill-advised rush to the ocean floor in search of minerals crucial for the green energy transition. However, the irreversible impact on marine habitats and the disturbance of carbon stores locked away for millennia pose significant concerns for the fragile climate. The allure of the deep sea has been present since the 1960s, with its vast, cold, and lightless ocean floor hiding immense potential for extraction. One notable area is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), an expansive region spanning over 4.5 million square kilometres in the equatorial Pacific. This area is home to trillions of polymetallic nodules, potato-sized rocks rich in manganese, nickel, copper, and cobalt—essential components of rechargeable batteries used in electric vehicles. Additionally, the deep seabed features seamounts, underwater mountains adorned with metal-heavy crusts, and sulphide ores formed around hot, deep-sea vents. The crusts hold precious metals like platinum and molybdenum, while the ores contain copper, gold, and silver. These minerals are highly sought-after in various industries, including electronics, construction, and transportation. However, the extraction of these minerals comes at the cost of the marine ecosystem that has evolved over millennia. The process of recovering nodules involves disturbing the seabed, separating the nodules from the mud, and then pumping the remnants back into the sea. This destruction would have detrimental consequences for deep-sea life, including sponges, sea cucumbers, octopi, and xenophyophores—strange, tennis ball-sized single-celled creatures. The soft sea mud houses nematode worms and crustaceans. Marine Scientists, such as Kirsten Thompson from Exeter University, question the true significance of these minerals in the green revolution and advocate against damaging an environment that remains largely unexplored and misunderstood. The potential loss of microbes with medicinal potential is also a concern, given that marine-derived molecules like salinosporamide are being studied for their application in treating brain cancer. Despite these concerns, several countries, including Norway, China, and India, support deep-sea extraction. India, in particular, has already begun exploring options in the nodule-rich Indian Ocean, aiming for self-sufficiency in nickel and cobalt. While France and the UK hold exploration licences, they do not currently support commercial mining, a stance shared by various other European countries. Proponents of deep-sea mining argue that it could reduce China and Russia's control over critical raw materials and potentially replace land mining, which faces issues like deforestation, child labour, and community displacement. However, it is optimistic to assume that terrestrial mining would cease if deep-sea mining becomes costlier. Moreover, issues of social justice remain unresolved, as it is unclear how the spoils would be shared, considering that the international seabed is the common heritage of humankind. Notably, companies like BMW, Volvo, and Samsung have pledged to avoid sourcing minerals obtained through deep-sea mining in their supply chains. Taking a long-term perspective, it appears wiser to focus on reducing global dependence on rare commodities rather than perpetuating it. Research into alternative battery technologies, such as cobalt-free batteries, is already yielding promising results. Additionally, there is a growing emphasis on improved recycling practices. Given the unknown risks and uncertain benefits, deep-sea mining presents a challenging concept to sustain in the long run. The ongoing debate surrounding deep-sea mining is reaching a critical point, with discussions taking place at the International Seabed Authority (ISA) meeting in Kingston, Jamaica. Governments are racing to secure critical minerals for low-carbon technologies while committing to protecting marine biodiversity. The lack of comprehensive knowledge about life in the deep sea raises concerns among scientists, conservationists, and NGOs who call for a pause or moratorium on deep-sea mining plans. The potential environmental impacts, such as light pollution, sediment plumes, and noise pollution, highlight the need for cautious decision-making. As the ISA works toward establishing mining regulations, it is clear that a balance must be struck between the urgent need for resources and the protection of fragile marine ecosystems. The deep sea remains a realm of mystery, and its exploration should proceed with caution to minimize irreversible damage and ensure the long-term sustainability of both our environment and resource extraction practices.
Shared by Nils Fischer
As Europe grapples with ongoing energy challenges, Schneider Electric recently emphasized the crucial need for the world to draw lessons from the 2022 energy crisis in a Financial Times article. With a focus on electrification through renewables and digitalization, we wanted to highlight the urgent necessity to implement sustainable solutions. Addressing the Lessons of the 2022 Energy Crisis: In 2022, Europe experienced an energy crisis that compelled households and businesses to curtail energy usage, impacting seasonal festivities. Even the iconic Eiffel Tower light show in Paris was dimmed to conserve energy. While these efforts helped avert blackouts, the milder winter weather played a role in preventing widespread disruptions. However, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that Europe faces a similar threat in the upcoming winter, with projected shortfalls of nearly 30 billion cubic meters, equivalent to approximately 7% of the 2021 demand. Philippe Delorme, Executive Vice President of Europe Operations for Schneider Electric, underscores the prevailing vulnerability of Europe's energy markets, stating, "The immediate future remains unclear, and Europe's energy markets are still in a very vulnerable position." Delorme further highlights the substantial sums governments spent on energy subsidies last winter, equating to the funding of the upcoming Paris 2024 Summer Olympic Games eight times over. We need to continue urging governments and organizations to invest in technologies and solutions that drive energy efficiency, to prove their cost-effectiveness in both the short and long term. Philippe Delorme, Executive Vice President of Europe Operations for Schneider Electric Embracing Digital Efficiency to Meet Demand and Reduce Consumption: While green energy infrastructure investments primarily focus on augmenting clean power supply through initiatives like wind farms and efficient solar panels, experts argue that digital efficiency holds the key to short-term solutions. Leveraging smart energy management devices that monitor and track resources can curtail energy consumption and costs across residential, commercial, and energy-sensitive facilities. Moreover, many demand-side measures can be readily introduced using existing technology. Delorme affirms the importance of optimizing energy usage and minimizing waste, stating, "We all need to optimize our energy use and reduce waste, and we can do this by leveraging the technologies we already have available to us." By prioritizing electrification, Europe can simultaneously bolster energy security and drive decarbonization. This entails transitioning all aspects of transportation, heating and cooling systems, and industrial-scale processes to renewable energy sources, marking a transformative shift away from fossil fuels. The Role of Electrification and Efficient Technologies: A 2022 study published in Scientific Reports emphasizes that the electrification of multiple applications within buildings is paramount to achieving lower carbon emissions and meeting global net-zero goals. The study highlights the significance of employing efficient electrical heating systems to manage demand, with ground-source heat pumps serving as an exemplary solution. Our own research estimates that by prioritizing electrification in the buildings and transport sectors, Europe can increase the share of electricity in its overall energy mix from 20% to 50%. This approach not only substantially reduces reliance on fossil fuels but also minimizes or eliminates energy waste. The Lippulaiva Urban Development: Pioneering Energy Efficiency: The Lippulaiva urban development, situated near Helsinki, Finland, represents a remarkable example of energy efficiency technologies and digitalization systems. Comprising residential flats and a retail park, this project aims to be both carbon-neutral and Europe's most energy-efficient development. Through the use of onsite solar panels and geothermal wells, the Lippulaiva center leverages digital technology to monitor and manage electricity demand and supply. Battery storage facilitates the usage of electricity as needed, while excess power generated can be fed back into the local grid. This pioneering initiative embodies what is achievable in 2023 and serves as a blueprint for constructing a sustainable future. Moving forward: The urgent need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, promote electrification, and transition to renewable energy sources to address Europe's current energy crisis and reduce emissions is clear. Political will is evident, as demonstrated by the willingness to allocate funds for action. However, it is crucial that such actions and investments be strategically directed to prevent recurring challenges in the upcoming winter and beyond. By collectively learning from the lessons of the 2022 energy crisis, governments, organizations, and individuals can foster a resilient energy sector and pave the way toward a greener and more sustainable future. Read the full article below! https://www.ft.com/partnercontent/schneider-electric/europes-energy-crisis-lessons-must-be-learned.html?
Shared by Nils Fischer
44 w
Eating in a better way initiative is on the mouve !
22 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Shared by Nils Fischer
45 w
•
Seaweed farming allows us to revolutionize how we think about ocean health, climate mitigation, and food security. Seaweed doesn’t need fertilizer, pesticides, or farmland to grow, and its production has doubled over the last decade, resulting in an annual harvest of over 30 million tons and creating a market worth $11.8 billion. In the fight against the global decline in biodiversity and climate change, the preservation and growth of global seaweed forests are vital since they pack a mighty punch — estimates point to seaweed accounting for nearly 200 million tonnes of CO2 sequestered each year, while providing crucial habitat for marine biodiversity and building up resilience for fish stocks. However, the world’s wild seaweed forests face various challenges, such as pollution, overharvesting, coastal developments, heatwaves, and ocean warming. By safeguarding seaweed forests, we provide support to marine life and the economies of coastal communities. Additionally, we invest in a powerful solution for biodiversity and climate preservation, all while ensuring the conservation of fisheries resources. WWF is working with organizations, scientists, and local communities on the frontlines of protecting and growing seaweed forests to support their reforestation. One organization that we are particularly proud to work closely with is SeaForester, which is on a mission to “restore the forgotten forests in our ocean.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEYSbf0sDx0 SeaForester's biodiversity and climate solution is innovative, and we will walk you through how it’s transforming underwater ecosystems. SeaForester first begins with the seeding of small stones with seaweed spores. After these stones spend time in a nursery on land, where conditions mimic the local aquatic environments, the seeded stones are scattered from a boat into the ocean. There, they continue to grow, forming a new seaweed forest in just a few years. This process of seeding seaweed spores onto stones, called ‘Green Gravel,’ is a low-cost and scalable solution to reforesting the ocean’s seaweed forests, and it doesn’t need divers or technical equipment. To maximize the results of their biodiversity and climate solution, SeaForester is also active in educating the broader public and involving coastal communities in their projects. Together with their partners at MARE-IPLeiria, they continue to optimize their solution and make it ready for application to other coastal regions worldwide. Last year, SeaForester was a finalist in The Earthshot Prize, which their nomination focused on reviving the Earth’s oceans. Click here to read more about SeaForester’s profile in The Earthshot Prize competition. WWF is proud to be supporting SeaForester’s work. Supporting two SeaForester projects has allowed us to witness firsthand their transformative influence on the environment and local communities, leaving us with a deep appreciation. More about WWF’s work with Farmed Seaweed: As a result of generous support from partners, WWF is investing in innovative companies focusing on scaling seaweed production to meet conservation and societal challenges. To fully capitalize on the economic and climate benefits, they need to be scaled up in a big way. WWF’s Senior Director of Impact Investing and Ecosystems Services, Aquaculture, Paul Dobbins, came out of retirement to work on this important task of scaling seaweed sectors around the North Atlantic rim and the Eastern Pacific. You can read about Paul Dobbin and his work here.
122 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
Shared by Nils Fischer
45 w
•
In a devastating blow to the fight against climate change, The Guardian reveals that the UK government plans to abandon its flagship £11.6 billion climate and nature funding pledge, leaving vulnerable populations exposed to the ravages of the climate crisis. Former ministers and representatives of at-risk countries have expressed their anger, accusing Rishi Sunak of making false promises. For years, the UK has strived to position itself as a global leader in tackling the climate crisis but this is well over. Former Climate minister Zac Goldsmith, who resigned recently citing Sunak's "apathy" towards the environment, warned that this decision would severely damage the UK's international reputation. Goldsmith emphasized the challenge of meeting the £11.6 billion target after the next election, requiring drastic cuts in humanitarian, education, health, and other funding areas. He expressed particular concern for small island states, as well as the broader geopolitical repercussions and the UK's reputation as a reliable partner. A leaked briefing note to ministers, shared with the Foreign Office and revealed by The Guardian, sheds light on the reasons behind the abandonment of the UK's commitment to the global $100 billion per year climate funding pledge for developing countries. The note states that the promise to double international climate finance to £11.6 billion was made in 2019 when the UK's international aid spending was at 0.7% of GDP and pre-Covid. Meeting the target by the deadline is deemed a "huge challenge" due to new pressures, including the inclusion of aid for Ukraine in the budget. To achieve the £11.6 billion target by 2026, government officials have calculated that 83% of the Foreign Office's official development assistance budget would have to be allocated to the international climate fund. Civil servants expressed concern that such a reallocation would leave little room for other crucial commitments, such as humanitarian aid and programs for women and girls. This is such a weird argument considering that fighting climate change is also helping women and girls. This is saying that projects focused on renewable energy infrastructure, low-pollution transportation, and forest protection in ecologically sensitive regions worldwide don't matter. The potential funding cut has dismayed countries set to receive the funds. Gabon's environment minister, Lee White, stated that the climate crisis requires contributions from all countries, urging developed nations like the UK to fulfill their financial commitments and provide true leadership. This U-Turn opens the door for more countries to follow the UK and this is a scary possibility. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/revealed-uk-plans-to-drop-flagship-climate-pledge-rishi-sunak
21 more agrees trigger social media ads
Shared by Nils Fischer
46 w
•
What sets us apart from other dairy and farm products is that we don’t just only measure emissions on the farm, but we measure the whole journey of our product. We use a farm to fridge approach, which means we measure the emissions emitted from all parts of this journey and beyond to ensure we counter emissions whenever possible. In this article, we'll explain how Neutral conducts its farm to fridge approach as well as all the scientific considerations and measurements we make. Obsessively measuring carbon emissions At Neutral, when it comes to measuring the carbon emission of our products, we are obsessive. We take pride in being driven in our measurements because we believe it’s essential to be transparent about carbon emission reduction. Our journey of obsessive measurement begins with employing a life cycle assessment (LCA) to understand our emissions and where we can start to make an impact in reducing them. We use a cradle-to-grave approach for our LCA, which means we account for all on-farm activities as well as processing, transportation, packaging, retail operations, waste, and disposal. This approach is highly comprehensive. The on-farm activities can range from fertilizer to cow methane burps and energy use. In our LCA, we even measure and include small details like the energy waste associated with the opening and closing of the refrigerator, the gas it takes to drive to the grocery store, and the little bit of milk left in the carton that gets tossed out from time to time. Our LCA is done by Dr. Greg Thoma, who has spent his career studying the environmental footprint of animal agriculture. His work on determining the carbon footprint of a gallon of milk by visiting over 300 U.S. dairies was adapted to resemble the footprint of Neutral’s milk supply chain more closely. The Neutral LCA results show that 72% of the product emissions occur on-farm. So that’s where we are focusing the majority of our carbon reduction efforts — on the farm, working with farmers to realize emission reduction projects. Recently, we’ve committed $1,000,000 with our partners at FarmRaise to increase funding for carbon-reducing projects on farms through 2023, and we don’t want to stop there. The goal is to have every farmer implement sustainable farming practices so we can solve the climate crisis and for families and individuals to take climate action without having to leave the grocery aisle. Neutral’s Offsets and Insets Implementing a carbon reduction project on a farm and witnessing the climate benefits is not instantaneous; these processes take time. To accurately assess the effectiveness of a carbon reduction project, we must account for the emissions before and after its implementation. At the conclusion of each year, Neutral’s scientists calculate the total product footprint and subtract the verified emissions reductions/removals achieved through the project. Any remaining emissions are then addressed through the utilization of verified offsets. Using offsets to achieve carbon neutrality is not the end goal for us, but they do enable us to bring carbon neutral products to consumers now. Offsets aren’t here to solve the climate crisis completely, because only real and lasting climate action can do that. Think of it this way — offsets are the ambulance ride to the hospital, and climate action is living a healthy lifestyle that would avoid these ambulance rides. With offsets covering the emissions that we cannot reduce, we also develop insets. Insets are verified reductions or removals of greenhouse gas emissions that occur within the supply chain or supply shed of a product, but the main takeaway in the difference between inset and offset is that insets directly address supply chain emissions (a.k.a. scope 3 emissions). At Neutral, we develop insets that are real, additional, permanent, and independently verified by a third party. Decarbonizing agriculture by helping producers is our reason for being, and thus developing insets is where we spend the lion’s share of our time and resources. Our goal is to eliminate the majority of Neutral’s carbon footprint via insets. Neutral purchases all of its offsets from the Climate Action Reserve (CAR), which is a leading verifying body and registry of carbon offsets. CAR works to ensure that offsets on their registry are real, additional, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. The offsets Neutral purchases are from dairy methane digesters, which trap methane emissions that otherwise would have been released into the atmosphere and can be used as a renewable natural gas fuel source. Neutral is Certified Carbon Neutral Farms are at the heart of our mission to radically transform agriculture, and we continue to focus most of our efforts on carbon reduction there. At Neutral, everything from our climate claims to the greenhouse gas reduction projects we conduct with farmers, are independently verified by a third party on an annual basis. Specifically, we hire global climate advisory firm SCS Global to audit our analyses, and continually ground our work in the best available science and most accurate math. While many carbon claims are self-reported, being certified means that our carbon claims have passed a stringent set of requirements defined and verified by independent standard bearers. Our most recent certification from SCS can be found here. Stay in touch with Neutral by following our We Don’t Have Time page, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. You can also subscribe to our newsletter here. Tell us in the comments what our next article should be about!
Shared by Nils Fischer
53 w
•
Meet Sherri Goodman, the new independent member of the Board of Directors of Lightbridge Corporation (NASDAQ: LTBR). She chairs our Energy Security and National Security Committee, and has formerly served as the first Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, where she focused on environmental security. We sat down with Sherri to ask about the role of nuclear energy in ensuring energy security and meeting global climate goals. Sherri Goodman was the first US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security from 1993 to 2001. Looking back, she sees those years as the US military’s first era of environmental awakening. ”This was when the military closed bases after the cold war and we cleaned them up. The military started protecting endangered species, complied with environmental laws, engaged with other militaries around the world to exchange best practices in environmental protection, and used military-to-military cooperation as a way to build trust and promote democracy and civilian control over the military,” she says. ”That era then opened up the era of climate awakening, in understanding both the international security impacts of climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’, a phrase that I coined for the CNA military advisory board in 2007, and then also enabling the Department of Defense to be a clean energy leader on its way to transform how we use energy for defense purposes.” As the climate crisis has worsened, have you noticed that security threats have changed? ”Security threats have certainly accelerated since we wrote our first report in 2007. Back then we were talking about projected and potential climate change. Today we live with daily evidence of climate risks. Rising temperatures, rising sea levels, extreme weather events on a regular basis, and terms that we didn’t even have in the lexicon back 15 years ago, like bomb cyclone and derecho. The head of the National Guard Bureau has even said ‘It's not a wildfire season anymore. It’s year-round we’re deploying firefighters and often military backup to those firefighters. We have the prolonged drought that has sent millions into food and water insecurity much across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia. And we have the permafrost melt, which along with sea ice retreat and rising temperatures in the Arctic has transformed that whole region into an ocean that is open for navigation and increasingly a source of conflict and tension instead of a source of cooperation as it used to be. So much has changed.” What does energy security mean, and how does it tie into climate change? ”Energy security at its most basic level means having reliable sources of power for various needs. It means being protected against risks that threaten you. One of the major risks today is climate change. Energy is also at risk from cyber-attacks and deliberate attacks. So when we think about having more secure energy we want it to be secure against all those risks. Trucking fuel to the front for combat put thousands of American soldiers' and marines’ lives at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight out of ten of our military convoys in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were about logistics: ammunition, fuel and water. We learned the hard way that we need to have more distributed, in theatre sources of energy and water, not transporting it at great economic cost and putting lives at risk. This means being able to fuel the fight, or power the fight, more locally. Renewables can do some of that job today. Better batteries, solar, microgrids, potentially even microreactors can help form some of that function.” How should everyday people think about nuclear energy in the concept of climate goals and energy security? ”Nuclear energy traditionally in the US has been about 20 percent of baseload power, and unfortunately the US hasn’t built many nuclear plants in recent decades. One reason is that we haven’t fully solved the waste storage issue. It’s a solvable problem, but the politics are more intractable than the technology. And we haven’t invested a lot in innovating in this area, so other countries, particularly Russia and China, have taken a global beat on the US in the global nuclear power market. This is a serious risk for American national security and global security, because right now we are not producing enough of our own nuclear fuel for our own reactors. We’re importing uranium from Russia, and that’s a bad situation. The US is finally working to restore that, but none of this happens overnight. We’ve got to reset our own nuclear energy industry and have American nuclear energy leadership that is based on advanced reactor technologies that are both safer and cheaper, while simultaneously providing the energy that will meet the needs of the future.” How do you respond to people that say nuclear energy is a security risk, rather than a security reward? ”The greater security risk is if we don’t bend the curve on fossil fuels. The mounting CO2 in the atmosphere is fueling the climate crisis that we face, and this will make large areas and some of our cities unlivable and lead to further waves of climate migration. We’ve got to bend that curve. We’ve seen historical transitions in energy use from fire, steam and coal, to oil, to the nuclear age, which occurred during and after World War II. We are now into new forms of renewables, but we also have an opportunity with the new era of nuclear energy - fission energy. At some point we’ll hit fusion, which is sort of just coming into focus right now. It is not yet a scalable source of energy, but maybe it will be in your lifetime. I’m a technology optimist. We have made the world better for millions more. I still remember the days before there were any cellphones. When I was in college, there weren’t even desktop computers, let alone mobile phones. Advances can be made, and we have to keep moving forward.” How does military spending on fossil fuels, rather than clean energy, affect security? ”Today's focus is on having energy supportability in contested logistics environments. Now that’s a mouthful, but let me break that down. In a perfect world, you might have tanks that run only on batteries and aircraft powered by sustainable aviation fuels. But also in a perfect world, you wouldn’t have any combat or war. We haven’t achieved that level of perfection, and I don’t think we will be able to achieve that in my lifetime. What we can do is reduce the fuel burden by looking at alternatives and more sustainable sources of the existing liquid fuels – that’s all possible. Until about a decade ago, the military assumed it would always have enough energy to get to whatever combat situation was called upon for our troops. Once you recognize that there could be shortages in those energy supplies or that you are putting lives at risk, it becomes clearer that we need to innovate to better power our armed forces. So that’s what’s happening today. The other Gordian knot that’s finally been broken is the concept that for a better-performing weapon system, you have to have more fuel. Now there are better propulsion systems, better batteries, and different types of fuels for aircraft and ships. And nuclear is part of the equation as well. We have had a nuclear navy since just after the cold war, it’s operated safely and very effectively, and we have nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, so we know how to use nuclear technology safely and now that we are on the cusp of a new generation of nuclear technology. We have the opportunity to make that a part of the decarbonized future.” A recent peer-reviewed article found that the design of Lightbridge fuel rods consumes 5.5 times more weapons-grade plutonium than traditional fuel, and also that would-be proliferators cannot use Lightbridge's spent fuel. How do you view the role of Lightbridge Fuel in fostering peace and stability? ”You’ve got nuclear energy for civilian purposes, which has to be part of the clean energy transition. Then you’ve got nuclear weapons and all the fissile materials that are used to build nuclear weapons, which is the continuing legacy of the cold war. We’re not going to get rid of those, and we have more plutonium on the planet than we need. The risk with plutonium and other certain nuclear fuels is that they can be converted into weapons-grade material. Lightbridge has technology that will enable weapons-grade plutonium to be converted and used for peaceful purposes. This solves two problems at once. It helps get rid of that weapons-grade plutonium material, and at the same time, it provides clean power. That’s the goal. I hope we can get there. That’s a win-win situation.”
Shared by Nils Fischer
75 w
•
Our world must achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and take serious steps in the short term to ensure we get there. If we cannot reach this 2050 goal, we will face frequent extreme weather and other public health and climate disparities. The scientific consensus on the harms of fossil fuels to the planet, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, is well established, and we should make fossil fuels a thing of the past as soon as possible. Nuclear energy has a part to play in helping countries meet their energy needs and addressing the ‘existential crisis' of climate change, says Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). We are Lightbridge Corporation (NASDAQ: LTBR), an advanced nuclear fuel technology company concerned with the devastating effects of climate change. We echo what the IAEA Director General says about the importance of nuclear energy to avoid the worst of the climate crisis. At Lightbridge, we believe the world’s growing clean energy needs can only be met with nuclear providing a larger portion of the diversified energy needs, alongside green and renewable sources, such as wind and solar. Nuclear energy makes a positive climate impact since it emits no carbon when generating energy, and nuclear has been proven to work at all times of the day. Nuclear energy does not need the sun to shine nor wind to be operational and provide energy to strengthen our electric grids. Nuclear also doesn’t require the massive energy storage infrastructure that renewables need. However, we still believe that the nuclear industry can be steered into being safer and cheaper. Just like how the airbags in cars have revolutionized how we approach cars, our patented Lightbridge Fuel™ will change how people imagine the future of nuclear energy. Lightbridge Fuel will help to steer the nuclear industry into a safer, affordable, and climate-friendly future. Let’s jump into explaining Lightbridge Fuel™ and how it is good for nuclear energy — Using Lightbridge Fuel™ addresses safety concerns over nuclear energy: - Lightbridge Fuel addresses safety concerns since it operates about 1000° C cooler than current nuclear fuels and will not produce hydrogen gas in the event of a design basis loss of coolant accident, which is what exploded at Fukushima. - Lightbridge Fuel is also being designed to eliminate existing stockpiles of plutonium. - Importantly, spent Lightbridge Fuel is unable to be used for nuclear weapons. You can read the peer-reviewed article in the Nuclear Engineering and Design journal that had an independent validation of the nonproliferation benefits of Lightbridge’s innovative metallic fuel design. Lightbridge Fuel™ is affordable and efficient: - Lightbridge Fuel allows existing and new reactors to operate at lower temperatures while extracting more heat from the fuel core with more efficient energy output. - Reactors powered with Lightbridge Fuel can achieve 10% power uprates and extend their fuel cycles from 18 to 24 months, a significant economic benefit for utilities. - Lightbridge Fuel can be used in both small modular reactors (SMRs) and large reactors in existence today. This means that the benefits of Lightbridge Fuel can be realized by the existing fleet of large light water reactors. - Lightbridge Fuel can provide SMRs the same benefits our technology brings to large reactors. Still, the benefits may be more meaningful to the economic case for deploying SMRs, enabling them to generate more power and reducing the cost per unit of electricity generated by the SMR. — Currently, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is performing a study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy on the deployment of accident tolerant fuels in SMRs by simulating the fuel and safety performance of Lightbridge Fuel inside an SMR designed by NuScale Power. - Lightbridge Fuel can enhance the ability of SMRs to ramp up and down in power quickly, to pair with renewables on a zero-carbon electric grid. - - At Lightbridge, we are concerned about the devastating effects of fossil fuels. We believe we can help society wean itself off its reliance on fossil fuels through positive nuclear energy climate action.Fossil fuel infrastructure is embedded deep in society. Still, we have to end this unhealthy consumption of fossil fuels to reach the global climate goals and save ourselves from a difficult future. Society must include all non-emitting carbon energy sources, even nuclear energy, in the fight against the climate crisis. We spoke on the importance of nuclear energy in fighting the climate crisis on We Don’t Have Time’s COP27 Climate Hub Panel - Achieving Energy Security While Meeting Climate Goals, and we invite you to hear what our President and CEO, Seth Grae, had to say about achieving clean energy security through nuclear energy. Additionally, we see nuclear energy as a way to divert money away from petro-dictators like Vladimir Putin and provide strengthened energy security to democracies. With winter approaching, now more than ever, the world must still meet its energy needs without relying on fossil fuels, especially when a petro-dictator can leverage it in a game of political negotiation. After reading our post, we understand that you may still feel divided about nuclear energy. But we still invite you to continue to engage with us, and we are excited to join this community to learn more about how people feel about nuclear energy and how we can reach global climate goals together.What should we talk about for our next post? Let us know in the comments! - -
Shared by Nils Fischer
54 w
•
•
SEB launched Climate and Sustainability Dashboard for all customers in the Nordics last week. SEB customers can now access climate data for stocks on Nordic stock exchanges, allowing them to consider information on companies' climate impact, greenhouse gas emissions, gender equality, and other sustainability factors when making investments. Sustainability data is presented in the SEB mobile app and online banking, with a sustainability tab in the detailed view of each stock, providing an overview of the company's compliance with the Paris Agreement, its estimated contribution to global warming, gender equality, and adherence to guidelines on human rights and working conditions. SEB has classified companies into four categories based on their compliance with the Paris Agreement, with green category 1 stocks being those approved by the Science Based Targets initiative. The sustainability data is primarily sourced from analysis firm ISS ESG and supplemented with data from the Net Zero Banking Alliance and the Net Zero Insurance Alliance, based on scientific methods reviewed by the UN. To my knowledge, this is the first bank that has done this. This is a great initiative and something every bank should do for all shares in the world! Read more (in swedish): https://sebgroup.com/sv/press/nyheter/2023/seb-redovisar-hallbarhetsdata-for-enskilda-bolag-i-aktielistan
118 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
Shared by Nils Fischer
46 w
•
Standing up against greenwashing in the advertising industry is more crucial than ever. Last year at Cannes Lions, climate activist Tolmeia Gregory's viral moment exposed the complicity of the ad industry in the climate crisis. Now, she's back, urging fellow creatives to join the disruption. Tolmeia's question to a Shell executive during a female empowerment event resonated globally. She challenged Shell's concealment of the impact on women in Nigeria affected by oil spills. The uncomfortable truth sparked overwhelming interest, with over 400,000 views across social media and support from organizations like Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace. Despite the green image portrayed in ad campaigns, the oil and gas sector's commitment to low-carbon technologies remains minimal. Greenwashing continues unless engaged citizens, including creatives, confront it head-on. Tolmeia Gregory was in Cannes campaigning with Clean Creatives, an organisation calling on the advertising industry and its agencies to stop working with fossil fuel clients. Their efforts generated some of the festival’s most viral social media content and their campaign gathered 637 pledges from agencies worldwide. A good start but there's more work to be done. 💪 https://app.wedonthavetime.org/posts/c8d4877b-bb69-466f-8034-91efa52fd9f4
134 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
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™.