This article is full of really useable information. I had no idea that "Carbon neutral" was not a good goal. Definite mind-shift there. Thank you for doing the research and helping us all feel a bit more empowered to know what to do and steps to take.
Exactly. We need expand the narrative beyond “carbon emissions are driving climate change “ to “extracting energy from hydrocarbons is diminishing habitats on earth that humans can inhabit “.
An emissions framing points to a pollution problem that calls for pollution control solutions: regulation (government called to act through protest) and self-regulation (business shamed into action by protests).
An energy extraction framing points to a choice of energy technologies problem which calls for a replace-to-retire strategy designed and executed at climate scale and in climate time.
Really interesting point about the emissions framing potentially supporting regulation/marginal change ("reduce" the problem), Tim! I agree that a complete transition away from fossils is what's needed, and have advocated a ban/stop date to "phase out fossil fuels fast, fairly, and forever," as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty is working to do. You can read more about them here: https://wecanfixit.substack.com/p/pre-fire-dread-phase-out-fossils
Really important point about much of "carbon neutrality" being dodgy accounting/ things that don't really make a difference. The wrong incentives have a powerful influence.
Thanks Melanie! It was so helpful for me to see historical data on how little real climate action has been taken to meet climate neutrality. Strong motivation to reformulate goals now!
Thanks again Kimberly, especially the parts about the US colleges, and the excerpt from Subina Shrestha!
Re eating - i m o - I'd set the monthly goal at zero beef. If you end up having a burger somehow, you won't die, but why not set up the vegan-style diet to be the norm? It's not so difficult to achieve, especially if you don't worry about being perfect.
In this post I focused on the guidance for what fits within planetary boundaries-- and that doesn't require eliminating all animal products, though I do indicate it's an option: "if you eat animal products, eat no more than..." :)
I'll try to write more about this in a future post!
I appreciated the we/they piece. I have found I feel much more satisfied and encouraged when I use "I" instead of "we", because I can speak for myself and model for others.
That's a great observation, Jeanine! I think that's great advice. It's powerful to share personal stories and lead by example. I find it can be really tricky to navigate when to use "I" -- what we can/should do and take responsibility for ourselves -- and when "we" is appropriate... indicating collective action, agency, or responsibility, but without claiming to speak for some monolithic group. I'm working on more clearly naming who I mean by "we" and not assuming/taking it for granted ... work in progress! I thought Subina's post got at such an interesting experience of how groups and boundaries get defined... lots of food for thought!
This article is full of really useable information. I had no idea that "Carbon neutral" was not a good goal. Definite mind-shift there. Thank you for doing the research and helping us all feel a bit more empowered to know what to do and steps to take.
Thanks so much for reading, Hilary, and for the encouraging feedback, I really appreciate it!
Thank you so much Kim. I am going for a walk❤️.
Good idea, Susan! The fall colours are spectacular here right now. Hope you find some beauty and inspiration in nature today!
Exactly. We need expand the narrative beyond “carbon emissions are driving climate change “ to “extracting energy from hydrocarbons is diminishing habitats on earth that humans can inhabit “.
An emissions framing points to a pollution problem that calls for pollution control solutions: regulation (government called to act through protest) and self-regulation (business shamed into action by protests).
An energy extraction framing points to a choice of energy technologies problem which calls for a replace-to-retire strategy designed and executed at climate scale and in climate time.
Really interesting point about the emissions framing potentially supporting regulation/marginal change ("reduce" the problem), Tim! I agree that a complete transition away from fossils is what's needed, and have advocated a ban/stop date to "phase out fossil fuels fast, fairly, and forever," as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty is working to do. You can read more about them here: https://wecanfixit.substack.com/p/pre-fire-dread-phase-out-fossils
Really important point about much of "carbon neutrality" being dodgy accounting/ things that don't really make a difference. The wrong incentives have a powerful influence.
Thanks Melanie! It was so helpful for me to see historical data on how little real climate action has been taken to meet climate neutrality. Strong motivation to reformulate goals now!
Thanks again Kimberly, especially the parts about the US colleges, and the excerpt from Subina Shrestha!
Re eating - i m o - I'd set the monthly goal at zero beef. If you end up having a burger somehow, you won't die, but why not set up the vegan-style diet to be the norm? It's not so difficult to achieve, especially if you don't worry about being perfect.
Thanks David! I've written a lot about making vegan/vegetarian the norm-- e.g., Chapter 11 in Under the Sky We Make, our research on "Measuring what works" to induce high-impact pro-environmental behaviour (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae5d7), and how we made our department default veg http://www.earthsystemgovernance.net/lund2017/2017/10/05/aligning-our-plates-and-research-celebrating-a-vegetarian-conference/
In this post I focused on the guidance for what fits within planetary boundaries-- and that doesn't require eliminating all animal products, though I do indicate it's an option: "if you eat animal products, eat no more than..." :)
I'll try to write more about this in a future post!
I appreciated the we/they piece. I have found I feel much more satisfied and encouraged when I use "I" instead of "we", because I can speak for myself and model for others.
That's a great observation, Jeanine! I think that's great advice. It's powerful to share personal stories and lead by example. I find it can be really tricky to navigate when to use "I" -- what we can/should do and take responsibility for ourselves -- and when "we" is appropriate... indicating collective action, agency, or responsibility, but without claiming to speak for some monolithic group. I'm working on more clearly naming who I mean by "we" and not assuming/taking it for granted ... work in progress! I thought Subina's post got at such an interesting experience of how groups and boundaries get defined... lots of food for thought!