june 2021 newsletter

Here is a mid-year newsletter with plenty of material if you have a wet day and want to browse. You may find one or two items of interest for you?

1) Marlborough District Council Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 -

CKM made a submission to the LTP and also took the opportunity to speak at the LTP Hearings. Councillors were attentive and respectful and our input seemed to be well received. You can view the submission and the presentation made at the LTP Hearings session here -

2) NIWA Report presented to MDC councillors and staff -

This report on Climate Change projections and impacts for Marlborough was prepared for Council by NIWA (NIWA report 2121031WN) in order to inform Council of areas where Climate change impacts may require further investigation and actions. The report summarises likely changes in temperature, rainfall, drought, and sea level rise in the Marlborough District over the remainder of this century, and discusses the probable impacts of these changes on river flows, droughts, forestry, horticulture, and ecosystem and human health.
It was presented to the Environment Committee by Gregor Macara on April 22nd, 2021.

It's well worth looking at just to see the the Executive Summary. Drought potential is projected to increase across Marlborough, with annual accumulated Potential Evapotranspiration Deficit (PED) totals increasing with time and increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. By 2040, PED totals are projected to increase by 50-150 mm. By 2090, PED totals are projected to increase by 50-200 mm (medium concentration pathway) or 75-250 mm (high concentration pathway). Another significant projection is that mean annual low flow (MALF) magnitudes are expected to decrease across both greenhouse gas concentration pathways and future time periods for most catchments. A decrease in MALF is expected to exceed 50% for most of the river systems in the region with increased greenhouse gas concentration and time.

The full pdf file can be downloaded here -

3) Gravel Bed Rivers National Project Update to Council -

A declining trend in Wairau Aquifer levels has been observed at western Wairau Plain MDC monitor wells since 1973, which pre-dates the Marlborough wine industry. While the declining trend of around 1 metre over 50 years may not appear large at an average of 20 mm/year, the risk is if it continues over the very long-term, groundwater springs may dry up and ultimately there could be seawater intrusion of our coastal aquifers. Given the depleted storage volume of the Wairau Aquifer after a series of dry summers since 2014 and minor Wairau River activity through the past winter recharge period, current levels of consented abstraction are also compounding the issue. Identifying the drivers via the Gravel Bed Rivers Project (GBR) is a priority project for MDC, given the longer term regional scale implications for flood control, reliability of consented water consents, wetland health and security of coastal groundwater supply. The causes of the decline are known to be incremental and long-acting. These drivers have been actively investigated over the past decade, but research is challenging because most of what goes on is hidden beneath the surface with measurements often indirect in nature.

This is very interesting research for anyone concerned about the future reliability of water supplied from the Wairau Aquifer, as the impacts projected in the NIWA report take effect in the next few decades.

You can see the original report to the MDC Environment Committee from June 2020 on the MDC website here (Agenda item 5) and the update is available from the April 2nd, 2021 Environment Committee meeting here (Agenda item 4)

4) Another Stuff article from Tom -

Tom has just had another article printed in the local paper and on Stuff. The latest one is titled "Have you heard about the Climate Emergency?". It's well worth a read if you haven't already seen it.
You can check it out here -  

5) Does Petroleum Industry Spying Really Matter?
Some of you will know Dr Terrence Loomis who was a CKM member until recently before moving back to the Gisborne area. He recently had an Opinion piece printed on the Scoop website of which there is an extract below.

Nicky Hager’s latest revelations about security firm Thompson and Clark’s ‘spying’ on climate activists and environmental organisations on behalf of the oil and gas industry and big GHG emitters makes entertaining reading.
But it does beg the question “So what?”
After all, most of this was already known from media coverage and academic research. Certainly environmental groups knew they were being watched and their communications monitored. Responses to Hager’s report seem to suggest this kind of clandestine information gathering was repugnant, immoral, even dangerous because the spies were photographing school children. Or because petroleum companies used it to thwart protest actions.
It IS about the exercise of power, I’ll grant you that.
The real reason such practices are dangerous and deserve exposure is what petroleum companies and PEPANZ actually do with the information besides preventing disruption to their conferences and business operations.
You can read the full Opinion piece here -

6) Our food is an existential threat beyond climate change -

This article was written by Jack Santa Barbara from Tasman who is a active member of the Nelson/Tasman Climate Forum.

Studies show our food system is unsustainable; it will not endure. We will only embrace the solutions if we first recognise the serious dilemma we have created with our economic success. The Climate Change Commission has received over 15,000 replies to its Draft Advice Report regarding how NZ can deal with climate change. This level of response bodes well for how many of us are engaged with this important issue.

But what about all the other existential threats that we continue to face which are not getting attention? In point of fact, there is not a single mainstream human designed system we rely on daily that is sustainable.
If something is unsustainable it means it will not last. If none of the systems we rely on daily are sustainable, what are the implications for our wellbeing if they cannot endure?

Take our most basic energy needs – food production. It takes more energy to produce our food than the food provides. Think about that for a moment. Our food system is unsustainable; it will not endure. This conclusion was reached by both a United Nations study, and another by the World Business Council for Social Development.

The full article is available here -

7) Food and Fossil Fuels -

The fossil fuels required to grow, harvest, process, and distribute food makes up a significant part of the food Footprint. Although it wasn’t always the case, today we are firmly in the age of fossil fuel. The fossil fuels used to grow our food are invisible when we are enjoying our meals, which is why we use infographics to reveal how much fuel it takes to provide the food on our plates. They depict how many calories of fossil fuel are used, from farm to store, for every calorie of food we consume. This does not include the additional energy required to transport the food from the store nor to power your lights, stove, refrigerator, or dishwasher at home.

Fossil fuels are everywhere, and they are one of the main reasons that humanity is in ecological overshoot. In industrial agriculture, crops are dependent on large amounts of nitrogen fertilizers, petroleum-based agricultural chemicals, pumps that run irrigation, diesel for machinery, and oil for food distribution across the world. The green revolution focused on creating exponentially higher crop yields with decreased dependency on human labor, but it also boosted our food system’s dependence on fossil fuels.

While our food system can provide more food, it is now more dependent than ever on finite resources and inexpensive fossil fuel energy. It is no wonder that, in many cases, our food is embedded with more “fossil fuel calories” than nutritional calories. For example, in Slovenia it takes 7 calories of fossil fuel to provide every 1 calorie of meat consumed. The number of calories of fossil fuel required varies by food group and among countries.
What does moving away from fossil fuel-dependent agriculture mean for us? It starts with recognizing that we cannot take our current situation for granted. Our current food and resource security is heavily subsidized by cheap and versatile fossil fuel, which has a “shelf life” that is about to expire. We can take our future into our own hands. With our forks. We can choose what food we’ll eat and the types of agriculture we’ll support. Together we can opt for a future where those who feed us are fairly compensated for their work, including the work of protecting and maintaining nature’s regenerative power.
You can read the full article and see the comparison between different countries here -
Unfortunately NZ is not one of the countries included on the list but it is still very interesting to check it out.

8) Better Futures Forum (BFF) Climate Commission submission.

I was very impressed with the BFF submission to the Climate Commission and highly recommend reading it. In their Overview they state -

"The impression we have from the advice report is that the Climate Change Commission is proposing a more or less ‘business as usual’ scenario, in which we simply replace our vehicle fleet with electric vehicles, use a bit more public and active transport, reduce the number of dairy cows on farms without changes to farming approaches, marginally reduce inorganic waste to landfill and increase  carbon stores by planting native trees.

None of these ideas are revolutionary, nor transformative. We recognise that they do represent some level of change, that change can be challenging, and that there may be some public and, therefore, political resistance to transformative, systemic change. But the report must avoid contributing to a ‘cooling discourse’ on climate action, described by Sarah Monod de Froideville as communications that “settle concerns about harmful  activity that are gathering momentum through acknowledging the harm and appearing to address the activity in some manner...so that harmful activity can continue or resume unopposed.” BFF’s view is that a ‘business as usual’ approach will not ensure our survival; particularly viewed in the context of the wide range of environmental challenges that stem from climate change. Transformative, systemic change is required for humans to continue to survive and thrive on this planet. That message, however difficult to hear, must be communicated: and it is the Commission that must do that."

You can access the full submission here -

9) Climate change activists' Mill Rd legal challenge 'a sign of things to come' -

Auckland councillor Chris Darby says a legal challenge against the $1.4 billion Mill Road project by climate change advocates All Aboard Aotearoa is a sign of what's to come. The group applied for a judicial review of the Waka Kotahi NZTA-led project in the High Court in Wellington on Thursday. (March 25th) The 21.5km proposed Mill Rd arterial route, which would provide an alternative road between Manukau and Drury, would run parallel to and east of State Highway 1. Construction was expected to start next year and be completed by 2028.

The proposed route of the $1.4 billion Mill Rd project. All Aboard Aotearoa is a coalition made up of Generation Zero, Lawyers for Climate Action, Bike Auckland, Women in Urbanism, Movement and Greenpeace and its stated goal is to decarbonise the country's transport by 2030. The group asked the High Court to set aside the decisions to fund and build Mill Rd, arguing it undermines the Crown’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and Zero Carbon Act, and because the Government and Waka Kotahi did not properly consider the greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the project.
“Allowing the status quo – climate inaction - is in fact direct action towards an unsustainable future in which our children face severe environmental degradation and exponentially rising costs,” said Jenny Cooper of Lawyers for Climate Action.
You can read two articles about the "All Aboard Aotearoa" group action here and here -
This project has now been dropped by the government, as of June 4th. More info here -

10) Some more myths busted about pollution associated with construction and operation of EV's compared to ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles -

This animated video produced by Mark Linthicum is very informative and at times quite funny. It illustrates how much energy is required for the drilling, pumping and transport of oil. It gives you the exact figures of how wasteful it is to make petrol cars. In the US, there are an estimated 435,000 oil wells that use pump jacks. The estimated energy for these wells is 4300 GWh each month. That's a lot of energy to only extract the oil out of the ground. If you were to use this electricity to power electric cars directly, you could power 15 million electric cars for a month. What about lithium mining? The video highlights that Australia is the number one mining country in the world. Australia’s concern is with oil mining that pollutes and causes more damage to the planet than any lithium mining that takes place. 

You can see the YouTube video here -

11) Australian government refuses to address future liquid fuel risks -

This article looks at the unsustainability of the Australian oil-fuelled transportation system. It identifies major impacts to the Australian economy from inadequate recognition of the challenges arising from the transition away from fossil fuels.

The Commonwealth Government is planning to spend $90 billion on submarines. Submarines that may never be used in conflict, and in the event of a major war, are unlikely to change the outcome. Yet only a measly $200 million is allocated for something as important as powering/fuelling the nation’s future transportation system which we all depend upon every day in perpetuity. Clearly, there is an issue with the Government’s priorities.

The Commonwealth Government has recently released a Discussion Paper on its Future Fuels Strategy. It is perhaps reasonable to expect that such a strategy may seek to reduce Australia’s oil consumption, improve fuel security and reduce emissions in a timely fashion. The current strategy, even if successful in meeting the vague and ill-defined objectives contained therein, is unlikely to achieve any of these imperatives. Two words can describe the proposed strategy: woefully inadequate!

It is now apparent, based on the Future Fuels Strategy and other documents such as the Interim Liquid Fuels Security Report, that the Commonwealth Government has little understanding of the liquid fuel predicament that Australia faces. A predicament perhaps best described by Dr Simon Michaux:

“We think we are going to replace a complex industrial ecosystem that took more than a century to build with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil) in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit, and unlimited mineral resources. At a time when we have very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt, not enough minerals, and an unprecedented human population, embedded in a deteriorating environment.”

The full article can be viewed here -

12) Heat slows down plants - The implications for reduced carbon sequestration from growing trees highlighted in this article are sobering.

The results are a wake-up call, says one of the study’s authors, University of Waikato soil scientist Louis Schipper. “The biosphere has been harvesting our emitted CO2 and we assumed that would carry on. But this data shows the size of this terrestrial carbon sink will go down. It blows me away how near this is.” Add to this the increasing risk of wildfire and drought, and stressed plants’ lessened resilience to pathogens, and it’s clear, says Schipper, that we can’t count on “this idea of just planting trees”.

Plants are our best technology for soaking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but a new study shows the world’s forests and grasslands could flip over to become a source rather than a sink of CO2. Currently, the world’s green spaces absorb about a third of the emissions we produce by burning fossil fuels. But at the current rate of warming, plants’ ability to inhale more carbon dioxide than they exhale will slow down, then reverse, shrinking the carbon sink to almost half its size by as early as 2040.

A study published in Science Advances in January looked at the link between temperature and photosynthesis (the process plants use to turn carbon dioxide and the sun’s energy into oxygen and sugars for their growth) and respiration (which releases carbon dioxide). Researchers analysed datasets from a global network of meteorological sensors known as FLUXNET, which tracks a suite of atmospheric variables, including carbon fluxes above different biomes.

The study found that photosynthesis has a much lower ideal temperature, between 18°C and 28°C depending on the type of plant, than respiration, which means that as global temperatures continue to climb, photosynthesis will slow while respiration keeps rising. Some ecosystems in warmer parts of the world, including the Amazon, already reach this threshold during certain times of the year. Earlier studies on specific trees suggested that some would grow faster at higher atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, but this wider study found no such effect. Nor did it find any evidence that plants adjust to perform higher rates of photosynthesis at higher temperatures.

The Science Advances study can be viewed here -
And the full NZ Geographic article can be viewed here -

13) New battery technology for large scale renewable energy storage -

I’m very interested in new battery technologies. This video looks at the liquid metal battery which appears to have great potential for large scale storage for renewable energy production from wind farm and solar farms. They are very efficient and can cycle thousands of times and still retain over 99% efficiency. Also component parts are all readily recyclable.

You can watch the YouTube video here -

14) Some home truths about why divestment pays-

In a few months, a small British financial think tank will mark the tenth anniversary of the publication of a landmark research report that helped launch the global fossil-fuel-divestment movement. As that celebration takes place, another seminal report—this one obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the world’s largest investment house—closes the loop on one of the key arguments of that decade-long fight. It definitively shows that the firms that joined that divestment effort have profited not only morally but also financially.

The original report, from the London-based Carbon Tracker Initiative, found something stark: the world’s fossil-fuel companies had five times more carbon in their reserves than scientists thought we could burn and stay within any sane temperature target. The numbers meant that, if those companies carried out their business plans, the planet would overheat

“Any investment fund looking to protect itself against losses from coal, oil, and gas companies now has the largest investment house in the world showing them why, how, and when to protect themselves, the economy, and the planet.” In short, the financial debate about divestment is as settled as the ethical one—you shouldn’t try to profit off the end of the world and, in any event, you won’t.

What would happen if the world’s largest investment firm issued that advice and its clients followed it? Fifteen trillion dollars plus twenty-five trillion is a lot of money. It’s roughly twice the size of the current U.S. economy. It’s almost half the size of the total world economy. It would show that a report issued by a small London think tank a decade ago had turned the financial world’s view of climate upside down.

The full article is available here -

15) Chasing Carbon Unicorns -

According to a new report, net zero targets many governments are pursuing are distractions from the urgent need to drastically reduce carbon emissions. Net zero targets rest on carbon capture and storage technologies. These technologies include direct air capture, bioenergy capture, mineralization, and enhanced weathering.
But net zero targets described by NDCs and businesses are “deceptions” and “distractions,” according to a new report by Friends of the Earth International (FoEI).

“Net zero is a trick because the assumption is that you can emit carbon so long as you have some solution to sequester the carbon,” said Meena Raman, legal adviser and senior researcher at the Third World Network (TWN).

“Corporations, especially those in the Global North that are already making billions off the climate crisis, get to take cover under ‘net zero’ to continue polluting,” added Jaron Browne, organizing director at the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance (GGJ).

A recent, unrelated commentary published in Nature supports the same conclusions: “Sometimes the [net zero] targets do not aim to reduce emissions, but compensate for them with offsets.”

A foundational fallacy in net zero targets, the FoEI report claims, rests in a misrepresentation of the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle can be divided into two parts based on timescale. One is the biogenic cycle, in which carbon circulates between the atmosphere, land, and oceans. The other is the slower, nonbiogenic cycle in which carbon circulates between fossil fuels stored underground and the atmosphere. The biogenic cycle can occur within hours, days, and years. The nonbiogenic cycle takes hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.

Net zero targets conflate the two cycles, the FoEI report claims. Targets assume all the carbon that’s already circulating in the atmosphere as well as all the carbon that will be emitted by fossil fuels can be safely and effectively sequestered. In other words, carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from fossil fuel use is in addition to “the carbon that is already cycling between the active pools. We are putting significant stress on all these pools by pushing them to take up additional fossil CO2.…We cannot just stuff the geosphere (i.e., CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels) into the biosphere,” the report says.

The FoEI report notes misrepresentations of science and technology, as well as the prominent presence of politics in determining net zero targets. It also identifies fundamental questions about whether such technologies can actually be developed at the required scale, identifying them as “carbon unicorns, fanciful imaginings of how we might solve the climate crisis without needing to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels” while warning that there are “no saviour ecosystems around the planet, nor fairy godmother technologies, that will suck up continued fossil fuel emissions.”

Check out the full article here -

16) Is ammonia a way to store hydrogen instead of storing it in it's pure H2 form.

Chemical engineers at UNSW Sydney have found a way to make 'green' ammonia from air, water and renewable electricity that does not require the high temperatures, high pressure and huge infrastructure currently needed to produce this essential compound. The new production method -- demonstrated in a laboratory-based proof of concept -- also has the potential to play a role in the global transition towards a hydrogen economy, where ammonia is increasingly seen as a solution to the problem of storing and transporting hydrogen energy.

You can read two different articles about this research here and here -

 17) A wind turbine with a difference -

The giant windfarms that line hills and coastlines are not the only way to harness the power of the wind, say green energy pioneers who plan to reinvent wind power by forgoing the need for turbine towers, blades – and even wind.
“We are not against traditional windfarms,” says David Yáñez, the inventor of Vortex Bladeless. His six-person startup, based just outside Madrid, has pioneered a turbine design that can harness energy from winds without the sweeping white blades considered synonymous with wind power.
The design recently won the approval of Norway’s state energy company, Equinor, which named Vortex on a list of the 10 most exciting startups in the energy sector. Equinor will also offer the startup development support through its tech accelerator programme.
The bladeless turbines stand at 3 metres high, a curve-topped cylinder fixed vertically with an elastic rod. To the untrained eye it appears to waggle back and forth, not unlike a car dashboard toy. In reality, it is designed to oscillate within the wind range and generate electricity from the vibration.

The full article is available here -

18) Changes to giant ocean eddies could have ‘devastating effects’ globally.

Swirling and meandering ocean currents that help shape the world’s climate have gone through a “global-scale reorganisation” over the past three decades, according to new research. The amount of energy in these ocean currents, which can be from 10km to 100km across and are known as eddies, has increased, having as yet unknown effects on the ocean’s ability to lock-away carbon dioxide and heat from fossil fuel burning. Anchor One expert said the changes described in the research could affect the ability of the Southern Ocean, one of the world’s biggest natural carbon stores, to absorb CO2.

You can find the full article here -

19) The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Dalai Lama and 100 other Nobel Prize laureates have signed an open letter calling on world leaders to end the expansion of coal, oil and gas. In it they state -

We write today, on the eve of Earth Day 2021 and the Leaders’ Climate Summit, hosted by President Biden, to urge you to act now to avoid a climate catastrophe by stopping the expansion of oil, gas and coal.
We welcome President Biden and the US government’s acknowledgement in the Executive Order that “Together, we must listen to science and meet the moment.”  Indeed, meeting the moment requires responses to the climate crisis that will define legacies. Qualifications for being on the right side of history are clear.

For far too long, governments have lagged, shockingly, behind what science demands and what a growing and powerful people-powered movement knows: urgent action is needed to end the expansions of fossil fuel production; phase out current production; and invest in renewable energy. This is a global initiative to phase out fossil fuels and support a just transition. Climate change, like nuclear weapons, is a major global threat.

Bold and immediate action is needed to address the climate emergency. The main cause of the climate emergency is fossil fuels. Coal, oil and gas are responsible for almost 80% of all carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution. Phasing out fossil fuel production, and fast-tracking progress towards safer and more cost-effective solutions, will require unprecedented international cooperation in three main areas – non-proliferation, global disarmament and a peaceful, just transition.You can read a copy of their letter here -

20) Cut methane emissions to avert global temperature rise, UN-backed study urges -

Methane emissions caused by human activity can be reduced by up to 45 per cent this decade, thus helping to keep global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius in line with the Paris Agreement on climate change, according to a UN-backed report published on Thursday. The Global Methane Assessment outlines the benefits of mitigating methane, a key ingredient in smog, which include preventing some 260,000 premature deaths and 775,000 asthma-related hospital visits annually, as well as 25 million tonnes in crop losses. The study is the work of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), a global partnership of governments and non-State partners, and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

“Cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years and complements necessary efforts to reduce carbon dioxide. The benefits to society, economies, and the environmental are numerous and far outweigh the cost”, said Inger Andersen, the UNEP Executive Director.
Methane is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, responsible for around 30 per cent of warming since the pre-industrial era. Most human-caused methane emissions come from three sectors: fossil fuels, such as oil and gas processing; landfills and waste; and agriculture, chiefly related to livestock.

The full article is available here -

21) May 26th, 2021 was a big day for Big Oil -

The environmental movement won so many campaigns against Big Oil companies on Wednesday 26th May, that it may go down in history as one of the most significant days of ending the age of fossil fuels! Here’s a round-up of what has happened:

• The climate movement took Shell to court in the Netherlands, and WON! The court ruled in a landmark case that the oil giant Shell must reduce its emissions. By 2030, Shell must cut its CO2 emissions by 45% compared to 2019 levels.
• At an ExxonMobil shareholder meeting, a small activist investor Engine No. 1 with just a 0.02% stake, secured two seats on Exxon’s board with candidates dedicated to decarbonizing the company. They’re part of a campaign challenging the company’s energy transition strategy and response to climate change.
• Chevron faced a similar shareholder rebellion, where 61% of shareholders voted for the company to reduce its emissions from all the fossil fuels it sells.

In the Netherlands case the court has ruled that Shell must cut its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, the civil court ruled. The Shell group is responsible for its own CO2 emissions and those of its suppliers, the verdict said. It is the first time a company has been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris climate accords, says Friends of the Earth (FoE). The environmental group brought the case to court in 2019, alongside six other bodies and more than 17,000 Dutch citizens.

Though the decision only applies in the Netherlands, it could have wider effects elsewhere. BBC Netherlands correspondent Anna Holligan tweeted that it was a "precedent-setting judgement". A Shell spokesperson said they "fully expect to appeal today's disappointing court decision" and added that they are stepping up efforts to cut emissions.You can read about these actions here, here and here -

22) Latest Sea Level Rise research extrapolating from the historical record - 

Sea levels will probably rise faster than most climate models predict, according to a new study.
In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations scientific body that reports on climate change, said that the global sea-level average would likely rise at least 2.00 feet (0.61 meters) by the year 2100, but no more than 3.61 feet (1.10 m). Those numbers come from models that account for climate change and ocean heating, ongoing greenhouse gas emissions and potential changes in human behavior to prevent more warming.

In this new study, researchers examined models of sea level through the lens of historical data. They looked at how fast sea levels rose in the past as Earth warmed and extrapolated to predict sea-level rise forward in time. They found that existing sea-level models tend to lowball sea-level rise when compared with more straightforward extrapolations from the historical record.

"This comparison suggests that the likely upper level of sea-level projections in recent IPCC reports would be too low," the researchers wrote in a paper published Feb. 2 in the journal Ocean Science.

The full article is available here and the research paper is available here -

23) The climate crisis requires a new culture and politics, not just new tech – Peter Sutoris

We are living through what scientists call the Anthropocene, a new geological age during which humans have become the dominant force shaping the natural environment. Many scientists date this new period to the post-second world war economic boom, the “great acceleration”. This rapid increase in our control over the Earth has brought us to the precipice of catastrophic climate change, triggered a mass extinction, disrupted our planet’s nitrogen cycles and acidified its oceans, among other things.

Our society has come to believe that technology is the solution. Electricity from renewable sources, energy-efficient buildings, electric vehicles and hydrogen fuels are among the many innovations that we hope will play a decisive role in reducing emissions. Most of the mainstream climate-change models now assume some degree of “negative emissions” in the future, relying on large-scale carbon capture technology, despite the fact that it is far from ready to be implemented. And if all else fails, the story goes, we can geoengineer the Earth.

But the problem with this narrative is that it focuses on the symptoms, not the causes of environmental decay. Even if the technologies on which we pin our hopes for the future deliver as expected and do not lead to much collateral damage – both of which are huge assumptions – they will not have fixed our mindsets. This is a crisis of culture and politics, not of science and technology. To believe that we can innovate and engineer ourselves out of this mess is to miss the key lesson of the Anthropocene – that dealing with planetary-scale processes calls for humility, not arrogance.

Our civilisation is underpinned by extractivism, a belief that the Earth is ours to exploit, and the nonsensical idea of infinite growth within a finite territory.

The full article is available here -

24) Untax labour and tax resource use.

To finish off I recommend this short animated video which makes lots of sense to me. Check it our here -

Taxing non-renewable resource use instead of human labour is a cure for many problems plaguing the world today. It looks at runaway consumption of scarce materials, pollution and climate change, as well as low wages and unemployment.