"the emissions space we have left is so incredibly tight for everyone, that there is literally no flexibility for anyone to say, ‘I will take up the responsibility for someone else.’ And that’s a really key issue" 📢💯
Janet Yellen’s notion that emissions “savings” are delivered to the atmosphere is a crock. See any dips in the Keeling Curve from these bogus offsets? Her statement: “I believe that harnessing the power of markets and private capital is critical” is total nonsense. Involvement of financial markets is just more busy-work bullshit; any pouring out of money on the land has always resulted in devastation and debt. Always. “Carbon markets” are totally meaningless in emissions reduction or even replacement, they simply distract, delay and deny.
Here’s 7 meaningful principles: Close all airports and end air travel. Restore the 3.5% sulphur in marine fuels. Cease all activities centered around alleviating human boredom (the main driver of the economy), such as sports, amateur & professional and individual such as golf, skiing; end the Olympics, travel and tourism, etc. Cease all unnecessary advances of “progress.” End Space launches except for Earth monitoring satellites. End the rape of the oceans by industrial fisheries. Stop wishing for ongoing economic “growth. Realize that “Normal,” that idealized version of the 1960s that Business keeps pushing forward to maintain profits, is OVER.
Thanks for this comment, Kathleen. I disagree that the quotation from Kevin Anderson is "more total nonsense". I think your disagreement with Anderson is based on a misunderstanding - that he's suggesting delaying climate action, when in fact he's arguing for climate action now.
Let's see what Anderson is actually saying in that quotation. I'll list the key points:
1. He starts off by saying that there are some worthwhile projects funded by offsetting, and at the end of the quotation, he suggests finding another mechanism for funding them.
2. In terms of meeting the Paris Agreement targets, "offsetting is actually worse than doing nothing", Anderson says. "It removes the incentive for us, high emitters, to make deep and rapid changes to the way that we're emitting and often to the way that we live our lives."
3. Through funding development (even funding renewables) in the Global South, at a system level, we're likely to see a rise in emissions. "And that should be welcomed," Anderson says. Because the poor in the Global South are not responsible for the climate crisis.
4. We've failed to address the climate crisis over the past 30 years. As a result of failing to address the climate crisis, we have very little emissions space left. Certainly not enough for anyone to say that they can take responsibility for someone else's emissions.
5. We've got nine years (eight years now, in 2024) at current emissions levels before we exceed 1.5°C. And 19 years before we exceed 2°C. Anderson is not arguing that we should (or could) wait for nine years before taking any action. Anderson has repeatedly argued that we need to take action now: "The (deliberate) neglect of time – this is not a problem to be solved in 2030 but it is a problem to be solved this afternoon, or this evening, and tomorrow." (https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/nature-cannot-be-fooled-kevin-anderson) As a result, Anderson says, "I just don't think offsetting has any role to play and actually it's part of the problem."
Anderson is an important scientific voice on the urgent need to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels, starting now, and that offsets are a dangerous distraction from doing so. Anderson is not arguing for procrastination on climate action, on the contrary he's arguing for meaningful action now, because "the emissions space we have left is so incredibly tight for everyone".
Thanks, Chris, but what I was trying to say is that there IS NO emissions "space" left; if all aerosols were removed, we would presently be at +10 degrees, but aerosols are mitigating that by about 8 degrees. If the 3.5% sulphur content was added back to marine fuels, we could bypass this recent heating anomaly. Implying to people that there is still some "emissions space" remaining is incredibly detrimental to any immediate action.
"the emissions space we have left is so incredibly tight for everyone, that there is literally no flexibility for anyone to say, ‘I will take up the responsibility for someone else.’ And that’s a really key issue" 📢💯
Incidentally, it's not just me that describes this as a "wish list". Here's an article that came out two days after mine:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/biden-carbon-offsets
It's written by Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, both of whom recently retired as attorneys at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Kevin Anderson’s quotes are more total nonsense. There IS NO REMAINING emissions space, period. It is time to decide: cut bait or fish. Stop spreading drop-sheets and start painting, see https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/carbon-pricing-is-busy-work-bullshit
Janet Yellen’s notion that emissions “savings” are delivered to the atmosphere is a crock. See any dips in the Keeling Curve from these bogus offsets? Her statement: “I believe that harnessing the power of markets and private capital is critical” is total nonsense. Involvement of financial markets is just more busy-work bullshit; any pouring out of money on the land has always resulted in devastation and debt. Always. “Carbon markets” are totally meaningless in emissions reduction or even replacement, they simply distract, delay and deny.
Here’s 7 meaningful principles: Close all airports and end air travel. Restore the 3.5% sulphur in marine fuels. Cease all activities centered around alleviating human boredom (the main driver of the economy), such as sports, amateur & professional and individual such as golf, skiing; end the Olympics, travel and tourism, etc. Cease all unnecessary advances of “progress.” End Space launches except for Earth monitoring satellites. End the rape of the oceans by industrial fisheries. Stop wishing for ongoing economic “growth. Realize that “Normal,” that idealized version of the 1960s that Business keeps pushing forward to maintain profits, is OVER.
Thanks for this comment, Kathleen. I disagree that the quotation from Kevin Anderson is "more total nonsense". I think your disagreement with Anderson is based on a misunderstanding - that he's suggesting delaying climate action, when in fact he's arguing for climate action now.
Let's see what Anderson is actually saying in that quotation. I'll list the key points:
1. He starts off by saying that there are some worthwhile projects funded by offsetting, and at the end of the quotation, he suggests finding another mechanism for funding them.
2. In terms of meeting the Paris Agreement targets, "offsetting is actually worse than doing nothing", Anderson says. "It removes the incentive for us, high emitters, to make deep and rapid changes to the way that we're emitting and often to the way that we live our lives."
3. Through funding development (even funding renewables) in the Global South, at a system level, we're likely to see a rise in emissions. "And that should be welcomed," Anderson says. Because the poor in the Global South are not responsible for the climate crisis.
4. We've failed to address the climate crisis over the past 30 years. As a result of failing to address the climate crisis, we have very little emissions space left. Certainly not enough for anyone to say that they can take responsibility for someone else's emissions.
5. We've got nine years (eight years now, in 2024) at current emissions levels before we exceed 1.5°C. And 19 years before we exceed 2°C. Anderson is not arguing that we should (or could) wait for nine years before taking any action. Anderson has repeatedly argued that we need to take action now: "The (deliberate) neglect of time – this is not a problem to be solved in 2030 but it is a problem to be solved this afternoon, or this evening, and tomorrow." (https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/nature-cannot-be-fooled-kevin-anderson) As a result, Anderson says, "I just don't think offsetting has any role to play and actually it's part of the problem."
Anderson is an important scientific voice on the urgent need to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels, starting now, and that offsets are a dangerous distraction from doing so. Anderson is not arguing for procrastination on climate action, on the contrary he's arguing for meaningful action now, because "the emissions space we have left is so incredibly tight for everyone".
Thanks, Chris, but what I was trying to say is that there IS NO emissions "space" left; if all aerosols were removed, we would presently be at +10 degrees, but aerosols are mitigating that by about 8 degrees. If the 3.5% sulphur content was added back to marine fuels, we could bypass this recent heating anomaly. Implying to people that there is still some "emissions space" remaining is incredibly detrimental to any immediate action.