1/2
Tonight, German investigative journalism will uncover what they call one of the largest consumer and climate frauds involving the German fossil fuel industry: green washing of fossil emissions, defrauding paying consumers.
👉 from around 18:00
👉 on ZDFheute and investigative show "frontal" (21:00)
2/2
The story is now already breaking. The president of 🇩🇪's Env. Protection Agency is preparing to involve the legal system. All of these projects greenwashing the emissions budgets of fossil corps - some or many of which do not actually seem to exist or aren't credible, while the corps deal with consumer-paid certificates - have to now be checked.
If true, this should never have been allowed to happen.
There is no alternative to actual decarbonisation. #KlimaBetrug
>>Europe is facing overwhelming losses and destruction from climate-related disasters.
"A piecemeal approach is no longer enough. EU’s substantial climate risks require reforming institutions, legal frameworks, across sectors and ministries, planning, fiscal, and sectoral strategies" explains Solene Dengler, a senior climate change adaptation specialist with the World Bank.<<
@anne_twain@Unknowable@rahmstorf@pvonhellermannn
Already back in 2012 the World Bank had commissioned from us a report entitled "Turn Down the Heat. Why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided". At the time, it ended up being the most downloaded World Bank report ever, and was supported from the top. Two more regional reports followed.
Little side fact: they had wanted a report on how to adapt to a 4°C warmer world. We wrote why it has to be avoided.
Weird that we can't explain a few kubic meters heavy radioactive waste from the NL each year but somehow we can justify pumping our Atmosphere full with toxics each day with our burning engines
"Oehhh all things radioactive are soo scary, we can't setup our grandkids with that" is what they say
But apparently they are totally fine with ruining the climate and expel toxic next where you breath
Until we have something better like fusion we should stick with fission also, but what do I know!🤷
@stux@wiredfire
The thing is that the need for continuous operation and powerful market actors (investment of billions) actually tends to crowd out more flexible decentralised energy such as the renewables - apart from being the most expensive (and uninsurable) form of electric energy, it therefore undermines the needed dynamics to truly renewable, decentral energy. Imo, the popular meme of green hypocracy doesn't hold up well to scrutiny.
(In other words: Fedi is better than billionaire.)
In the style of autocrats everywhere, Trnmp is playing the judicial system. While one side proceeds with impartiality and decency, the other misses no opportunity to lie, obstruct and delay. Yesterday, an entourage of Republicans united to attack the criminal trial of Trnmp in NY.
The rule of law depends on people not supporting such attacks on a free society. But too many do, it seems.
Democracy needs to be able to vigorously defend against strongmen with autocratic, oligarchic minds.
Case on election subversion on indefinite hold as appeals court will hear arguments for disqualifying the judge.
Case on Jan 6 insurrection on indefinite hold as Supreme Court is slow to consider the outrageous claim that a president can never ever be tried for anything done in office.
Case on illegal possession of secret documents postponed indefinitely by a judge "due to complexity".
Case on hush money fraud: pending - but it's the weakest of the cases.
Thread on the hunger strike for climate action in Berlin and my reaction to being mentioned in today's press release by the group.
For the past 61 days, a climate activist, Wolfgang Metzeler-Kick, has been on ("wet") hunger strike in central Berlin. He was subsequently joined by now three others. One activist's medical condition is reported to be critical now. The public has not taken very much notice.
Reports are that he is determined to die, if need be.
The group's demand is for the German chancellor to publicly declare climate heating to be an existential challenge that needs action.
Today, a large group of "Scientists for Future" published a statement. It states that the factual analysis regarding the urgency of the situation with respect to climate heating is, overall, in accordance with the findings of science.
We share the activist's concerns.
I signed, as did many others.
Today, the group released a press statement mentioning me by name as "supporting their action".
I'd like to say clearly and unequivocally that I share their concern and analysis in its essence, but I do NOT support their action, namely a continuation of their hunger strike.
Not only can a democratic government not allow itself to be extorted in this manner - this is not how democracy works.
What is more, I am engaged in the protection of Earth to safeguard life. All life.
In the statement I signed with other scientists, we also formulate something the group's press release neglects to mention: With much respect for their determination and in full acknowledgement of the magnitude of the action needed, we do not support that a hunger strike is the right, appropriate form of action. We call on them to not endanger their lives and health - i.e. to end their action before it is too late, and convert it to something else.
Also, there are many avenues to advance action against the ecological destabilisation of Earth. Urgency, yes. Extortion through threatened death - is NOT something I can support.
I understand the potential symbolic power of their physical action - sacrificing the ultimate own to try and wake up society to the common good. But I cannot and will not support death. I call on the hunger strikers to end their course of self-destruction and re-engage.
When does the inalienable right of a person to choose their own fate end - and the responsibility of society, even of supporters, begin - to intervene, if at all possible, in order to save lives?
And yes: the group's factual statements require attention by everybody.
PPS: a day and two iterations later, the group has updated its press statement to now correctly reflect our statement.
So back to what we share: our deep concern about the magnitude of the emerging climate crisis, the degree of public complacency about it, the lack of political commitment to required action. We know about what's developing, but we hesitate to take the warnings seriously.
‼️ Today is 🇩🇪's widely reported "overshoot day" - and it's true: we overuse natural resources, substantially. Six of nine planetary boundaries are transgressed, some by a lot. This endangers planetary stability, as numerous indicators with strongly negative trends show.
But what most don't know (but @christianschwaegerl investigated and highlighted last year) are some important shortcomings of this popular metric ...
Namely: the overshoot mostly reflects how much forest we'd need to compensate our CO2 emissions (see figure; minus ocean uptake). Fair enough - though nobody suggests this is how to combat climate heating. But what is more: according to this accounting, with all demands not CO2 we'd still be well within the limits. That reveals methodological weaknesses: the computation does not include damages to ecological networks, habitat degradation, pollution, excess nitrogen, water withdrawals ...
PS: This illustrates we still urgently need a systematic, more comprehensive assessment of the human destabilisation of Earth beyond climate, with a focus on biosphere integrity. Much of Earth system science and Earth system policy is still geocentric - but we need to be biocentric (including anthropocentric approaches).
Starting later this year, we plan to publish annual "Planetary Health Checks" building on the planetary boundaries framework. We're currently ramping up the team.
I've posted this before, made it almost exactly a year ago. It was never more suitable than today.
After a campaign of scare mongering by the liberals devoid of facts that some media went along with, the gvmt has reached agreement to abolish strict adherence to emissions reductions targets in key sectors - only "the government" as a collective whole is responsible, no ministry can be strictly held legally accountable for their (lack of) contributions.