Jesuits are real ones. The Nazis considered them to be one of their "most dangerous enemies" due to their principled opposition. Glad to see they're keeping the flame alive.
Banks trying to take profits buying air conditioner stocks while society and the biosphere is crumbling around them is a perfect encapsulation of this crisis. I'm doing my best to laugh at the absurdity of it all, because the alternative is paralyzing depression.
If you're interested in the more fundamental dynamics at play here, I'd highly recommend giving these a watch:
It is the stock brokerage division of banks giving their boiler room reps a “hot tip” lead.
"When it gets hot, people will use more air conditioning." Thanks Morgan Stanley, that's some real insider knowledge.
Thank you for sharing! I'm a big proponent of the planetary boundaries framework, it's a great way to visualize overshoot. While climate change is a big (perhaps the biggest) issue facing global civilization right now, it's extremely important that we don't get tunnel vision and try to solve for one variable without looking at our biosphere holistically. (That's how we get carbon capture and geoengineering.)
A few more links/resources for those interested:
The IPCC, FAO (UN), and the World Resources Institute put emissions from (all) agriculture at around 20%-25% of total emissions.
This article cites a single paper in opposition, which claims that emissions from animal agriculture are more than double that number. I don't have the time or expertise to comb through that paper with a critical eye, but the reports of the above organizations cite dozens of studies so it seems the weight of evidence is tilting towards the 20% figure.
This isn't to say that animal agriculture isn't an issue - it's a huge issue, and not just for the climate. But I think it's important to acknowledge that these emissions numbers aren't widely accepted.
Some key findings from this report:
The YPCC summarized the findings below:
The review finds strong evidence that climate activism influences public opinion and media coverage, although the specific relationship depends on the kind of actions taken and the way the media covers the events. The evidence shows that protest usually increases support for the movement when protests are peaceful, but not when they are violent. But there was also evidence that the influence of activism on public perceptions could be positive or negative, depending on the tone of the media coverage of the protests.
The review found moderate evidence that climate activism can influence voting behavior and policymaker attention. One study in Germany found that areas that experienced Fridays for Future protests had a higher share of the vote go to the Green Party, and that repeated protests increased the effect. Multiple studies in the UK found that protests successfully increase communications by policymakers about climate change or pro-climate actions.
There was less evidence that climate activism leads directly to policy change or improvements in environmental quality. This is not necessarily because climate activism does not affect these outcomes or others we reviewed—it is likely because studies that capture these outcomes are difficult to conduct.
The vast majority of pollution is created by the vast majority of people. The impact of the ultra-wealthy is large individually, but small collectively.
The IEA states that:
In 2024, 80% of the growth in global electricity generation was provided by renewable sources and nuclear power. Together, they contributed 40% of total generation for the first time, with renewables alone supplying 32%.
So 32% of new electricity generation in 2024 was provided by renewables. In 2023 renewables accounted for about 23% of electricity generation, and 13% of total energy consumption.
I commented this in a related post, but according to the IEA, in 2024 renewables accounted for 38% of new energy generation, and 32% of new electricity generation. That's a big discrepancy from the 90% cited in this report, which refers to "renewable power capacity,"defined as:
the maximum net generating capacity of power plants and other installations that use renewable energy sources to produce electricity.
Not quite sure why that difference in definition leads to such different figures.
From an engineering standpoint it may have something to do with battery size, but from a marketing standpoint it seems like (in America) carmakers decided bigger = better a couple decades ago and have been running with it (and charging more money for it) ever since. I miss the car-sized cars of the 80s.
According to the IEA, in 2024 renewables accounted for 38% of new energy generation, and 32% of new electricity generation. That's a very big discrepancy from the 92.5% cited in this report, which refers to "renewable power capacity,"defined as:
the maximum net generating capacity of power plants and other installations that use renewable energy sources to produce electricity.
So it seems like that number might be referring to potential, not actual (?) use. But maybe someone more familiar with these terms can weigh in here.
Agreed. I'm getting tired of these pencil-pusher reports implying that "the economy" is going to keep chugging along at a reduced rate, as if we can just shuffle around our stock portfolios and weather the storm.
The "Planetary Solvency" report by IFoA is one of the first mainstream papers that's taking a sober look at the climate crisis. If we hit 2°C by 2050, they're seeing a significant likelihood of:
I don't even want to think about 3°C and 4°C scenarios.