Greg Muttitt

@FuelOnTheFire

Born 331ppm. Author, 'Fuel on the Fire: Oil + Politics in Occupied Iraq'. alumnus. Now . Tweeting intermittently on energy, climate etc

London
Vrijeme pridruživanja: ožujak 2011.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @FuelOnTheFire

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @FuelOnTheFire

  1. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Look what the mailman delivered! Great compendium of essays on based on papers delivered conference in 2017. Includes great scholars like and many more!

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 21 sat

    Today, I am pleased to announce a bold and ambitious commitment: I change my diet to go 100% healthy food by 2050, and 45% healthy food by 2030 relative to my diet from 15 years ago when I was a college freshman.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    The CEO of McDonald's earns 3,100 times more than the company's median employee. Here's an alternative. The Mondragon corporation (worth $25 billion) has a policy that no executive can earn more than 6x more than any employee in the same enterprise. That's more my style.

    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    There are 35,000 old idle oil wells in CA, and each one costs upwards of $40,000 to cap, and industry has set aside...$230 for each one. Lucky taxpayers!

    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    The deepest cost of the last two decades of professional climate triangulation is that we still talk like climate action should be graded on a curve—compared to what others have done, rather than judged against the unforgiving ecological imperatives of the actual climate crisis.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 5. velj
    Poništi
  8. 2. velj

    In my view we need not to ditch all idea of targets, bit rather shift the balance of how the costs of reducing emissions are weighed against the cost of climate change itself. Sorry for long thread/ /14 of 14

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 2. velj

    And while George is right that the policy of maximising oil extraction is unconscionable, even that does not stop at a general "maximising": the govt also has a _target_ to help companies extract another 20 billion barrels /13

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 2. velj

    So, back to George's thought-provoking article: the problem IMO is not targets. As others have pointed out, the fire service may not have targets for how many ppl to save from a burning building, but it does have targets for how quickly it will arrive at the scene /12

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 2. velj

    In contrast to those who have done little to cause climate change, but suffer hunger or lose their homes or livelihoods because of it /11

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 2. velj

    2) the "least cost" in models is aggregated across all economic actors, and does not judge *who* bears costs. If a company loses money because it has recently been reckless enough to build a gas power plant or oil platform, these are "costs" I will not lose sleep over /10

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 2. velj

    ...transition tend to get weighted more heavily. But given unknowability and unfamiliarity, it is instead the climate impacts we should give greater weight to /9

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 2. velj

    However, while we do not know exactly who will be affected or when, we do know that climate impacts will be profound, will affect larger numbers of ppl, and generally the poorest and most vulnerable. For political and perceptual reasons, the concrete, predictable impacts of... /8

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 2. velj

    2 other problems with such thinking: 1) (h/t + Paul Baer) The impacts of climate change are less defined + somewhat unknowable. Whereas we could in principle list the names of ppl affected by transition, and how precisely they will be affected /7

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 2. velj

    That's not to say models are not useful in understanding the impact of policies, rather that they should not be such a central arbiter in judging how much effort is needed to address climate change /6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 2. velj

    Yet the baseline is at best a very abstract notion that bears little resemblance to how decisions are made in the real world. And we have little idea what techs will cost or politics will look like even in 10 years' time, let alone 30+ years /5

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 2. velj

    Those views partly arise from the prominence of cost-optimising models in climate policy debates. Such models generally find "optimal" solutions in a business-as-usual baseline, and therefore anything different (eg climate policy) is by definition costly compared to that /4

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 2. velj

    Almost all climate policymakers the insist that they should not do more than a certain amount, because of those costs. /3

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 2. velj

    Rather, IMO the problem is the near-universal framing of climate mitigation that it will necessarily be costly, difficult and unpleasant, and therefore that the amount societies act to address it must be traded off against that cost and pain /2

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·