On April 29th, at the UN Campus in Bonn Germany, the post-Copenhagen negotiations began in earnest. There were two surprises. The first was that the mood was good. The second surprise is that, with the whole meeting dedicated to shaking out new ideas, we actually got a few. [more]
Governments will limit carbon emissions, so if your business model is based on burning it, you are overvalued and at risk – sitting on a bubble.
[more]
It was never going to be easy to face the ecological crisis. The denial of the challenge, on the other hand, always came ready-made. And we really did want to believe that ours was still a boundless world. The alternative – an honest reckoning – was just too challenging. But as impacts become obvious, we’re in a new world in which denialism has lost any residual aura of scientific legitimacy, and is increasingly seen as the jibbering of trolls. Now what? [more]
Tom Athanasiou argues that while McKibben’s call for a “carbon disinvestment” movement – aimed at breaking the hammerlock that the fossil cartel has on our civilization – is a big step forward, it’s not the only step we need to take. [more]
“Good faith,” of course, doesn’t come easy, but those are the real magic words. As we head farther out into the post-Copenhagen badlands, we’re all going to have to have a big think about whose “negotiating strategy” fits the bill.
It’ll be a hard think, but equity principles and indicators can help. [more]
Tom Athanasiou notes that “one of the amazing things about Occupy is the way it has dissolved the image of complexity as an obstacle to clear thinking and sharp conclusion. We could use a similar magic within the climate war, where complexity is always the final excuse for paralysis.” [more]
