We have talked about David Attenborough before. As a key figure in the environmental media landscape, he has received plenty of criticism for not speaking up sooner about the impact humans have had, and are having, on the world around us. Some of the shows he worked on were even accused of covering up some of the already noticeable effects. In recent years, Attenborough has completely changed that approach. In the BBC’s new flagship nature series, Seven Worlds, One Planet, Attenborough weaves the story of our impact on nature through the breathtaking shots of our planet and its life, rather than tacking it on at the end as they have done in the past. It is an honest display of what humanity has done, what we are losing, but also what we can do when we decide to act: since the ban on commercial whaling, 35 remaining females have become a population of 2,000. We may be at “the most critical moment for life on earth since the continents formed”, Attenborough notes. And that includes human life. See the spectacular trailer via the link below.
The call for a Green New Deal is one that is heard increasingly often. From the US to the European Union, the term is used to indicate a large-scale, ambitious, government-led program -much like the 1939 “New Deal” to which it calls back- that can deliver the kind of climate action that is needed. What would it actually look like? Rutger Bregman, journalist at De Correspondent, tries to answer that question by looking in more detail at the 1939 version and imagine from there what the 2019 version could/has to be. His conclusions contain some elements that might feel uneasy to people of different persuasions and values. With a Green New deal, we can win the fight against climate change, but it will require action on a scale beyond what most of us currently imagine, and given the speed at which action must be taken may force us to agree with actions that are not our first choice.
This piece opens up an interesting and urgent conversation: given that we can’t “solve” climate change, but rather will move to a new kind of society at a new point of climate equilibrium, how do we balance the three-way trade-off between (1) trying to take climate action as quickly as possible to limit climate change, (2) trying to make sure that we don’t opt for solutions that create new or exacerbate existing societal issues, and (3) ensuring that we build and maintain the broad societal support we need to see a Green New Deal through to the end? Read Bregman’s article or listen it via the link below as a starting point for that conversation with people around you.
Climate change is an issue to be taken on at all levels of society. Local and regional governments can, and increasingly are, leading the way in reimagining life in their towns and cities. Certain effects of climate change can already be felt on the local level. That is why it makes a lot of sense that local governments are part of addressing them. Making climate change, and climate action, tangible can also help build support for larger-scale action.
One key area in which this is already playing out is air pollution. The WHO has demanded that clean air and its consequences for health are integrated more closely into the national climate plans adopted under the Paris Agreement. However, according to the UN, only 20% of climate plans currently deal with the health consequences of air pollution. At the same time, poor air quality causes 422,000 premature deaths each year in Europe.
At the C40 World Mayors Summit, taking place in Copenhagen from 9-12 October, 35 cities decided to take the lead in addressing this problem. Barcelona, Berlin, Copenhagen, Heidelberg, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Paris, Rotterdam, Stockholm, and Warsaw have all committed to set new air quality standards that meet or exceed existing national targets within two years. Such local leadership is key to success in dealing with climate change. This case also shows that dealing with climate change actually helps us deal with many other issues we want to address.
Except for Greta Thunberg’s “We will not forgive you” speech, newspapers did not write much about UN 2019 Climate Summit in New York. The reason: except for some national leaders and CEOs promising to increase their ambitions, there were no results to write about.
“Like most human questions, the carbon-dioxide question will come down to fear. At some point, the fears of young people will overwhelm the fears of the old. Some time after that, the young will amass enough power to act. It will be too late to avoid some catastrophes, but perhaps not others. Humankind is nothing if not optimistic, even to the point of blindness. We are also an adaptable species. That will help.”
Let’s keep this in mind at the 2020 COP26 in Glasgow.
Recent is er in de media veel aandacht voor de impact van vleesconsumptie op het klimaat. Zie bijvoorbeeld dit artikel op VRT NWS. In deze blogpost kaderen en nuanceren we dit nieuws.
Aanleiding voor deze
stroom aan nieuwsberichten is een nieuw rapport van het Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). Het IPCC analyseert in dit nieuw rapport de
impact van landgebruik op klimaatverandering. Hierbij kijken ze naar alle
aspecten van landgebruik, zoals ontbossing en landbouw. In het hoofdstuk over
landbouw komt ook vleesconsumptie ter sprake. Hierbij geeft het IPCC een
genuanceerd beeld, waarbij ze pleiten voor een gebalanceerd dieet bestaande uit
plant-gebaseerd voedsel (vb. groenten en fruit) en duurzame dier-gebaseerd