Ana Dominguez’s Post

Climate action isn’t niche. Suggesting otherwise is undemocratic. ⚖️ ⚖️ Last week, Yvonne Hofs wrote two stories for de Volkskrant just a couple of hours apart, the first analysing the newly sworn in government coalition's plan to prevent advocacy organisations “of an ideal nature” from suing the Dutch government because they don't represent the views of the Dutch public. The second announced an independent review of the plan by the Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur (Rli) had concluded that the government owes such lawsuits to itself for failing to fulfil its own agreements. In the week since these stories came out, many other news pieces have been written about how such a proposal is a dangerous attack on #democracy and how it obstructs justice. From our perspective as environmental psychologists, what has not yet been said enough is that #climateaction is very much representative of people’s values and concerns. The stated logic behind the proposal is that idealistic organizations like climate action groups are somehow a niche interest, insinuating that they are not broadly socially relevant and only reflect the beliefs of a small group. The suggestion that groups advocating for faster climate action are on the fringes of society is completely false. Many people, worldwide and in the #Netherlands, are concerned about the consequences of climate change, not only in the future, but right here, right now. https://lnkd.in/eCZEbmR8

I often compare climate change to a bar fight. you need to use every possible tool at your disposal; nothing can be dismissed as a possible weapon or solution to the problem. You need to try the broken bottle; the table flip; the pitcher-beer-spray chaos creation; the noise making as confuser. That's why I've hung in with the sketchy and problematic work of corporate sustainbility. Yeah, it's mostly a failure, but we can't dismiss that tool. (Yet.) We need everything. Similarly, we need to keep trying weird things, things people tell us will fail, new things, and methods that have been dismissed but make sense. One is the legal system. As Oreskes Naomi and colleagues shows with her new research, actually, Mass. V. EPA was decided correctly by the Supreme Court. (Historical note: Aspen One was the only outdoor industry business to file an Amicus brief in support.) In fact, congress HAD intended to address carbon dioxide pollution. And so when the current corrupt court weakened that decision in W. Virgina vs. EPA, it was doing what it always does: ignoring history, precedent, factual evidence, and making its own ideological decision based on evidence that suits its needs. Them is bar fighting tactics. So we need to respond in kind. And showing, through historical record, that indeed Congress was worried about climate change and carbon dioxide in the 60s, as they were designing the Clean Air Act, is an important tool that puts the lie to the Roberts court and adds another arrow to the quiver, for use now or at a later date. Which is to say, Bravo to Naomi and co for this grinding, difficult, slipperyand intellectually violent work. https://lnkd.in/gkkReFd3

📚 Reflections on The Conservative Environmentalist by Benjamin (Benji) Backer I recently finished The Conservative Environmentalist by Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition. The book offers a conservative perspective on how to address the climate crisis focusing on free markets and local solutions. A few takeaways: 1. Climate conversations suffer from polarized language and the attribution of ill intent As I read, I was struck by how politicized our language has become. Backer expressed ideas I factually agree with, but the language he used felt threatening. He also framed the problems with some progressive environmental policies—like the lack of transmission lines hindering renewable energy—as as intentional or at least negligent failures of the policy, while the media I usually consume frames these drawbacks as problems to be managed. (Political attribution bias) 2. Regulations can have unintended consequences Backer’s discussion of how well-intentioned regulations can backfire was eye opening. I had never heard of the “Shoot, Shovel, & Shut Up” phenomenon: landowners, frustrated with restrictions tied to endangered species, kill those species before they are discovered on their land to avoid burdensome regulation. This example helped me understand how regulation can create perverse incentives, especially for people who already distrust government intervention. 3. Local input can avoid unintended outcomes and tailor solutions The belief that local solutions to reducing emissions and increasing climate resilience are more effective and easier to implement than top down or one-size-fits-all solutions has been a theme in what I have been reading lately. Backer emphasizes this, especially with regard to rural communities. 4. What role can we trust fossil fuel companies play in the energy transition? Backer argues that fossil fuels—and fossil fuel companies—must play a role in for a successful energy transition. In particular, he states that American oil is cleaner than foreign, so increased American production (if it prevents consuming dirty foreign oil) is a good thing. He does not address the question of how fossil fuel companies can be trusted as partners after decades of deception about their climate impacts. I'd also be curious about his position on fossil fuel subsidies. This is definitely worth a read, especially if this is a perspective not typically expressed in your media bubble. I appreciate Backer's work to depolarize environmental action and wonder if he and others like him might have a particular important role to play in maintaining climate progress in the US over the next four years. What books have challenged your thinking recently? I'd love your recommendations! #DIYclimateEducation

“Direct air capture” is such a stupid distraction. Efficnecy, renewables, batteries, & reforestation. That’s the “all of the above” that we need to be focusing on.

Thanks to Tom Steyer for posting this excellent article. While it is no time to reduce the pressure, at least we are headed in the right direction. #SOLAR #BESS #WWD #AgriSolar #RegeneartiveAG #energytransition

The carbon capture ability of mankind's inventions will never equal the global biosphere ability to absorb it, if managed correctly. 70% of methane and Co2 is emitted by none man made sources, agriculture and farming, beef, etc all contribute massive amounts of GHG. DAC is a futile attempt to make it seem like the oil and gas industry can offset their c02 footprint, by burning more fossil fuels to eat c02, which trees and soil bacteria eat for free. Even if renewable energy powered, you still have the carbon footprint of the equipment to make all that work. For energy solutions, the only things that matter are: 1. is it sustainable and recyclable? 2. is it Renewable Energy Powered 3. is it Net Zero Emmissions? 4. is it EMP and Cyber protected? 5. is it capable of being stand alone? But energy pollution is only about 30 to 40% of the problem, the rest is how we manage the ecosystems, and pollution which is killing the natural abilities of plants and humans to reproduce. Project Oasis is a plan to make the deserts green again, using AI powered drones that are trained to identify pests and use vacuum tube's to remove them. The insects are recycled ♻️ used as fertilizer fir the plants. The drones would be 100% Renewable energy powered. Turning deserts of northern africa green again will literally reduce global warming from the albedo, and reflectivity changes. Hurricanes in USA would be reduced dramatically as it starts with the African winds that have silica etc suspended in the air. Making the deserts green again will anchor the sand, nake it harder to get kicked up, and trap more moisture. This will allow water cycle to form, and then add trees and canopy and you've got a managed ecosphere. The side benefit is that we end starvation in Africa, and give Africans an export commodity, to other countries, that would be equal to America's food production. Managed with no pesticides, and only organic derived fertilizers, non gmo seeds, this would be an oasis of life for the whole earth. Only by converting deserts into oasis, can we hope to starve the atmosphere of excess methane and co2. Nature can do this, but she needs our help... If you would like to learn more about Oasis, I can send you a pdf. Happy Easter God Bless America 🇺🇸 🙏 ❤️ #GHOST

With respect to the marginal cost of abatement, these measures are literally the last thing we should be doing from the capital efficiency standpoint. Every dollar spent on these today and not spent on real climate risk mitigation projects, and technologies is a dollar wasted

Deloitte's ConsumerSignals survey reveals #climate change is a priority for most citizens in southern #Europe. Could this also play a role in influencing the EU climate policy? Check out our analysis: Authors: Arjan de Draaijer, Richard Horton, and Ram Krishna Sahu

Insufficient action on climate change remains a global concern, but recent developments are sparking hope for meaningful change. The European Court of Human Rights landmark ruling against Switzerland, for violating the Convention on Human Rights, sets a crucial precedent. In a victory for a women's association championing climate justice, this ruling highlights the power of legal action in holding governments accountable for their environmental responsibilities. This verdict not only delivers justice but also serves as a wake-up call for nations worldwide. With approximately 2500 climate-related lawsuits filed globally, it's evident that communities are demanding urgent action on decarbonization and emission reduction. These legal actions underscore the shared responsibility we all have in safeguarding our planet's future. As professionals, entrepreneurs, and leaders, we must recognize the significance of these legal challenges. They signal a pivotal moment in our collective efforts to combat climate change. Let's heed this call to action and prioritize sustainable practices in our businesses, communities, and policy advocacy. Together, we can drive the transformative change needed to secure a greener, more sustainable future for generations to come. #ClimateAction #Sustainability #LegalJustice

This is epochal: the european court of human rights rules against Switzerland and in favour of the Klimaseniorinnen: Switzerland does not sufficiently adress climate change: „The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (“positive obligations”) under the Convention concerning climate change. There had been critical gaps in the process of putting in place the relevant domestic regulatory framework, including a failure by the Swiss authorities to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limitations. Switzerland had also failed to meet its past GHG emission reduction targets. While recognising that national authorities enjoy wide discretion in relation to implementation of legislation and measures, the Court held, on the basis of the material before it, that the Swiss authorities had not acted in time and in an appropriate way to devise, develop and implement relevant legislation and measures in this case.“ https://lnkd.in/ddnv8NeJ