*scratchhead*
Autorenarchiv
When Khashoggi becomes subtext
08. April 2021
… in an Amnesty International communiqué.
No Words.
click and learn something you already knew.
The carbon footprint sham
08. April 2021It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life — going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling — is largely responsible for heating the globe. A decade and a half later, “carbon footprint” is everywhere. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a carbon calculator. The New York Times has a guide on “How to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint.” Mashable published a story in 2019 entitled “How to shrink your carbon footprint when you travel.” Outdoorsy brands love the term.
“This is one of the most successful, deceptive PR campaigns maybe ever,” said Benjamin Franta, who researches law and history of science as a J.D.-Ph.D. student at Stanford Law School.
“It’s time to go on a low-carbon diet,” BP wrote in bold letters on its website in 2006, with its “carbon footprint calculator” just a click away. (In 2004 alone, 278,000 people calculated their footprints.) The site was part of BP’s ad campaign, “Beyond Petroleum.”
Fast forward, and BP is still producing bounties of oil and gas every day (4 million barrels a day in 2005 versus 3.8 million barrels today). In 2019, BP purchased its “biggest acquisition in 20 years,” new oil and gas reserves in West Texas that gave the oil giant “a strong position in one of the world’s hottest oil patches,” according to the company. Today, BP touts its foray into lower-carbon fuels, but these are limited in scope. In 2018, BP invested 2.3 percent of its budget on renewable energies. Its bread and butter is still black oil and gas. What low-carbon diet?
It’s evident that BP didn’t expect to slash its carbon footprint. But the company certainly wanted the public — who commuted to work in gas-powered cars and stored their groceries in refrigerators largely powered by coal and gas generated electricity — to attempt, futilely, to significantly shrink their carbon footprint. In 14-year-old web pages no longer accessible online but documented by Julie Doyle, a professor of media and communication at the University of Brighton, BP published ads asking “What on earth is a carbon footprint?”, “Reducing our footprint. Here’s where we stand,” and “What size is your carbon footprint?”
Doyle concludes BP sought to explain what a carbon footprint is “in a way which assigns responsibility for climate impact to the individual, while BP registers its own concerns by appearing already to be doing something about it.”
Yet in a society largely powered by fossil fuels, even someone without a car, home, or job will still carry a sizable carbon footprint. A few years after BP began promoting the “carbon footprint,” MIT researchers calculated the carbon emissions for “a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters” in the U.S. That destitute individual will still indirectly emit some 8.5 tons of carbon dioxide each year.
src: click
Klimaschutz auf österreichisch
17. Dezember 2020(Wie heben wirs auf Verfassungsrang, alle anderen machens ja auch.)
Öffentliches Expertenhearing des Umweltausschusses zum Klimavolksbegehren vom 16. Dezember 2020.
Hier als Video einsehbar. (OTS)
Initiatoren des Volkbegehrens wollen vor allem ’symbolischen Akt’ dann aber wieder doch nicht, weil ja nur symbolischer Akt, und es sollen ja KMUs dazu bewegt werden auf Soll einzuschwenken.
Dr. Martin Kocher, Verhaltensökonom, IHS (Segment startet bei 2:06:28), die Ziele kennen wir ja, alternativlos, würde teurer werden wenn wir nichts tun (mit tatsächlich erhobenem Zeigefinger) ansonsten drohen fiskalische Kosten, und da sind noch nicht mal die Hitzetoten im Sommer dabei. In Österreich. Wie gut, dass es dann das Volksbegehren gegeben hat. Die österreichische Politik wüsste ansonsten garnicht an wem sie sich orientieren sollte. Dazu noch die Schaffung einer neuen unabhängige Institution zur Prüfung der Verfassungsmäßigkeit wirtschaftlichen Handelns, nachdem dem Klima endlich auch Verfassungsrang zugebilligt wird. Es wäre bereits jetzt gut zu überlegen, wie die denn ausgestaltet werden solle (eher als Prüfinstanz).
(Startend bei 2:15:30) Univ.Prof.Dr. Sigrid Stagl, WU Wien, kann - aus ökonomischer Sicht - nur ergänzen, da wirds nicht viel Widerspruch geben, hastet durch Folien mit Paradigmenwechsel, fett markiert, und sufizienzorientierte Strategien (Reduzierung von wirtschaftlicher Produktion und Konsum), fett markiert, handgetriebene Webstühle, Pferdekutschen, struktureller Wandel ist ein Teil einer dynamischen Wirtschaft und auf ‘Entkopplung vom BIP’ auf der ersten Folie, braucht man nicht weiter einzugehen - nächste Folie, bitte.
DI Dr. Dietrich Wertz, Experte, das Umschwenken auf ausschließlich erneuerbare Energiequellen sei ein ’net positive’ für die Außenhandelsbilanz, da brauchts keine Energieimporte mehr, das rechnet sich ja von selbst. (Das wird die Energie exportierenden Staaten freuen, wie gut dass wir an deren politische Partner so gut wie nichts exportieren, naja - vielleicht doch ein wenig…)
Leonore Gewessler, Bundesministerin - der europäische Rat hat sich vergangene Woche auf eine 55%ige Reduktion von THG Emissionen gegenüber 1990 geeinigt, das ist richtig, das ist wichtig, denn im Kampf gegen die Klimakrise ist Scheitern einfach keine Option. (Nennen in welchem Zeitraum die Reduktion zu erfolgen hat zumindest in dem Statement auch nicht. (2030))
Florian Schlederer (Returner - Stipendiat Forum Alpbach 2020), und toller Redner, sie meine verehrten Damen und Herren könnten, mit einer falschen Entscheidung heute, entscheiden Österreich zurückfallen zu lassen, im Climate Race, Spitzentempo, Tempomacher, dafür brauchts den ‘Klimarechnungshof’ (dens noch nicht gibt, aber dann eh bald), der wird uns dann prüfen. Klimamut, sehr verehrte Mitglieder dieser Sitzung! Wir dürfen uns den Zeitfortschritt bei den Investitionen nicht vom Brot nehmen lassen. Es investieren jetzt alle!
Dazu die Washington Post von vorgestern:
But of course, the United States will not get to net zero in precisely the ways described in the report, Jenkins acknowledged, nor is it likely to get there precisely in 2050. Rather, the document lays out the exacting details, and the people decide how many of them to accept — and when.
src: click
Ein weiteres Highlight (bei 3:17:10) Antwortrunde der Expertinnen und Experten, Professor Kocher (IHS) -
“Natürlich kann die Verhaltensökonomie das Verhalten (der Unternehmen, und der Individuen/Konsumenten) nicht vollständig ändern, ohne dass es Preissignale gibt […], aber man kann es begleiten. Wichtig is, dass die umweltschonenden Entscheidungen kognitiv einfach sind, wichtig ist, dass man diese Entscheidungen unterstützt, dass die Information bereitgestellt wird - dass man vielleicht auch ein paar Dinge einsetzt wie Gamification usw. es gibt also eine Reihe von Ideen, die ich jetzt nicht ausführen kann, die wir gerne auch als Verhaltensökonomen einbringen - an der ein oder anderen Stelle machen wir das auch schon, wie man eben die Entscheidungsarchitektur der Leute -- vereinfacht - und wenn das 5% Einsparung bringt ist das schon sehr, sehr viel, weil die Kosten für solche Maßnahmen viel geringer sind. Die politischen, als auch andere Kosten”.
Nudging so naiv und ehrenwert wie eh und je.
Der Rest ist ein Sammelsurium aus Profanität und Plattitüdenhaftigkeit, dass es sich gewaschen hat.
Nachtrag: Primer für sufizienzorientierte Ansätze.
Embedded journalism is allowed to ask a question
17. Dezember 2020… sadly gets a PR answer, but oh well.
Like a single organism
16. Dezember 2020This is based on my quickly sketched down notes on an interview with Enrico Giovannini given at this years Forum Alpbach. Which means, double check all of it, this is filtered through me, and then my lousy note taking. 🙂
GDP was ‘invented’ as an economic indicator at Bretton Woods 1944 following a debate of mainly two economic schools, one of which represented by Simon Kuznets basically lost out. (Kuznets wasnt invited back, starting from day two).
What prevailed was the british solution of going with an indicator based on production. This was important to US interests at the time, because that would favor the capitalist economic model over the communist model moreso than Kuznets approach of having an indicator based on consumption and well being.
For this one source is cited, namely: click
Additional quick sources pulled up via google:
Source 1
Source 2Why is GDP so important? Roughly: Because it is a number ’seen as important’ that is tracked/stated quite frequently. So other indicators, that maybe are renewed once a year get a backseat position to GDP at the policy making stage.
Why may GDP currently be ‘unwanted’ as a measure of development? Mainly: Because it doesnt include environmental action, and because it “registers it as something economically positive, if you buy a computer, but something negative (expense) if you hire a bunch of people” - this is roughly an analogy for, it doesnt represent a large part of economic activity that is projected to grow in the future - namely the service sector.
Why is GDP so hard to get rid of? Because it has a ‘good’ ‘enough’ correlation to job creation. So in times of economic crisis, everyone is prioritizing getting GDP up again so more jobs are created. There were efforts in the past, but they all kind of petered out as soon as the next economic crisis came along.
And now for the technocratic vision of future government (we are still talking about Enrico Giovannini mind you.. 😉 ). So here is what you do. 🙂
You DONT create one replacement number like Gross National Happiness, because that one especially only reflects on ‘current perceived state’ and is useless when it comes down to policy planning or projecting.
You can invent a whole list of economic indicators, normalize them, make sure that they are connected in a “communicating vessels” fashion (where one of them can snuff out changes in another one, if its impact is bigger). Issue: That might snuff out certain indicators that might be important from a different vantage point. So you dont just create the one single number indicator model - you create several ones of those (several groups of indicators (still following the communicating vessels concept within a group).
Next, indicators alone are not enough. You need models that say what will happen, when you input indicator values. This is where you look at science to deliver, respectively - or to look at it the other way around, to get science integrated into the system as well - because don’t forget, we are sketching out the creation of an alternative to the Bretton Woods system here.
And then you make sure you implement it in a way that dictates to future governments in a country - not necessarily ‘what to do’ but what indicator values to reach. You do that by drawing up policy that requires them to run their economic and social plans against your indicators and models - with a required outcome, before they are ‘allowed’ to govern.
So once scientists are happy and you created the new governance dogma, whats left?
At that point you come to the striking conclusion, that you cant model social systems. Or at least that social systems are very hard to model - which you still try (see: click ) with the quote from the interview that summarizes all this being “we cant predict revolutions”. But you can still try - which is basically where PR should come in. (Make sure people are engaged in NGO activities give them ‘ownership’ over issues, …)
Part of this was already integrated in italy (government has to adhere to indicators of economical and ecological wellbeing) on a national level (technocratic experiment 😉 ), part of it Giovannini sees coming into action with this EU government making it mandatory to report adherence to indicators found in the SDGs (sustainable development goals), so revising the strategy for mandatory non financial reporting. This follows less of a (strict) conceptual model, but should produce similar results. (Sorry for being so vague here, my notes got thin… 😉 ).
Those ideas still dont have a political majority (not the dominating view) - so, is that a dealbreaker?
No, because large financial funds and private funds have decided to use indicators of sustainability to asses longterm viability of companies (their long term capacities) and this produces internal pressures within the capitalist system.
Blackrock for example (so Giovannini) has recently published a list of companies where they are on the board and where they voted against bonuses for managers who ‘hadn’t done enough for sustainability’.
On implementation the major problems the initiatives are facing are political - so what does Giovannini propose? First, produce political movements with the aim to drive notions of ’sustainability’ into countries constitutions. (So whenever you hear this, this is more than naive babble. This is seen as an avenue to stop the profit maximization mantra in small and medium enterprises.) Second, force more discussions about several of those indicators (economic inequality, health, crime, inequality between genders, …) at the public level. Then follow up with an implementation like with mandatory reporting on SDGs on the EU level.
First you can do this on the national level, but all future frameworks are aiming for a shared view internationally. (In my notes I’ve noted down OECD 2011 better life index, life initiative, next to it but I havent looked that up yet). Anecdotally Giovannini states, that there are encouraging results on meta studies on several of those indicators, that they arent ‘culturally driven’ - so that you could basically make that work for a large group of people, following the same model.
To make that work you need to invest in the development of ’statistical means’ in a large number of countries, but apparently this is already part of the 2030 SDGs agenda.
Also, so Giovannini, it is very encouraging, that you can gather much of the data needed for indicators through ‘crowd sourcing models’, which are cheap, and hey - you have a form of public participation attached to it as well.
This should be it, sidenotes I have left are:
To look up: Alan Kruger, Obamas GDP speech, the 2009 Stigliz report (to what institution if havent noted down).
That a live model of several complex indicators in action can be found somewhere on a ASVIS/Gruppo API website.
Istanbul world forum (individual visions) [whatever that means.. 😉 ]
The report on sustainable equality for the social democrate fraction/group in the EP (european parliament)
And to look up the Sustainable Solution(s) networkEnd of info dump. 😉
Today:
Emmanuel Macron wants climate goals in French constitution
A referendum could force a change in the French constitution to add pledges to combat climate change. President Macron has come under fire for a perceived lack of effort to protect the environment.
src: click
Like a brainwashed single organism. Whats a constitution here and there…
edit: Equivalent for Austria (german): click
_censored_
16. Dezember 2020The next PR initiative. Towards a goal, thats not politically defined, but sounds wonderful.
Whats that? 80% of the world are heading into degrowth, and global trade gets reduced to a fifth?
Better call on the Harvard philosophers.
Context: click
Germany is loosing half of its trade percentage until 2050, in an overall shrinking global economy.
How much overflow do you make?
06. Dezember 2020e-Euro whitepaper
One option to be investigated would be to allow users to hold digital euro only up to an individual threshold at any given time. To ensure that a user can always receive a payment in digital euro and no information is disclosed on current individual holdings, a “waterfall” approach would be possible whereby any incoming digital euro in excess of the holding limit would be shifted automatically to the payee’s account in private money. However, this would require all payees to hold such an account.
Our next monetary policy only concern your “overflow income”. 😉
Demand for a digital euro could also be controlled through incentive schemes under which less attractive interest rates or service fees are applied when individual holdings exceed the aforementioned threshold.
Be creative with negative interest rates to increase compliance.
It does not seem feasible, under current circumstances, to offer unlimited holdings of digital euro to corporate entities at zero interest rates. In line with the current monetary policy stance of the ECB, the nominal remuneration rate of risk-free euro investments (for example AAA-rated government bonds with a short residual maturity) achievable by corporate entities and domestic and international investors is currently below -0.5%. Unconstrained access of these entities to a digital euro could not be offered currently at more attractive rates without disrupting financial flows and the monetary policy stance.
Starting at below -0.5%.
Beyond Zero lower bound: Remuneration of digital offline money, although technically difficult - might not be out of the question.
It could be argued that the non-remuneration of banknotes creates unintended effects, as the opportunity cost of holding banknotes varies with central bank and market interest rates. From this perspective, it would seem natural to overcome this constraint once technology allows the central bank to remunerate its money. However, designing a digital euro that is available offline would face additional challenges if it was remunerated.
src: click
