“How do we manage the climate conversation in parallel with the UN SDG goals that include the moral imperative of raising the world’s population out of poverty?” - this is something I think about a lot. Asking those who are just beginning to enjoy some of the comforts we have always known to give them up to help fix a problem we have caused feels wrong in so many ways.
We are not the only ones thinking on this topic, Randy. Adrian put a link in his comment. And I will add a Jordan Peterson link that my sister-in-law forwarded to me.
We have to act in our present, not knowing what the future holds. I am stymied. But also pleasantly encouraged. One post. So many conversations! Amplifying the discussion.
Thanks Karena. Taking us back to Rio was a good reminder about the main thing in play here – speed. All the agreements (inc. Montreal, Paris etc) shift the needle somewhat but not at the rate required. Where we end up will be determined by how fast we go and it seems there are still plenty of actors trying to preserve business as usual... Regarding the bit on your mind about balancing the needs of those that still need to develop – I found the conversation below helpful. With the idea that we have an emissions budget left to work with - some regions get access to that budget to grow while others need to reduce consumption (referred to as a macroeconomic diet) made some sense to me. It becomes an ‘allocation decision’ - not easy of course but I’d recommend a listen.
None of this is easy. It requires us all to "grow up" and make hard decisions - which is one of the retorts leveled at Greta and her peers. Working on my local energy initiative, I see how rules and regulation and process are dragging the wheels of great intentions and action.
My sister in law sent me this Jordan Peterson interview with scientist Steven Koonin. Heads up, some of the tone stung.
Karena, I like how you are teasing things out here. It’s a fast closing window of opportunity to act, that seems more and more obvious, as the planet burns, floods and melts. Policy makers need to act swiftly, and with good authority, to put in place firm policies to arrest the speed of degradation. Too many vested interests have the ear of governments everywhere. Given what’s known, and has been for decades, it’s almost criminal. And to be honest I’m inclined to strike out ‘almost’ in that last sentence.
I think in this sentence you targeted the problem and possible solution: "policy makers need to act swiftly and with good authority". We have to push voters to put in appropriate policy makers. We need to volunteer to be those people.
And I agree - it is criminal. Reading the NYT article was heart-wrenching.
Honestly, more than one particular fact, I appreciate your perspective and your willingness to pivot and share your process as you considered all of this.
I moved to Canada 6 months ago. Does having my tax dollars go to the Cdn government have any benefit over the same money going into US priorities? With respect to the issues you mention here I mean.
Thanks for asking, Rick. Honestly, I don't know but I hope so. I was at dinner with a friend who works at the Canada Infrastructure Bank, so I asked him your question. He shared that their mandate is to heavily support environmentally conscious projects. Canada is heavily reliant on natural resources, so we have a constant rebalancing between both sides of the conversation. I like to think that our political calendar means we are not as easily swayed or manipulated by the lobbyists. I may be naive, however.
The background reading (NYT) for this piece was depressing as to what they knew and did not act on in the 1980s.
Thanks Karena. I should probably get more directly informed about what my current gov't is up to here with respect to these issues. Thank you for the reading and research you are doing and sharing on our behalf, acting as a bit of depression shield. I hope you are able to keep your spirits up in the process, but you are acting and serving, which is clearly the best medicine for feeling agency.
One of my sources of hope is that GenZ is now of voting age. They can drive change by changing the players. That pressure is what will ultimately move the needle.
During the Q&A after my presentation, I mentioned that I saw a strong trend to GenZ opting out of Fin and Tech (leaving money on the table) and into Sustainability. A day later I saw an article on Bloomberg with the same observation:
The best time to was 30 years ago and the next best time is today is so true for everything Karena
We should have invested
We should have studied
We should have bought property
All of it to say compounding effects affect every part of our life
So true, Promeet. But if you missed that boat, now is never too late (I hope).
“How do we manage the climate conversation in parallel with the UN SDG goals that include the moral imperative of raising the world’s population out of poverty?” - this is something I think about a lot. Asking those who are just beginning to enjoy some of the comforts we have always known to give them up to help fix a problem we have caused feels wrong in so many ways.
We are not the only ones thinking on this topic, Randy. Adrian put a link in his comment. And I will add a Jordan Peterson link that my sister-in-law forwarded to me.
We have to act in our present, not knowing what the future holds. I am stymied. But also pleasantly encouraged. One post. So many conversations! Amplifying the discussion.
Thanks Karena. Taking us back to Rio was a good reminder about the main thing in play here – speed. All the agreements (inc. Montreal, Paris etc) shift the needle somewhat but not at the rate required. Where we end up will be determined by how fast we go and it seems there are still plenty of actors trying to preserve business as usual... Regarding the bit on your mind about balancing the needs of those that still need to develop – I found the conversation below helpful. With the idea that we have an emissions budget left to work with - some regions get access to that budget to grow while others need to reduce consumption (referred to as a macroeconomic diet) made some sense to me. It becomes an ‘allocation decision’ - not easy of course but I’d recommend a listen.
https://www.mcjcollective.com/my-climate-journey-podcast/timothe-parrique
None of this is easy. It requires us all to "grow up" and make hard decisions - which is one of the retorts leveled at Greta and her peers. Working on my local energy initiative, I see how rules and regulation and process are dragging the wheels of great intentions and action.
My sister in law sent me this Jordan Peterson interview with scientist Steven Koonin. Heads up, some of the tone stung.
https://youtu.be/reaABJ5HpLk
Karena, I like how you are teasing things out here. It’s a fast closing window of opportunity to act, that seems more and more obvious, as the planet burns, floods and melts. Policy makers need to act swiftly, and with good authority, to put in place firm policies to arrest the speed of degradation. Too many vested interests have the ear of governments everywhere. Given what’s known, and has been for decades, it’s almost criminal. And to be honest I’m inclined to strike out ‘almost’ in that last sentence.
I think in this sentence you targeted the problem and possible solution: "policy makers need to act swiftly and with good authority". We have to push voters to put in appropriate policy makers. We need to volunteer to be those people.
And I agree - it is criminal. Reading the NYT article was heart-wrenching.
It would make one weep with frustration Karena - but we must act. And inform ourselves, there’s quite a bit of misinformation out there.
Fascinating!
Thanks Lisa. Did one idea or fact stand out in particular?
Honestly, more than one particular fact, I appreciate your perspective and your willingness to pivot and share your process as you considered all of this.
I moved to Canada 6 months ago. Does having my tax dollars go to the Cdn government have any benefit over the same money going into US priorities? With respect to the issues you mention here I mean.
Thanks for asking, Rick. Honestly, I don't know but I hope so. I was at dinner with a friend who works at the Canada Infrastructure Bank, so I asked him your question. He shared that their mandate is to heavily support environmentally conscious projects. Canada is heavily reliant on natural resources, so we have a constant rebalancing between both sides of the conversation. I like to think that our political calendar means we are not as easily swayed or manipulated by the lobbyists. I may be naive, however.
The background reading (NYT) for this piece was depressing as to what they knew and did not act on in the 1980s.
Thanks Karena. I should probably get more directly informed about what my current gov't is up to here with respect to these issues. Thank you for the reading and research you are doing and sharing on our behalf, acting as a bit of depression shield. I hope you are able to keep your spirits up in the process, but you are acting and serving, which is clearly the best medicine for feeling agency.
One of my sources of hope is that GenZ is now of voting age. They can drive change by changing the players. That pressure is what will ultimately move the needle.
During the Q&A after my presentation, I mentioned that I saw a strong trend to GenZ opting out of Fin and Tech (leaving money on the table) and into Sustainability. A day later I saw an article on Bloomberg with the same observation:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-01-05/how-to-quit-your-job-to-fight-climate-change
Thanks for the article. Very useful to see/hear about how others are taking action in the corporate sector.