Eve Tamme’s Post

The science behind climate change goes back further than you might think, and the efforts to solve for the risks posed by greenhouse gases do too. This week's blog dives into the fascinating history of carbon markets, tracing their evolution from early scientific warnings to the complex systems we see today. Key Takeaways: - Early Warnings: Scientists like Eunice Foote and Svante Arrhenius laid the groundwork for understanding human-caused climate change in the 19th century. - The Keeling Curve: Roger Revelle and Charles David Keeling's work provided irrefutable evidence of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, sparking a new urgency for action. - Market Solutions Emerge: Ronald Coase's work on market mechanisms for environmental issues laid the foundation for carbon offsets and trading systems. - From Theory to Practice: The 1988 pioneering offset project by WRI and AES demonstrated the feasibility of carbon offsets. - International Collaboration: The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol provided a global platform for nations to tackle climate change through carbon markets. Read the full story to see how carbon markets have evolved and the challenges they still face!https://lnkd.in/eenvEhS3 #carbonmarkets #climatechange #climatesolutions #sustainability

New clear cut study with Jaana Rahko

In the following chapter, the author delves directly into the critical factors of the climate crisis. The key takeaways presented in this post are directly derived from the second chapter, titled "This will be hard". The author provides a comprehensive analysis of the prevailing climatic conditions, including essential factors influencing global emissions. Notably, these factors are intricately linked to the economic and political aspects of our world. 1) Fossil fuels are like water: The author aptly compares fossil fuels to water, emphasizing their ubiquitous presence in our daily lives. Everything we use, directly or indirectly, is either derived from burning fossil fuels or is a byproduct of their use. Much like water, crucial fossil fuels are abundant and have been formed over eons through the remains of flora and fauna. 2) It's not just a rich world: The pursuit of wealth is a universal dream, but it comes with a consequence. As individuals attain affluence, their consumption of electricity and luxury products escalates. This rise in materialistic consumption leads to an increased demand for energy sources such as electricity and fuels, which in turn contributes to a surge in greenhouse emissions. 3) History is not on our side: The author highlights the historical evolution of energy sources, from relying solely on human and animal labor before the 1890s to the discovery and adoption of fossil fuels. This transition took decades to be embraced by society and globally integrated. 4) Coal plants are not like computer chips: Drawing a comparison, the author notes that environmental advancements are more complex and require substantial governmental investment and a sustainable approach to match the power generation techniques of traditional methods. Unlike technological innovation, environmental breakthroughs demand greater effort and resources. 5) There isn't as much of a climate consensus as you think: The author acknowledges that a consensus on climate change and environmental science is not as widespread as one might assume. Some people question the allocation of a significant budget to address the climate crisis, advocating instead for investment in human welfare, such as health and education. While supporting human welfare is crucial, the author argues that addressing the climate crisis is equally vital to secure a sustainable future for humanity. By articulating these important aspects of the climate crisis, the author highlights the need for collective action and informed decision-making to safeguard the planet for generations to come. #Climatechange #Globalwarming #globalboiling #environmentalscience #ESG #environmentalprotection #environmentalconsulting

Recently, I've been exploring the power of simple, minimalistic frameworks to communicate powerful concepts. Here is one such framework I made while talking to my family, trying to explain the value of innovation vs policy to create meaningful progress in the climate sector. The principle (and generalization) of this framework is that governmental policies "raise the floor": they enforce minimum standards through penalties. Ultimately, this encourages businesses to act in minimal compliance. They are not rewarded for going above and beyond that floor. This creates opposing forces: societal good (such as CO2 emissions standards, recycling, etc) is a force in opposition to what is in the best interests of a business (minimizing costs and maximizing profits). New and old climate technologies must find a way to make business incentives align with societal good. They need to change the forces acting on the market. This is the best way to win. Pure and simple. Doing so creates a competitive advantage for first adopters of climate innovations, rather than a cost burden, and will ultimately force the whole market to align to the ceiling, rather than the floor, to stay competitive.

Have you wondered why inspite solid scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change will affect the conditions for life on earth, little climate action is taking place?. To answer this question, one has to understand the overlapping contradictions and paradoxes around climate change issues when coceptuallised in a societal context. These can be categorised into the following; - Competition between traditional and modern environmental problems(eg Climate change) - The paradox of the irrelevance of tacit knowledge (Knowledge acquired by people through their long-standing experiences and skills). This knowledge shapes the lenses through which people with the exception of climate scientists make sense of contemprorary climate change. - Specialization versus the need for integrating knowledge; science has removed itself from society and become more and more closed to non-scientists making fewer and fewer people ‘competent’ enough to control the increasing number of specialists. There is practically no room left for the ‘public intellectual’ in modern society. The more society gets dependent on advanced and specialized knowledge, the more difficult it will be for non-experts to grasp and critically relate to this exponentially growing body of knowledge. And hence knowledge itself will not be enough to cause action on a problem to be taken. - The impossibility of scientific solutions to modern environmental problems. Science can through engineering skills develop ‘scientific solutions’ to problems in society. Engineering skills will also be important for meeting many of the challenges of climate change. However, the solution lies in the interaction between nature and society and will require new ways of linking natural and social sciences to practical problem-solving. This, however, also means that the natural scientists will need to enter into much of the same role in relation to society as the social scientists have had to accommodate to for a long time, that of taking part in a bargaining over political priorities and competing values. - The top-down versus bottom-up paradox. This leads us to a fundamental question concerning the linking of science and action: Who are the relevant users of knowledge? The fundamental challenge of climate change is the way in which the problem has become an integrated part of both nature and society. The well-known slogan ‘Think Globally but Act Locally’ hits at the core of the dilemma. The challenge is global but it is caused by billions of individual acts and decisions every day; and in order to address the problem, billions of big and small actions and decisions all over the globe have to be changed. That means the users of knowledge are found everywhere.

Happy to share my paper on equitable energy and climate change mitigation pathways, co-authored by Tejal Kanitkar and T. Jayaraman. How the model demonstrated in this paper is a step forward in the climate science literature ? 1) Classification of 134 countries based on 13 development variables. A more comprehensive approach as compared to the existing income or region-wise classifications. 2) Estimation of fair global energy and income benchmarks and then exploring ways to mitigate climate change. A different strategy than most of the least cost optimisation models that disproportionately allocate the mitigation burden on developing countries. 3) Transparent, easy to understand climate model and scenarios. A much needed break from black box modelling approaches. 4) Putting equity and justice at the heart of climate modelling. Imagining a future world that meets the 2 deg. C temperature target along with universal well-being, energy access and economic prosperity.

📖 RESEARCH | What is the economic cost of preventing climate change? Researchers Guillaume Chevillon and Takamitsu Kurita from ESSEC Business School and Kyoto Sangyo University have developed a data-driven toolbox for estimating the costs associated with climate change control. They conducted a thought experiment, exploring what would have happened if governments had coordinated in 1900 to control global temperatures, using carbon abatement technologies. Their experiments showed that a combination of green (carbon-free) investment and brown (carbon-intensive) growth could achieve temperature stability without drastic reductions in overall growth. In a hypothetical scenario maintaining 1900 temperatures, they found the cost to be about ¾ of global GDP (at the 2008 level). Despite appearing significant, the researchers argue that this is a measure of the cost of climate inaction, emphasizing the need for comprehensive carbon abatement policies today to benefit the climate. The study provides data-backed support for evaluating the cost of government-implemented policies to protect the environment. To access the full article, please follow the link below 👇 #climatechange #carbonmanagement #technologies

I recently finished this must-read book for those working in development and/or the climate agenda. Written by Amir Lebdioui - a world-renowned thinker on green industrial policy and a rare, but much needed, policy oriented academic from the University of Oxford - this book summaries his ideas on the challenges and opportunities countries are facing to develop while adverting the climate crisis. The main message of the book is that decarbonization by itself will lead to more inequality given how developing countries opportunities for green industrialization are highly constrained (protectionism, lack of technology transfer, inadequate financing, etc.) To counter this, market forces alone won’t be the solution, so governments need to play a strategic role in guiding these structural transformations – including approaches such as biodiversity-based innovation. The book's recommendations are very much aligned with the great transformations needed in the development model of Latin America and the Caribbean which we are promoting at ECLAC. An illuminating read, for academics and practitioners alike, that will sure guide the debate on industrial policy and the climate agenda moving forward. The book is open access at: https://lnkd.in/eauFkZGj

"Accelerating Decarbonization in the United States: Technology, Policy, and Societal Dimensions" (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023). For integrity and scholarship, this team needs to take a bow, because boy, do they do the US academic community proud. Even if it's not a climate action plan in itself, this 652-page beast covers all the relevant aspects of the plan we need, so it is going to serve as the foundational document we have long needed. One stunning aspect of the report is how stunningly up-to-date it is with both the Infrastructure Investment Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The combination of the Biden administration's achievements, and this sane, substantive assessment of all the pieces in play, combine in an unexpected way. Every politician, every journalist, every activist — no excuses. For me, its biggest achievement is the lack of Big Oil bullshit. Even when they reference the bullshitters, they don't buy into the bullshit. Kudos and thanks. The only real weakness I see is a certain naiveté. Right now, Big Oil is a juggernaut of increased production and withdrawn commitments. As far as I'm concerned, they're in complete control, and the fact that the market is dying beneath them is irrelevant. Emissions are skyrocketing. In 652 pages, 'greenwashing' and 'disinformation' get only a single reference apiece. This report represents the science but not the playing field, much less the battle field. But for now, that's not the point. This is a great document, a major accomplishment, and the terra firma for US climate action that we have long needed. Full Report: https://lnkd.in/e4xmHFSy. Individual Chapters (great for group study purposes): https://lnkd.in/eivdRXMd

📢 Call for #pitches! Our next print edition will explore #ClimateAdaptation as a process of radical transformation. A process that must contribute to shaping a different relationship with each other and with nature while ensuring social acceptance for the green transition. What do we mean by “adaptation”?  In its mainstream understanding, it is about preparing for or adjusting to the consequences of climate change. Within the climate movement, however, adaptation has long been a taboo concept associated with defeatism. This discomfort is not without reason: Why should we strive to adapt to a reality that produces destruction and inequality instead of changing it?  Social and climate scientists acknowledge that adapting and changing are linked. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines “transformational adaptation” as a process “resulting in significant changes in structure or function that go beyond adjusting existing practices.” Importantly, transformational adaptation implies “deep and long-term societal changes” which include “values and worldviews”. In other words, “adapting” to climate change demands that we collectively change too. In the summer edition of the Green European Journal, we want to put forward the understanding that the only possible way of adapting to the climate crisis implies radical transformation. What are looking for? ✍ Essays and interviews 📸 Photo essays 💫 Comics/graphic journalism Your pitch should... Look at inspiring examples of radical transformation at local, regional, national or European level, how they benefit people and communities, increase social acceptance of green policies, and how they can drive far-reaching political change. But we also want to address false solutions that keep local inequalities and global exploitation structures untouched. 🔗 For suggested angles and editorial requirements, check this link: https://lnkd.in/d-pNpX2G 📅 Deadline to send your idea: 28 March 2024. #journalism #callforpapers #callforpitches #magazine