#climate breakdown

Dozens of people drowned, hundreds had to be rescued and thousands were displaced when floods struck the coasts of west Africa last month. Now scientists have concluded that the rains that caused the floods were supercharged by climate breakdown. Global heating, they say, turned what should have been a routine weather event into a climate catastrophe. They also warn that the countries affected must adapt to a frightening new reality. “The climate is changing faster than most nations can adapt,” said Friederike Otto, a professor of climate science at Imperial College London. “Adapting to these now common events is critical, but so is reducing emissions much further and faster, to allow us time to keep up with the changes we’ve already put into motion. Quite simply, until emissions stop these extremes will only grow worse.” Residents on the Gulf of Guinea coast expect rain this time of year. Rainy season runs from May until the end of July. Granted, this year it had been particularly heavy, but what began on 20 June caught people by surprise. Over the course of 72 hours, intense rainfall drenched the densely populated coastal regions of Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo and Nigeria. More than 140mm of rain fell in some cities in less than a day. The deluge overwhelmed drainage systems, triggering a series of flash floods.

continue reading

Hi Anon!

This has been a somewhat controversial issue lately, which I’ll briefly get into the reasons for. I personally prefer to use "climate change" for clarity. I'll warn you in advance that this is going to be another long one.

It’s not inaccurate to call the looming crisis a breakdown or collapse. We are taking action--more than a lot of people think and the speed of change is picking up--but if we did nothing the changes would eventually be beyond our ability to adapt. Climate change will wear away at the systems that maintain consistent and predictable weather, that our housing and agricultural systems are built around, and that preserve vital ecosystems.

We need to avert as much climate change as we possibly can to minimize the human suffering and damage to our world. It is also something we are already adapting to and will continue to adapt to since some warming has already happened. We have solutions for adaptation and more are in the works, but communities that don’t have as many resources to devote to adaptation are already and will continue to be hardest hit by climate impacts.

That being said, there is a lot of argument about whether changing the term to something more urgent actually increases the likelihood of action. A recent study showed that using terms like “environmental breakdown” or “climate crisis” increased emotional responses compared to "climate change", but in some demographic subgroups this increased emotion actually produced a negative backlash reaction. A similar study in Taiwan found that overall the terms "climate crisis" and "climate change" had similar reactions but for some demographic subgroups "climate crisis" negatively impacted perception and action.

Another more recent study found that there was less perception of urgency or importance when using terms other than “climate change” that participants weren't as familiar with. Most people more or less understand what climate change is and what the stakes are—changing the term can just confuse them.

There’s also the issue of crisis fatigue—humans can only spend so long in emergency mode before they will burn out on it. Climate change is something everyone living on earth now will need to deal with for the rest of their life—we need to act urgently but hitting people with “this is an emergency if we don’t act now everyone will die” can actually hurt credibility and buy-in as time passes and the crisis worsens but does not deteriorate into everyone dying. We need sustainable support and action, not surges of panic followed by apathy when the apocalypse doesn’t immediately materialize.

I'm personally a big fan of finding ways to talk about climate change and environmental damage without using politicized buzzwords like "climate" or "environment" since that can sidestep the knee-jerk reaction some people have to those topics--either of identity threat or of fearful shutdown.

So that is my two cents. Climate change is scary enough on its own and turning up the emotional volume of the alarm doesn't necessarily actually translate to more action--like you said it can just make people so fearful that they shut down.

This article does a really good job of covering the many different perspectives in this space:

“Back in July, Just Stop Oil (JSO) experienced something unusual – they found they were the ones being protested. An alternative group called Just Stop Pissing People Off attempted to block Just Stop Oil from engaging in disruptive protests and interrupted their events, saying that the climate crisis is real but that JSO is distracting and alienating people. The counter-protests tell us a great deal about Britain’s contradictory attitude to the climate crisis.

“Broadly, Brits understand that the climate crisis climate change is a major problem. 65% of us are worried about the climate crisis (versus just 28% who aren’t) while the same proportion supports the government’s aim of reducing Britain’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050 ... Eight in 10 back more tree planting, subsidies for energy-efficient homes and higher taxes for high-carbon companies. 62% would support a requirement for all energy production to come from renewable sources. But this enthusiasm has its limits.

“When asked if they would back policies that would impose limits on what they personally can do, Brits quickly turn against them. For instance, two-thirds oppose the idea of a limit on how much meat they can buy, and a majority oppose banning petrol and diesel cars ... Even though 62% of voters back the idea of requiring all energy to be renewable, just 39% want to ban new North Sea oil fields, and a mere 32% want to prohibit the sale of gas boilers ...

“The British public is not as supportive of action on the climate crisis as many environmentalists would hope. We favour general, uncontentious ideas – net zero, tree-planting, tax rises on high-carbon companies – but when asked for our opinion on a climate policy that would directly affect us personally, we baulk. This is partly due to worries about the cost of living, but it’s also about avoiding personal inconvenience.

Act 3 of 3: Nasus, Nipperkin, Sacramento, how the fuck does your garden grow?

Coming next on 23 September – After the end (Tipping Point Backstage)

Programme notes

This production contains climate breakdown, allusions to sex, conspiracy theories, gun violence, psychic coercion, and death. It mentions people in cages and dying of thirst.

Dear Sirs!

(or have some ladies also signed?)

A few days ago, you, Mr Musk, together with Mr Wozniak, Mr Mostaque and other signatories, published an open letter demanding a compulsory pause of at least six months for the development of the most powerful AI models worldwide.

This is the only way to ensure that the AI models contribute to the welfare of all humanity, you claim. As a small part of the whole of humanity, I would like to thank you very much for wanting to protect me. How kind! 🙏🏻

Allow me to make a few comments and ask a few questions in this context:

My first question that immediately came to mind:

Where was your open letter when research for the purpose of warfare started and weapon systems based on AI were developed, leading to unpredictable and uncontrollable conflicts?

AI-based threats have already been used in wars for some time, e.g. in the Ukraine war and Turkey. Speaking of the US, they are upgrading their MQ-9 combat drones with AI and have already used them to kill in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The victims of these attacks - don't they count as humanity threatened by AI?

I am confused! Please explain to me, when did the (general) welfare of humanity exist, which is now threatened and needs to be protected by you? I mean the good of humanity - outside your "super rich white old nerds Silicon Valley" filter bubble? And I have one more question:

Where was your open letter when Facebook's algorithms led to the spread of hate speech and misinformation about the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar?

Didn't the right to human welfare also apply to this population group? Why do you continue to remain silent on the inaction and non-transparent algorithms of Meta and Mr Zuckerberg? Why do you continue to allow hatred and agitation in the social media, which (at least initially) belonged to you without exception?

My further doubt relates to your person and your biography itself, dear Mr Musk.

You, known as a wealthy man with Asperger's syndrome and a penchant for interplanetary affairs, have commendably repeatedly expressed concern about the potentially destructive effects of AI robots in the past. I thank you for trying to save me from such a future. It really is a horrible idea!

And yet, Mr Musk, you yourself were not considered one of the great AI developers of Silicon Valley for a long time.

Your commitment to the field of artificial intelligence was initially rather poor. Your Tesla Autopilot is a remarkable AI software, but it was developed for a rather niche market.

I assume that you, Mr Musk, wanted to change that when you bought 73.5 million of Twitter's shares for almost $2.9 billion in April?

After all, to be able to play along with the AI development of the giants, you lacked one thing above all: access to a broad-based AI that is not limited to specific applications, as well as a comprehensive data set.

The way to access such a dataset was to own a large social network that collects information about the consumption patterns, leisure activities and communication patterns of its users, including their social interactions and political preferences.

Such collections about the behaviour of the rest of humanity are popular in your circles, aren't they?

By buying Twitter stock, you can give your undoubtedly fine AI professionals access to a valuable treasure trove of data and establish yourself as one of Silicon Valley's leading AI players.

Congratulations on your stock purchase and I hope my data is in good hands with you.

Speaking of your professionals, I'm interested to know why your employees have to work so hard when you are so concerned about the well-being of people?

I'm also surprised that after the pandemic your staff were no longer allowed to work in their home offices. Is working at home also detrimental to the well-being of humanity?

In the meantime, you have taken the Twitter platform off the stock market.

It was never about money for you, right? No, you're not like that. I believe you!

But maybe it was about data? These are often referred to as the "oil of our time". The data of a social network is like the ticket to be one of the most important AI developers in the AI market of the future.

At this point, I would like to thank you for releasing parts of Twitter's code for algorithmic timeline control as open source. Thanks to this transparency, I now also know that the Twitter algorithm has a preference for your Elon Musk posts. What an enrichment of my knowledge horizon!

And now, barely a year later, this is happening: OpenAi, a hitherto comparatively small company in which you have only been active as a donor and advisor since your exit in 2018, not only has enormous sources of money, but also the AI gamechanger par excellence - Chat GPT. And virtually overnight becomes one of the most important players in the race for the digital future. It was rumoured that your exit at the time was with the intention that they would take over the business? Is that true at all?

After all I have said, I am sure you understand why I have these questions for you, don't you?

I would like to know what a successful future looks like in your opinion? I'm afraid I'm not one of those people who can afford a $100,000 ticket to join you in colonising Mars. I will probably stay on Earth.

So far I have heard little, actually nothing, about your investments in climate projects and the preservation of the Earth.

That is why I ask you, as an advocate of all humanity, to work for the preservation of the Earth - with all the means at your disposal, that would certainly help.

If you don't want to do that, I would very much appreciate it if you would simply stop worrying about us, the rest of humanity. Perhaps we can manage to protect the world from marauding robots and a powerful artificial intelligence without you, your ambitions and your friends?

I have always been interested in people. That's why I studied social sciences and why today I ask people what they long for. Maybe I'm naive, but I think it's a good idea to ask the people themselves what they want before advocating for them.

The rest of the world - that is, the 99,9 percent - who are not billionaires like you, also have visions!

With the respect you deserve,

Susanne Gold

Our Climate Justice 🌍🌱✊ action guide uncovers the consequences climate change has on humanitarian issues beyond natural disasters. More importantly, our blog post is enriched with practical resources to help you learn how you can play a pivotal role in the climate justice movement! Be sure to check it out now 👇!