Sabrina Fernandes

more and more countries are going to see that getting off foreign oil imports is a great reason to accelerate electrification and renewables buildout, regardless of what it means for the climate

A proposta ta pronta ne. Mas "a cop mais democrática da história"* nem demandou nada disso.

*obviamente dito por gente que não manja nada de cop e/ou bebeu o kisuco da propaganda br.

Even more fun, this demand is entirely artificial. End users aren't causing this, everyone shoving AI into everything without regard to whether it's actually useful is causing demand.

People be minding their business is triggering hundreds of API calls they never asked for.

Eu nem diria nada desse nível de pulsão de morte – se não fosse da NOSSA morte.

Is there life after COP? And is UNFCCC reform even possible? With so many COP 30 eulogies, we need to ask if our toxic relationship with the climate change negotiations system is part of the problem.

Just published a short reflection on this toxic relationship we've developed with the COPs:

This is power sector emissions only but still that is A LOT

Still sort of mind-boggled by a climate person who recently dismissed this as a "rounding error"

If you're rounding to the nearest ten gigatonnes, I guess??? Or if you're using teratonnes????

Absolutely. And if they're deployed through billionaire investment, it means they'll hold even more power to hold the entire climate hostage!

Absolutely. The scientific uncertainties are large and very difficult to reduce, to say the least. The uncertainties increase with scale. Micro-scale experiments do not indicate macro-scale certainty regarding effects and side-effects. No doubt someone will say "AI will unravel complexity" but..

Geoengineering: Assessing Risks in the Era of Planetary Security As the effects of climate change intensify, interest in geoengineering approaches is ramping up. But these methods risk creating new ecological and security threats, undermining urgent systemic transi...

Since every year, the COP post-mortem media ritual includes reviving talks and articles about how geoengineering is going to save us or give us breathing spaces until we finally get mitigation going... Here's a better take on some of the risks involved (in a world averse to peace).

Still bad that scientists will lend public legitimacy to the generals. Also weird for Craig Segall to say that the opposition to geoengineering on the left has been mostly moral signalling. I tend to think it's about good science: danger of cascading effects and disruption of ecosystem connectivity.

It's not the scientists I'm worried about. It's the generals. And the security advisors. And the presidents.

It only takes, say, Pakistan's military to blame, say, India for cloud seeding #geoengineering followed by widespread crop failure (whether connected or not) for (nuclear) war. For example.

Not eating animals is a very robust rule of thumb when it comes to reducing your environmental footprint and the amount of suffering your diet produces.

Is there life after COP? And is UNFCCC reform even possible? With so many COP 30 eulogies, we need to ask if our toxic relationship with the climate change negotiations system is part of the problem.

Yesterday, I read a quick note by @michaelemann.bsky.social on the problems of UNFCCC rules on consensus that keep derailing COP after COP. It led me to organise a few thoughts on whether UNFCCC reform is still possible and what other pathways are/could be available.
+

Is there life after COP? And is UNFCCC reform even possible? With so many COP 30 eulogies, we need to ask if our toxic relationship with the climate change negotiations system is part of the problem.

Just published a short reflection on this toxic relationship we've developed with the COPs:

Please read and give feedback, if possible. But more than it: share the civil society call for reform and let's brainstorm ways to help it gain track again. Or we will be posting this again after COP31 next year in a ritual of endless frustration.

Basically, I argue that the three major problems with the UNFCCC right now are:
The system is designed to focus on emissions, not their source.
It is based on flawed multilateral consensus rules and procedures.
It opened the doors to big capital and polluters and they're running the show.

It's also important to reflect if reform is possible at all and, if we are to jump ship, is it to drown in an ocean of fragmented initiatives that can't pressure governments or to strengthen mechanisms with real convening power.
+

It seems that as soon as each COP ends, we get stuck in eulogy mode: we talk about what what great about it, what was definitely terrible and how it's dying. Yet, we're still stuck.
That's why I think it's time to stress again the UNFCCC system reform call made earlier this year (ref in text).
+

Is there life after COP? And is UNFCCC reform even possible? With so many COP 30 eulogies, we need to ask if our toxic relationship with the climate change negotiations system is part of the problem.

Yesterday, I read a quick note by @michaelemann.bsky.social on the problems of UNFCCC rules on consensus that keep derailing COP after COP. It led me to organise a few thoughts on whether UNFCCC reform is still possible and what other pathways are/could be available.
+

Isso é chocante. Tem wifi até em shopping hoje em dia.

Yeah, to spell it out, this is about generative AI trying to brute force licensing!

Not cool machine learning tools that help you design a better reactor or something.

No, *generative AI* - the category that includes large language models and other content-spewing algos.

I'm excited about the Fossil Fuel Phase Out conference in Colombia, it could be an important blueprint. Work with those who want to work towards a common goal - and don't let polluters in. The fact that BINGO badges still exist (and in record numbers) is baffling.

Great point. I wonder who is going to plea to the UNFCCC to reconsider the meaning of consensus? No Parties seem to be tackling this, it's always civil society and scientists pointing it out. And if there's a plea and the UNFCCC refuses to rethink it, we really need to organise a proper alternative.

Recently back from #COP30. This is spot on- "if it wasn’t clear already, fundamental changes must now be made in the UNFCCC rules. A small number of rogue nations cannot be allowed to block progress for the rest of the world."

It’s no accident the ladder climbers & fake smart careerist class occupying our government, mass media, boardrooms etc aren’t capable of understanding/responding to what Hansen is theorizing here.

A proper response would change the world within weeks. And that is the last thing big capital wants.

So we are above RCP8.5 Scenario due to spike in Radiative Forcing...

She sees your fandom as affirmation, your money as funding for the harm she causes to trans people.

It doesn't matter how you feel about her work, whether it was a formative touchstone or not. If you still buy the merch or hype up Harry Potter, you are complicit.

Those doing advocacy inside have their own approach and I get it. But the advantage of being a climate scientist and activist is that I get to join other voices to bring alternative readings of the situation. We already have enough diplomats at COPs. Let us critics retain our ability to be frank!

It's also disheartening, as a Brazilian, to see the issues we've always faced in national politics, where the more radical of us are reprehended for demanding more from our progressive governments, transfer onto the COP system. They expected us to praise everything just because it's Brazil.

They called it the COP of Truth but refused to embrace the battle against fossil fuels until last minute. When that obviously collapses, we're supposed to just be content with an autonomous initiative and not object to a final text that leaves the source of the crisis nameless?