“I want to unleash a new solar revolution – we have a million people living under roofs with solar panels and that number needs to increase,” (source)
Britain is not the least green country in Europe, It has added impressive wind power plants like the London Array (630 WM). It brought 1.3 GW of new wind power capacity online during 2014. Now with Amber Rudd in office it seems it will accelerate it’s solar capacity.
The UK has recently lost it’s access to possible Falkland reserves, and has had trouble with its North Sea gas and oil supply (it is running out). It has allowed the US to supply gas and is now (possibly in return) making way for fracking to happen, against strong local opposition.
We hope that in spite of the harsh attitude of the Tories, who are selling out to the fossil fuel based private sector, we will see more renewables, which will ultimately change the financial dynamics so as to enable acceleration towards 100% and maybe 1000% renewables. Start the avelanche!
We love Carley Stenson for taking action against fur. It is a sick industry that mistreats animals in the most horrific way. Peta is very active against fur and animal
rights, which is a good thing because as we enforce more respect for animals we change expectations of animal treatment
in general, and may move out of a barbaric era..
More often than before are animal rights being respected in court of law. Recently chimpansees have been granted human rights in a US court. The growth in identification with other species is a result of countering the myths most animals are dumb and dangerous.
Now you know what a smiling indian cow looks like..
Many mammals are in fact social, emotional, and intelligent. Cows have friends, Many animals can befriend other animals like we befriend them. Having people rip the skin of still living minkses becomes unpallatable. Peta is doing the job of drawing attention to the cruelty, just like we try to do it with other topics.
Since a few weeks we are cycle tweeting the images of climatebabes of our active campaigns on twitter (follow the twitter link). This is where we make most posts, along with more serious ones on greencheck.nl (in Englsih and Dutch).
We had a real good time on Kingsday, in Amsterdam, and at other events like the Rotterdam Marathon (below).
The wind is wealth campaign is generally well understood. Holland is a country that was one of the first to use wind power on an industrial scale for everything from sawing wood to pumping water. Now it is an exploding market and the cheapest gateway to a renewable powered future. We want people to consider it as a source of wealth, productive power, and embrace them even if it is for only the next 20 years or so.
Another campaign we are starting is Maximize Life. It is to promote anyting that grows, biodiversity, soil aware farming, reforrestation and qildlife and jungle conservation. We need to maximize the biodiversity to provide shelter for dwindlin species and to prepare for changes that will put evolutionary pressure on organisms.
Monocultures like created by Monsanto (a company that also reduces the number of varieties around) are a risk because of their sensitivity to plagues and molds etc. Having many genetic varieties increases the chance we have one that can withstand the challenges of a warming world.
We also started tweeting visuals. They work very well in communication a message. If you have any for us send us a tweet at @climatebabes.
Search Google for Solar or Wind and you still see many boring pictures. The marketing of the clean wealthy future is carp, mainly because marketing bureaus are serving a lot of fossil fuel related clients. Also because there is an expectation of rejection, it is something we must do, not something we want to do. Our perspective is different. If you want to eradicate poverty, go renewable, if you want to eradicate war, go renewable, if you want to have free healthcare, go renewable, Acting on climate change is like bailing out of a burning ship that is in the middle of the garden of Eden. The landing will be soft. Now help us tell everyone.
Look at the picture below. The amount of energy (when corrected by us) we use today is a pixel in a huge solar energy balloon. We only need to harvest that solar energy to experience a wealth boom unseein on our history. The more we prioritize that process over sticking with fossil fuels, the sooner you can enjoy the benefits. We’re not after 100% renewables, but at least 500%!
The use of renewables could even lead to peace in the middle east, as there is so much sun there they could green the desert and still have enough solar energy to grow plants underground. At least they would not have to be fighting over who is the best muslim or who gets to give away oil to the West the longest.
if you have a fun project or want us to make pictures in your city, let us know via email@example.com . Any suggestion is welcome. You can donate here. Our serious department is the website www.greencheck.nl. We also install solar panels and give expert advise and information about renewable technology (we know a lot about it).
Climate change is man made and can be influenced by policy
Current policy is not ambitious
Holland has had twice the ambition but this is reduced by the right wing government
Emissions Trading Scheme
The scheme will retain a surplus of about 2 billion rights
Many states have suplemantary carbon taxes to reduce CO2 This is allowed within the EU
Emissions moving elsewhere due to measures
Companies moving to less strickt countries
Predicted that any reduction of emissions will be 82%-88%
Carbonleaking to outside the EU is not observed
The court can not argue that it can’t act because of ineffectiveness
The state claimed it was tied to EU ETS, this is not true
The economic crisis has caused an emissions reduction
Emissions targets need to be independent of the economic situation
The state will have to choose stronger targets to achieve their stated reduction goals
Germany targets a 55% reduction in 2030 which is much more ambitious than the EU target
English reports show that the EU target of 40% in 2030 does not suffice
The EU economy will suffer 0,04% from more ambitious climate policy
If the EU doesn’t stive for more ambitious targets the cost will have to be carried by emerging economies
The EU talks about 80% in 2050, but 80-95% was originally required
The EU target of 40% is not certain due to a ‘flexibility clause’ that requires all members to match the commitments.
To achieve a 40% reduction in 2050 we need 25% reduction in 2020
The court should and has no reason to not dictate at least 25% in 2020The court can dictate a faster trajectory, as is followed by GermanyWe have 1000 Gigaton emissions left, which will run out in 2035, meaning that we should be 100% carbon neutral in 2035. This means we have to do the maximum possible at the shortest possible terms.Current trajectory makes 2 degrees Celsius unavoidable. This drives citizen to demand the court to order the state to take stonger action.Remarks second lawyer
What the state does is a matter of politics.
The state has been locked up in a “You first” mentality.
All negotiations have failed to meet the required targets.
We are facing 4 degrees catastrophic climate change.
Dutch government is aware it is not meeting targets.
Binding reduction targets are no longer the goal of the climate conference.
Holland doesn’t negotiate at the COP 20 meeting.
Targets for the COP20 meeting are already set and for 2030.
All emissions should stop asap
CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years
Warming is linear with emissions
Zero emissions is expected to be reached in 2050-2070
Dutch State Defence Responses
State is aware of climate change and the need for action
Since 1995 governmental action was to keep below 2 Celsius degrees warming
Holland can not do it alone
Holland is pleading for climate action at the COP20 meeting in Paris
There is no legal binding law telling Holland to reduce emissions
The emission reduction target can not be checked on validity by the state
Any decision by the judge should be to some advantage, what is that advantage? It has to be new law. And a judge can not order the creation of new laws.
As long as Holland is acting on the climate threat a supplementary ruling by the judge is unecessary.
With current targets extra measures are needed to achieve 40% reduction in 2030.
Climate problem is a global commons problem, needs to be tackled together
Limits should be widespread and pervasive in each industry plus monitoring.
In 2014 Holland has -pledged- 100 mljn in the green climate fund.
Human rights only valid within the participants of the human rights agreement
It is not yet sure that the 2 degree targets are not going to be met.
Risk will always remain
EU court judges climate and other diseaster responsibility in terms of specific risks and victims.
State considers itself to have a wide margin for action, so it can not be forced to specific constraints from Urgenda
Judges should not talk about specific targets
The conditions of the unjust act are not met, there is no clear causal link.
Also the human rights act does not force countries to protect its citizen.
More details to follow..
Verdict will be delivered on the june 24th at 10:00 am.
It is easy once you get to it. It is amazing how a capable team with a ship that can get close to the “Polar Pioneer” can enter it and cause it to be delayed. Even if it doesn’t kill of fossil fuels, at least it helps. It shows how vulnerable these companies actually are. The name of the rig alludes to some kind of adventure, but it is nothing of the kind, unless you think playing russian roulette with full chambers is an adventure..
“Attorneys for Royal Dutch Shell PLC on Tuesday sued in federal court to remove six Greenpeace activists who boarded a vessel carrying an oil-drilling rig leased by Shell across the Pacific.” (source)
The arctic has oil, gas below its surface. The bottom of the arctic ocean is littered with methane-ice called Clathrate (ice you can litteraly lite on fire). All that gunk and gas needs to stay where it is, and instead of exploring it we need to find ways to cool the ocean again, increase the albedo. It is not that these companies don’t know these risks exist, it’s just that they don’t give shit. See the quote about ‘Natural gas hydrates’ (clathrate) below, from an oil/gas industry expert.
Warning : Because clathrate gas was never fossilized, it is not spoken about as fossil fuels
Methane and oil needs to stay where they are or a runaway release of clathrate will follow which will easily double the current greenhouse effect. This will drive temperature higher and cause even more methane to be released from oceans and tundra. That in turn will kill a lot of life in the ocean and on land, and because the ocean has to be oxygenated and alive to prevent it turning super toxic. When the ocean dies, most things on land will die as well. That happened several times in our planets history.
In our search for Urang Utang images we came across Moksha, who is one of the caretakers at Mirtle Beach Safari . It is heartwarming to see how the animal are being treated. Even though there are many protests against zoos, we think if they are managed right they can enable people to experience and believe in the right to life of species they don’t encounter on their own continent.
The unique combination of animals allows us to see how social they can be. Animal friendships seem conditional on not being to hungry, and perhaps one not looking to much like luch to the other and on the social nature of the species. But if those conditions are met there seems no reason why animals can’t get along.
Syria the Urang Utang learned to swim after having been fitted with a boyancy vest. Below the story of how Syria befriended a dog.
It is because we can experience animals like Syria and big cats we care about what happens to their habitat. Africa is facing major droughts, floods and other upheaval because because of climate change. The habitat of the Urang Utang is not in Africa, but Asia, where 5000 Urang Utangs are killed annually because of palm oil plantations. Even if some of the illegal ones are being destroyed it is still an industry that threatens these sentient beings and should not exist (for many reasons). Our ability to see these animals as equally capable of human emotions may help our resolve to prevent their extinction.
Democracy is being undermined by the influence of corporations, masquarading as foundations, rewarding our elected representatives beyond their normal wages. In some countries like the US this is super obvious, as it is allowed by law to 1. Fund election campaigns, 2. For senators to trade at the stock exchange with insider knowledge 3. Some parties to even fund without being named (NRA). The US is a corpocracy, which is reflected in the state of its population and war mongering.
In Europe this situation is less severe, but democracy is eroding. A good example of similar tactics is the recend departure of dutch liberal MP Rene Leegte, who earned 1000,- Euro per month ‘advising’ a foundation called Plantlab, who has a partnership with Syngenta, who, whith Monsanto, is after dutch seeds. Why would a corporation ever team up with a foundation. What does that add other than the illusion of selflessness or ideological motivation. It should be prohibited.
An example how you can get any item on the parliamentary agenda if you pay a lobbyist and have a fake foundation was show in the dutch program Rambam (in dutch).
We don’t know what our parliament does, really, we don’t know what drives many of the votes. When we have elections who do we support that is not involved in earning on the side for corporate fronts?
The choices our parliament makes can (and are often) be inspired by commercial initiatives, not by the needs of the population
One thing we can do to make the parliamentary process more transparent is show it to you and others and allow people to take positions as things happen. Tweetocracy is being constructed to do just that. In its first setup it will allow anyone (on twitter) to vote for or against a motion (proposal) in parliament. Votes are by party, but with Tweetocracy it will be possible to ask for individual positions of MPs.
The term often used for transparent democracy is Liquid Democracy. These systems allow citizen to lauch ideas and find support for them, so that they may end up being discussed in parliament. This system can work but it can (doesn’t have to but can) distract from boring but high impact votes that are actually happening. Unless the system is already open to introduction of proposals that result from a (basically) referendum style process, how are voters going to influence or know about that their elected reps do?
Tweetocracy takes the actual votes in parliament and allows you to show your opinion. It allows you to track who enables decisions you support and who enables ones you loathe. All through Twitter. One problem today is that votes are made en block, per party, even on detailed proposals. This has to be made more transparent, because not everyone agrees with every proposal. This transparency can be achieved by asking members of parliament to vote using Tweetocracy themselves.
We use Twitter because it is a unique medium. It is hpertransparent. There is no service on the planet that 1. makes tweets visible to ALL who use it and 2. Records these tweets with a timestamp and makes them permanently searchable. It means that unless you delete a tweet, your vote stands and is visible to all. This also means that even if Tweetocracy has a vote outcome for a proposal, anyone with a server or computer can recount the votes and be sure the count is accurate, in fact, that is what we hope will happen. In fact, the method of validation of tweets will be similar to that of the Bitcoin blockchain, without the need to encrypt because one can rely on the integrity of the Twitter stream. If Twitter would ever decide to quit, it is easy to set up the same system independently. Democracy is not that your opinion gets heard, but that it is certain to be the majority opinion.
Tweetocracy will start with making it possible to vote with parliament on proposals made in parliament. It will then develop to make it possible to track who voted for what proposal. It will allow users to see who is on their side the most.
Onze democratie is niet erg transparent. We kiezen elke vier jaar kamerleden, een meerderheids coalitie maakt een regeerakkoord, en vervolgens wordt dat door ministers uitgevoerd. De kamer stelt hen vragen en vertegenwoordigd zo het volk dat kritisch toekijkt wat de regering doet. In principe zou een kiezer een idee moeten hebben bij wat elk kamerlid doet, zodat een weloverwogen keuze gemaakt kan worden bij de volgende verkiezingen.
Kamerleden dienen moties om het werk van de regering te sturen. Het is door deze moties dat kamerleden zich kunnen onderscheiden. Ook het al dan niet succesvol zijn van moties kan iets zeggen over een kamerlid. Het idee is om moties beter te volgen, en te proberen te weten hoe iedereen over deze moties denkt. Ook tweetocracy gebruikers en individuele kamerleden kunnen hun mening geven. Door moties via twitter te verspreiden en er via een tweet voor of tegen te kunnen stemmen kunnen mensen meer betrokken raken bij het proces, en beter inzicht verwerven in de voorkeur van elk kamerlid.
Moties zijn zichtbare acties, en het idee is om deze eerst zichtbaar te maken. Dit gebeurt overigens al wel op partij congressen, waar mensen moties kunnen aan of afraden.
Tweetocracy.eu en .nl wordt in stappen ontwikkeld :
• Moties kunnen worden ‘geladen’ en er kan voor of tegen worden gestemd (tot de werkelijke stemming).
• Dit stelt ons in staat te zien wat de voorkeur van de tweetocracy user is (kan elke twitter gebruiker zijn).
• Stelt ons in principe ook in staat om de individuele kamerleden over de motie te polsen (als ze bereid zijn van de partij lijn af te wijken).
• Dit kan ons laten zien wat het succes is van moties. Dat valt namelijk best tegen.
Als dit de nodige interesse wekt en gebruikt wordt bv. ter promotie van ideen door kamerleden of partijgenoten dan kan vervolgens een systeem van motie creatie worden geïntroduceerd. Niet door kamerleden maar door de users.
• Gebruikers creeren een motie
• Een kamerlid kan op deze motie stemmen (dwz of hij/zij deze in de kamer zou willen indienen)
• Kamerleden kunnen aanbieden de motie in te dienen.
• Als de motie is ingedient kan er voor of tegen worden gestemd.
De stemmings uitslagen in het systeem kunnen tot visualisatie van partij en kamerlid gedrag leiden zodat de kiezer beter ziet wat er gebeurt.
o Toont lijst van moties met links naar showissuenl
o Mogelijkheid normale lijst te maken
1. Wat is een motie?
Een motie is een uitspraak van een Eerste/Tweede Kamerlid, of een commissie. Ze gaan meestal over de volgende onderwerpen (Parlement.com, g.d)
- over het vertrouwen in het kabinet of een bewindspersoon
- reacties op (nieuwe) ontwikkelingen
- over meer beleidsmatige aandacht voor een onderwerp
- meer of minder geld voor een bepaald beleidsonderdeel
Een motie wordt vaak gebruikt om een conclusie van een debat of een actiepunt voor een minister (of staatssecretaris) vast te leggen. (Parlement.com, g.d.)
Het heeft meestal de volgende vorm:
“De Kamer, gehoord de beraadslaging, van oordeel dat…; verzoekt de regering…, en gaat over tot de orde van de dag.” (Tweede Kamer, g.d.)
Een bekend type motie is de zogeheten motie van wantrouwen, waarmee Kamerleden het vertrouwen in een minister of staatssecretaris op kunnen zeggen.
2. Waarom wordt een motie ingediend?
Om aan te geven dat een onderwerp belangrijk is, of om de regering op te roepen actie te ondernemen op een bepaald gebied.
3. Wie kunnen moties indienen?
Eerste Kamerleden, Tweede Kamerleden en commissies van Kamerleden.
4. Hoe kan men een motie indienen?
Moties worden meestal ingediend bij de bespreking van regeringsnota’s en -notities in de Tweede Kamer.
5. Wat gebeurt er nadat een motie is ingediend?
Een motie wordt alleen in behandeling genomen als de motie steun heeft van tenminste vier Kamerleden, plus het Kamerlid dat de motie heeft ingediend (vijf dus). Om dit te bepalen, vraagt de voorzitter of de indiening van de motie voldoende wordt ondersteund, waarna iedereen die de motie wil ondersteunen zijn of haar hand op kan steken (Tweede Kamer, g.d.).
Een andere methode is dat het Kamerlid dat de motie indient, al de handtekeningen van minstens vier andere Kamerleden verzamelt. In dit geval hoeven er geen handen meer opgestoken te worden en wordt de motie sowieso in behandeling genomen. Deze moties gaan door naar de stemming. In die stemming, stemmen alle aanwezig Kamerleden of ze vóór of tégen een motie zijn. Als de meerderheid vóór is, noem je het een Kameruitspraak (Parlement.com, g.d.) Als de meerderheid tegen is, wordt er in principe verder niets mee gedaan.
Het gebeurt soms ook dat er geen stemming nodig is. In dit geval heeft de bewindspersoon die over het onderwerp van de motie gaat, al beloofd dat hij er iets mee gaat doen.
Een motie vervalt als er na twee maanden nog niet over is gestemd.
Interessant is dat voordat de stemming plaatsvindt, de bewindspersoon zijn oordeel mag vellen. Hierbij zijn 3 opties mogelijk:
Het oordeel wordt aan de Kamer overgelaten (neutraal)
De aanneming van de motie wordt ontraden (tegen)
De aanneming van de motie is onaanvaardbaar (extreem tegen)
De bewindspersoon is het met de motie eens, en gaat er iets mee doen. -> geen stemming
De Kamerleden mogen zelf weten of ze wat met dit oordeel doen of niet. Het is meer een indicatie van wat er mee gaat gebeuren na de stemming, als het in handen is van het kabinet.
Het kabinet heeft verschillende opties na de positieve stemming (de Kameruitspraak):
Er iets mee doen -> wetsvoorstel
Het naast zich neerleggen
Wat is het verschil tussen een motie en een wetsvoorstel? Bij een wetsvoorstel ligt het initiatief meestal bij het kabinet, bij een motie ligt het bij een Kamerlid. Verder maakt het wetsvoorstel vaak het beleid waar een motie commentaar op heeft.
Climatebabes has kicked off its Maximize Life campaign, intended to promote the single most important way to fight climate change: By increasing the volume of living species on Earth. By maximizing life over profit in any activity we choose.
There is a flip side to the constant news of extinctions, news stretching from the oceans, the forests, the wildlife, soil fungi, polar bears. That is that conservation isn’t an adequate response. It doesn’t matter if we protect a few tigers or rhino’s, we need to increase their numbers. We can make a ocean sancturay, but that won’t stop the general necrosis of our oceans from heat and acidification.
Economics is about maximizing the utilization of fossil fuels. It drives the destructive exploitation of natural recources. We need to replace its goal of maximizing profits with something better in line with our needs
Instead of just hoping animal, fish, bird, insect, plant populations will recover (while fossil fuel companies are stil polluting at an incredible rate) is naive. It won’t help, but nobody in the current fossil fuel driven economy will make us clearly aware of it.
Instead of trying to save a bird here, a dolphin there and a tree somewhere else, and be specific about the bug, turtle, bird or ape we try to protect, we need to cast a wider net. Life itself is under threat, we need to increase the amount and variety of living things on Earth, and if that is what we want we might as well maximize it. Keep it simple and understandable, that’s what this goal does.
Moving to sustainable agriculture of a wider variety of crops is a necessary and effective step to meet the challenges of climate change
There is another reason to maximize life on Earth. It is that evolution, natural selection, has to have something to select from. It needs variety in species or the chance any variety will survive goes to zero pretty fast. Not one Monsanto GM cotton crop, but many kinds that have different heat resistant qualities. Not one type wheat but many kinds, so one may survive the deceases that are more prevalent now that temperatures increase. Survival in the face of change depends on variety and abundance of species.
Steps to maximize life :
Consider the effect on biodiveristy and biomass of every activity, and make the balance positive at the cost of economic profit.
Replace low life process with more life involving processes
Restore biospheres, and bring to life oceanic dead zones and desert regions. Create silvopastural or wild forests where possible, more than needed.
Stop doing things that kill life, including fracking, oil exploration, coal and ore mining, use of plastics. Being very strickt but not unreasonable about it though.
To fight climate change with life is both the cheapest and most effective way, and doesn’t exclude the use of technology at the same time. Robots to grow and harvest on land and at sea for instance. In fact, we probably can’t deal with the challenge without automated systems (hence our vision of the Roboeconomy). Maximizing life doesn’t exclude any technology, it just requires us to stop killing and start fostering life, so as to meet the challenge of climate change with good companions.