DIRECT: the straight dope on the CoP29 deal.

[@earthsystem]

ME: Smallest footprint & maximum encouragement :: I stay local no travel, eat lightly, buy >almost< all secondhand, organic garden & encourage kids & neighbors to garden. Purchase only organic and mostly local.

[@jimthain8777]

That's a great start. If you want to increase your disruption, add, or should I say subtract as many produced goods as possible. Of course nothing cuts fossil fuels deeper than abandoning gasoline. This is why we have hybrid vehicles, to keep us consuming gasoline. If we all went for various kinds of electric transportation, it would be a full on crisis for fossil fuels. Personally I'd like it if they were on the receiving end of a crisis for a change.

[@mattschlegel9824]

Me too😊

[@sarahourez6548]

Although on the agenda, loss & damage wasn’t discussed until COP6, two years later they looked at it more closely & another two years for an agreement for a fund & at the next meeting, a plan was adopted. Couldn’t agree on the loss & damage funding at COP14 so they tried again two years later, no success. COP17 agreed that the fund would distribute $100 billion per year to assist undeveloped nations but there were no pledges so nothing was done until another ten years passed. COP27, it was agreed that developed nations should compensate undeveloped nations for damage caused by climate impacts and $700m was pledged - a fraction of what is needed. At COP28 the text for the fund was finalised. The meeting’s only achievement except for wording on a non-binding agreement to "begin to move away" from fossil fuels. COP29 - Loss & Damage Fund - put it in your own words.

[@qbas81]

Good one as always! Sharing!

[@___.51]

Wicked problem, wicked problem, that's a good term.

[@markg6953]

cop -out !

[@inaballik2643]

The UN finally needs to adapt their Rules of Procedure in terms of voting rights. They need to allow for a #supermajority in voting if we want to make any progress. The unanimous voting rule that's been in place for ever, doesn't work anymore in an ever more divergent world.

[@earthsystem]

Yep. Situational awareness below zero, spelling it out is not working. Empathy is your strongest lens for seeing the world clearly.

[@longnewton1]

I don’t disagree with your points on adaptation and I haven’t read your book. However, as bad as things do look, we cannot take our collective feet off the mitigation peddle. If global temperatures rise too high, it could be game over for us and possibly over 90% of species. We must continue to fight to prevent every fraction of a degree of further global warming. Also, the higher temperatures get, as you know, the more likely catastrophic climate feedbacks kick in.

[@mattschlegel9824]

Thank you for this healthy perspective.

[@ronaldkable]

Maybe from now on the UN could focus squarely on disaster preparedness and response. People may also be more willing to donate resources to others when real disasters are involved

[@danielfaben5838]

Thank you sharing this moment, Mr. Read. Does strategic adaptation include acknowledging that cities cannot continue and that their inhabitants have nowhere to go? That the humans there get ready to be sacrificed as will surely occur by human or "natural" means? That collapse is the right thing to happen as it is in alignment with the principles of global overshoot?

[@A3Kr0n]

My personal commitment to climate change is to not have children. The genes stop here.

[@jimthain8777]

The bad thing is we live in a consumer society, but the good thing is we live in a consumer society. Everyone understands the bad of that, They understand that our society revolves around us consuming more, and more. However, because it IS a consumer society, we have the AGENCY to decide our own consumption. We CAN choose to reduce our consumption. Society doesn't want that. They will try everything to stop us from going down that road. We need to go down that road. It is clear none of the corporations that make most of the pollution, and force us to pollute, are going to change. So WE have to change. IF we change, especially in large numbers, THEY are in trouble. What is the single biggest thing we can do? We can buy LESS. Keeping our money in OUR pockets cuts our pollution like nothing else can. The questions are: Who is willing to buy less? Can we get enough people to buy less? The poor do so simply because they don't have the money to buy. Those of us better off have a CHOICE. The survival of civilization may depend on how those of us not poor, not destitute, choose to spend, or not spend our money.

[@JugglinJellyTake01]

This is a fraction of the cost of damages and yet much damage cannot even be costed such as loss of lives, land, soil fertility and productivity and water losses. Much money is lost through tax havens, Oxfam reported around $100 billion in circa 2004 lost from Africa alone while $10 billion was provided in aid, more a rebate of sorts. Fair trade tries to get around some of this though that is a tiny fraction of income. Much is lost in illegal activities such as mining and deforestation which decrease resilience and opportunities for adaptation. Debt and crippling trade deals are another factor preventing developing countries from adapting. We are in a similar position to western countries in the 1930s and 1940s realising worker's rights and conditions need to improve for the country to improve but we fail to extrapolate that to other countries. Agree on other like minded countries banding together but would need to see how that would work.

[@mattschlegel9824]

Are you on LinkedIn? I would like to share this content on that platform, too. The petit bourgeoisie, too, need to be exposed to this information.😂

[@treesagreen4191]

In your book, do you have suggestions for individuals, households and families on how they can adapt? Or communities/towns?

[@RupertReadClimate]

Yes. But see also www.ClimateMajorityProject.com/SAFER , and Adam Greenfield's book LIFEHOUSE.

[@helenaaberg2296]

Vegan eggs, please.

[@dummyaccount.k]

I guess we can.. flatten the curve?

[@jimthain8777]

We can IF enough of us act. We don't have to do much to really move the needle if enough of us do just ONE thing, it makes a huge difference. The problem is convincing enough of us to do just one thing.

[@alexzimmi4827]

I profoundly disagree on your opinion of abandoning COP (or in other words talking to each other, with the other being states living on fossil fuel revenue) and founding 'climate clubs' instead, because this is a problem we are all (stuck) in and that we can only resolve by working together. Otherwise, there will always be economic incentives to circumvent any restrictions on fossil fuels. Because sadly, as our world economy functions today (maximizing principle), renewables would never replace fossil fuels but just be added to the portfolio. Except if ALL of us agree on not using fossil fuels (e. g. via carbon tax). That is not to say, that climate clubs/transition coalitions in addition to COP couldn't be helpful.

[@RupertReadClimate]

I suggest you read Simon Sharpe's book FIVE TIMES FASTER. He is a climate diplomat. I don't agree with him about everyone - but he has spent more time at the heart of the CoP system than I have, and his suggestions are compelling.

[@alexzimmi4827]

Thank you for the suggestion I'm always glad to learn about good sources :)​@@RupertReadClimate