Climate Change - Science topic

Harold, thank you for taking the time to comment.

I agree with your observations, but the question is: Who benefits from blocking the transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy?

Keep burning fossil fuels without planting trees and native plants to sequester that carbon before it is burned, like Saudi Arabia and the other 24 countries that on Nov. 7 at COP27 formed the "Middle East Green Initiative" to plant 50 billion trees to sequester carbon, and we could easily keep going past 10 deg. C. Each country needs to start its own Green Initiative, and plant enough native trees and native grasses and wildflowers, to offset their annual fossil fuel AND methane production.

Role of BIM in designing climate resilient structures and driving sustainability in the AEC industry is also vital.

Hi,

I am from Malaysia and interested to work with you on this project. Feel free to contact me or via email: kahchoon.15@gmail.com

As you may be aware, some months before a COP event, world countries are required to submit their carbon emission reduction pledges (Nationally Determined Contributions) to the UN FCCC. At the actual COP event world leaders tend to tweak these pledges but not by much. For example, in 2021 the UN FCCC calculated that the pre-COP26 countries' combined projected 2030 global emissions would be about 16% over the 2010 level. During COP26 world leaders tweaked this to about 13.7% over 2010 global emissions. (https://unfccc.int/news/cop26-update-to-the-ndc-synthesis-report)

This year, according to the September pre-COP 27 UNFCCC report, as at October 2022, the combined countries' projected emissions would bring 2030 global emissions to about 10% MORE than the 2010 level. (https://unfccc.int/news/climate-plans-remain-insufficient-more-ambitious-action-needed-now). So a slight improvement over what was promised last year. I haven't yet looked at what world leaders have pledged at COP27. But I hope that this time round they've promised to meaningfully reduce their up-to-now very unsatisfactory promises.

As you are probably aware, the IPCC experts have long been underlining that 2030 global emissions need to be about 45% LESS than 2010 global emissions for the world to stay within the safety upper global warming limit of 1.5 degree Celsius. So if world leaders have promised to aim for 2030 emissions that hover at 10% over 2010 levels, they really could've stayed home and saved the emissions generated to fly in all the delegations to Egypt. The world would've been better off if the the money spent on organising COP27 were given say to Egypt for using to boost its green transition.

According to the UN FCCC, the current emission pledges put the world on track "for around 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century."(https://unfccc.int/news/climate-plans-remain-insufficient-more-ambitious-action-needed-now)

Over the last decades, the forecasts of the UN FCCC and the IPCC have had one consistent mark, which is of giving conservative forecasts. While steeped in prudence, these conservative forecasts have time and again turned out to underestimate the extent of what pans out in reality.

A maybe more telling and unfortunately more chilling forecast is the highest emissions pathway scenario the IPCC gave in its August 2021 report on Climate, dubbed by UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres as "Code Red for Humanity." In this report, the IPCC forecasts that if CO2 emissions double from 2015 levels by 2050, the median global temperature increase would be of about 4.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. I don't think that the IPCC chose this scenario haphazardly... If one looks back, one finds that CO2 emissions have actually doubled in the last 42 years... so basically in a coded way, is the IPCC saying that if we continue to double emissions at the same rate of these last decades, we're looking at a median global temperature increase of about 4.4 degrees Celsius? With a very likely range of 3.3 and 5.7 degrees Celsius.

Given all the above, I sadly have to conclude that COP events have not yielded the reductions we drastically and urgently need.

To both Andrew and Primus,..... maybe if we talk about intrinsic and instrumental desires/needs it might help to clarify points made by you both and I think would serve your respective positions very well.

The best program to come out of the COP27 meeting was the formation of the "Middle East Green Initiative" which will be planting 50 billion trees in 24 countries to offset the burning of fossil fuels. The Saudis started this program 20 years ago, when they adopted my proposal at https://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html and set aside 200 million aces (now 200 million hectares) to restore with local native plants in August 2010. Then, last year, formed the "Saudi Green Initiative" to start planting one million trees per week, and you can see several YouTube videos, including their meeting on Nov 7 at COP 27. Sudan may be part of that group, and if not, should start its own Green Initiative, and start planting the native plants as soon as possible, being paid by your oil and gas companies, so that they can sell you Carbon Neutral fossil fuel products in the future. That is the only way we will get to Carbon Neutral quickly, have plants put carbon in the ground before we burn it.

Have you looked at EOBS ?

It is my "go to" source for European met data.

Martyn

@ Hem, integrated insect-pest management is important because it maintains the national crop ecosystem balance and contributes to food and water safety, as reducing the amount of pesticides used in turn reduces residues in food, feed and fiber, and environment.

Such change is well documented in psychology. there have been many studies that have investigated how a minority can cause change in a majority. Moscovici 1969 in particular did much research. He found that there are 3 factors that are important. They are consistency, commitment and flexibility. Confidence in the correctness of one's own belief is also important.

The violence and fighting is occurring so recently I doubt studies have been completed or even started. And its more prevalent in a group of countries VS across the globe. I suggest an internet search for where its being most seen (I agree with rural areas), if newly scarce and dwindling resources are the source of the fighting and who is most often involved. -- I suggest to look and study the findings and comments from the November 2022 UN Climate Change Conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. --- In addition, like other farmers world wide, this summer in the western US states many argued & fought over decreasing water resources. I expect water and other resources to decrease from a quickly worsening climate as well as being used as a political weapon (see eastern Europe). With that I'd encourage help find ways to bring change vs adding one more study.

Climate change has been going on for 100's of thousands of years; this is nothing new!

Lou

Good day Guoyu, thanks for writing.

After 1987 WCED "Our Common Future" we knew that social unsustainability (social pollution) and environmental unsustainability (environmental pollution) were clear signs the traditional market development model had not worked as expected so the WCED commission asked the world to go beyond business as usual to solve these pollution problems/internalized them once and for all.

In 1997 the world tried to deal with the environmental pollution part by addressing pollution emission issue, by not by setting up environmental pollution reduction markets(green markets) to transition the environmentally dirty economy to the clean economy, a full or dominant renewable energy based economy, but by dealing with emissions in a way that allows the dirty economy criticized by the WCED in 1987 to continue running..... When you deal with emission in a way to keep the dirty economy running you are not fixing the environmental pollution issue embedded in the traditional market pricing mechanism, you are just PATCHING the problem....

Because I saw the Kyoto protocol as a patching mechanism, not as an environmental fix to the traditional market way of thinking, I was expecting it to fail in the long term regardless as the environmental sustainability gaps created by the patch are delinked from the global warming goals/targets and you can have the situation that YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING yet the emission levels may still increase regardless, which is what happened here....

Emissions increasing despite the protocol can be explained by the fact that patching the emission problem while the dirty economy is still polluting is a good business opportunity for businesses as they can make money without taking full responsibility for the full environmental cost associated with their business activities….As long as they can pass the patching cost to consumers they are fine….and they were fine with the protocol until it failed…

Guoyu, as you may know the 1997 Kyoto agreement was reached, signed and failed.

So the question is “Looking back, why did the 1997 Kyoto protocol actually failed?”

Do you think that you can solve the pollution emission problem from inside the dirty economy while the pollution generation mechanism is still active?

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

.

Farmer usually observe all the climatic variability which generally we consider the effect of climatic change. They don't know much about this term but they know global warming and in true sense they know uncertainty related to agriculture crop. In my region (Uttarakhand, India), farmer usually tell about their past agriculture production, and now they observe the uncertainty in rainfall, dryness, etc.

I suggest reviewing the following paper:

Green external financing can be direct or indirect: Direct is a connection between two parties between borrowers and lenders without the intervention of a financial intermediary in exchange for credit risk guarantees, and the loan is in the form of financial instruments or direct securities such as green shares and bonds. And indirect green external financing is done through a financial intermediary such as commercial banks, insurance companies, savings and loan associations to finance green projects

Robert, since you do not see any problem with anthroprocentric pollution affecting climate change, then even if you want you can not see what those WHO see a problem with emmisions are missing.

Thank you for taking the time to comment anyway!

Lucio

Hi Marzieh,

Saeid Charani Shandiz and Behzad Rismanchi have investigated in this field. It will be good if you contact them.

Grand father of no till and tillage comparison are Ohio State University and Uruguay long term trials.

My 2002 proposal at https://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html about taking care of Global Warming by replanting desert areas to increase rainfall, was adopted by the Saudi Government in August, 2010, and 200 million acres were set aside as Ecological Restoration Preserves. Story at https://www.ecoseeds.com/Saudi-note-final.pdf

Last year the "Saudi Green Initiative" got started to begin the planting of 10 billion trees, and today that Initiative was broadened and renamed at COP27 as the "Middle East Green Initiative".

Joining this morning and speaking at the opening session were Kuwait, China, India, Pakistan, Sudan, Morocco, etc.

Since you are in Pakistan, and your country has joined, maybe there could be some work to replant the Thal desert.

By putting a native cover back on the land and selling the carbon credits produced by the plants sequestering soil carbon, could allow the oil companies to sell Carbon Neutral oil, could make the people grazing that marginal area 10-20X their annual income per hectare.

That is what Occidental Petroleum did last year, they sold two million barrels of Carbon Neutral oil to India, after they bought carbon offsets to cancel out the carbon in the soil.

The opening of the Middle East Green Initiative today, used a similar set of two pictures from Saudi Arabia, as I have posted here from Oman. Have vegetation and you have rainfall. Little or no vegetation and little or no rainfall.

ClimPact2 package can be best if you are familiar with R

Yes, by desalination of the endless seawater. But do not let´s talk about the taste.

HGD

Patterns of drought and deluge are common throughout history, but human-driven climate change is disrupting these cycles, making it more difficult to predict exactly how the current megadought in south-western North America will end...

You can use CMIP6 model data. The historical data in CMIP6 is from 1850 to 2014, while the future model experiments are from 2015 to 2100.

Certainly the COVID19 has pushed to the edge, for transformation, though, the debates, discussions and communication on envisaged forecasts about the threats earth was facing, about the warnings on Climate ripping point, what already accelerated to tipped, came up as total economic threat with pandemic.

After all, a turn of change is must, and this chaotic crises can be taken into an opportunity , you are right to say, to bring a through full scale change into needed suit.

The war and Russia both can be stopped immediately, if West, UK Europe ally to a deal for the betterment of global concern.

Regards,

Fatema Miah

We need to regenerate nature on land and marine life in the Oceans. Nature can be a solution to climate change. The work of Allan Savory is really interesting and makes biological sense.

We are never going to stop climate change by carbon mitigation, at best it may be slowed down, however I fear for Ocean acidification which will drop to pH7.95 in around 20 years. This will result in Aragonite saturation index below 1.5 which means most carbonate based life forms, composed of Aragonite and magnesium calcite will dissolve. This equates to around 50% of all life in the Oceans, its no wonder it is called the Evil Twin of climate change, but we are doing almost nothing to regenerate the oceans.

Glad to have been of help.

Dear Michael, please read the context on which the question is based to see the nature and consequences of paradigm shift avoidance. Then you can share your view on the answer to this specific question and why.

About your comment on economic revitalization in Nigeria, you may find some food for thoughts in the following article:

Climate change is already impacting health in a myriad of ways, including by leading to death and illness from increasingly frequent extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, storms and floods, the disruption of food systems, increases in zoonoses and food-, water- and vector-borne diseases, and mental health issues.

Please see the link for further information.

One possible approach is presented in the attached word document

Sorry, I was hoping to help you

Sharing here an article just published that some of you may find interesting in terms of foods for thoughts

Sustainability thoughts 140: How can the consequences of the 2012 green market paradigm shift avoidance move that led to the world of dwarf green markets of today be highlighted, including the green Marxism threat?

Proxy data (e.g. lacustrine) can be used to generate proxy temperature and precip. data for past periods, and they can conceivably be compared with historical simulations by climate models for validation purposes, especially for times before ~1950, i.e., before good observational networks were established to provide more direct validation. Those lacustrine records, however, don't have much to say about future climate. Any validation would be over historical times, and if the models perform okay for past climate, then confidence should be increased in their future projections.

See for info. on how to calibrate your lacustrine data. It looks like there are lots of tricky subtleties involved!

23 October MMXXII

No...

Cordially...

ASJ

Rafael Dean Brown This is a multilayered topic: demand, business, design, UX, future tech, etc. It could be simplified to become a design and architecture-dependent question, of course. Relevant topics: Do current technological capabilities allow solutions to be designed with these aspects in mind? Yes. Is it possible to extend solutions in this direction? Yes. Is it commercially viable at the moment? Not sure.

Maybe you can try coral reef restoration if you're interested in marine ecology:

Good day Yusuf, thank you for writing.

The context on which this question is based is:

“In a world with two components, the economy and the environment such as the world of environmentally dirty markets, the nature of each component in any model determines the nature of that market…”

And based on this context the question is: How can the market structure of Pollution production markets, Pollution reduction markets, and Pollution management markets be represented analytically?

They are 3 different types of markets, different model/market structure, different price structure, different choice structure, and different cost structure. But the question for simplicity is focused only on their different market structure and how to represent it analytically...

If you would like to share your ideas on how this question can be answered, please do it.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Your statement Harry, ""Well, Lucio, I did NOT answer your question “What is the structure and meaning of yellow Marxism/yellow socialism?” because, based on what you have said so far, I cannot understand the question."

I totally agree Rahim Alijani

Dear Lucio,

Yes, under dwarfing green markets, consumers are now often misled and/or deceived. For example, food sold in supermarkets as being made from the raw materials of crops grown in fields under a sustainable, pro-environmental organic farming formula and unfortunately this is not always true. This is due to the low level of public awareness of farming according to the formula of sustainable, pro-environmental organic farming and to imperfect quality control systems and ecological issues. Besides, why is it that the costs of using plastic in packaging are still being passed on to consumers and not fully borne by producers. The costs of using plastics in packaging are not only production costs, but also costs resulting from environmental pollution by microplastic particles, costs for the treatment of diseases resulting from environmental pollution, costs related to waste sorting and recycling. Another issue is the increasing practice of companies, businesses, banks and other economic operators to portray themselves in advertising campaigns as economic operators who operate in accordance with business ethics, pro-environmental and pro-climate corporate responsibility, pursue sustainable development goals, applying the principles of the green closed-circuit economy, when this is often not entirely true. In this way, consumers operating in dwarfed pseudo-green markets are misled. Consumers buy products and services on the assumption that they are thus part of a growing sustainable, green, emission-free, pro-environmental closed-loop economy. They purchase products and services offered by economic operators who advertise themselves as companies, firms, banks, etc. that have sustainability, green economy, climate change, etc. as part of their mission. However, the data describing the overall activities of these economic operators show that these issues of sustainability, green economy, pro-climate transition often represent only a small part of their activities and not the whole. Consumers do not have the time or opportunity to verify this. It is therefore necessary to strengthen the control systems carried out by the state's public institutions. Another issue is the pro-climate transformation of the energy sector. Due to the current energy crisis, instead of accelerating the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources, it is the state that is taking a step backwards and developing subsidy systems for rising fossil fuel prices, thus again supporting the development of dirty, emission-intensive energy based on burning fossil fuels. In addition, over the last few years there has been an anti-climate and anti-environmental policy of deliberately slowing down, restricting or blocking the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources. This is the case, for example, in the country where I operate. In view of the above, unfortunately, green markets are still imperfect, overrated and lacking systemic state control.

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Fellow researcher,

Chaos theory, which is a branch of dynamical systems was founded by the study of the Lorenz attractor (butterfly diagram). Edward Lorenz was a meteorologist and this attractor was introduced by him as a consequence of its simplified mathematical model for atmospheric convection. So yes, climate study and dynamical systems are interlinked since the beginning and I recommend Strogatz's "Nonlinear Dynamics And Chaos" for a overview with applications to climate change or "Nonlinear Dynamics in Weather and Climate" for a more specialized text. It is worth to mention that climate change also involve stochastic processes so consulting also works like "Stochastic resonance in climatic change" is important for you repertoire.

Which you have fun and have success in your studies.

Image attached.

Cara Rosa,

There are no universal thresholds to classify urban heat islands because each city will experience its own specific climate and environmental constraints. Since you are dealing with a single city, I suggest you start by determining the lowest and the highest temperatures in your data set, and then divide that range (Tmax - Tmin) in 3 equal intervals. For instance, if Tmin = 18 and Tmax = 24, your intervals would be 18 to 20, 20 to 22 and 22 to 24 C. In that case, all areas falling in the lower interval could be labeled 'cool', the areas falling in the next class could be called 'warm', and those belonging to the higher interval could be indicative of 'hot' conditions.

You should make sure that your data set covers a region around the city large enough to include agricultural fields or forests: those areas would provide you with a baseline environmental temperature away from the urban center. An obvious extension of this approach would be to map the city areas in single degree intervals, from blues through to greens, yellows, oranges and red. That will clearly indicate which areas are hotter.

A better approach would be to start from a preliminary question: why do you need to make a map of the urban heat island effect of Naples in the first place? If you were concerned by the health effect of temperature on morbidity and mortality of the inhabitants, for instance, then your temperature thresholds should be driven by medical rather than purely statistical considerations. Similarly, if your underlying concern were energy expenditures (cooling during the summer or heating during the winter), then your thresholds should relate to the corresponding critical rates of energy expenditure. In other words, your approach should depend on your ultimate goal.

Remember also that

- the urban heat island is quite time-dependent: it varies with cloudiness and synoptic conditions such as sea-breeze on a daily time scale, it is much more noticeable during the winter than the summer, and it may evolve on longer time scales, depending on the rates of urbanization and industrialization;

- land surface temperature is quite dependent on altitude, so you might want to acquire a topographic map of your area and look at the correlation between these two parameters;

- a land use map of the region will be useful to properly interpret your results, as the hotter area may not be the city center but some industrial area, depending on their relative rates of energy consumption.

I hope these comments may help you in your work. Michel.

Dear Jack,

just to add to the previous answers, there are various approaches for capacity and resilience in the literature, based on engineering, ecological definitions, static or dynamic measures (including functions of the system's performance, adaptive and withstanding capacity, transformability), recovery-related metrics, hazard-based definitions, and also statistical metrics (e.g. the Hashimoto resilience). So, I'd make a review on such approaches and then try to find which one(s) suits best and is more meaningful for the specific problem you are studying.

Hope this helps,

Angelos

Dear Lucio Muñoz,

I will also answer your question by referring to the economic crisis indirectly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic in 2020. When the World Health Organization announced the state of a global epidemic at the beginning of March 2020, i.e. of the pandemic, the reaction of the financial markets was too nervous, too deep, too exaggerated. The behavior of stock exchange investors and the speculation of large financial institutions worked. Some governments fearing that there would be a shortage of beds in hospitals for seriously ill people with Covid-19 introduced lockdowns, which caused serious economic problems in many industries and sectors of the economy. In order for these decisions not to cause protests from the public, the government granted non-returnable subsidies to business entities on the basis of printed money in the public finance system cooperating with the central bank. These actions started an increase in inflation in 2021. Now, when we ask whether lockdowns have been applied to selected sectors of the economy in the context of rapidly developed vaccines and the scale of the severely ill with Covid-19 population and deaths from Covid-19 and comorbidities, different answers are coming up. The difference between the so-called the health crisis caused by the pandemic announced by the WHO and the climate crisis is that the pandemic appeared suddenly and was something new, and the climate crisis is being realized as a long-term, multi-year process. An interesting point is that so far WHO has not lifted the pandemic state, despite the fact that in many countries the pandemic has already been replaced with a state of increased virological risk, the anti-pandemic restriction has been lifted, the number of people seriously ill with Covid-19 has significantly decreased and the government has already recognized other problems as more important, which should be solved systematically and with the use of funds from the public finance system of the state. Such problems are currently double-digit and still growing inflation, and raised interest rates. by central banks and the economy entering a recession, energy crisis, food crisis, climate crisis. However, now referring to your question, I state that what you define as dwarf green markets, i.e. incomplete application of sustainability, pro-environmentalism, pro-climate in economic policy, is a kind of prosthesis of actions that should be implemented as part of a full pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy and are not realistically implemented. The reason is resistance in the spheres of business and politics, the lobby of large mining, mining and energy companies, as well as refineries operating in the sector or for the benefit of the dirty combustion energy sector. These sectors are key factors in slowing down the green transformation. Therefore, instead of fully carrying out the pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the classic growth, brown, linear surplus economy into a sustainable, green, zero-emission, zero-growth economy and a circular economy, prostheses of these processes are created, i.e. what you refer to as dwarf green markets. Thus, a short-sighted approach still prevails instead of long-term and strategic planning. Ad hoc measures are still being taken instead of introducing profound changes in the area of ​​pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy. The problem is still being swept under the rug instead of solving the problem in a multi-faceted manner and reaching the source of the problem. Contrary to the situation from the 1st wave of the pandemic (spring 2020), we know what to do in terms of the pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, but we still do not fully do it, assuming that it will be done somehow. On the other hand, there is little time for a full pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, thanks to which it would be possible to significantly slow down the global warming process, which has been progressing since the first industrial revolution and accelerating in recent years, and to significantly reduce the scale of the potential negative effects of the climate catastrophe, which may already appear in the current XXI century. In this way, instead of carrying out a complete, thorough (with reaching the source of the problem and taking into account a long-term strategy) pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, prostheses of this process are created and dwarf green markets are created as you have described it. For example, companies and enterprises add to their missions and development strategies the issues of achieving the goals of sustainable development, pro-environmental and pro-climate responsibility of business, although they do not really do much in this matter. They present their new green missions in advertising campaigns with their new product and service offers, because they see that the level of pro-environmental awareness of citizens, i.e. their potential customers, is growing. On the other hand, penalties for introducing toxic waste into the natural environment, for CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, for poisoning the natural environment and increasing the incidence of various diseases occurring in humans and animals, etc., are not always allocated to solving these problems, to increasing the scale activities implemented under the environmental and pro-climate policy. Probably many people still do not realize that it is not much time left.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear friends, some of you may find some good food for thoughts in this article just published. Here sharing it in good faith.

Sustainability thoughts 139: How can the 2012 road to transition from environmental pollution based traditional economies to the environmentally clean economies that the world never built be pointed out?

Climate change is broad, it encompasses more than Green market

So it's will be difficult for the two to go at the same level

climate change > rainfall > groundwater recharge > shallow aquifers

We can only do our best. Covid will be gone soon, wars end and we can try hard to reduce climate change :)

Thanks Marcel Severijnen

You are an original thinker and researcher; I have taken your works on sustainability into account. Astronomy replaced astrology, chemistry replaced alchemy; the same process is currently in the making, with respect to social science: what is now understood as economics (mainly a mathematized derivate of private wealth accumulation and subsequent management practices) will be replaced by a more scientific model of human economic action, cleaned up from ideological wishlists. I do regard the profound study of other authors as a precondition of learning, dear Lucio Muñoz Most of my articles and books, i.e. my own work and views, are on my RG account (e.g.

).

This not research, but rather, personal observation, having earned my MS in Ecology in 1978. Climate change was not even a topic, except in a theotetical sense. There was more emphasis on basic science and less on applied, more conservation, less restoration. There was no GIS. Remember, this was before the advent of the personal computer. To construct and test a systems model, you had to write code to punch cards and get in line to use the mainframe. I don't ever remember hearing the terms: landscape ecology, patchiness, fragmentation, human ecology. Here is an exercize for you. Assemble a glossary of commonly used terms in the field of ecology and find when they first appeared in the literature. I think you will find that a large percentage appeared after 1990.

Dariusz Prokopowicz : Firstly, Coral reefs systems consist of both coldwater/deepsea corals, and tropical coral reefs with associated ecosystems of mangroves, seagrass beds, etc. Hence, anthropogenic causes (including IPCC's position that climate change is mainly due to anthropogenic GHGs emissions) of the deteriorating conditions of these coral reefs can differ. For example, deepsea corals which are NOT zooxanthellae-linked located off New Zealand or off the Nordic margin (off Norway) etc are threatened by oil & gas drillings and activities. The tropical coral reefs and associated ecosystems are damaged, inter alia, by coastal areas development (cities, military bases, unsustainable agriculture/aquaculture, tourism, etc, contributing to actual reefs physical destruction and via pollutants such as plastics, chemicals, fertilizers and sediments runoffs changes etc), Oil & Gas activities, Oil spills, submarine cables laying, military activities, pollutions, shipping activities such as garbage/pollutants dumping, ship-groundings; tourists' activities (e.g. inexperienced tourists/snorkelers/divers accidentally breaking the corals, destructive fishing practices such as bottom trawling and fish-bombing, strong waves during hurricanes, and high sea surface temperature (SST) that can lead to bleachings, etc. (Keep in mind the Great Barrier Reef has recently been reported to recover well).

Hence, the ways to address the coral reefs decline are also diverse, and can be very site-specific.

Instruments and systems for marine biodiversity conservation in the face of global warming can be at various levels e.g. legal :

International level: multilateral environmental agreements, IMO Rules and Procedures, etc, soft laws such as Rio Declaration, etc

Regional level: Regional organizations or IO, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, etc

National and local level: national laws, municipal or local government laws and town planning, etc

The instruments and systems can be vastly improved with, among others:

Honest co-operation using, inter alia, precautionary, fair and equitable principles, common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), with sufficient funding and technical assistance, technology transfer for the poorer tropical countries to conserve marine biodiversity, respecting indigenous peoples and local communities rights (conservation for the people, with the people), and the special situation of Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) and developing countries most impacted by climate-related sealevel rise, and coastal floodings, etc.

There is no fair sense in making the economically-challenged developing countries (sans adequate funding/tech assistance) to carry out the huge obligations as proposed in the CBD draft Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3 etc currently being negotiated, for resolving global problems such as climate change and associated biodiversity loss that IPCC had stated was due to mainly historic anthropogenic GHGs emissions (by developed countries). Lessons learn from the Aichi Targets failures (also SDG failures) due to lack of sufficient funding and tech assistance should not be repeated.

Hence, one of the ways to improve is to ensure at all MEAs negotiations, Developed Countries shall also shoulder the obligations for global biodiversity conservation, showing honest co-operation for fair and equitable outcomes.

Red socialism a la Karl Marx aimed at the end of pure capitalism(profits/growth the problem destroying society), social equality without freedom, Opium here religion.

Green socialism a la Karl Marx aims at the end of dwarf green captalism(profits/growth the problem destroying nature), environmental equality without freedom, Opium here is green marketwashing and dwarf green market development goals and policies

Your comments are inconsistent with your answer YES

Dear Lucio,

Yes, but unfortunately only in theory at the moment. In order for the socio-economic system built on the model of full green, pro-environmental, pro-climate socialism based on a sustainable, green circular economy to be successful in comparison with (as you call it) dwarf green capitalism, it is necessary to significantly increase the pro-environmental awareness of citizens and significantly increase the scale of creation and implementation of new eco-innovations and green technologies on an industrial scale, thanks to which it will be possible to significantly accelerate the efficient implementation of the process of pro-environmental transformation of the classic growth, brown, linear excess economy into a sustainable, green, zero-emission zero-growth economy and a circular economy, and to build a system of economically profitable, pro-environmental and pro-climate economic ventures.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Felipe, good day.

Since you are interested in the idea, I am sharing here in good faith some thoughts even though this will move attention away from the relevant question at hand.

The following concepts are relevant directly or indirectly to the question at hand: environmentally dirty markets, environmentally clean markets, environmental pollution reduction markets, environmental externality management based markets, green markets, dwarf green markets, and renewable energy technology gap.

This knowledge allows us/me to frame the road to transition from environmentally dirty economies to environmentally clean economies understanding that there is an environmental externality problem separating them, which needs to be fixed.

As you may know in 2012 the world went the way of managing that externality problem instead of fixing, a situation we have today, which has led to extreme dependency on non-renewable in those countries who avoided the green market paradigm shift in 2012, which in turns led to an increase in value and revenue for those owners of non-renewable energy. Had we gone green markets and had we invested heavily and systematically in closing the renewable energy technology gap, then dependency and the value of non-renewable resources would have gone down while making money through pollution reduction planning, a win-win for the economy and the environment….The pain of deep dependency on non-renewable energy because of green market paradigm shift avoidance and transition from dirty to clean economy avoidance becomes clear when there are disruptions on the supply of non-renewable, including wars or trade disputes or natural disasters, which has negative social, economic and environmental impacts.

As those concepts are not yet well-known, I am working on a series of papers to help spread them, one of those papers on the road to transition from dirty to clean economies is almost done, just the reference part is missing. I will share it as soon as it is published.

Have a nice day

Lucio

Over the past decades, a number of sources of globalization have emerged. One of them is technological progress, which has led to a sharp reduction in transport and communication costs, a significant reduction the costs of processing, storing and using information.

The second source of globalization is trade liberalization and other forms of economic liberalization that have curtailed protectionist policies and made world trade freer. As a result there were tariffs have been substantially reduced, and many other barriers to trade in goods and services have been removed. Other liberalization measures have led to an increase in the movement of capital and other factors of production.

The third source of globalization can be considered a significant expansion of the scope of organizations, which became possible both as a result of technological progress and wider horizons of management on basis of new means of communication. Thus, many companies that previously focused only on local markets have expanded their production and marketing capabilities, reaching the national, multinational, international and even global level.

Globalization brings not only benefits, it is fraught with negative consequences or potential problems, which some of its critics see as a great danger.

One of the main problems is related to the question: who benefits from globalization? In fact, most of the benefits are rich countries or individuals. The unfair distribution of the benefits of globalization gives rise to the threat of conflicts at the regional, national and international levels.

The second problem is related to potential regional or global instability due to the interdependence of national economies at the global level. Local economic fluctuations or crises in one country may have regional or even global implications.

The third set of problems posed by globalization is caused by the fear that control over the economies of individual countries may shift from sovereign governments to other hands, including the most powerful states, multinational or global corporations and international organizations.

Because of this, some see globalization as an attempt to undermine national sovereignty. For this reason, globalization can make national leaders feel helpless before its forces, and the electorate - antipathy towards her. Such sentiments can easily turn into extreme nationalism and xenophobia with calls for protectionism, lead to the growth of extremist political movements, which is potentially fraught with serious conflicts.

The problem generated by globalization - the infringement of national sovereignty and the independence of political leaders - can also be largely resolved on the basis of international cooperation, for example, by a clear delineation of the powers of the parties, i.e. national governments and their leaders, on the one hand, and international organizations and multinational or global corporations, on the other. The very involvement of political leaders in building the necessary institutions to deal with these and other globalization-related issues will help them regain the sense that they are in control of their future and in control of their positions in the world.

Globalized world. In the meantime, unfortunately, the world is moving in the opposite direction, along the path of political and military dictate of a strong

weak, that in the context of globalization of all aspects of the life of the world community, it is fraught with a global confrontation.

The current crisis of the Western economy is not a recession because it is not cyclical and is not limited to 12-16 months. What is happening in the US and Europe today is a structural crisis, a process that began in the fourth quarter of 2021 and will continue for at least five years without interruption. However, the West does not understand the causes and essence of the crisis, because they do not have theories describing it. That is why, according to the economist, the American and European authorities are doing stupid things instead of effective measures to resolve problems.

It was impossible to avoid this crisis, because they went too far. They have expanded private consumption so much that they can no longer keep it. You need to name the main number. There is an indicator in the United States that they do not disclose in public discussion: this is the level of price growth for all industrial goods, not only for final goods entering the wholesale trade, but in general for everything, from raw materials to the final product. For the first time, the rise in prices for manufactured goods exceeded the level of the late 1970s. The previous peak was at the end of 1947. There are 23 with something percent.

The entire system of socio-political management in the West, both in the USA and in Europe, is built through representatives of the middle class, qualified consumers. Today this instrument is being destroyed. Instead of the middle class, new poor people appear, who have a middle-class attitude, but they have no money.

The sanctions pressure on Russia has exacerbated the economic problems of the West. European financiers note that EU politicians are afraid to take responsibility for decisions taken under the slogans of transatlantic solidarity and assistance to Ukraine.

In fact, this whole situation with global confrontation and the breakdown of the dollar system is disastrous for the United States not by economic factors, but by intellectual ones. Roughly speaking, Washington will undoubtedly lose to Moscow only because the US does not even have a concept of a plan to solve the colossal economic problems and save the dollar system.

Intellectual life in the US and Russia goes in opposite directions. The US has nothing left for a long time. There, no one can imagine even a weak positive scenario. The complete absence of any thought, not to mention the concept.

Good day Ciprian, thank you for writing.

The question is "Are dwarf green markets environmental pollution reduction markets?"

I think No, what do you think?

Keep in mind, there are green markets and there are dwarf green markets, and the question relates to dwarf green markets.

Ultimately it will imbalance the health of grassland ecosystem.

Ultimately there will be less production of grasses due to climate change

Hello, Kousha Hoghoughinia

Thank you for your detailed explanation of the fitQmap function.

In this function, how to set the parameter——“wet.day” for different variables? For precipitation data, the parameter should be "wet.day = TRUE". For other variables, is that "wet.day = FALSE"?

Best regards

Dear Geoff, we have gone off the relevant question here, so this will be my last comment to your outside the question comments….

With respect to your previous comments and the current comments….

You original comments and critic of the working of the traditional market and its negative social and environmental consequences are consistent with my point of view because that means that we have been trying to use a distorted market in environmental terms to address environmental problems, a big inconsistency. However since GDP thinking is part of the distorted traditional market thinking, then unless it is made consistent with the relevant environmental sustainability problem like green GDP produced by green market growth where green producers and green consumers meet at the green market price, then the GDP based on distorted thinking is also distorted….

Before the Brundtland Commission report in 1987 I was thinking about how to correct the distorted traditional market model to transition it from a fully dirty market nature to a fully clean market nature using sustainability thinking, and then the commission formally called for correcting the social and environmental issues associated with the traditional market development model…. Then I realized that since 1776 to 1987 most economists knew or should have known the assumption of environmental and social neutrality assumptions and the assumption of population dynamic neutrality assumptions in the long term were going to lead to over production, over consumption and over population problems, but they remained silent. So I started a one man project to slowly but sure document the short comings of the traditional market models in simple terms and shared ideas on how to go beyond traditional business as usual model as the Brundtland commission asked in terms of red market thinking, green market thinking and sustainability market thinking….. Then came, Kyoto protocol, then came 2012 Rio +20 and the supposed move to green markets, then came the world of dwarf green markets a la environmental externality management and the flipping of traditional perfect market thinking…..And with all those events came paradigm shift knowledge gaps that needed to be closed….

Below I shared some of my articles related to the issues described above with some good food for thoughts on beyond business as usual

Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structure of Sustainability Markets in His Time? If Yes, Which Could Be Some of the Possible Reasons Behind That?

What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be a Good Fix to Add Fair Trade Margins to Correct Distorted Agricultural Market Prices?

Complex and Man-made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching Sustainability in a Backward and More Chaotic Way in Terms of Economic Thinking?

Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?

Sustainability thought 165: How can we show that the overpopulation framework a la ecological overshoot is a subset of the most distorted market price possible framework? What are the main implications of this?

From Traditional Markets to Green Markets: A Look at Markets Under Perfect Green Market Competition

Sustainability thoughts 126: Are environmental externality management based production and consumption bundles inconsistent with green pareto efficiency and with pareto efficiency principles at the same time? If yes, why?

The Flipping of Traditional Economic Thinking: Contrasting the Working of Dwarf Green Market Thinking with that of Green Market Thinking to Highlight Main Differences and Implications

They should

We live in a Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) world. And our climate crisis guarantees it will remain a VUCA world for decades. Climate touches everything so it has knock on effects in society, technology, economics and politics, and, obviously, on our ecosystem.

Traditionally, uncertainty has been the enemy of business leaders. How does one forecast and strategize when living in a time when anything can happen? The first step is to change how we perceive uncertainty. What if we embrace it?

“Anything can happen.” What an opportunity! When I state that the future is malleable, I mean there are an infinite number of potential futures… and we can cultivate the one we will experience by the actions we take today...

Respected Fatema Miah,

It is good to write on such important issues. Also keep an eye on your own country. If you want to write on Pakistan, you must read about Pakistan. And the most important, a writer must think positively and highlight positive aspects of an event and development.