Katherine — I’d like to respectfully direct your attention to musician (and my friend) AY Young, who powers all his concerts with renewable energy. He’s about to set the Guinness World Record as he nears 1,000 concerts. He uses revenue from his concerts to advance clean energy and sustainability social impact causes for those that need it the most. https://www.aymusik.com
I was just at a conference on DERs (DERVOS from DER Task Force). 100% of the power for the event was provided by solar and batteries. The organization that powered it, SolarPunks is also doing a lot of concerts and art events. Check them out here: https://www.solarpunks.club/projects
Katherine – As you know, historical emissions have baked-in a 3Cº or more rise within decades; the biggest FF producing countries are fully committed to continuing & increasing production to meet ever increasing energy demand; total emissions are rising; renewables (including hydro & nuclear) account for about 30% of global electricity generation, but the power sector itself is only ~20% of total energy; decades of citizen actions, NGO messaging, and Scientist's Warnings have failed to move governments and industry to act to reduce emissions. Nor has any plan emerged, from any quarter, that shows a credible path to "transitioning off" FFs via buildout of wind, solar, etc. This is the context we all have to recognize if we are to face climate realities honestly.
It is undeniable, and unfortunate, that civilization and the global economy are utterly dependant on FF energy and that no one can point to a suite of "silver buckshot" solutions that scale up to global emissions reductions. In context, then, how can you suggest that marginal carbon footprint reduction at music venues – or even in the music industry as a whole (complete speculation) – can make even a tiny dent in current & future FF emissions?
So yes, I am disappointed that you offer conjectures without anchoring them with numbers proving validity. This is not doing science, and especially not climate science grounded in research, or even relevant citations. I respectfully urge you to abandon hopeful anecdotes and return to evidence-based science. We are facing catastrophe. We don't have time for diversions away from evidence. I look forward to a reply.
As bad as things are, we need hope more than ever. Hope is an energizing force. Scaring people into action hasn't worked, as you point out. Fear turns into resignation, as we assume the crisis is just too big and it's too late to make a meaningful difference. It paralyzes people, if they listen to warnings at all.
But these good news stories remind us that change is possible and everyday people are taking action, not waiting for governments, etc. to catch up.
And fewer emissions is a good thing, even if it's just a little less. Every bit counts.
We don't need hope more than ever. We need to look honestly at the evidence telling us that it is in fact too late to stop climate & Earth system breakdown, certainly not by thinking that just a small emissions reduction "counts". Hope is not a plan. It's not a strategy. Hope doesn't help you know what action to take, only evidence can help you with that. Hope is giving yourself permission to dwell in vagueness and to avoid grappling with the enormity & complexity of the predicament. Defaulting to hope is to suspend critical thinking.
It is objectively true that it's too late to make a "meaningful difference" (whatever you may mean by that.) The evidence is overwhelming. The scale and momentum of the breakdown is beyond repairing. Not a problem our technologies can fix. Does this conclusion paralyze me? No, it doesn't. It leads to sharp focus on what can still be done to adapt and preserve what is left of the natural world. There is a lot to be done and being hopeful won't get any of it done.
Katherine — I’d like to respectfully direct your attention to musician (and my friend) AY Young, who powers all his concerts with renewable energy. He’s about to set the Guinness World Record as he nears 1,000 concerts. He uses revenue from his concerts to advance clean energy and sustainability social impact causes for those that need it the most. https://www.aymusik.com
I was just at a conference on DERs (DERVOS from DER Task Force). 100% of the power for the event was provided by solar and batteries. The organization that powered it, SolarPunks is also doing a lot of concerts and art events. Check them out here: https://www.solarpunks.club/projects
Katherine – As you know, historical emissions have baked-in a 3Cº or more rise within decades; the biggest FF producing countries are fully committed to continuing & increasing production to meet ever increasing energy demand; total emissions are rising; renewables (including hydro & nuclear) account for about 30% of global electricity generation, but the power sector itself is only ~20% of total energy; decades of citizen actions, NGO messaging, and Scientist's Warnings have failed to move governments and industry to act to reduce emissions. Nor has any plan emerged, from any quarter, that shows a credible path to "transitioning off" FFs via buildout of wind, solar, etc. This is the context we all have to recognize if we are to face climate realities honestly.
It is undeniable, and unfortunate, that civilization and the global economy are utterly dependant on FF energy and that no one can point to a suite of "silver buckshot" solutions that scale up to global emissions reductions. In context, then, how can you suggest that marginal carbon footprint reduction at music venues – or even in the music industry as a whole (complete speculation) – can make even a tiny dent in current & future FF emissions?
So yes, I am disappointed that you offer conjectures without anchoring them with numbers proving validity. This is not doing science, and especially not climate science grounded in research, or even relevant citations. I respectfully urge you to abandon hopeful anecdotes and return to evidence-based science. We are facing catastrophe. We don't have time for diversions away from evidence. I look forward to a reply.
As bad as things are, we need hope more than ever. Hope is an energizing force. Scaring people into action hasn't worked, as you point out. Fear turns into resignation, as we assume the crisis is just too big and it's too late to make a meaningful difference. It paralyzes people, if they listen to warnings at all.
But these good news stories remind us that change is possible and everyday people are taking action, not waiting for governments, etc. to catch up.
And fewer emissions is a good thing, even if it's just a little less. Every bit counts.
We don't need hope more than ever. We need to look honestly at the evidence telling us that it is in fact too late to stop climate & Earth system breakdown, certainly not by thinking that just a small emissions reduction "counts". Hope is not a plan. It's not a strategy. Hope doesn't help you know what action to take, only evidence can help you with that. Hope is giving yourself permission to dwell in vagueness and to avoid grappling with the enormity & complexity of the predicament. Defaulting to hope is to suspend critical thinking.
It is objectively true that it's too late to make a "meaningful difference" (whatever you may mean by that.) The evidence is overwhelming. The scale and momentum of the breakdown is beyond repairing. Not a problem our technologies can fix. Does this conclusion paralyze me? No, it doesn't. It leads to sharp focus on what can still be done to adapt and preserve what is left of the natural world. There is a lot to be done and being hopeful won't get any of it done.
Two of my favorite topics (music and climate) in one! Love it❣️