Thank you so much for the SPECIFIC INFORMATION & LINKS to access to effect change on individual levels. I am thrilled to note the new FASHION SUSTAINABILITY ACTION as a means of decarbonizing and so many related ills in the field, a pet project of mine. So pleased the UN has framed the issue in the timeline end of the decade. So much work to do here involving human rights and animal rights abuses, eliminating plastics, the entire industry needs a rapid reboot. ❤️🌎🕊️
Professor Hayhoe, your stance asserts of confidence in being “convinced” that “we are at the cusp of a clean energy revolution, with renewable options becoming increasingly accessible and affordable with each passing month.”
On what grounds is the claim based?
Is there any citation that can be provided, elucidating that the globe has enough minerals for a 1:1 global switch from fossil fuels to renewables?
First, my newsletter generally has links so you can follow my statements. In this case, you are welcome to add these, the first of which comes from my more recent newsletter.
Third, please be aware that men asking women to do the work for them instead of looking it up themselves, particularly in a world where Google and Google Scholar easily provides such answers, is a common form of sexism.
Thank you for your prompt response, Professor. While I commend your diligence in supplying citations, I must register my disappointment with the unnecessary and indeed dyslogistic ad hominem elements of your retort.
Prior to framing my initial inquiry, I engaged in meticulous research aimed at probing the potential inadequacies of your conceptual synthesis. Upon scrutinizing the data sets and scholarly articles to which you refer, it becomes evident that your arguments suffer from a severe lack of comprehensiveness. Most glaringly, these sources elide a critical issue: the acute scarcity of raw materials indispensable for a 1:1 transmutation from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Further, these sources conspicuously ignore the unsustainable ecological toll such a transition would exact, thereby perpetuating a status quo bias that is both myopic and lamentable.
I would thus invite your perusal of an incisive report by Simon Michaux, which can be accessed via the following link: https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf. This paper stands as a categorical refutation, I would assert, of the evidentiary base upon which you have constructed your public narrative. In light of this compelling evidence, the onus is squarely upon you to acknowledge that the information you have been promulgating is empirically unsound.
And what tax rate did their customers pay for buying all that CO2-emitting stuff? Anything like $200/tom of CO2 emitted? If they had, maybe they would have thought twice and bought something else.
Your travel policy is interesting. I work in the exhibitions industry, I can tell you that upwards of 70% of an event's emissions are from travel of attendees to the venue. I struggle with this. One line of thought is that if you use an event well, you actually can reduce your aggregate travel because you can get so much done in those 4 days. But I don’t know if that analysis holds water. Are you aware of any research that would shed light on this?
Yes, there is a growing amount of research and guidance on how to reduce the impact of conferences, from hybrid and regional hubs, to incentivizing non-flight modes of travel, to using software like Troop to identify the lowest-carbon location for in-person travel.
Thank you so much for the SPECIFIC INFORMATION & LINKS to access to effect change on individual levels. I am thrilled to note the new FASHION SUSTAINABILITY ACTION as a means of decarbonizing and so many related ills in the field, a pet project of mine. So pleased the UN has framed the issue in the timeline end of the decade. So much work to do here involving human rights and animal rights abuses, eliminating plastics, the entire industry needs a rapid reboot. ❤️🌎🕊️
Many thanks for your action-oriented information!
Professor Hayhoe, your stance asserts of confidence in being “convinced” that “we are at the cusp of a clean energy revolution, with renewable options becoming increasingly accessible and affordable with each passing month.”
On what grounds is the claim based?
Is there any citation that can be provided, elucidating that the globe has enough minerals for a 1:1 global switch from fossil fuels to renewables?
First, my newsletter generally has links so you can follow my statements. In this case, you are welcome to add these, the first of which comes from my more recent newsletter.
https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach
https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security
https://www.iea.org/news/low-emissions-sources-are-set-to-cover-almost-all-the-growth-in-global-electricity-demand-in-the-next-three-years
Second, there is indeed a citation for the critical minerals argument. Here it is.
https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-4351(23)00001-6.pdf
Third, please be aware that men asking women to do the work for them instead of looking it up themselves, particularly in a world where Google and Google Scholar easily provides such answers, is a common form of sexism.
Thank you!
Thank you for your prompt response, Professor. While I commend your diligence in supplying citations, I must register my disappointment with the unnecessary and indeed dyslogistic ad hominem elements of your retort.
Prior to framing my initial inquiry, I engaged in meticulous research aimed at probing the potential inadequacies of your conceptual synthesis. Upon scrutinizing the data sets and scholarly articles to which you refer, it becomes evident that your arguments suffer from a severe lack of comprehensiveness. Most glaringly, these sources elide a critical issue: the acute scarcity of raw materials indispensable for a 1:1 transmutation from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Further, these sources conspicuously ignore the unsustainable ecological toll such a transition would exact, thereby perpetuating a status quo bias that is both myopic and lamentable.
I would thus invite your perusal of an incisive report by Simon Michaux, which can be accessed via the following link: https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf. This paper stands as a categorical refutation, I would assert, of the evidentiary base upon which you have constructed your public narrative. In light of this compelling evidence, the onus is squarely upon you to acknowledge that the information you have been promulgating is empirically unsound.
"interests raking in billions from fossil fuels.
And what tax rate did their customers pay for buying all that CO2-emitting stuff? Anything like $200/tom of CO2 emitted? If they had, maybe they would have thought twice and bought something else.
Your travel policy is interesting. I work in the exhibitions industry, I can tell you that upwards of 70% of an event's emissions are from travel of attendees to the venue. I struggle with this. One line of thought is that if you use an event well, you actually can reduce your aggregate travel because you can get so much done in those 4 days. But I don’t know if that analysis holds water. Are you aware of any research that would shed light on this?
Yes, there is a growing amount of research and guidance on how to reduce the impact of conferences, from hybrid and regional hubs, to incentivizing non-flight modes of travel, to using software like Troop to identify the lowest-carbon location for in-person travel.