Climate crisis

On November 15, 2021, President Joe Biden signed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) into law. The IIJA included a five-year transportation authorization for U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) programs, plus a standalone infrastructure law representing the largest-ever infusion ($643 billion over five years) of federal funding for surface transportation, including highways, roads, and bridges. The White House hailed the IIJA as “a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness,” along with making lofty promises that it would “repair and rebuild our roads and bridges with a focus on climate change mitigation, resilience, equity, and safety for all users.”

[…]

Of the $54.2 billion in National Highway Performance Program funds analyzed in this report, 42 percent of funding has been obligated to projects that expand road capacity and only 36 percent has gone to highway resurfacing projects. In the $35.6 billion analyzed from the Surface Transportation Block Grant—the most flexible formula program that allows states to fund almost any type of transportation project that advances their priorities—23 percent of funds have been spent on expanding roadways, but only 7 percent on projects to make walking and biking safer or more viable options. At the current rate, state DOTs’ usage of federal funds means we will end up falling short of meeting the $435 billion road maintenance deficit that was used to justify the IIJA’s pricetag at passage.

[…]

Investments in emissions reducing strategies, like transit, active transportation, system efficiency, and electrification are not nearly large enough to offset increased emissions from induced driving. Based on analyzed obligations in this dataset, only 35.3 millon cumulative tonnes of CO2e emissions will be decreased compared to baseline levels through 2040. Taking the emissions producing and emissions reducing impact of IIJA project investments altogether, the IIJA will cumulatively increase emissions by a net 42.2 million metric tonnes of CO2e greenhouse gases over baseline levels through 2040.

With about half of the IIJA’s funding remaining, if states continue spending these infrastructure dollars in ways that prioritize expansion over maintenance, safety, improving access to opportunity, or providing other options for travel, there will be dire consequences for the climate.

Unless these patterns change, we extrapolate that states’ federal formula-funded investments made over the course of the IIJA could cumulatively increase emissions by nearly 190 million metric tonnes of emissions over baseline levels through 2040 from added driving. This is the emission equivalent of 500 natural gas-fired power plants or nearly 50 coal-fired power plants running for a year.

The NZBA is a voluntary network of global banks committed to “align lending and investment portfolios with net zero emissions by 2050”. […]  At its height, the coalition boasted 40% of global banking assets. And at the time of its launch, its co-founder, the former Bank of England governor Mark Carney, described the NZBA as the “breakthrough in mainstreaming climate finance the world needs”.

So far a breakthrough remains at large. In evaluating the NZBA, the benchmark that ultimately matters is that of curbing global emissions and fossil fuel expansion. On both of these points, it’s not clear that the alliance has had any effect. Banks’ targets have been met with widespread criticism concerning lack of transparency and inconsistent or questionable methodologies, and recent research shows little to no difference between the financing and engagement impact of NZBA members and non-members. A separate study found banks that self-present as eco-conscious lend more to polluting industries than those that don’t. Impressively, there has been an overall uptick in fossil fuel financing since 2021 – after the group was formed.

But this raises a critical question: if these alliances were voluntary, non-binding, and seem to have done close to nothing to hinder banks financing fossil fuel expansion, why are banks bothering to quit?

The answer is always, in finance, a calculus of risk. At the time of NZBA’s founding, banks faced considerable reputational risk for being seen as climate laggards. The wind was in the sails of governments and institutions touting climate action, and banks acted accordingly. Today, on the back of record fossil fuel profitability, a protracted backlash against “woke capital” and the second coming of Trump, the calculus has changed.

[…]

In a statement published on 31 December, GFANZ announced it would drop its requirements for members to publish firm targets, allowing “any financial institution working to mobilise capital and lower the barriers to financing energy transition to participate” and earlier this month announced it would no longer work as an umbrella organisation, but a stand-alone body working to “mobilise” climate finance. For a project that still retains many prominent European banks within its ranks, the crumbling to pressure and change of direction was remarkably swift. More cynically, it might be read as an admission that all these “targets” and “disclosures” never meant much at all.

As global temperatures increase, Earth’s water cycle is changing. Over the past 50 years, this has led to an expansion of Earth’s tropical and subtropical zones. Tropical areas are moist and lush, but dry at the northern and southern edges.

These dry edges are pushing towards the poles. Regions that used to enjoy a gentler Mediterranean climate, as shown in the map below, are turning into dry subtropical zones.

They include highly populated regions, such as Southern California. Similarly, parts of Australia including Perth and much of southeast Australia has dried in recent decades, in a pattern consistent with tropical expansion.

Image

Drawing on more than a year of information gathering, this position paper presents a snapshot of the repression and criminalization of peaceful environmental protest and civil disobedience observed by the Special Rapporteur in European countries that are Parties to the Aarhus Convention. It explains why the Special Rapporteur considers this repression and criminalization to constitute a major threat to democracy, human rights, the civic space, and to the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the Aarhus Convention, and therefore why he has made this issue a priority topic under his mandate. It sets out why the Special Rapporteur considers a profound change in how States respond to environmental protest to be urgently required and features five calls for action to States on how to do so. It also urges the human rights community to coordinate their efforts to support this call for action.

The criminalisation and repression of climate and environmental protest is problematic for at least two main reasons. First, it focuses state policy on punishing dissent against inaction on climate and environmental change instead of taking adequate action on these issues. In criminalising and repressing climate and environmental activists, states depoliticise them. Second, they represent authoritarian moves that are not consistent with the ideals of vibrant civil societies in liberal democracies.

[…]

Governments, legislatures, courts and police forces should operate with a general presumption against criminalising climate and environmental protests. Instead, climate and environmental protest should be regarded as a reasonable response to the urgent and existential nature of the climate crisis, and activists engaged as stakeholders in a process of just transition.

A new study was released in recent days that should have been newsworthy, but it escaped the media's attention in Australia.

It showed Australian police are world leaders at arresting climate and environmental protesters.

According to the study, more than 20 per cent of all climate and environment protests in Australia involve arrests, which is more than three times the global average (6.3 per cent).

Australia's arrest rate was the highest of 14 countries in the global study.

It's higher than policing efforts in the United Kingdom (17.2 per cent), Norway (14.5 per cent), and the United States (10 per cent).

The research makes it clear that Australia's political leaders have joined the "rapid escalation" of efforts to criminalise and repress climate and environmental protest, while sovereign states globally fail to meet their international agreements and emissions targets.

[…]

When you read the Bristol University study alongside the special rapporteur's position paper and the EDO paper, you get a pretty good sense of how the clampdown on climate and environmental activism actually works, and why it's occurring.

Collectively, the reports discuss an issue that links political donations and pressure from fossil fuel companies, governments writing new laws and harsher penalties for climate and environmental activists, federal and state policing agencies being put to work to enforce the new laws, and legal systems and courts being used to bed them down.

And hanging over the entire political problem is the question of the "pricing mechanism" and the role it plays in a society like ours.

When you look at this issue dispassionately, you'll see that we're witnessing a nasty global battle over the attempt to have the negative externalities of fossil fuels properly reflected in the market prices of the products of fossil fuel companies.

In the first of many papers expected from the study, the researchers found that, a year after the ultra-low emissions zone took effect, 2 out of every 5 London students in the study had switched from “passive” to “active” ways of getting to school. So instead of being chauffeured to school by their parents, the students started walking, biking, scootering, or taking public transit. On the other hand, in Luton, which acted as a control group, 1 in 5 made the same switch to modes that got them up and active, but an equal proportion switched to passive travel. But in London’s ultra-low emissions zone, shifting to driving was rare.

The implications of getting kids active, even if it’s just for their pre-class commute, are intuitive but important.

“Walking and biking and scootering to school is better for the child, better for the family, and better for the environment,” said Alison Macpherson, an epidemiologist at York University in Toronto who researches ways to protect and promote the health and safety of children. (She was not involved in the London study.)

“It’s a great way for children to start their day,” she said. “You can imagine just being thrown in a car and thrown out of a car is not the most calming way.” Walking or biking to school, on the other hand, can be calming and conducive to concentration, Macpherson said, potentially even improving academic performance. But perhaps most importantly, at a time when an epidemic of childhood obesity is on the rise worldwide, walking or wheeling to and from school can get kids more active.

Credit guidance was used extensively in the post-war period. The policy helped states build up their industrial capacity, expand their welfare systems, and accelerate technological innovation in key sectors where rapid development was needed. It is a central pillar of any successful industrial policy framework. And with the ecological crisis, it is gaining renewed attention: A recent report produced by the University College London’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose shows how credit guidance can be used to accelerate an effective green transition.

This approach can also be used to offset inflationary pressure. In a scenario where we need to increase public investment in necessary social projects—such as health care, housing, and transit—credit controls can be used to reduce commercial investments elsewhere in the economy (again, specifically in damaging and unnecessary industries that we need to scale down), thus regulating aggregate demand. This is a much more rational strategy for inflation control than using broad-brush interest-rate policy, which can have a devastating impact on people’s livelihoods and on socially important sectors.

There was something that Huang said during the keynote that shocked me into a mild panic. Nvidia's Blackwell cluster, which will come with eight GPUs, pulls down 15kW of power. That's 15,000 watts of power. Divided by eight, that's 1,875 watts per GPU.

[…]

Worse still, Huang said that in the future, he expects to see millions of these kinds of AI processors in use at data centers around the world.

One million Blackwell GPUs would suck down an astonishing 1.875 gigawatts of power. For context, a typical nuclear power plant only produces 1 gigawatt of power.

Fossil fuel-burning plants, whether that's natural gas, coal, or oil, produce even less. There's no way to ramp up nuclear capacity in the time it will take to supply these millions of chips, so much, if not all, of that extra power demand is going to come from carbon-emitting sources.

[…]

In one segment of the keynote, Huang talked about the potential for Nvidia ACE to power 'digital humans' that companies can use to serve as customer service agents, be the face of an interior design project, and more. This makes absolute sense, since who are we kidding, Nvidia ACE for video games won't really make all that much money.

However, if a company wants to fire 90% of its customer service staff and replace it with an Nvidia ACE-powered avatar that never sleeps, never eats, never complains about low pay or poor working conditions, and can be licensed for a fee that is lower than the cost of the labor it is replacing, well, I don't have to tell you how that is going to go.

We once heard a story from a driver in downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia who was annoyed that a cyclist was slowing him down. Do you know what he said? “You’re not saving the environment, buddy.” This was interesting. The assumption was that if you’re on a bike trying to get somewhere you must be doing it for environmental reasons, probably in an annoyingly self-righteous way. But what if it was just a convenient way to get to work without having to worry about parking? What if it was how he spends time with his kids? What if he just enjoys the fresh air and activity? What if he sold a car in order to save money for other priorities? What if he just finds driving unpleasant? None of this occurred to the driver. The assumption was that the cyclist was there on a bike slowing them down for environmental reasons, probably climate change in particular.