# data[].attributes.body
i think both the business company and the government is responsible for the climate crisis because

# data[].attributes.headline
I believe that both businesses and governments need to bring change for there to be a real difference in a short span of time.

# data[].attributes.subject
I believe that both businesses and governments need to bring change for there to be a real difference in a short span of time.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that governments and communities are the ones who are most important for bringing about change, as they are the key factor for implementing the change needed.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that governments do play an important role in this change as they are related to the other sectors such as businesses, investors etc which are governed by policies. But overall I think all of them together do play an important role in this change.

# data[].attributes.body
I personally belive that governments have the power to inforce change in a short span of time. For example government intervention on industries that refine fossil fuels could generate enought tax revenue to invest in the development of clean energy and also to provide grants for pollution prevention.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the community as a whole is really important. Like previously discussed when everyone has their sense of responsibility, they act according. Business reduce their emissions and manage waste, teachers educate, innovators come up with solutions as products and technologies, artists and writers too reflect on environmental issues. It's the industries that will make a major change, because compared to governments, governments can make policies and give incentives to businesses in different industries but it is them who make the main decisions of changing strategies.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that having both top-down and bottom-up change is important to ensure that de jure and de facto change happens. Without government implemented laws, we cannot regulate the actions of larger companies or even individuals and how they contribute to the climate. Yet, if the citizens don't have a change in mindset, it is much harder for people in positions of authority to create change too.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the most important agent in terms of historical change for the climate crisis would be the businesses. I think that the businesses would be the most important for historical change becasue the businesses control the world of today. People trust the businesses with multiple things becuase they handle the money, and money is important in today's world. Their change could also be vital becasue of all their factories and such, they create a large amount of pollution.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that it may be the businesses that may be the most important. This is because factories and industries are often the biggest polluters releasing a lot of air pollution and dumping of wastes. If these businesses could change their usage, or change the methods in which they produce their goods to which are more sustainable then they may have large impacts on the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Businesses, innovators and  governments have a important role in solving the climate crisis as the catalysts of the problem. But when talking about the agent of historical change, climate activists are the ones who start the conversation. They are the ones raise the issues so that governments and businesses can help.

# data[].attributes.body
It would probably be businesses or the government. The government has the power to control business activity, thus mass production. Individuals do have a carbon footprint, but the ones contributing to climate change in a larger scale would be corporations.

# data[].attributes.headline
 His perspective on capitalism is responsible for Climate change.  

# data[].attributes.subject
 His perspective on capitalism is responsible for Climate change.  

# data[].attributes.body
one important thing that stood out from sam fuller's presentation was his stress on individual involvement and how it could be as effective and as helpful as group works.

# data[].attributes.headline
Avantika             His perspective on how capitalism is responsible and is affecting climate change. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Avantika             His perspective on how capitalism is responsible and is affecting climate change. 

# data[].attributes.body
It seems impossible to escape capitalism and yet according to Sam Fuller it is the root of all our problems. How do we escape that?

# data[].attributes.body
His belief on how the idea of capitalism is shaping climate change. His emphasis on the fact "Not everything green is good"

# data[].attributes.body
His belief on how capitalism played a very large role in climate change and pollution. Also his perspective of certain problems and subjects.

# data[].attributes.body
The thing that stood out the most for me from sam fuller's presentation were his ideologies, he had a very unique solution and highlighted a problem that was overlooked.

# data[].attributes.body
he believed that capitalism is responsible for climate changes

# data[].attributes.body
The one thing that stood out to me from his presentation was how the role capitalism has had on the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
The emphasis on the role of capitalism on environmetal change. Essentially he describes the impact of running capitalist industries that are more focused on profit margins rather than the social cost of running industries.

# data[].attributes.body
despite the eagerness for environmental change, some actions might be counteractive. "not everything green is good"

# data[].attributes.body
His perspective on who is responsible for the climate crisis was one of the major things that stood out for me. His arguments on how the theory of anthropocene is flawed was something new. I had not heard of Capitopocene before.

# data[].attributes.body
one thing that really stood to me was the statement he made implying that people look for profit, use power for profit and the change will occur only when people start caring.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Ishika Mookerjee

Save

Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

Got it

Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

The world needs to spend $US50 trillion ($73 trillion) on five areas of technology by 2050 to slash emissions and meet the Paris Agreement's goal of halting global warming, Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a report.

To reduce net emissions of carbon to zero, the world would have to eradicate the equivalent of 53.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, according to the report, which identified renewable energy, electric vehicles, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and biofuels as the key technologies that could help meet the target.

Arresting climate change will come with a hefty price tag, Morgan Stanley says.

Carbon emissions from fossil fuels hit a record last year, but estimates vary of how much it would cost to meet the Paris target of keeping the global temperature rise to within 2 degrees.

The International Renewable Energy Agency says $US750 billion a year is needed in renewables over a decade. United Nations scientists say $US300 billion spent on reclaiming degraded land could offset emissions to buy time to deploy zero-carbon technologies.

Here are Morgan Stanley's estimates for the five key technology areas and some of the companies leading the drive.

Renewables

Renewable power generation will require $US14 trillion by 2050, including investments in energy storage.

Renewables would need to deliver about 80 per cent of global power by then, up from 37 per cent today, meaning an additional 11,000 gigawatts of capacity, excluding hydro-power.

Solar energy's rapidly falling cost will make it the fastest-growing renewable technology over the coming decade with a 13 per cent compound annual growth rate.

Electric vehicles

With passenger cars currently pumping out about 7 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, some $US11 trillion will be needed to build factories, expand power capacity and develop the batteries and infrastructure needed to switch to electric vehicles.

With increased investment, annual electric vehicle sales could grow from 1.3 million units in 2018 to 23.2 million in 2030, lifting the total number of electric vehicles to 113 million by 2030 and 924 million by 2050.

Carbon capture and storage

Hydrogen

About $US5.4 trillion is needed for electrolysers to make the gas, which can help provide clean fuel for power generation, industrial processes, vehicles and heating.

In addition, $US13 trillion would be required to increase renewable energy capacity to power the plants.

Another $US1 trillion would be needed for storage, with additional investment for transportation and distribution.

Biofuels

Almost $US2.7 trillion should go into biofuels like ethanol, which are currently mixed with petroleum products but will spread eventually to areas such as aviation.

About 4 per cent of global transportation fuel will be biofuel in 2030.

Ethanol, the most-used biofuel at the moment will grow at about 3 per cent a year, while a type of biodiesel called hydrotreated vegetable oil will achieve must faster growth, quadrupling production by 2030.

Bloomberg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How much would it cost to stop climate change? It's a staggering amount

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This was published 1 year ago By Ishika Mookerjee Save Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time. Got it Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size The world needs to spend $US50 trillion ($73 trillion) on five areas of technology by 2050 to slash emissions and meet the Paris Agreement's goal of halting global warming, Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
School Strike 4 Climate Australia pays our respects to the countless Traditional Custodians who have cared for this land for tens of thousands of years.

​We acknowledge that we meet, organise and strike on stolen Country, and that sovereignty has never been ceded. First Nations peoples are disproportionately on the frontlines of the climate crisis, and therefore must be enshrined at the forefront of the climate movement.

There can be no climate justice without First Nations justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home | School Strike 4 Climate Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
School Strike 4 Climate Australia pays our respects to the countless Traditional Custodians who have cared for this land for tens of thousands of years. ​We acknowledge that we meet, organise and strike on stolen Country, and that sovereignty has never been ceded.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The public's imagination has been seized in the twenty-first century with the notion that human impacts upon the earth's geology and ecosystems have been so widespread and profound that they have actually launched a new epoch in the Earth's history. Biologist Eugene Stoermer suggested in the 1980's that this hypothetical new epoch might be called the Anthropocene (literally, "New Era of Man"), a term that was repeated in a seminal paper in 2000, by the atmospheric chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen. While the Anthropocene has not yet been recognized officially by any of the major scientific organizations that designate geological epochs, and there is considerable disagreement among scientists as to when it might have begun, the increasing weight of evidence pointing to unprecedented anthropogenic impacts upon earth and climate systems virtually assures that "Anthropocene" will indefinitely be fixed as part of the public discourse.

In recent years, however, a group of thinkers trained in the ecosocialist tradition of Marx and Engels have initiated a critique of the concept of Anthropocene, arguing that it implicitly blames all of humanity for creating the deleterious effects of biodiversity and species loss, carbon emissions, ocean degradation, deforestation, and other strains on our biosphere. Instead of blaming all of humanity - which includes billions of the world's poorest, who consume and pollute little - they contend that it is more accurate to place blame on a globalized system of capitalist relations, which are premised on the assumption that infinite, compound growth is possible on a planet with finite resources. This has locked us into unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, hence, "Capitalocene". The recent collection Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History and the Crisis of Capitalism, edited by Jason W. Moore, offers new perspectives on this ecosocialist critique that should be helpful to anyone engaged in extending their understanding of the current ecological crisis.

Part One of the collection, The Anthropocene and Its Discontents: Toward Chthulucene?, offers two attempts to evaluate the term "Anthropocene" as a potential normative category. What does it tell us, and what does it leave out of the conversation? Environmental sociologist Eileen Crist writes in On the Poverty of Our Nomenclature, that the problem with calling this epoch the Anthropocene, is that it traps us within the anthropocentric worldview that caused our climate crisis in the first place. "The Anthropocene discourse clings", she tells us, "to the almighty power of that jaded abstraction 'Man' and to the promised land his God-posturing might yet deliver him, namely, a planet managed for the production of resources and governed for the containment of risks" (23). Crist declines to suggest an alternative name for our epoch, but says that whatever we call it, it must convey a more integral, holistic vision of interrelationships between the human and non-human. "Lifting the banner of human integrity," she says, "invites the priority of our pulling back and scaling down, of welcoming limitations of our numbers, economies, and habitats for the sake of a higher, more inclusive freedom and quality of life" (29).

In the second essay of Part One, Staying With the Trouble: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene, Donna J. Haraway brings her background in fields as diverse as technology, feminist theory and multispecies studies, to bear on positing a new paradigm that might replace "Anthropocene" in our discourse. She laments at one point that "[t]hese times called the Anthropocene are times of multi-species, including human, urgency: of great mass death and extinction...of refusing to know and to cultivate the capacity of responsability...of unprecedented looking away" (39). As a response, she proposes the alternate term "Chthulucene", based on the eight-legged tree spider Pimoa Chthulu, a creature that learns by feeling with many tentacles. What Haraway calls "tentacularity" (shared by organisms as varied as creepers, roots, fungal tangles, jellyfish, even humans) is a quality of life "lived along lines-and such a wealth of lines-not at points, not in spheres" (36). It is this sort of "string figured" (or "sympoietic," as per environmental researcher Beth Dempster) thinking, which is multipolar, organizationally open, distributionally controlled, and dynamic, that Haraway believes will lead to better solutions to our ecological conundrum. While Haraway offers some exciting potential avenues for conceptualizing beyond the limitations of the Anthropocene model, I am unsure how her "string figured" mode of thinking might be applied practically to halting the worsening breakdown in our biosphere. I am personally more comfortable with Eileen Crist's straightforward approach of emphasizing holistic relations between the human and non-human realms.

Part Two, Histories of the Capitalocene, offers three attempts to give some historical context to capitalism's increasingly tight grip on Earth's geology and ecosystems. The Rise of Cheap Nature, by editor Jason W. Moore, reprises many of the key points in Moore's 2015 magisterial study, Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. Moore believes that while the Anthropocene meme can engage questions of how humans make natures, and vice versa, it cannot provide answers. This is because it is trapped in a Cartesian binary of Humanity vs. Nature, instead of recognizing the "double internality" of humanity-inside-nature, and nature-inside-humanity. Moore maintains that the Capitalocene (an epoch he says was initiated by significant transformations in land and labor relations ca. 1450 to 1640) is premised on a "world-ecology" dialectic in which "capital and power-and countless other strategic relations-do not act upon nature, but develop through the web of life" (97). The secret to capitalism's creation of value, he says, is that it does not actually value most of its inputs; rather it depends on a steady stream of "Cheap Natures"-labor, food, energy and raw materials-to boost accumulation. Much of capitalism's crisis since the beginning of its neoliberal phase in the 1970's, Moore suggests, may be attributed to the increasing difficulty of obtaining Cheap Nature inputs.

Justin McBrien's Accumulating Extinction: Planetary Catastrophism in the Necrocene posits that outright extinction, of species, cultures, languages and peoples, lies at the heart of capital accumulation. McBrien sees the Necrocene, an epoch of "New Death", coterminous with the Capitalocene, as causing not just the "metabolic rift" between labor and the Earth, as described by John Bellamy Foster and other ecosocialists, but a process necrotizing the entire planet in a headlong rush to subsume all of the Earth under capital. The final section of McBrien's essay connects the Necrocene to a post-World War Two "catastrophism" promulgated by the military-industrial complex, and embodied most vividly at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Capitalism found in the atom bomb the dark watery reflection of its own image. It realized that its logic could lead to one thing: total extinction. It realized that it had become the Necrocene" (124).

The third essay in the Histories section, Elmar Atvater's The Capitalocene, or Geoengineering Against Capitalism's Planetary Boundaries, takes on the subject of geoengineering, namely proposed large-scale interventions in the Earth's climate system aimed at limiting or reversing anthropogenic climate change. These strategies are considered risky by most scientists, but have become attractive in a world increasingly reliant on technological solutions; a few prominent scientists, including Google's Ray Kurzweil and climate scientist Paul Crutzen, have even said that geoengineering is the answer to the climate crisis. Altvater's critique of geoengineering, however, is rooted in his analysis of capitalism's inherent irrationality. Classical political economy, he notes, neglects to consider the full web of life's interdependencies, including most crucially that capitalism relies on a constant "tap" of cheap inputs and a cost-free externalization ("sink") of waste outputs. Geoengineering promises to address the negative consequences of externalization by pricing in their costs; but Altvater says that this is doomed to fail, because "many interdependencies in society and nature cannot be expressed in terms of prices." Approaching the problem holistically would be an answer, but this is impossible in capitalism, which Altvater says "is committed to fixing the parts and not the whole" (151).

The collection's third and final section, Cultures, States and Environment-Making, looks at the crucial aspect of culture in creating the Anthropocene from two entirely different perspectives. In Anthropocene, Capitalocene and the Problem of Culture, Daniel Hartley defines culture as an historically evolving, contingent process, drawing on dialectical relations between land, labor, intellectual activity, the state and other factors. "Cultural history", he writes, "must incorporate the profound interrelation of historically and geographically specific struggles with their fundamental symbolic components" (163). Hartley's main problem with the Anthropocene concept is that it does not consider the politics of class struggle as materially determinant, suggesting instead a world where an undifferentiated "humanity" uses technology in a mechanistic "one-on-one billiard ball model of technological invention and historical effect" (156).

In contrast to Hartley, Christian Parenti's Environment-Making in the Capitalocene: Political Ecology of the State looks at the crucial role played by the state in creating conditions for the Capitalocene. The author asserts that the state does not simply have a relationship with nature; it is a relationship with nature, because its assertion of territorial control-legally, militarily and scientifically-maintains the web of life necessary for societies to function. Parenti reviews some examples of the vital role the state has played in creating conditions for capital accumulation: Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, the Erie Canal, and China's Grand Canal. He concludes with an impassioned plea to the Left not to forget the role of the state in formulating an anti-capitalist strategy; "[t]o reform capitalism-and to move beyond it-the Left needs to place the state front and center in its strategic considerations" (182).

The essays in Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Provide an invaluable contribution to the debate over what we should call this strange new epoch, wrought by centuries of capitalist depredations upon our biosphere. As these ecosocialists so ably tell us, from their individual perspectives, that humanity's best hope to save the planet (and its species, including our own) relies on finding ways to replace an unsustainable Capitalocene with socialist relations of production and consumption.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History and the Crisis of Capitalism' reviewed by Steve Knight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The public's imagination has been seized in the twenty-first century with the notion that human impacts upon the earth's geology and ecosystems have been so widespread and profound that they have actually launched a new epoch in the Earth's history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We and our partners use cookies to personalize your experience, to show you ads based on your interests, and for measurement and analytics purposes. By using our website and our services, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie Policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
#94 After the capitalocene w/ Rosie Warren

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What will come after the capitalocene - and is that even the right term to describe our geological era? Rosie Warren joins me to talk about 'The Tragedy of the Worker: Towards the Proletarocene' - an essay coauthored by Rosie that considers the entwined processes of climate change and the proletarianisation of the world's population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fridays For Future is an international climate movement active in most countries and our website offers information on who we are and what you can do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
#FridaysForFuture is a youth-led and -organised global climate strike movement that started in August 2018, when [then] 15-year-old Greta Thunberg began a school strike for climate. To begin with, she was alone, but she was soon joined by others…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We and our partners use cookies to personalize your experience, to show you ads based on your interests, and for measurement and analytics purposes. By using our website and our services, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie Policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you ever find yourself saying 'YIKES' about things happening in the world? Climate Change, Human Rights and the messiness of everything going on at the moment can be really overwhelming BUT we want to provide a space to chat about these things and find hope in the midst of it all.Hosted by Mikaela Loach and Josephine Becker, edited by Finlay Mowat.Support us through The YIKES Podcast Patreon!https://www.patreon.com/theyikespodcastFollow us on Instagram!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate Camp Scotland are an autonomous group organising nationally against fossil fuels and for climate justice in Scotland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the UK's most prominent young environmental campaigners are making an urgent plea for global leaders to take action against climate change - amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

More than half of 18 to 24-years-old surveyed in the UK are worried that the challenges of climate change have been neglected because of the outbreak.

In the first virtual Youth Against Carbon Conference, campaigners Mikaela Loach, Mya-Rose aka "Birdgirl" and Zaqiya Cajee, warned audiences that global warming could also disproportionately affect minority groups around the world.
Reporter: Olivia Le Poidevin Camera: Matthew Sydney

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some of the UK's most prominent young environmental campaigners are making an urgent plea for global leaders to take action against climate change - amidst the coronavirus pandemic. More than half of 18 to 24-years-old surveyed in the UK are worried that the challenges of climate change have been neglected because of the outbreak.