A personal question to our community from Ingmar Rentzhog, Founder of We Don’t Have Time: The Bigger Question Behind the Aviation Debate Ingmar Rentzhog wearing the “Make Science Great Again” hat while speaking on the “Decarbonising Businesses” stage at Economist Sustainability Week in London on March 3. Climate solutions require open dialogue and a science based approach to replacing fossil fuels with better alternatives. Photo: The Economist. Last week, I shared a story about flying with my family after ten years of avoiding flights. It was a very personal and somewhat fragile story for me to share publicly. The discussion that followed reveals a deeper question facing the climate movement today: how do we accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels while still allowing people the freedom to travel, connect, and explore the world? For this trip, we chose a non-fossil alternative by purchasing Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) that matched the flight’s full fossil fuel use. On We Don’t Have Time, the discussion has been constructive, thoughtful, and respectful. Many people have also written very encouraging messages, saying they appreciate that I dare to talk openly about solutions that already exist in aviation, even if they are not yet perfect. On social media, outside our platform, some reactions have been much harsher. There has been strong criticism, and in some cases, personal attacks directed not only at me, but also at my family. That kind of tone does not move the climate conversation forward. At We Don’t Have Time we believe in dialogue. Solving the climate crisis will require many perspectives, honest conversations, and the ability to respectfully disagree while still working toward the same goal. At the same time, the intensity of the reaction tells us something important. When discussions about real solutions create strong emotions, it often means we are touching on one of the defining questions of the transition. Most people who care about the climate agree on the destination. But we do not always agree on the best path to get there. Different people who care deeply about the climate often come to different conclusions about the best path forward. The transition away from fossil fuels is not a simple or black-and-white question. That is exactly why open dialogue matters. So instead of talking past each other, let us ask the question openly. What do you think is the best way forward? 1. Reduce first We should sharply reduce consumption and mobility across society, phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible, and accept major lifestyle changes and sacrifices in the short term. Only once fossil fuels are largely eliminated should we scale technologies that allow higher levels of consumption again. ­ Vote ­ 2. Technology first We should focus primarily on scaling clean technologies as fast as possible. Innovation and markets will replace fossil fuels without requiring major limits on people’s lifestyles. ­ Vote ­ 3. Both together We should phase out fossil fuels while at the same time embracing and scaling non fossil solutions, even if they are not perfect yet. Regulation and innovation should move in parallel. ­ Vote ­ Vote and share your reasoning in the comments. We will publish the results next week. The goal is not that everyone agrees on every step. The goal is that we move forward together toward the same destination: a prosperous and fossil free future where humanity has learned to live within the planetary boundaries. Thanks for being part of the We Don’t Have Time community. This Debate Didn’t Start Last Week Neste, the world’s leading producer of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), has started producing SAF at its renewable products refinery in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The refinery has been modified to enable Neste to produce up to 500,000 tons of SAF per annum. As a result, Neste’s global SAF production capability has increased to 1.5 million tons (around 1.875 billion liters) per annum. Six months ago I wrote an op-ed in Sweden responding to a column celebrating record levels of air travel in Europe. My argument then was simple: the problem is not that people want to travel. The problem is that we still travel on fossil fuels. We don’t need to stop travelling. We need to stop travelling on oil. That requires phasing out fossil fuel subsidies while scaling fossil-free alternatives such as Sustainable Aviation Fuel, e-fuels, and electric aviation. You can read the English version of that article here: “Should We Really Celebrate Aviation’s Fossil Record?” Looking back, the debate we are having today is really about the same question: How do we replace fossil fuels fast enough while maintaining the freedom to travel and connect with the world? ­ Read the op-ed ­ ­ Join the campaign #MoveTheTravel ­ Energy Security Is Incompatible with Fossil Fuels Israeli fighter jets on their way to attack Iran in mid-June 2025. Photo credit: IDF Spokesperson’s Unit/Wikimedia Commons The U.S.-Israel war on Iran has unleashed chaos on the global energy market. Historically, such shocks have triggered a rush to stockpile fossil fuels and backsliding down the energy ladder. On a longer timescale, however, they have pushed world leaders toward greater investment in energy independence. This latest crisis comes at a unique time for climate diplomacy:  André Corrêa do Lago, following up on commitments made during COP30, has just called for stakeholder contributions to the much anticipated roadmap for a transition away from fossil fuels. It is expected that these contributions will feed directly into the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, to be held in Colombia this April. We’ve seen many energy shocks before but this time a diplomatic infrastructure exists that could guide the world to the only long-term solution to the never-ending energy crises: leaving fossil fuels for good. Click below to read our full analysis. ­ The Last Energy Crisis ­ ­ COP30 Presidency Consultations on Roadmaps ­ ­ First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels ­ Centering Women’s Voices to  End the Fossil Fuel Era Speakers at the WECAN Press Conference “Indigenous Women from the Amazon: Calls for Urgent Action on the Path to COP30” held at COP29 in Baku, 2024.  Photo Credit: Katherine Quaid / WECAN International As the world lurches toward a reckoning with fossil fuels, the question of who shapes that transition will determine how just it proves to be. With that in mind this International Women’s Day, we are thrilled to be part of a vital convening of women’s climate leadership. On March 31, the Women’s Momentum Assembly for a Just Fossil Fuel Phaseout will bring together over 20 global leaders, including former Irish President Mary Robinson, Indigenous Brazilian congresswoman Célia Xakriabá, and youth climate leader Mitzi Jonelle Tan, in a free virtual gathering to build momentum ahead of the Colombia conference. With real-time interpretation in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese, it’s a truly global conversation open to all. The need for women’s leadership at this moment couldn’t be clearer. The UN estimates that by 2050, climate change could push 158 million more women and girls into poverty. Historically, multilateral negotiations have underrepresented the communities bearing the greatest costs of fossil fuel dependence. And research consistently shows that climate policies shaped by those most affected produce stronger, more durable outcomes. Women aren’t waiting to be invited into this conversation. They’re organizing it. ­ Learn more about the Women’s Momentum Assembly ­ ­ Register to attend for free ­

­ Some highlights from last week:    Why 99% of glass eels are gone and how we can save them When the far-right governs, climate risk rises – 2026 French Municipal Elections  Sodium ion batteries: Right facts, wrong conclusion!   Greece approves Prinos CO2 storage project  EU codifies 90% decarbonization goal Scotland legalises water cremation   Portugal fined £8.7 million for failing to protect biodiversity Blackwater lakes in the Congo Basin are emitting ancient stored carbon Take a deep breath Events & Broadcasts    Mar 10–12: The Launch of the Nature for Life Hub Learning Journeys  Mar 11–25: Klimatsoffan – election interviews with all Swedish parties  Mar 31: Women’s Momentum Assembly for a Just Fossil Fuel Phaseout

­ Follow us ­ ­ © 2026 We Don’t Have Time, PO Box 141, SE-118 72, Stockholm, Sweden www.wedonthavetime.org info@wedonthavetime.org ­ We Don’t Have Time is the world’s largest media platform for climate action—with a mission to democratize knowledge about climate solutions and inspire and mobilize global action toward a prosperous, fossil-free future. Boasting a community of 100,000+ climate professionals and influencers in 180 countries, and partnerships with 350+ companies, government- and civil society organizations, We Don’t Have Time reaches 200 million people each month on social media. Headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, with offices in Washington, D.C., and Nairobi, Kenya. ­ This email was sent to paul.sladkus1@gmail.com. Read our integrity policy.

The post What do you think is the best way forward? appeared first on Good News!.

Protesters in New York City in September joined thousands of others around the world in urging governments to act on climate change. Credit: Eduardo Munoz/Reuters

The past year has given many of us reason to pause. We are losing in a race to prevent planetary tipping points — the climate is changing faster than expected, and humanity has already breached six of the nine sustainable planetary boundaries (for biodiversity loss; climate, freshwater and land-system change; biogeochemical flows; and novel entities)¹. Summer Antarctic sea ice shrank to its lowest recorded extent in 2023 (see go.nature.com/4f86req), a year that is on track to be the warmest on record (see go.nature.com/4f9ykdj).

People around the world recognize that life is not getting any better. As wars rage, runaway inequality and political polarization are eroding societies’ sense of cohesion. Eight individuals owned more than the poorest 50% of the world’s population, according to an Oxfam report in 2017². Levels of anxiety, depression and burnout are rocketing. Full-time employees are unable to pay rent and must turn to extra part-time work to make ends meet, while employers cut staff and increase workloads.

Crises are now normal in this global economic system that depletes natural and social capital, energy and time in the name of economic growth at all costs.

But, looking to 2024, I’m hopeful that the world can turn in a better direction. For example, a meeting I attended in May on sustainable prosperity particularly buoyed my spirits — and, in my view, signalled a tipping point in thinking and governance. The Beyond Growth conference at the European Parliament attracted more than 2,500 participants in person, as well as 2,000 online. It was sponsored by the European Commission and the Club of Rome (a non-profit organization fostering research and action around pressing global issues).

In a stirring opening address, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said that governments must stop misusing growth of gross domestic product (GDP) as their goal and instead move swiftly and urgently to sustainable well-being within planetary boundaries. She got a standing ovation. Agata Meysner, the young leader of Generation Climate Europe, a coalition of climate and environmental networks across the bloc, concluded the event with a call to join the “movement of movements” to create a new economy based on sustainable prosperity, justice and sufficiency. Everyone rose to their feet.

And an increasing number of organizations and movements dedicated to overcoming our addiction to GDP growth are working together to do just that, including through networks such the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (which also supported the conference). The pursuit of GDP growth at all costs is an outdated paradigm that claims that all people want is more income and consumption with no limits. It assumes that the market economy can grow forever, that massive inequality is justified to provide incentives to promote growth, and that efforts to address climate and other environmental and social problems must not interfere with growth. It supposes that growth is the solution to all ills. It isn’t.

As the European conference emphasized, GDP was never designed to measure societal well-being — only market production and consumption. GDP says nothing about the distribution of income, unpaid work or damages to natural or social capital. The misuse of GDP as a policy goal is driving societies towards an unsustainable future that benefits an increasingly small proportion of the population while impoverishing the vast majority².

Researchers must help to provide alternatives. Here’s how.

Design better measures of societal well-being

Hundreds of indicators of societal well-being are already in use, including by the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), non-governmental organizations, countries and academics. Examples include the Genuine Progress Indicator; the OECD Better Life Index; and annual surveys of life satisfaction³. To become a societal goal used by all, and to displace GDP, the world must settle on a new indicator. Broad consensus is needed on what should be included.

For example, it is not just income that matters, but also the ways in which it is distributed. The costs of environmental and social degradation must be included, as should contributors to well-being that are unconnected to income — such as our relationships and communities, good governance, the ability to participate in decision-making and ecosystem services provided by the natural environment. Several research initiatives are beginning to address these issues (including one I am involved with, called MERGE, which is funded by the European Union).

Model the complex dynamics of the economic system

Interactions between social, economic and natural elements of societal well-being must be better modelled and future projections developed to assess their sustainability. National examples include the EUROGREEN model, which has been applied to France, and the LowGrow model of the Canadian ecological economy.

The Earth4All model of the Club of Rome takes a global perspective. It explores two scenarios towards 2050. The first — known as business as usual, or too little too late — looks at what will happen if the world continues current trends of increasing inequality, climate disruption and decreasing well-being, even as GDP continues to rise. By contrast, the second scenario, called giant leap, shows how investing in five areas — renewable energy, regenerative food, reducing inequality, eliminating poverty and enabling empowerment — could ensure sustainable, prosperous and equitable well-being for humans and the rest of nature.

For example, rather than rewarding the fossil-fuel sector with enormous subsidies to maintain economic growth at the expense of climate and social disruption, new policies would focus on moving away from fossil fuels. At the same time, policies to achieve the other four turnaround areas would be implemented to enable sustainable well-being, regardless of the effects on GDP.

Develop policies to support sustainable well-being

The EU and the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo) group that includes Scotland, New Zealand, Wales, Finland, Canada and Iceland have begun to implement measures of sustainable well-being and policies to achieve them. Researchers need to analyse these plans and offer lessons to help other nations adopt them. What are these policies? There are many versions, but an open letter I signed in May — together with more than 400 leading economists, scientists, policymakers and activists — provides starting points in four areas. These are biocapacity (protecting the planet), fairness (a more equal society), well-being for all (basic services and rights) and active democracy (see ‘Beyond growth policies’ and go.nature.com/47z3v6s).

The post To build a better world, stop chasing economic growth appeared first on Good News!.

1. Carbon Dioxide Is a Pollutant. Please Help Establish That Fact.

May 2022 Temperature Update

17 June 2022
James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy
CO2 fits perfectly EPA’s definition of a chemical substance that presents “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” Congress, with strong bipartisan agreement, established the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA; acronym pronounced tosca) in 1976 and – with bipartisan support again – strengthened the law in 2016. This law has been used successfully to phase out or reduce many substances, including asbestos, lead in paint, PCBs, and CFCs[1]. EPA has broad latitude in how to achieve reductions and can work with other agencies for that purpose.

Citizens may petition EPA on the need to address a pollutant under TSCA. EPA must respond to a petition within 90 days. Yesterday several of us[a] delivered to EPA a petition[2] for phase out of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution to restore a stable and healthy climate. The prospects for EPA to accept their obligation will be much improved if we can present them with an impressive list of endorsers of the petition. Please examine the petition and consider adding your name as an endorser of the petition. United States citizens are especially relevant as endorsers, but there is also value in support of world citizens for what is a global problem.

Fig. 1, our global temperature update, is a reminder that the world is headed inexorably toward hotter conditions, as the cooling effect of the current strong La Nina barely got global temperature down to the increasing trendline of global temperature. The 12-month running-mean temperature is already heading toward the next global record that will occur in conjunction with the next El Nino.[3]

[a] Dan Galpern (Hansen’s long-time attorney, who worked for months on this petition), Donn Vivianni (retired EPA scientist who alerted us to the TSCA potential for greenhouse gases), Lisa Van Susteren (physician, writer and world’s leading authority on the psychiatric effects on young people of daily news about growing climate impacts while adults do little to alter the course), and atmospheric chemist John Birks, and Hansen. (Co-petitioner climate accountability analyst Richard Heede could not be present for the delivery to EPA).

Fig. 2. Cumulative 1751-2020 fossil fuel carbon emissions (tons C/person; 2020 populations). Horizontal lines are multiples of the global mean. The order of individual nations from left to right is based on cumulative national emissions.
Fig. 2 is a reminder that the United States is most responsible for the fossil fuel CO2 emissions that are the dominant cause of human-made climate change. We can also be leaders in the solution if we begin to make the polluters pay via a steadily rising carbon fee with the funds distributed to the public (a conservative, bipartisan approach). Of course, the timing has to be right. The best time was years ago. If the rising price had started a decade and a half ago, when Obama and Biden were elected and had the opportunity afforded by a global financial emergency, U.S. emissions and fossil fuel use would be down at least 40% and we would have plenty of excess energy capacity to help Europe with its near-term fossil fuel energy demands.

Evoking TSCA will not demand an instant carbon price – the timing needs to be sensible. However, it will be a huge step, putting us on a course with the potential to address the climate problem globally. The huge U.S. economy allows the opportunity to affect the global approach via border duties on products from countries that do not have a carbon fee.

Other policies also need to be sensible. Whose idea was it to immediately halt import of Russian fuels? The predictable effect was to raise the price of fossil fuels, causing huge pain in the West – and in the rest of the world, which thus must choose to look the other way as Ukraine suffers.

What courage. When Putin says that he will get angry if we send the weapons that Ukrainians need to defend their nation, our leaders quake and instead take actions that sacrifice Ukrainian lives, raise our own energy costs, and increase Putin’s profits needed to wage war.

It’s expecting a lot to ask young people to understand what their political leaders are doing, but as we mentioned in last month’s temperature update, that seems to be necessary, and young people have tremendous potential political power. More on that later.

Hansen, Van Susteren, Vivianni and Galpern about to deliver petition (Birks was photographer).

[1] CFCs hardly seemed toxic. In early advertisements, the chemical industry showed a person breathing in “harmless” CFCs, but then we discovered their impact on the ozone layer and their greenhouse gas effect. Likewise, CO 2 was initially thought to be a beneficial gas; and so it is, if you limit the dosage.
[2] Viviani, D.J., J. Birks, R. Heede, L. Van Susteren, J.E. Hansen, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, and Climate Protection & Restoration Initiative, Petition to the Environmental Protection Agency to Phase-out Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Remove Legacy GHGs, 16 June 2022. Part I and Part II (Select scientific and economic considerations).
[3] The promised discussion about the record current planetary energy imbalance will need to wait a while.

Donate to CSAS Columbia                                             Donate to CSAS, Inc.

#carbondioxide #co2 #pollutantfact #hansen #vansusteren #vivianni #galpern #deliver #petition #birks #photographer #health #environment #humanclimatechange #climatechange #fossilfuels

The post Carbon Dioxide Is a Pollutant. Please Help Establish That Fact… appeared first on Good News!.