Unsorted

Announcing a climate emergency would be an honest act, respectful of our future.

If you don’t like refugees, you should act against climate change.

It is unlikely that a problem would be fixed if you close your eyes from it.

Individual responsibility is not enough. We need collective action.

On averages

Warming of two degrees is just an average. Actual warming varies geographically, some places warm more, some places less. Finland is likely to warm more than 2 degrees.

Effects

To refresh your memory: Extreme weather events, floods, draught, wildfires, landslides, ocean acidification, prevalence and strength of hurricanes, less days with snow coverage, snow coverage moves further north, glaciers melt and sea levels rise, heatwaves are more common and hotter. Effects on plants, animals and ecosystems. Material losses, crop losses. Increased mortality from these effects. Insurance costs go up or insurance is not available. Climate protestors blocking traffic. Insecurity and loss of prospects for the future, mental strain. More refugees and environmental migrants.

Effects accumulate. Increased temperature increases rain amounts in the water cycle. Rain clouds hang in the air until the water droplets condense large enough and gravity pulls them down. If the ground is unable to absorb all the water, flooding occurs. When one place has too much water, some other location is suffering from drought.

Warming of one degree is visible at the borders of glaciers. The edge of a glacier occurs where ice melts to water. When the temperature goes up, the ice withdraws, breaks, melts and less ice remains. Ground that is now visible absorbs more heat than the surface of the glacier.

A similar border to the edge of a glacier occurs where plants dry, wilt and die. As temperature rises, droughts are more common. The effect on a single plant cell may be small, but when there are a lot of cells, the dought has a visible effect on the plant. Since we have extensive forest coverage here in Finland, we can measure changes in tree growth from the perspective of our forest industry.

Each species has it’s own boundary, it’s own ability to succeed, adapt or move to a more suitable terrain. Farmers must surely be able to tell which crops may succeed on their land, and what kind of changes it takes to adapt to climate change. In addition to effects on cultivated plants, climate change also affects plant pests and diseases.

The global economic impacts of climate change are measured in trillions of dollars per year. This is estimated to correspond to an average 19% reduction in global per capita income over the next 25 years.

Basics

Numbers to track

• Warming compared to pre-industrial times
• Net greenhouse gas emissions
• Amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

International agreements and legislation

• EU emissions trading covers less than half of greenhouse gas emissions in EU
• The Paris Agreement pledges to limit warming well below 2°C, but also pursues efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Finnish Climate Law

The Finnish climate law sets three emission reduction targets: the aim is to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions of 60% by 2030, 80% by 2040 and 90% but aiming for 95% by 2050 compared to the levels in 1990.

When will we know if we’ve crossed the 1.5°C threshold?

• Warming of 1.5°C is measured from a moving average. IPCC uses a moving average over a 20-30 year interval, so we will know about crossing the 1.5°C threshold after a 10 or 15 year delay.
• We won’t have to wait this long because we will have climate model predictions if we are about to cross the treshold.
• Year 2024 was the hottest in recorded history and the first to cross the 1.5°C threshold.

Climate Change Ethics

Reasons not to care

• General apathy (some form of nihilism)
• “realism”
  • China and USA aren’t doing their part, so we must also do nothing
  • The task is impossible (doomerism)
• We are “relative winners” in climate change, eg it affects us less than other nations. We must not disrupt this “positive development”.
  • this usually shows as a desire to talk about the “positive sides” of climate change.
  • after warming of 2°C when Finland could become a wine producing country, up to 70% of current wine producing regions may be unsuitable for grape growing.
• climate denialism and skepticism
• this is also known as the ‘freeloader’ position. You can find the same phenomenon in highschool group assignments: why participate if you don’t have to?

Reasons to care

• Climate change is an existential threat to the future of civilization. It causes trouble, destruction and sorrow globally in a way that has not been witnessed before. We have ways of stopping it, if enough people so desire.
• From the point of view of international relations and justice, greenhouse gas emissions work as a weapon, with which we disproportionately weaken the material living conditions of already vulnerable people. As rich countries we have enjoyed our privileged position in the oil market, and have used more oil than we are ever going to allow poorer countries to use. This pattern of behavior is now known as climate colonialism.
• The amount of human suffering caused by climate change we can still prevent, in my opinion is worth the trouble.
• Our life expectancy is so high that we don’t have to talk about how climate change will affect our children, grandchildren or future generations. The effects are already here, affecting us currently living people. Climate has already warmed and this warming has caused and continues to cause all kinds of exceptional stuff. If there is no snow on christmas, Finnish people should care.
• General negativity sucks ass. Negligence towards the climate should be seen as the hallmark characteristic of uncivilized, irresponsible and dangerous people.

Methods

As long as fossil fuels are not taxed in accordance with the harm caused by burning them, we do not have a functioning economic system.

What must happen to stop warming?

• Emissions must be reduced to net zero.
• The extra greenhouse gases must be scrubbed from the atmosphere.

The Carbon Budget

The carbon budget is the amount of emissions that humanity can put into the atmosphere while still keeping warming below 2°C. If global emissions remain at current levels, that 2°C carbon budget will be used up in 27 years. All the emission reductions we make will give us more time, but the limit set by the carbon budget will still remain. If we are to remain under 2°C, emissions must stop.

Emission sources

• Energy
• Transportation
• Industry and construction
• Agriculture
• Land use (for example forest growth or deforestation)
• and others

What has been done so far?

• Global emissions continue to grow. The growth rate (0.7% per year) has slowed down from what it was in the last decade (2.1% per year).
• The number of people on the planet is growing faster than global emissions, meaning per capita emissions have peaked and have started to decline.
• Finland’s emissions have decreased by about 43% since 1990.
• Finland’s current emission reduction pace is not sufficient to achieve the 2030 emission reduction target of the Climate Act.

How are we going to reduce emissions this much?

• Democratically
• Through political action (demonstrations, strikes, voting)
• Through public education work (this project depends on science, so we must promote science literacy)
• Through international cooperation and foreign policy

I don’t want to downplay the importance of lifestyle choices made by individuals, they really are important, but here I especially want to look at change from a collective, socio-political perspective.

Perspectives and areas of planning

• economic: How can we organize the change financially?
• political: How can we collect the necessary political support for the change?
• technological: What technology do we have available, should we direct funds towards some specific research?
• social, psychological: How do we make it as easy as possible for people to get involved in the change?
• fairness & justice: How do we ensure that the change is implemented fairly?

An impossible task?

Is it possible for humanity to rise to the level of development now required, where we would control the climate of our own home planet?

Comparable impossible tasks:

• Finland sobering up
• Space elevator to the moon
• America using the metric system
• Peace in the Middle East

Comparable projects that we have found possible to implement

• World War III prevented for now
• Covid pandemic contained
• Internet
• Stopping ozone depletion
• The current oil-based economic system built over the last 200 years

The problem is caused by our hand, we can also fix it if we want to.

On the topic of Hope

There are a few different types of hope:

• Futile, unfounded hope (hoping for something that is soon known to be impossible)
• Politically necessary, performative hope (hope that is needed for the credibility of political action. Expressed hopefulness, because it has been calculated to result in more votes in elections.)
• Scientifically justified hope (We know that something can happen, but there is no certainty. We can hope.)
• Religious or worldview-related hope (Regardless of the facts, we hope because we want to hope.)

You don’t need hope for things that are certain. If something is known to happen, you no longer need to hope for it.

Hopelessness

• may seem easier or more personally appropriate, natural
• may be justified, in which case we are talking of a matter of admitting the facts. But when operating in an area where there is no precise information about how things will turn out, hopelessness also involves uncertainty.
• Hopelessness induces a paralyzing effect, preventing action. Why try if you don’t believe in success? If there is no hope, why do anything?
• -> A person who does something is probably at least a little bit hopeful.
• What can be achieved with hopelessness? Perhaps a worthwhile placement of effort. But if there is little cost to trying, or sufficient uncertainty, is it not better to try, because what if I am wrong? What if there is hope? The only way to become sure whether we can succeed or not, is to try. Not trying is the surest way to fail.

There are many uncertainties associated with combating climate change. It is about political change, which should be brought about in the hearts and minds of enough people. It is still too early to give up.

Foreign Policy

International agreements

Q: Well, if the Paris Agreement exists and it says that we will limit warming to less than two degrees, aren’t we already done? What more do we need to talk about?

A: Those agreements are just promises. We still need to take the practical steps to reduce emissions. The gap between promises and actions is big.

How do we get the United States and China on board?

Our ability to influence the world’s superpowers is, shall we say, limited.

The people who voted for Trump to become president will be voting many more times after Trump retires. So a lot depends on market forces and technological development. There are many uncertainties associated with Trump’s policies, but at least no direct positive policy for the climate is to be expected. But let’s try to see what could be coming:

• Tariffs weaken the purchasing power of Americans. The prices of many products will rise if the tariffs are implemented. In the long run, tariffs will direct production back towards the United States, meaning domestic production and jobs for the americans. This is a good thing in terms of emissions from goods transported from abroad. It is not a good thing if solar panels are only available from [China](https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribution-of-solar-pv-module-manufacturing/. It is important that the US develops its own production, even if it is achieved through trade war and protectionism.
• Trump will probably succeed in enriching the rich, i.e. increasing income inequality. Technocracy includes the possibility that one of their billionaires will become interested in the climate.

The United States has not traditionally had a strong environmental movement. The entire country’s operations are based on private cars. But there is certainly progress in the energy sector and electric cars.

In China, the population is falling and per capita emissions are starting to decline. Politically, the country seems stable and economically very active. The country has excelled in the production of batteries and solar panels, although coal power is still being built as a reserve power source. If it used to be said that everything is big in America, now China is also dreaming big and has been painted as the global driver of the energy transition and, with it, emission reductions. Big ships take a while to turn, but China is in the Paris Agreement and on it’s way to meet its emissions targets.

Should we exchange notes with Africa?

Africa’s per capita emissions are lower than on any other continent. Of course, they get a lot of heat energy from the sun, live in poverty more often, and increase their emissions in the hope of a better standard of living, but maybe there are some things there that we could follow. If all 5.6 million Finns moved to Africa and reduced their emissions from Finland’s level to Africa’s level, we would already be a long way closer to the goals stated in our climate law.

Do we need to go back to the 19th century economy?

No. We have a lot of zero-emission technology that we can use. While it is true that we would not be in this situation if we had never discovered oil, or had understood in time the consequences of scaling up this energy source, there is no need to go back to the past.

Is all of this going to lead to a planned economy?

If there are two plans:

• a plan where we drive into the wall
• a plan where we try to avoid the wall

It should be obvious which plan is better.

I don’t see a problem with having goals; and plans to achieve those goals. I don’t think it’s likely that we would need to move to a centrally planned economy because of emissions reductions.

Emissions economy

Let’s make it clear that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to the environment, just like all other emissions from, say, industrial business activities. Allowing your emissions to leak into nature can be a profitable business model for entrepreneurs. Waste management fees can be avoided in this way. In the same way, carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is left for someone else to handle. Of course, ending this operating model is not particularly popular. Who of us would voluntarily stop shitting on their neighbor’s terrace?

Technological solutions that could suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere have proven to be expensive to implement. Planting trees is one of the best carbon sinks, but even the carbon in trees will sooner or later be released back into the atmosphere. It is cheaper to prevent emissions than to clean them up afterwards. It is also a pity that plugging the factory chimneys is expensive. Reducing the emissions of non-electric passenger cars to zero is apparently also impossible.

Emissions trading

Emissions trading is a system of implementing emission reductions, where the organizer of emissions trading, in our case the EU, issues a certain number of emission rights which are then traded. An entity covered by emissions trading must have a number of emission rights corresponding to the emissions it produces. Since there is a limited number of emission rights, this forces emission reductions or emission compensation. The emissions trading system ETS was launched in 2005 and has since been expanded and developed, and the EU has included and is in the process of including other countries.

World after oil

What will life be like after we stop burning oil? Until now, efforts have always been made to find a replacement technology that can be used as a replacement to oil. However, this is slow, because it requires a really big investment to build the alternatives. There are a limited amount of construction workers. Investments in the energy sector also raise the prices of all other construction, including housing production. Investment capacity and construction capacity are finite.

If we want, we can give up oil without a replacement energy source. This can mean reducing consumption, reducing travel, and in the case of diet, switching to a low-emission plant-based diet. Some will certainly say that they cannot reduce, stop or make any changes in their own lives. This is why we need a political decision to subtly steer consumption in a low-carbon direction through taxation. This will make it easier for every consumer to make climate-friendly decisions in their daily lives. Increasing consumption taxes does not have to mean an increase in poverty. Social security is needed in any case and is also part of the responsible implementation of emission reductions.

In my opinion, a low-carbon future can mean a future where it is more profitable to live close to your workplace and friends. A future where it is more economically profitable to live in larger communities where people support each other. Where community and nature are valued instead of materialism. Where instead of rushing, it is common to practice patience and moderation (for example when waiting for the bus). Where we cannot afford to keep people unemployed or without treatment for their illnesses. When oil is reduced, many things will become more profitable compared to now.

The post-oil era is coming anyway, because oil is a finite resource. It is worth preventing uncontrolled global warming. It makes sense, especially because if we don’t stop it now, it may be even harder to stop later. If the average temperature starts to rise uncontrollably, well, that wouldn’t be necessary at all now, would it?

Preparedness and adaptation

Preparedness is something that can be done in advance, anticipating a possible future. People can try to prepare.

Adaptation is something that is done when the situation has already changed or is changing suddenly. Animals can try to adapt.

We can try to prepare for global warming. Depending on the scenario, the average temperature in Finland could rise by 2-6 degrees by the end of the century. For example, in areas with a higher flood risk preparations have already been made.

Preparing for a possible collapse of the Atlantic ocean currents (AMOC) as a result of climate change is more difficult, because the change in climate it causes would be so great that no reasonable amount of preparation could significantly alleviate the situation. Therefore, instead of preparing, it is worth preventing the realization of such a risk with effective emission reduction measures.

Preparing is all about increasing flexibility. Mental preparation can mean increasing awareness of possible future phenomena. Our ability and desire to help our neighbors will also increase our resilience.

What kind of adaptation have we made? Well, for one, air conditioners have been popular.

We are in deep trouble because of the speed and extent of the change

We really don’t know what the optimal climate for humanity would be on our planet. The climate affects the functioning of the entire planet in quite a complex way. Maybe if the climate were a little cooler, we could farm the areas that are now too dry. Maybe a little warming would help farmers in the cooler areas of the planet. The problem with current climate change is that the change is happening too fast and too strongly. That’s why I use the term uncontrolled climate change.

The effects of climate change are cumulative. Small streams combine into large rivers. Our society is interdependent and prone to upheaval. If there weren’t more than eight billion of us here, but a smaller number, leaving a smaller planetary footprint, then there could be fewer emissions, the climate would warm more slowly and the corrective action that is needed would be easier to implement.

The claim that the future lies with children is no longer true. The future lies with us, who are now making decisions about the future.

Wildlife Loss

Climate change is one factor contributing to wildlife loss and to the ongoing sixth mass extinction event.

Attitudes towards extinction

Not everyone is interested in loss of biodiversity. You can take cute pictures of arctic foxes and the Saimaa ringed seal, they may help attract tourists and a lot of work has been done to ensure their breeding. At the same time, in our country, 2667 of the species assessed have been assessed as endangered.

What opinion may folk have of this issue?

• Every species that goes extinct is a great loss.
• It is unfortunate that species go extinct.
• The death of species always has some impact on humans.
• Dying species are of little importance.
• I am not interested in the slightest.
• It is a good thing that species are dying out (a feather in our cap, we are winning in the battle royale of natural selection)
• Extinctions are completely natural.
• If necessary, we can develop new species to replace the dead ones, or revive old species from the gene bank.
• We can’t do anything about it, so there’s no point in worrying about it.

The extinction of one species has a permanent impact on the ecosystem. We can’t always calculate in advance what kind of changes the decline of one species will cause in the lives of other species. However, we do know that human activity has had a negative impact on the distribution of thousands of species. Climate change is putting the adaptability of plant and animal species to the real test.

Many of the measures that help against nature loss also help against climate change. Restoring and protecting nature and reducing consumption that strains nature are straightforward ways to give nature back its rightful habitat.

Democracy

What can be done right now

• Plan and implement emission reductions
• Organize demonstrations
• Vote

we can start with these

Why is it appropriate to talk about climate change in municipal elections?

Although the problem is big and solving it requires international cooperation, practical climate action is being taken at all levels of activity, from decisions made by individuals to the national and international levels. Tampere has its own Carbon Neutral Tampere 2030 - roadmap, the implementation of which should be continued. In all its simplicity, from the point of view of implementing climate policy, it matters who sits on the municipal council and makes decisions there.

Many people probably think that there are more important issues in the municipality than climate change. Municipalities do many things that cost money. Emission reductions also cost money (especially since we do not have a comprehensive emissions trading system). If you want to put these budget items against each other, emission reductions can always be put in competition with various city expenses until they fall out of the budget in order of priority. To prevent this from happening, it is important that people who think climate change is something that should be taken seriously also vote for a candidate who thinks so.

The city’s climate budget tells how close we are to the carbon neutrality goal, and what measures we can take to get even closer to reaching it. Many measures are of public benefit, for example promoting cycling and building cycle lanes are actions that should be happening even if we were completely unaware of climate change. Saving energy makes economic sense as such. Investments in public transport are shaping the city in a direction where private car use is no longer as often absolutely necessary, and this has major social and economic impacts on the lives of city residents and the appearance of the city. Traffic emissions must start to decrease, and that is why we favor a dense urban structure.

The 2025 budget states this: “The operating expenses of the city organization’s climate measures in the 2025 budget are 62.9 million euros (4.5% of the city’s operating expenses), and they consist largely of ordering public transport that uses clean power sources.”

Money spent on emission reductions should be understood as an investment in the future, and as part of Finland’s emission commitments.

If climate emergency is not declared now, then when?

Declaring a climate emergency has been Elokapina’s top demand and I have copied it from them. Elokapina is the Finnish activist organization operating within the Extinction Rebellion network. I think it is a good idea to talk about things clearly in this situation and take national measures and build situational awareness of the consequences of climate change, with the broad participation of citizens and stakeholders. Not that the majority of Finns wouldn’t already know what is happening, I feel that we need to strengthen democratic participation, work together to prioritize measures and openly communicate about the impacts and risks of climate change and of ways we can reduce our emissions. Declaring climate emergency is one step towards ensuring everyone understands what is happening and that it is serious.

The idea of a citizens’ forum is worth exploring. I am undecided whether a separate board or division should be established in Tampere that could issue statements and initiatives regarding climate work. Many people are rightly concerned about climate change and the climate budget is so large that organizing in such a way could be in order.

Otherwise, monitoring the issue will depend on the activity of council groups and individual councilors and their communication on social media. Decisions that touch on the matter are made in almost all committees. In Tampere, there would certainly be a good audience of people interested in climate work who would like to participate specifically towards combating climate change. I do understand the bureaucratic cost of introducing yet another committee, but if the composition of the next council has climate high on it’s agenda, how we are going to organize our climate efforts is one of the first things we should talk about.

Links

Preliminary information: Tampere’s greenhouse emissions decreased by almost a fifth in a year (3.12.2024)