{"id":11596,"date":"2022-02-09T17:24:47","date_gmt":"2022-02-09T17:24:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/juliesbicycle.com\/?page_id=11596"},"modified":"2022-02-16T13:22:15","modified_gmt":"2022-02-16T13:22:15","slug":"deciphering-green-gibberish","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/juliesbicycle.com\/resources\/climate-faqs\/deciphering-green-gibberish\/","title":{"rendered":"Deciphering Green Gibberish"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n\r\n
We\u2019ll unpack these regularly for you \u2013 if there\u2019s a specific bit of environmental gibberish<\/strong> you want help making sense of, get in touch.<\/p>\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Email us about Green Gibberish<\/a>\r\n \r\n <\/div> \r\n<\/div> \n\n\r\n\r\n What on earth is the IPCC?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n IPCC<\/strong> stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<\/strong>. It is the United Nations body tasked with assessing and summarising ALL OF THE SCIENCE <\/strong>relating to climate change on which governments at all levels base their decisions and climate policies on.<\/p>\n The IPCC doesn\u2019t do its own research<\/strong> \u2013 rather, it brings together everything that has been published in scientific journals to create the best possible overview of what we know. IPCC reports might constitute the most ambitious collaboration processes <\/strong>that exist anywhere. (If you\u2019ve ever worked to get a piece of text signed off by a group of people, you might think it is a miracle anything gets published at all). IPCC scientists volunteer their time. <\/strong>Whilst individual governments don\u2019t get to mess with the science, the final text of IPCC Assessment Reports and Special Reports has to be endorsed by IPCC member governments<\/strong>, (all 195 of them!), meaning that, on occasion, the language has ended up being more cautious and likely to understate possible impacts.<\/p>\n The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C<\/a><\/strong> (2018) had 91 authors and review editors from 40 countries, cited more than 6,000 scientific papers<\/strong>, and brought together thousands of experts and government reviewers, including the brilliant Diana Liverman<\/strong>, who sits on Julie\u2019s Bicycle\u2019s board of trustees<\/a> and was one of the report\u2019s co-authors. The next full IPCC \u2018Assessment Report\u2019 is due in June 2022.<\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth is WEEE?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n In environmental circles, WEEE is not an exclamation of joy<\/strong>, but an abbreviation for \u2018Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment<\/strong>\u2018. We have a specific abbreviation for it because there are European and UK laws (the WEEE Directive<\/a>) that govern how we dispose of and recycle WEEE, because of the complex range of materials including some hazardous substances <\/strong>it\u2019s made from. E-waste is also a human rights issue<\/strong>. A lot of e-waste is illegally exported from the UK to countries in the global south, where people taking it apart for recycling can be exposed to health-harming chemicals without appropriate protective gear, and it can contaminate local soil or water.<\/p>\n E-waste isn\u2019t just electronics discarded by households \u2013 more e-waste comes from the supply chain<\/strong>. So while we should be aware of how we dispose of our electronics, this is also about buying less in the first place, sharing, fixing, buying things second-hand\/refurbished, and asking for policy change to make things longer-lasting and more repairable (like the EU\u2019s \u2018right to repair\u2019 rules<\/a>).<\/p>\n A few years ago, JB ran an \u2018e-waste teardown<\/a>\u2019 together with the RSA\u2019 s Great Recovery Project<\/strong> at which we invited people to take apart turntables, phones, Walkmen and more to better understand the stuff that \u2018powers\u2019 our music making and listening, and come up with ideas for shifting towards a circular economy<\/a>.<\/p>\n The WEEE Regulations<\/strong> cover most things that have a plug or need a battery. Don\u2019t throw WEEE in your normal bins<\/strong> \u2013 bring it to a collection point (if you\u2019re an individual) or hire a collection service that is WEEE compliant (if you\u2019re a business getting rid of lots).<\/p>\n And if you want to get creative, check out Colchester Arts Centre<\/strong>\u2018s \u2018Cables Amnesty\u2019 day<\/a> organised by Creative Climate Leader<\/a> Anthony Roberts, encouraging everyone to relinquish the box of cables we all have somewhere, gathering dust.<\/a><\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth is climate justice?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n Climate justice is about where human rights, social justice and the climate<\/strong> and environmental movement intersect. It is the need to recognise climate change as a systemic issue, which is not purely environmental or scientific but also ethical and political<\/strong>. An issue which includes conversations about equity, colonialism and the disparity between distribution of resources and wealth. Climate justice<\/a> connects up intergenerational issues and stewardship<\/strong> for future generations, it is about renewing the social contract to protect those most vulnerable<\/strong>, both locally and globally.<\/p>\n To do this we need to acknowledge the history and legacies of violence against BIPOC <\/strong>(Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour), and recognise and redress the fundamental inequalities, prejudice and oppression<\/strong> that exist today, meaning marginalised communities across the world are the worst and first affected<\/strong> by climate change and environmental disaster.<\/p>\n On a global scale, it requires accountability and responsibility<\/strong> to be held by those predominantly more affluent nations who have caused the greatest carbon emissions and environmental harm.<\/p>\n This protects the right for poorer countries, communities and individuals to develop and build resilience whilst requiring a fair allocation of resources<\/strong>, which the Principles of Environmental Justice<\/a> highlights. For an account of addressing privilege in the environmental movement, read Chiara Badiali\u2019s guide to climate racism red flags<\/a> and associated resources.<\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth is ‘just transition’?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n The phrase \u201cJust<\/span> Transition<\/span>\u201c<\/strong> is currently receiving a lot of airtime. And for very good reason. It should be obvious that social inequalities result in health inequalities; that the impacts of climate change generally hit \u201cfirst and worst\u201d<\/strong> on those most vulnerable, and who do the least to cause it\u2026 that the histories and legacies of violence against Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour<\/strong> continue to this day \u2013 and remain manifest in the environmental movement.<\/p>\n So what are the strategies put forward to counter this \u2013 to remedy and recompense these injustices? Very simply put, Just<\/span> Transition<\/span> <\/strong>refers to: decarbonising the economy fairly<\/strong> i.e. a green economy which overcomes injustices experienced by all workers, ensuring no people or places are left behind.<\/strong><\/p>\n As described by Climate Justice Alliance<\/a>, the Just<\/span> Transition<\/span> is rooted in workers defining a transition<\/span> away from polluting industries in alliance with fence-line and frontline communities\u2026 nowadays it represents: \u201ca host of strategies to transition<\/span> whole communities to build thriving economies that provide dignified, productive and ecologically sustainable livelihoods<\/strong>; democratic governance and ecological resilience\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n However, like with so much \u201csustainability\u201d language, it is backed by very different levels of ambition and can be used to obfuscate<\/strong> both root causes and systemic solutions. Helpfully, the Climate Justice Alliance<\/strong> has a brilliant set of principles to guide a truly Just<\/span> Transition<\/span> as well as a list of \u201cfalse solutions\u201d<\/em> which can easily detract and derail efforts to tackle climate injustice. Read more<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cTransition<\/span> is inevitable. Justice is not.\u201d<\/strong><\/em> \u2013 Quinton Sankofa, Movement Generation<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth is divestment?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n When it comes to your sustainability strategy<\/strong>, divestment can be a bit like everybody\u2019s least favourite chocolate left lonely and forgotten at the bottom of the office sweetie tin. It can be a complex issue, wrapped in controversy<\/strong> and one that is hard to get stuck into. Toffee metaphors aside, divestment, put simply, is the opposite of investment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It is about taking back or refusing to contribute or receive resources<\/strong> (usually money) to a project or company for environmental or ethical reasons<\/strong>. Some recent examples of divestment campaigns come from environmental campaigners and members of the public putting pressure on banks, universities, and other large institutions<\/strong> to stop investing money in climate-damaging activities<\/strong> such as fossil fuel extraction, and instead, divert their investments<\/strong> to projects and organisations which match their values, sustainability strategies and net-zero ambitions.<\/p>\n Pensions are another good example, much of the UK\u2019s pension funds being tied up with environmentally damaging activities<\/strong>. \u2018Make My Money Matter<\/a>\u2018 and Share Action<\/a> are campaigns that seek to move UK pensions into causes with positive social and environmental impacts<\/strong>. For inspiration, check out Culture Unstained<\/a> and Platform London<\/a> who have been leading and winning divestment campaigns<\/strong>, and the 2019 event \u2018Take The Money and Run\u2019,<\/a> which discussed how the arts sector might engage<\/strong> with ethical and environmentally responsible funding models.<\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth is a digital carbon footprint?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n The global Covid lockdown has highlighted our increasing reliance on technology<\/strong> to allow us to work from home, stay connected with loved ones, and access learning, entertainment and events. But the immaterial nature of the digital world means we aren\u2019t often aware of the environmental impacts <\/strong>of sending our colleagues an email, sharing memes with the group chat, or video calling our mums.<\/p>\n If the internet was a country, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions it would be the sixth largest polluter. But where do these emissions come from?<\/p>\n Digital emissions can be divided into four areas:<\/strong><\/p>\n You can start to address these issues by looking at ways to measure your impacts<\/strong>. For some examples \u2013 EarthSpeakr <\/a>by Studio Olafur Eliasson, is an international digital artwork project which has worked with JB to comprehensively scope out all measurable aspects of the artwork\u2019s footprint. Fast Familiar<\/a>, a participatory arts organisation, have written a case study explaining how they developed<\/strong> their first carbon-neutral project. You can also start to consider how you dispose of your e-waste, recycle your electrical items, and encourage your staff to switch energy provider to a renewable provider such as Good Energy<\/a>.<\/p>\n You can find out more about digital carbon footprints and how to mitigate them in our briefing on Creative Digital Impacts<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth is ecocide?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n Ecocide literally means \u201ckilling the environment\u201d<\/strong> and it relates to any crime resulting in mass damage or destruction to ecosystems<\/strong>, as well as serious harm to the health and well-being of inhabitant species, including humans. Environmental activists are campaigning for the crime of ecocide to become written into international law<\/strong> and be recognised by the United Nations. So that no crime against the natural living world would go unpunished, from ocean damage to deforestation, mineral extraction to deep sea mining. Campaigns such as \u2018Stop Ecocide<\/a>\u2018 are leading the movement to end ecocide damage which has been committed repeatedly over decades, and INTERPRT<\/a> investigates environmental crimes using geospatial analysis, design and architectural methodologies. Their work actively supports criminalizing Ecocide as an international crime<\/strong>.<\/p>\n If ecocide crimes are written into law, it will also determine who is responsible for environmental damage<\/strong>, from governments to corporations and individuals, ensuring they are criminally liable. Arguably you could say that some forms of ecocide \u2013 depending on your definition \u2013 are already recognised by UK law, such as the destruction of habitats and species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Many cases of ecocide have been committed repeatedly over decades, and cumulatively are directly linked to the climate and ecological emergency<\/strong> the world now faces.<\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth is carbon offsetting?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n Carbon \u2018offsetting\u2019 <\/strong>is the idea of \u2018balancing\u2019, \u2018compensating\u2019, or \u2018neutralising\u2019 the carbon emissions from a given activity, by paying into a scheme or project that will reduce emissions somewhere else. Offsetting investments <\/strong>are made in environmental and climate restoration projects<\/strong> such as tree planting, or renewable energy development schemes around the world. These schemes are not a magic solution, however. They can fall short of their promised climate benefits and may not always be as ethical as they seem. So any offsetting programme should be carefully researched and the use of a Gold Standard certified<\/a> (or similar) carbon offset provider is recommended.<\/p>\n Carbon offsetting has exploded in recent years, as organisations rush to make net zero carbon claims<\/strong> and individuals look for quick fixes to balance their carbon footprint by \u2018offsetting\u2019 the emissions they make. But it\u2019s not possible to \u2018net\u2019 ourselves out of the current level of emissions<\/a> already in the atmosphere without also making significant reductions. So offsetting should only ever be considered as a last resort.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth is land justice?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n Land and water are resources we depend upon for vital infrastructure development, from agriculture to sanitation. Land justice is about the historic unequal distribution of land<\/strong>, and the extraction of resources and displacement of people from that land. Today\u2019s land justice movement is focused on land ownership laws, communal space, rewilding, food sovereignty and housing in the UK and across the world.<\/p>\n Land justice is also deeply tied to the protection of nature and biodiversity. Worldwide species loss due to land use change, increasing temperatures, and environmental pollution is at a devastating high. Indigenous peoples make up less than 5% of the world\u2019s population but safeguard 80% of the world\u2019s remaining biodiversity<\/strong><\/a>. This is increasingly difficult to maintain as land is lost to deforestation, climate impacts such as sea level rise and wildfires, and policy which values private over communal ownership.<\/p>\n In the UK, organisations like Land In Our Names<\/strong><\/a> work to provide access to land, nature and food systems for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour), and in his book \u2018Who Owns England?\u2019<\/strong>, Guy Shrubsole explores the history of land ownership in England. Globally, organisations like The Green Belt Movement<\/strong> in Kenya<\/a> are empowering communities, particularly women, to conserve the environment and improve livelihoods.<\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth is net zero?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n Net zero should mean zero emissions are created<\/strong> from areas such as energy generation, buildings, surface and road transport. Net zero is about making the largest possible reductions that you can make<\/strong> to your overall footprint, using all of the means available to you. You then \u2018net out\u2019 the remaining emissions through removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but only from sources such as aviation and agriculture which can not be avoided<\/strong>. \u2018Net zero\u2019 only allows you to neutralise these unavoidable emissions using projects that actively remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere \u2013 so there is a \u2018net\u2019 balancing out between what you put in and what is removed through natural carbon sinks and removal technology. Projects such as peatland and mangrove restoration, afforestation or direct carbon removal technology can be used to reach \u2018net zero\u2019. The market for \u2018high quality\u2019 net zero carbon credits is fast developing \u2013 there are serious concerns that the current boom in \u2018net zero\u2019 commitments will once again rely too much on buying credits<\/a> rather than reducing emissions at source<\/strong> (mirroring issues with offsets <\/a><\/strong>that go back several decades). There is also a scale of \u2018permanence\u2019 \u2013 e.g. forestry projects are not really permanent removals\/sinks, so we can argue that they shouldn\u2019t be used as net zero commitments either.<\/p>\n Most importantly, it is the level of emissions reductions that really matters, and having a transformative sustainability strategy. This is because there is not enough land or greenhouse gas removal technology in the world to \u2018net out\u2019 current levels of emissions.<\/strong><\/p>\n A net zero commitment is not the same as zero carbon, or zero emissions<\/strong>, which means that no greenhouse gas emissions are emitted. A net zero commitment, instead, requires that all remaining greenhouse gas emissions are \u2018balanced\u2019 \u2013 removed \u2013 with an equivalent amount via offsets<\/a><\/strong> that remove or capture carbon from the atmosphere, such as peatland preservation, or carbon capture technologies. For a net zero commitment to be meaningful it cannot rely on offsetting as a main strategy.<\/strong> There is a finite capacity for carbon removal and we need absolute reductions.<\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n What on earth are NDCs?<\/p>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div> \r\n Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC\u2019s)<\/strong> are proposals outlining each country\u2019s own aims and plans of action for reducing National greenhouse gas emissions and outlines suggested routes to adapt to a changed climate. These pledges to act to reduce emissions are a central part of the Paris Agreement<\/strong> (made in 2015 at COP21, and explained here<\/a><\/strong>), whereby each participating country would set out their own plan for decarbonising their economies<\/a><\/strong>, and monitor and share progress towards achieving these goals<\/strong>. NDC\u2019s are submitted by all participating countries every 5 years as part of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) process, outlined in the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n The planned reductions are combined to assess 3 areas: global efforts<\/strong> in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; whether plans are sufficient<\/strong> to stay within the global temperature goal (1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels), and; whether they are being achieved<\/strong> in reality. Every 5 years countries are expected to report on their progress, but also to raise their ambitions, updating their plans to be able to decarbonise to meet the global temperature goal.<\/p>\n This agreement was updated in the \u2018Glasgow Climate Pact<\/strong>\u2019 during 2021\u2019s COP26 summit<\/a><\/strong>, where countries are \u2018requested\u2019 to revisit and strengthen their climate pledges by the end of 2022. This goes beyond the Paris Agreement for updating pledges every 5 years, to place an expectation on countries to raise their ambitions next year. This is critical, because the next round of NDC\u2019s will cover the period from 2031 onwards<\/strong>, and at the moment there is a large gap between current pledges to 2030, and the 1.5 degree goal<\/a><\/strong>. There remains only the narrowest of opportunities to keep 1.5 degrees within reach<\/strong>, which makes increasing ambitions imperative to the success of the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n <\/div> \r\n <\/li>\r\n Green Gibberish Terms explained below:<\/h2>
\r\n
\n