In this clip from Advaya's online course, A Journey Home, Dr Jason Hickel does three important things:
1) He situates us in the context of the ecological crisis, and what's at stake.
2) He describes how this crisis has been caused not by humans, as such, but by a particular economic system, namely the capitalist system which depends completely on growth
3) He argues that any successful attempt to avert societal collapse will require what in ecological economics is referred to as 'degrowth'
The video:
New Economies: How Degrowth Will Save the World with Jason Hickel - YouTube
Are "excess emissions" in relation or proportion to current GHG concentrations (e.g., CO2)?
I remember years ago reading a James Hansen book in which he shed some doubt on whether indeed 350 ppm was 'safe', suggesting a lower number was more favorable.
In an article published as recently as June of this year we read "For reference, scientists consider 350 ppm a safe level, as reflected in the name of the climate-focused non-profit organization 350.org." So 350 ppm is still widely floated as the 'safe' level of ghg concentrations in the atmosphere.
In the same article ( https://newatlas.com/environment/atmospheric-co2-50-percent-higher-pre-industrial-levels/ ):
"In May 2021 the record was set at 419.13 ppm, up from 416.21 ppm in May 2020, and 415.26 ppm in May 2019."
So we're quite a bit above 350, whether or not 350 is a 'safe' level of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Would I be correct to say that any CO2 emissions which occur during a period in which atmospheric CO2 is higher than 'safe' levels (perhaps 350 or less ppm) would be defined as "excess CO2 emissions?
I'm trying to make sense of what Jason Hickel is talking about when he talks about "excess" emissions.
This is brilliant, and he is such a positive cheerful guy. His analysis is clear and decisive. Thank you for sharing this.