Dexter Wollersheim

  • Our 2021 Global Warming and Climate Change Consequence Predictions

    Every year we put out our list of new global warming predictions early in the new year. Year after year we have been very accurate! Psychologists say it is best to provide the bad news first.

    Read more

  • How to Know Where and When to Migrate because of Global Warming and Climate Change Part 1: The Overview

    Introduction 

    There are currently seven pages in our Climate Change Migration and Relocation manual to consider. Think of them as your personal climate change migration guide or manual containing all of the evaluation information, checksheets, etc., you will need. 

    We strongly recommend carefully reviewing all climate change migration and relocation-related guide pages before deciding to relocate and migrate. It will save you a lot of needless worries, expenses, or "buyer's regret."

    In these "how-to" pages, you will find many questions and current global warming prediction information that will help you decide if you should consider climate change migration or relocation, and if so, when and where. These pages will also lay out a sequence of crucial actions steps you can begin immediately.

    And finally, this climate change migration manual also contains age-related migration information. How old you are will make a big difference in experiencing the worst consequences of the global warming emergency as they unfold.

    Global Warming Migration and Relocation

    Knowing when to migrate because of global warming and the other 11 escalating global crises is as important as knowing where to migrate! If you have chosen to remain where you are in an urban, suburban, or rural area and ride out what is coming for as long as possible before you migrate, or you have chosen to migrate, here is some additional information that should help you make the "when to move" decision.

    1. If you have not done so already, please go to this page and copy both sets of the 47 detailed catastrophes, extinction, and collapse warming signs and post them somewhere you can review them regularly. As you continue to watch your local, national, and international news, be aware of which warning signs are starting to occur. Be particularly aware of which warning signs are increasing in frequency, severity, or scale.

    Depending upon your current location, at some point, while watching these many warning signs accelerate and occur, it will become apparent to you that you have entered your particular "must migrate soon" window of opportunity. Part of determining your personal migration window of opportunity is to estimate how long it will take you to:

    a. Find the right location to move to. (As things worsen, more and more people will realize that if they do not move, they will suffer or die. Real estate prices also will drop faster and faster in the global warming unsafe areas. Real estate prices will rise faster and faster in safer global warming areas.) 

    b. have enough time to pack and move there.

    c. have enough time to buy or build and set up your new home as described in Part 2 of the Job One Survive and Thrive Plan, i.e., garden, solar or wind systems, sewage, water collection, etc.

    2. The following timeline chart, when used with the 47 warning signs lists and the other information on migration on this page and in the member's section, will also help you narrow it down for when it is the right time to move your family or business.

    a. The 5-year deadline: (From now until the end of 2025.) We still have enough time left to slow down (but not avoid) a mid-century mass extinction event for much of humanity. Although we can no longer avoid mass extinction, we still can maintain some level of control of our global warming future to prevent total extinction! 

    To avoid total extinction, we must make radical global fossil fuel reductions immediately and still come very close to the 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets. (After you prepare your emergency provisions and create or join urban, suburban, or rural eco-community cooperatives and sanctuaries, our extinction danger means we have to educate others in the world about the global warming climate cliff and tipping points. Within these first 5-years, if you are in a high-risk location, land prices in the safer areas will start rising at a faster rate.)

    b. The 5-10-year deadline: (This assumes we will miss the 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets.) From 2020 to 2027, global warming consequences will steadily worsen in a rising but linear progression. More people will migrate. Millions more will die because of climate-related catastrophes. 

    If you have prepared, adapted, and are in a global warming safer location before 2027 and have a good Plan B in place, depending upon your location, relative stability and security for family and business are probable until 2030 to 2040. (See this Plan B page, which discusses how to prepare the safest and least safe places to ride out the global warming extinction emergency.)

    c. The 10-15 year deadline: (This assumes we will miss the 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets.) After 2030-2035 many other climate, human, ecological, political, and economic tipping points will be crossed due to global warming, and most of these 11 other critical global challenges will worsen. The stability and security of even the safest and best prepared global warming safer locations will lessen and become increasingly challenging. Those individuals in supportive cooperatives or eco-communities should be significantly safer and better adapted than those who are not.

    d. The 15-25 year deadline: (This assumes we will miss the 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets.) Beginning around 2030, the frequency, severity, and size of 20 worst global warming consequences will move from a rising linear progression into an exponential progression. Stability and security for even the safest and best prepared, safer global warming locations, cooperatives, and eco-communities will become far more difficult and dangerous.

    e. The 25-30-year deadline: (This assumes we will miss the 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets.) By mid-century, mass extinction for much of humanity is unavoidableFrom 2030-2050 will be the riskiest period to survive for much to most of society. Generally, things will be better in safer global warming locations, cooperatives, and eco-communities. Even there, survival is far from guaranteed without the highest preparation, adaptation, and cooperation levels.

    (If you still have ANY remaining doubts that we will cross extinction-evoking tipping points and that it will be as bad as we are saying, please read this page first, then this page!)

    f. The 50-year deadline: (This assumes we will miss the 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets.) We will face the worst consequences of runaway global warming, and we will be heading toward the beginning of the runaway greenhouse gas effect, which ripped the atmosphere off Venus. Because of this escalating runaway global warming reality, humanity will face a total extinction event (what we describe as the Climageddon Scenario) beginning as soon as 2070-2100. 

    The tipping point and the exponential growth factors that will also affect your when to move calculations

    When you are doing your "when to migrate calculations," do not forget that global warming consequences will continue to escalate in frequency, severity, and scale. At some point, this escalation will go from a linear and gradual progression to an exponential progression as more tipping points are crossed. Once this happens, it will be far more difficult and expensive to migrate.

    To familiarize yourself with these timeframe accelerators, we recommend you review the following:

    The four global warming extinction-level tipping points,

    About global warming tipping points.

    Your first crucial action step

    If you have not already read Part 1 of the Job One Plan, which is about getting prepared for what is coming, please do so before you continue to read the rest of the materials in the Relocation and Migration evaluation sections by clicking here. Please also keep reading this manual as you work on the action steps in part one.

     

    For the Next Page of the Relocation and Migration Evaluation Materials

    Click here now!


  • published Current Volunteer Projects in Volunteer 2021-02-01 11:10:45 -0800

    Current Volunteer Projects

    Today, no matter where you live in the world, you can start on and self-organize a meaningful and vital volunteer project at Job One for Humanity. Our volunteer projects below are based mostly upon our Job One for Humanity Plan to manage, reduce, or slow down our accelerating global warming consequences and, help lessen many of these other major global crises.

    Here is how to start:

    1. Before you pick your project(s) below, please read this brief overview of the Job One Plan. It will help you select a volunteer project best suited for your current interests and circumstances. Next,

    2. Pick a project below to begin.

    3. Once you feel comfortable then recruit other like-minded people in your areas to help support you and your new group, but most importantly, to expand the success of your chosen project area. This will help make these projects much easier to move forward. 

    Here are our current projects:

    Project 1: Part One of the Job One Plan. Emergency Adaptation, Preparation & Migration Survival Kit for Global Warming and Climate Change

    This is primarily about getting you and your loved ones prepared for what is coming.

    Project 2: Part Two of the Job One Plan. Individual Adaption Actions to Reduce Fossil Fuel Use & Survive and Thrive Through What is Coming

    This is primarily about all of the actions you can take to reduce your fossil fuel use and the other things you can do to increase your sustainability.

    Project 3: Part Three of the Job One Plan. Critical Government-Driven Actions Needed to Slow a Global Warming Triggered Extinction Event

    This is for individuals with direct influence with politicians, ultra-wealthy individuals or corporations, or celebrities. You will use that influence to influence our current politicians to act. This urgency is because we have delayed effective action so long that only immediate radical government action can save us.

    Project 4: Part Four of the Job One Plan Step 1. What will it take to get our governments to end the global warming-caused extinction emergency?

    Project 4: Part Four of the Job One Plan Step 2. How to Get Our Governments to Act to Prevent Human, Animal, and Biological Extinction, Step 2 

    This is for individuals without direct influence with politicians, ultra-wealthy individuals or corporations, or celebrities. Part Four offers indirect strategies to get governments to do the steps in Part Three of the Job One Plan.

    Project 5: Get involved in our new Eco-communities project, described briefly below.

    Enthusiastic volunteers worldwide are self-organizing new eco-communities. They will have a higher survival potential where you live now and in safer global warming areas, possibly in the future. These new eco-communities will become places where you and your family can survive global warming and these other 11 crises. 

    They will also be places where you can thrive because these new eco-communities will be places working toward:

    a. having sustainable gardens and farms (an agrihood

    b. net-zero energy construction, 

    c. individual growth and development, 

    d. off-the-grid independence,

    e. appropriate modern technology, and.

    f. a new system of personalized democratic management. 

    If you want to be involved in helping to co-create these new eco-community(s) by becoming a liaison, leader, or coordinator we suggest the following: 

    1. Read this page first to get a quick general idea of what is happening with the global warming emergency.

    2. Read this critical page next.

    3. Then read this page for why it is necessary to get prepared NOW. 

    4. Next, read this page to learn more about us. And,

    5. Next, become a member here. Then read the members-only information on the Universe Communities and the global warming migration sections. After that, go to the "how to be a part of these self-organizing new eco-communities section at the end of the Universe community articles.

    To see other current volunteer administrative, managerial, or supervisory positions within our organization, click here.


  • published All Ways to Donate in About 2021-01-27 19:01:25 -0800

    All Ways to Donate to Us to Job One for Humanity

    We are a 25-year-old, tax-deductible United States IRS recognized and approved 5013(c) non-profit organization.

    We have received the Seal of Financial Transparency by Guidestar. Guidestar is the leading non-profit organization that monitors and evaluates other non-profit organizations for financial and mission transparency. 

    We often have membership promotions with great gifts and values. You will discover them in the onetime and monthly donation links below.

    Click here to see our current time-limited membership promotion where you get four free important ebooks worth $35 with a $9 tax-deductible donation!

    Here are the many ways you can donate and help keep our mission alive:

    To donate securely online one time, click here.

    To make a secure monthly online donation automatically, click here.

    To donate by mail, make your check payable to Factnet, PMB 2167, 1650 S. Casino Dr. Laughlin, Nevada 89029 

    All donations will always receive either an electronic or mailed tax-deductible donation receipt for your donation.

    How to donate without using any of your own money! 

    Of course, we hope you will become an annual member or make a tax-deductible donation, but there is another easy way for you to donate without spending any of your money! All you have to do is sponsor our organization when you buy products at Amazon Smile by following the following simple procedure.

    Keep in mind that this does not affect or add anything to the cost of your Amazon purchases. When you sponsor us, our organization gets a tiny percentage from every purchase you make. These small percentages will add up as we can get our thousands of members and visitors to sign and use it.

    How to use AmazonSmile on a web browser:

    Visit smile.amazon.com

    Sign in with the same account you use for Amazon.com 

    Select your charity. Be sure to select Factnet Inc. (Job One for Humanity is a DBA, and a part of the 25-year-old 501c(3), IRS-recognized, US tax-deductible, not-for-profit organization called Factnet.)

    Start shopping! Remember to always start at smile.amazon.com to generate donations for your chosen charity.

    Tip: Add a bookmark to make it easier to shop at smile.amazon.com for the next time you buy something.

    How to use AmazonSmile using the Amazon app on your mobile phone:

    Open the Amazon Shopping app.

    Navigate to the main menu (=)

    Tap on Settings and then select "AmazonSmile."

    Select your charity. Be sure to select Factnet Inc. (Job One for Humanity is a DBA, and a part of the 25-year-old 501c(3), IRS-recognized, US tax-deductible, not-for-profit organization called Factnet.) Then follow the on-screen instructions to turn ON AmazonSmile in the mobile app

    Once AmazonSmile has been activated in your app, future eligible app purchases will generate a donation for the charity you have selected.

    Note: The tablet app is not yet supported. Please visit smile.amazon.com/onthego to learn more.

    Other Ways to Donate, Personal Property, Planned Giving:

    Planned Giving

    Will/Bequest

    Specific Bequest

    Residual Bequest

    Contingent Bequest

    Trust Bequests

    Irrevocable Trusts

    Revocable Trusts

    Individual Trusts

    Life Income

    Charitable Gift Annuity

    Charitable Remainder Trust

    Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust

    Charitable Remainder Unitrust

    Charitable Lead Trust

    Life Insurance

    Retirement Plans

     

    Our Responsible Donation Management

    Contributions to Job One for Humanity are treated with special stewardship and the utmost respect for your intent. All donations will be used in a manner consistent with our stated goals, values, mission and in accordance with the highest administrative practices of not-for-profit spiritual organizations. Donations received in excess of our operating budget and costs, will be held in reserves and invested in a socially responsible manner.

    This contributes to:

    • Conscious allocation of resources in investments with values.
    • Replenishment instead of depletion of resources.
    • Multiplying abundance and making a difference within a context of sufficiency.
    • Prospecting a sustainable future for society and the environment.

    To learn more about socially responsible investing click here
    To learn more about the advantage of the tax benefits associated with donating click here.

     


  • The Benefits of Personalized Democracy

    On an earlier page of this Universe Community overview, we promised to list out the benefits of a new form of personalized democracy. Personalized democracy will be a significant and ever-evolving part of our new Universe communities.

    Here is the promised benefit shortlist of our new form of direct Personalized Democracy. Much more will be released on it to new members before June 2021:

    1. Each citizen's voice is both captured and directly implemented in all governmental actions that affect them. This means "majoritarian" voting oppression is eliminated.

    2. To achieve the equivalent of current legislative action, a group of coordinators is formed who are experts in each needed aspect of a social rule. Their oath is to create a process that fulfills as many requests as possible within the boundaries of sustainability and social equity. That is, a government body no longer selects laws from 2 polarized bills created by representatives. Laws are constructed using community communication processes that fully address and implement every citizen's voice, within the constraints of a sustainable natural world and in balance with community needs.

    3. Every citizen is given a direct voice to track and evaluate all programs' implementation and effectiveness. This ensures accurate and fair outcomes for all programs.

    4. Because governing actions directly represent all people's will, there are no longer elections of people to whom the power of decision is granted. This means there are no longer political parties that divide society. Joint social action is instead steered to the optimization of the Quality of Life for each person.

    5. Because both laws and implementation are based on all citizens' direct involvement, corruption, and racist or favored group-biased implementation are inherently eliminated.

    6. This new form of direct democracy leads directly to eliminating authoritarianism and destructive predatory competition from all businesses, institutions, and organizations. The currently needed warning "Buyer Beware" is eliminated from society, replaced by a much higher cooperative competition principle. All organizations exist first for the benefit and wellbeing of citizens and the society, then for the benefit of their specific purpose.

    7. Discoveries have been made that identify severe limitations in human mental abilities to deal with modern complexity. The operating principles of Personalized Democracy incorporate methods to eliminate these limitations and the interpersonal strife we observe as gridlock in governments, the polarization of society, and war.

    If you are interested in joining any of the above types of Universe communities, go to this joining and getting started page now.


  • How to Become a Universe Community Member

    One can become a Universe community member and closely follow this unique community's ideals and values. One can also create a new kind of eco-community based on some of our ideals and values or other ideals and values altogether. One can even become a member and contribute to developing one of our four types of Universe communities without strictly following the Universe community ideals and values. 

    To become a Universe Community member, or to receive new community informational support, or to contribute to the development of these new eco-communities, follow these steps:

    1. Be sure you have read this link for the general qualities recommended for new Universe Community members. Creating and being a part of the four types of Universe communities will be very challenging. Having most of the qualities listed on this page (or aspiring to them) is essential to become one of the communities' early adopter member-co-creators.

    This requirement does not mean that you cannot start or self-organize your eco-community experiment with any plan, team, or location you chose. And, you can still use all of the open-source information and tools we have provided in the member's section to start your unique new eco-community. It just means that if you don't have most of the listed member qualities, you will most likely not flourish in the four different kinds of Universe communities (as described in our member's section.)

    2. If you have not done so already, please review go to our older online Universe community booklet at Universe Spirit. Its additional topics and linked documents will give you a fair and greatly expanded idea of our values, practices, policies, and science-grounded background. It also answers many common questions you may still have concerning if being a part of the Universe communities will work well for you and your family.

    3. Next, become a member on either one of the Job One or Universe Spirit websites. Follow each website's procedure to apply for membership. (See the Job One membership page here. See the Universe Spirit membership page.) You can start your own eco-community without becoming a member, but you must be a member to be active in any Universe community activities.

    4. Next, please send us an email at [email protected] or UniverseSpirit.org. In the body of that email and not as an attachment, please tell us which of the four types of Universe Communities you want to join or help create. Be sure to let us know about you and your current location. If you are considering relocation to where.

    Let us know about your skills, education, and experience that you feel would be most useful in these communities. Also, let us know what you would most like to do and what kinds of volunteer positions you feel most qualified for.

    Click here for a list of our key volunteer positions.

    We will look over your email information and get back to you as quickly as is possible. If everything looks good we will include directions for introducing yourself to your local, virtual, or nearest Universe community liaison, coordinator, or leader. If you are the first person to contact us from your location, and you would like to lead the formation of a new Universe community in that location, support will be provided to help you do that as more volunteers show up and we continue to grow. 

    5. While you are waiting to hear back from us, please get started on the Job One for Humanity Survive and Thrive Plan steps today. Please get busy on these first actions and help us save and salvage as much humanity and our beautiful civilization as possible while we still have time! The action steps in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Job One Plan are much of what the Universe communities initially do at a beginning community support level as well.

    If you are already a Job One or Universe Spirit member and want to get involved, use the same procedure above, but do not rejoin.

    Additional Important Potential Member Reading

    What the Universe Community is not. We are not trying to create a Utopia, but new types of communities that will learn, evolve, survive, grow, and thrive through the hard times and consequences ahead. We will do this by modeling necessary new practices intended by example to create a more sustainable, equitable, and just world so that our communities may become "beacons of light" and living examples of the new behaviors the post-global warming extinction and the post-collapse world will need.

    Is the Universe Community a Survivalist Community?

    For the Vision, Principles, and Structure for Our New Global Warming Resistant Eco-communities, click here. (This page is being upgraded, but it will give a good idea of what we are striving for in many areas. Please note: Pages in this booklet have been viewed almost 20,000 times.)


  • The Four Types of Universe Communities

    (Please Note: As you read the four types of Universe communities we hope will come into being, we do not have the people or resources currently in place to make these new communities a reality. For the last 20 years, we have focused on gathering the most critical information needed to make these new communities reasonably successful. 

    It will now take new individuals to appear with resources who hear our call and realize its legitimacy. It will be these individuals who will self-organize and build the first Universe communities with the information and tools that we are now providing.)

    Introduction

    As you will soon discover, the new Universe Communities are capable of doing many things. Three of the four types of Universe communities are also designed to be prepared to survive any large-scale global or regional emergency.

    This emergency preparedness includes being ready for crises such as:

    a. accelerating global warming,

    b. large-scale resource depletion, 

    c. economic instabilities, 

    d. distribution breakdowns, 

    e. more pandemics,

    d. economic crashes, deep recessions or depressions, 

    f. breakdowns of law and order, governments, etc. 

    (The many emergencies, crises, and local and global challenges that these communities must survive over the following next few decades are described in detail in this article.)

    At the worst, these new small communities, sanctuaries, and micro-cultures should allow you (and your families) to survive through the coming difficult times with as much peace, stability, security, comfort, happiness, and meaningful relationships that remain possible. At the same time, many of our large macro-cultures will be convulsing and collapsing.

    These new communities located in global warming safer areas may also turn out to be humanity's best chances to save and salvage whatever we can of society and civilization.

    These global warming safer areas (or migrations to them) are done exclusively so that humanity and civilization will survive and thrive over the coming decades and eventually re-emerge to reboot the world onto a wiser, better path.

    In the safest land-based locations, individuals can look forward to a higher probability of having meaningful lives in the post-extinction and subsequent Great Collapse and Great Rebirth cycle. A better life to come can also occur once nature and the consequences from humanity's previous bad decisions have run their course. 

    The Universe Community Global Structure

    The Job One for Humanity and Universe Spirit organizations focus on educating individuals and businesses about what is avoidable and what is unavoidable in the face of many rapidly unfolding environmental and social global collapse processes. Its primary mission is to help individuals, as a society, prepare for and optimally adapt to survive the coming collapses.

    These nonprofit organizations will help individuals form groups and communities that will evolve and create sustainable lifestyles, and livelihoods in global warming and crisis-safer locations. Job One for Humanity will also continue to educate governments and support government-driven migration, infrastructure transfer, and emergency backup programs to deal with the accelerating global warming extinction emergency. 

    Universe Spirit provides a broad science-grounded knowledge base, focusing on biological evolution, to explain what is developing in both society and the physical world. This "fact-based" foundation is then used to create remedial "survive and thrive" strategies. 

    Universe Spirit also contains a science-balanced and healthy vision of open-source personal spirituality called Evolution Spirituality. This vision uniquely captures a new moral and ethical "high road" to achieve a sustainable, equitable, thriving future for all while also providing the most profound meaning, purpose, and values needed to emotionally and spiritually survive the coming hardships.

    The Universe Community Structure Options

    An important part of the bond that defines our organization is our shared belief that the world will soon be facing a severe and unavoidable cascading chain of global warming and these other interconnected catastrophes and collapses. Anticipating these catastrophes and collapses, we are following two paths while we also do everything we can through demanding government action to mitigate and lessen the coming tragedies:

    a. One way is educating about how to create three kinds of land-based sustainable eco-communities.

    b. The other way is to promote the gathering of a virtual online worldwide support and action community.

    (If you are uncertain about the seriousness of what we mean when we say the world is facing an unavoidable accelerating chain of catastrophes, click here. To see the government actions we must resolutely push while building these communities, click here.)

    What are the four types of Universe communities?

    The Universe Community (UC) program includes four community types: ( three land-based; one virtual.) All three of the land-based paths are defined by physical, land-based groupings of individuals. These physically close member relationships will provide a higher potential to survive and thrive by being closer-knit communities of mutual support and advanced preparation and adaptation.

    Everyone who is volunteering and co-ordinating or co-creating any of the 4 types of Universe communities will have open-source access to all of the evolving information on the creation, maintenance, and expansion of these communities. Please note that all 4 types of Universe communities will be created by new volunteers. Additionally, because the staff at Job One for Humanity and Universe Spirit are all over 50, we will not be migrating ourselves to these new land-based communities because the limited global warmer safer lands must be ethically preserved for those under 30 and those with very young children.  

    The following provides more details on each of these four community paths:

    1. The Integrated Universe Community Option 

    This is a land-based community located in areas known to be at LOW risk of climate damage and LOW social unrest. These individuals could live separately in private homes, either near each other or even with each other in some form of communal housing. This kind of community would also have the ability to attract a large membership to the area capable of exerting enough influence on its surrounding population to gain some level of independence in its culture and economic and political activity.

    These communities can be structured to follow surrounding urban, suburban, and rural architectures worldwide. They will preferably use repurposed existing structures rather than building from scratch to minimize environmental impact and start quickly. 

    As such, to a surrounding community, they would appear not unlike any other "immigrant" implant community with its own culture and commercial practices. For example, consider the many religious groups who are conspicuous because of dress, holiday observance, religious schooling, etc. While adopting many cultural changes in these new areas, these people will not appear any more disruptive to the surrounding people than the range of current norms. Integrated community members would also be expected to participate in most of the essential activities of the communities surrounding them.

    The Universe One version of the Integrated community model is primarily a community for those in close agreement with the Universe community values, and already in or can migrate to a climate and migration safe living area. (Some individuals will choose to create their own independent integrative communities and we wish them success with that as well.)

     Here are some additional special efforts that apply to an Integrated Community:

    Actions will be taken to prepare for long and even persistent social and material disruptions. These will not only include establishing stockpiles of food and materials but also manufacturing facilities for necessary items.

    Actions will be taken to establish "preferred" trade links and transportation systems to supply "necessities" that can not be produced in the local community.

    Because of eventual and anticipated breakdowns in social structure and governance at all levels, actions will be taken to organize the community to overcome any outdated or corrupt processes causing the world's breakdowns. 

    The above will be accomplished while, at the same time, trying to maintain peaceful adherence to and interaction with local customs in the "surrounding community." (More details describing the basics for how much of this will be accomplished are presented on the Job One and Universe Spirit websites. A reading guide for this material is included at the end of this article.)

    Please also be aware that the Universe Integrated Communities are the farthest along in their creation having seed liaisons/organizers in several key areas willing to help others migrate to those selected and currently secret areas. 

    Universe One: The first Universe Integrated Community

    Universe One is the first Integrated Universe community to form, and it is now taking applications. The Universe One eco-community is created directly by the volunteer staff and management team at Job One for Humanity and Universe Spirit.

    Universe One will also be the new relocated administrative headquarters for Job One for Humanity and Universe Spirit and the relocated new homes of willing Job One for Humanity and Universe Spirit volunteers and members. 

    The Universe One community is the community vision upon which we have spent the most time and resources to find the best area for the safest relocation area that would survive best in the US with global warming and the other 11 global crises worsening. It is also a membership by-application-only community.

    As the first of the Universe communities, it will strive to reflect the highest application of the ideas, values, and principles found on the Job One for Humanity and Universe Spirit websites. If you feel that you are well aligned with the ideas, values, and principles found on the Job One for Humanity and Universe Spirit websites, and you are interested in becoming a part of our community, please follow the application instructions on another page of this document.

    For those needing to migrate soon and be a part of the first Universe Integrated Communities: Universe One

    If you are not in a climate safer location and you are financially able to move on your own, your first step is applying and being accepted for Universe One membership. Once accepted for membership, migration and the current location information will be provided to help you make a wise decision to select the best land or new home in the Universe One area. 

    Please note we do not give out Universe One's location until you have been accepted as a provisional member and passed through our interviewing process. Universe one is the safest practical location we could find after many visits to many areas and complex and costly evaluations.

    Universe One is located where there was the convergence of the most safety and security factors, and the area is still affordable to middle-class and lower-middle-class individuals. It is in a climate where there will be cold winters and considerable snowfall alternating with warm and humid summers. (Areas other than the Universe One location where independent Integrated communities are being seeded are listed further below.)

    2. The Satellite Universe Community: 

    (Please note the Satellite community model has not yet begun as it is waiting for new volunteers to create it.)

    This is a land-based community that can be located anywhere in the world. It has either a very sparse membership (compared to its surroundings) or is found in a location known to be at high risk of climate damage or social unrest. Its members are close enough to meet occasionally physically, usually live in separate housing, but have little ability to significantly change the larger community.

    Their membership gives them the benefit of UC knowledge, companionship, and support to plan for emergency preparedness and self-protection during the crises to come. They also would use the Universe community's cultural changes and values, but these will not appear to most people as any more disruptive than the range of current norms.

    The Universe Satellite Community will allow you to make temporary preparations and adaptations right where you live now! Individuals and small groups will receive informational and virtual support from the existing membership in other Universe communities. These Satellite communities can be formed in any part of the world. Their culture and commercial structures can vary widely. 

    Here is a summary of the typical steps you would take to integrate into one of these communities after being accepted for membership.

    1. You will receive a lot of informational support material. What is essential at this point is to find out the "alignment" of your community role. Your new role will depend on a large number of factors like: your type of housing, what you do for employment, any special skills you have, your skill levels in those areas; any public roles or positions you have; your interests and hobbies, etc. Of particular importance is understanding the key reasons you chose to join the Universe community.

    Based on this information, you will be given contact information for other members in your area to help you integrate into the community. Specifically, however, the following elements will be true:

    You will continue to live, in your current housing situation.

    You will continue to work, in your current employment.

    A large part of your "free time" will turn toward the community's efforts to prepare for the coming crises.

    As you "learn your way around the community," including attending volunteered offered training programs, you will have the opportunity to also lead various efforts.

    As a member, you will have access to all the preparedness, sustainability, and management guidance information developed for participation within any Universe community. 

    (This above information assumes there is already an active Satalitte community at your current location, or you will start one. If you want to establish a new community, see the new member "how to join" section at the end of this overview to provide relevant details. After joining, expect to be contacted by your community coordinator based on the information provided during the membership process. 

    We will set up a Zoom group video "question and answers" meeting for those most interested in getting started in a Universe Satalite community as soon as we have completed some critical volunteer staffing requirements for this particular project.)

    3. The Unified Universe Community: 

    (Please note the Unified community model has not yet begun as it is waiting for new volunteers to create it.)

    This is a land-based community that is essentially built from the ground up with legal provisions to establish a community boundary and exclude non-members from the community. It would only be located in an area known to be at LOW risk of climate damage and LOW social unrest. Its residential accommodations and commercial structures would be custom designed to support an ideal and sustainable Universe community culture and commerce.

    A Universe Unified Community is a “contiguous” physical community that is mostly composed of Universe community members. That means the land, living structures, and commercial structures within a bounded area defined as the “community” are mostly owned or operated by Universe community members. These communities will all be located in climate, migration, and other critical crisis safer living areas.

    These types of Universe communities will take many years to build and require millions of dollars in financing.

     

    What, of course, differentiates the “Unified” community from the “Integrated” community is the absence of interspersed social and commercial activities that differ from Universe community values and practices. 

    There are two different models for how such “Unified” communities could emerge. The first and most difficult is to build a unified eco-community from the ground up. Such a community could realistically include about 500 to about 2,000 individuals on about 2,000 to 10,000 acres of fertile land. 

    Such a community could take an estimated 10 to 20 years to complete. Its major obstacle will be financing because of the cost of building all the structures, plus installing all the infrastructure, i.e., utilities, sewer, roads, etc. However, such communities are not impossible, as the explosive growth of entire “suburbs” has shown in California and the Southwest.

     The second model starts with a thriving “Integrated” community established in a relatively sparse or abandoned area of an existing city or town. As the community becomes successful, it can attract local people or purchase additional properties from non Universe community citizens selling their properties. 

    While including all the steps shown for both the Satellite and Integrated Communities above, the Unified Community would add the following elements:

    1. the ability to grow substantial amounts of “local” food in both fertile farms and aquaponics pods. 

    2. the reorganization of social culture and commercial markets in the form of the ideals of Personalized Democracy could become complete. This reorganization would produce an explosion of creativity and personal freedoms. It would also eliminate many human-made oppressions humans have suffered from since the dawn of “civilization.”

    3. crime, poverty, homelessness, starvation, racism, and commercial wage-slavery would eventually be eliminated. 

    4. reduced transport costs, environmental harm, and improved food quality.

    Along with a substantially reduced world population, these steps will finally bring about the abundance, and excellent quality of life humans have always sought.

    (This project is off in the future for quite a while. It will take a very large team of well-financed, dedicated and skilled volunteers to lead it.)

    4. The Virtual Universe Community: 

    (Please note the Virtual community model has not yet begun as it is waiting for new volunteers to create it.)

    This community path consists of developing a virtually connected community of individuals. These are physically remote members, who share common Job One for Humanity and Universe Spirit values, but are currently unable to move into other existing communities.

    Their primary activity will be collecting and promoting climate, ecological and other needed evidence and facts. They will provide trustworthy resources to help other members who have self-organized local eco-communities or cooperatives and for those who have moved to safer locations to continue the necessary development and adaptation for looming disasters. 

    Three factors unite these virtual members into a community:

    1. They share common Universe Community values;

    2. They can turn to other community members for mutual support and survival. This mutual support action draws on the community's shared worldview to provide relevant help.

    3. The community members are strongly driven by a mutual "love of knowledge and truth." They understand the importance of having a compendium of knowledge based on reliable facts. 

    4. they can turn to the Universe Community for reliable information about global warming, migration, and other related world crises issues, and 

    5. they are primarily "identified" by subject matter interest. For example, sub online groups and communities will form around interests like climate change, resource depletion, psychology, medicine, permaculture, net-zero home design, etc. Many hundreds of online interest groups like this are expected.

    Membership in this virtual community gives one the benefit of ALL UC knowledge to improve their individual development, adaptation, and protection.

    These are a Universe community based primarily online. While their members may meet physically for meetings or conferences, they wouldn't meet physically with frequency. Furthermore, they are not geographically bounded as the "land-based" communities are. They are intentionally structured to develop online a broad international, supportive, internet-connected community of individuals and small organizations. 

    Their primary activity will be collecting evidence-based subject matter of relevance and subsequently adding it into community knowledge databases. Like members of the Satellite Community, their membership gives them the benefit of ALL UC knowledge to improve their individual development, adaptation, and protection.

    Each community's primary activity will be collecting climate and social truth information related to their subject interest and adding it into specialized knowledge forums and databases. These forums and databases will have novel provisions that achieve the following:

      • The information is easily accessible, even for complex subjects.
      • Data is entered in a form that allows biases to be spotted.
      • Knowledge entries are "comprehensive." That is, "mainstream" control is eliminated.
      • The data capture process overcomes the significant flaws that have crippled most internet discussions and communications.
      • Commercial firms or governments will no longer control knowledge with political or other bias.
      • All members will have no-cost access to the database, both for finding and reading information and for contributing knowledge.

    This combination of provisions gives a virtual Universe community membership great value because it will provide a new level of visibility for people and organizations worldwide and easy access to the highest levels of natural truth. Specifically:

      • They can discover wisdom and creativity in the new concepts presented by the Universe community model
      • They see personal, social, and possibly professional benefits for applying the new concepts to their efforts
      • They see the benefits of belonging to the Universe community for the unique networking opportunities it will provide them
      • They understand the survival need for the mutual support these collaborative and supportive virtual eco-communities can bring. 
      • They see within themselves the qualities and aspirations sought in the Universe community principles and values.
      • They see in themselves unique talents to contribute to and be acknowledged for making improvements to the community's efforts and the world as a whole.

    Common similarities between the four types of Universe communities

    Given the above specific differences for the four community types, all four Universe communities also have the following similarities:

      1. A primary goal is bringing together, either physically or virtually, a very diverse group of individuals working peacefully toward similar goals.
      2. Interactions with others will be approached as mutual learning experiences based on our foundation of natural knowledge and scientific inquiry processes.
      3. After secure and established in their communities, individuals or groups would also begin to guide newer members.
      4. All USC members will be expected to be tolerant of all other members' diverse "heritage cultures" on an individual by individual basis. This tolerance factor can be enhanced using the creative new approaches of Personalized Democracy.
      5. All members will be expected to accept and practice the member "Qualities" listed elsewhere in this overview and linked in the Job One and Universe Spirit websites' materials.
      6. We anticipate the creation of many of the different types of Universe communities around the world. Once established, these communities might also engage in trade and barter of goods and services that they might not produce in their area.
      7. We also acknowledge that any USC established will have to live and work among existing cultures that may differ from those of the USC.

    We will set up a Zoom group video "question and answers" meeting for those most interested in getting started in the Universe Virtual community as soon as we have completed some additional and  critical volunteer staffing requirements needed for this project)

    Factors that Unite the Members of the Integrated, Satellite, Unified, and Virtual Universe Communities:

    1. They share common Universe Community values.

    2. They can turn to other members of the community for mutual survival and support. This trust draws on the community's shared worldview.

    3. Community members are strongly driven by a mutual "love of knowledge and truth." They understand the importance of having and using a compendium of knowledge based on reliable facts. This shared knowledge is a primary foundation for joint action and assistance.

    The previous three items define the primary activity of the community. That is, each member will use their skills to collect evidence-based subject matter of relevance to creating a sustainable, surviving, and thriving community in a collapsing world. The new knowledge being developed will be subsequently added into a new Universal knowledge database. 

    Membership in any of the Universe community types gives them the benefit of ALL UC knowledge to improve their individual development, adaptation, and protection. 

    How the New Universe Communities Will Come into Existence and Grow

    Several factors will drive the creation and growth rates of the four different types of Universe Communities:

      1. How fast and how many self-organizing competent volunteers show up to help us with this challenge of historic dimensions,
      2. The natural forces of evolution, 
      3. The dynamics of how fast things worsen and where they worsen will also be a decisive selection factor for community growth and which communities grow the fastest,
      4. How new volunteers will maintain and expand these new communities.

    Regarding Volunteering:

    For any of the four kinds of Universe communities to appear, there must be people who understand our emergency's urgency need to come forward and take one of the many self-organizing volunteer leadership positions available. Then they will then need to self-organize and self-finance their chosen project area with other volunteers with similar interests. 

    The Universe community needs many kinds of volunteers. We need community liaisons, coordinators, and leaders/co-creators:

    1. Community liaisons already live in the area or are highly knowledgeable about it. They share that information with new or potentially new members.

    2. Community coordinators are more involved in greeting and supporting new or potential new members and assisting them in coming up to speed on what the community is doing. Among other things, a coordinator might set up and oversee a community buying cooperative.

    3. Community leaders/co-creators do everything necessary to lead, maintain, or co-create these new eco-communities.

    Here are just a few of the four community type of specialized positions we need to fill quickly:

    1. Integrated Universe community liaisons, coordinators, and leader/co-creators: These are individuals who want to liaise, organize or lead a Universe Integrated community in a new global warming safer area. They also want to collectively get prepared for and execute the Job One Plan's steps most applicable to their group's resources and interests. (This kind of  community is farthest along with existing seed liaisons already in global warming safe areas.)
    2. Satellite Universe community liaisons, coordinators, and leaders/co-creators: These are individuals who want to organize or lead a new Universe Satalite community in their existing area. They also want to collectively prepare for and act on the Job One Plan's steps most applicable to their group's resources and interests.
    3. Virtual Universe community liaisons, coordinators, and leaders/co-creators: These are individuals or groups who want to help organize and run the virtual Universe community. Here they will also help others get prepared and act on the Job One Plan's steps most applicable to that virtual individual's (or group's) resources and interests. The virtual community will need discussion forum administrators, moderators, content creators, researchers, and software engineers, among other positions.
    4. Unified Universe community liaisons, coordinators, and leaders/co-creators: These are individuals or groups who want to help organize and run the Unified Universe communities.
    5. For the many other Universe community volunteer positions and projects currently available within our organizations, please click here.

    All active volunteers helping to create these new Universe communities will receive free annual membership and access to all members-only areas of our Job One and Universe Spirit websites during their first 90 days of volunteering.

    Seeds of the First Universe Communities

    Almost all of the currently forming Universe communities below are close to the 45th parallel North in the US or Canada. Each of the areas listed below now has a community liaison living in that area (or knowledgeable about it) that can help with local migration information. (The areas below still need to recruit community coordinators and leader/co-creators to bring them into operational reality as communities.)

    Our first new Universe community seed areas are:

    a. Eastern Washington State/Western Idaho, 

    b. the Vancouver and Vancouver Islands area in British Columbia, Canada, 

    c. northeastern upper Wisconsin/ northeastern Upper Michigan, 

    If you are interested in being part of a Universe community in any of these areas, other than the Universe One community please let us know by following the "how to join" information later in this Universe community overview. Be sure to let us know which current migration location above most interests you. (Please note in our members-only section there are migration checklists and other local information to help you migrate.)

    These first communities need well-resourced, highly developed, and skilled individuals to build them out. These early adopters are also individuals who are highly willing to learn, adapt, evolve, and thrive.

    Let us know if you want to be a liaison, coordinator, or leader for a new worldwide location. 

    As new eco-communities form in new areas, we will add them to the running list above. 

    As appropriate, we will connect you to the liaison, coordinators, or leaders for that forming Universe community.

    Timeframes for the When Four Types of Universe Communities Will Come into Existence, Our Projected Timelines 

    The launch of the four types of new Universe Communities will occur in the general phases and time frames described below. The roll-out time deadlines or sequences for the projects listed below will vary depending upon:

    1. having enough skilled volunteers show up to help co-create and manage each particular phase and,

    2. new information requiring that we adapt and evolve these time frames and deadlines accordingly.

    For instance, because Satellite communities are easier to build in existing locations than migration-dependent Integrated communities into global warming safer locations. Satellite communities may start sooner than the timeline below. This early start for the Satellite communities will be especially true if volunteers in existing cities let us know that they want to get started immediately with the Job One for Humanity emergency preparation and adaptation steps (found in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Job One plan.)  

    If you are interested in any project below, let us know, even if it is before the project officially launches. Please email us at [email protected] and put the Project number (1,2,3,4,5,6) in the subject line, so your email is routed to the correct team member.

    Project 1: July 2021-2022

    Basic, person-to-person recruiting for all communities starts. In Phase 1, and as the first priority for the virtual and other types of Universe communities we will need volunteers for the following areas:

    • A Deputy Project Director will be key to developing the four types of Universe communities.
    • Volunteer Manager who will help inspire, train, and manage the first community member/volunteers.

    We need to have the above key volunteers in place before we can launch and/or expand any of the four kinds new of communities listed below. Having dedicated volunteers trained and ready to help others will ensure our success and a smooth launch. 

    Project 2: Dates to be determined by new volunteers

    We have already begun recruiting for the Universe One integrated community described above.

    We will be setting up a Zoom group video "question and answers" meeting for those accepted as soon as we have completed some critical administrative and volunteer staffing requirements for the Universe One project.

    Project 3: Dates to be determined by new volunteers

    Private Recruiting for the Universe Integrated Communities starts

    • This will be primarily for recruiting Integrated community liaisons, leaders, or key implementers who will begin an Integrated Universe community in their chosen migration area and, among other things,
    • start its members on the emergency preparation and adaptation steps found in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Job One plan.

    We will set up an early-bird Zoom group video "question and answers" meeting for those most interested in getting started as soon as we have completed some critical volunteer staffing requirements for this particular project.

    Project 4: Dates to be determined by new volunteers

    Private Recruiting for the Universe Satellite Communities starts (Private recruiting in most cases means that someone will personally refer and recommend you to someone on our team, and then we will contact you.)

    • This private Satalite community recruiting will be primarily for community leaders or key implementers who will begin a Satellite Universe community in their chosen area and, among other things, start its members on the emergency preparation and adaptation steps found in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Job One plan.

    We will set up a Zoom group video "question and answers" meeting for those most interested in getting started as soon as we have completed some critical volunteer staffing requirements for this particular project.

    Project 5: Dates to be determined by new volunteers

    For the Virtual Community we will be recruiting volunteers for the following areas:

    Computer Science Specialist to help us find or create the best labor tracking software. We want to find or make the best barter/time tracking software so that volunteers and members without adequate finances can trade/barter their services with other better-financed community volunteers and members. They could also use this barter/trades software for community housing, health, and other community services.

    • Human Resource Manager to assist the eco-community project director on all Universe community personnel issues
    • Discussion forum moderators 
    • Software programmers - online Forum development
    • Software programmers - large scale database experience
    • Software programmers - project management software
    • Software programmers - new virtual work credit currencies
    • Individuals or organizations with topic interests that have temporary data storage resources
    • Many topic specialists willing to be topic managers or to contribute– to be announced in detail one the JobOne website
    • Complete software systems testing for new Universe Community communication, coordination, contribution tracking, and new volunteer training 

    We will set up an early-bird Zoom group video "question and answers" meeting for those most interested in getting started as soon as we have completed some critical volunteer staffing requirements for this particular project.

    Project 6: Dates to be determined by new volunteers

    Recruiting for the ground-up Universe Unified Communities starts

    • This will be primarily for community leaders or key implementers who will begin a Unified Universe community in their chosen migration area.

    If you are interested in joining any of the above types of Universe communities, go to this joining and getting started page now.

     

     

     


  • Essential Community and Member Qualities

    What distinguishes Universe community members from members of other eco-communities is their core values and social commitments. These are not a trivial handful of ideas. They are a broad list of life principles described in-depth on the Job One for Humanity and the Universe Spirit websites.

     

     

    Our principles directly related to our communities and members efforts can be summarized by the following qualities:

    Physical Qualities and Characteristics of the Universe communities

    1. full-cycle sustainability, sustainable gardens, and farms - (Agrihoods)
    2. net zero by zero combustion (to eliminate global warming and air pollution)
    3. full-cycle recycling and low resource consumption
    4. environmentally sensitive, balanced policies and practices limiting over-consumption
    5. net-zero energy principles for construction or retrofits 
    6. off-the-grid independence and green energy generation as much as is feasible
    7. commitment to lifelong ongoing education, personal development, and growth (We are committed to creating both online and land-based courses for all member's ongoing community and other educational needs)
    8. community shared wellness, preventive healthcare, emotional and psychological support
    9. nutrition and physical fitness-based health practices with information exchange 
    10. Commitment to vegan or mostly vegan lifestyle
    11. use the best science and appropriate technologies to guide individual and group economic and social processes into a sustainable yet dynamic balance
    12. support balance between work and recreation
    13. survivability, preparedness, selective redundancy, and resilience practices

    Social and Cultural Qualities of our Universe Communities

    The community will offer places that:

    1. are safe and secure, 
    2. value rationality based on evidence-based science 
    3. promote collaboration and cooperation
    4. promote highly productive and meaningful lives
    5. are loving, beautiful, compassionate, and joyful despite the severe challenges we now face
    6. promote reciprocality within community transactions and actions
    7. incorporate new modes of fair value exchange that achieve economic justice
    8. creates individual and community financial wellbeing without poverty, homelessness, or starvation.
    9. uses a new form of personalized, direct democracy referred to as Personalized Democracy (This is described in more detail further down in this overview.)
    10. reflect the best philosophies from our secular heritages
    11. are committed to listening, evaluating, and recording relevant feedback
    12. promote rapid learning, adaptability, and evolvability 
    13. incorporate cooperative leaders and leadership in advisory roles, and decision making
    14. base advancement in leadership and reward on merit
    15. exhibit high social diversity
    16. exhibit non-discriminatory social justice throughout
    17. support and promote individual agency, freedom, self-organization, personal responsibility, and holding healthy boundaries
    18. allows for efficient individual and collective consequence capture so that both the individual and the community learn and adapt faster from any action's feedback by quickly capturing either the benefits or adverse effects of their own actions,
    19. uses new technology methods such as secure and safe servers to preserve humanity's history of great literature, culture, science, and art
    20. apply enlightened population management of one new child per existing family
    21. safeguard and check the actions of possible bad actors harming individuals in any Universe community. This is done in part by promoting the unique "forking off" principle and practice of the open-source software design community. (This forking principle promotes that new Universe communities should always fork off from any existing Universe community and form a new Universe community whenever the community's leadership repeatedly fails to follow important Universe community values, principles, and practices. (These would be repeated actions and failures severe in nature that fail to protect both individual and community wellbeing.)

    Evolutionary and Eco-Spiritual Qualities of Universe Communities

    The community will offer a place that will:

      1. express humanist, progressive, universalized, and tolerant values and where similar personal spiritual practices will always feel comfortable and valued
      2. align with the secular, moral, and spiritual values as expressed on the Universe Spirit website relating to Evolution Spirituality
      3. include and transcend the best practices and values from humanity's vast spiritual heritage

    Other Qualifying Universe Community Member Qualities

    The complexity of modern society is staggering, especially within social organizations. They vary from different religions to personal philosophies, to nationalities, to political parties, etc. 

    Being a member of the Universe Community isn't for everyone. Like being a successful member of any substantial organization, it requires a good alignment with the organization's philosophy and a sincere personal commitment. Below is an additional "checklist" of qualities to which most Universe community members agree. They will also help you decide if you are qualified and might like to be a part of our co-creative, planned community. (You do not have to all of these qualities now, but you should at least aspire to develop them within our community.)

    Universe community members:

      1. Are productive individuals, many with a history of effective social action and community involvement,
      2. Realize that the world's societies are on an accelerating path of escalating ecological, climate, economic, and social catastrophes, disasters, and collapses,
      3. Accept that these coming catastrophes are primarily due to humanity's changeable previous actions and choices,
      4. Accept a progressive and caring new world model of sustainably and equitably sharing the Earth with others,
      5. Appreciate the urgency for consequential and substantial evolutionary changes in our economic, social, and governmental systems,
      6. Are generous, reciprocal in nature, and willing to equitably contribute financially to the community's well being and maintenance in return for the community contributing to their maintenance and wellbeing,
      7. Manifest abilities to delay gratification and understand the value of sacrifice and self-discipline especially as it will apply to surviving what is coming,  
      8. Believe that a compassionate and efficient meritocracy can produce enough surplus to support the needs of any members who, for legitimate reason, are unable to work, 
      9. Love knowledge and wisdom and see themselves engaged in a lifelong learning process,
      10. Value working with others to create these new experimental communities that can become "beacons of light" for a more sustainable and equitable world,
      11. Seek to support the conscious and successful evolution of humanity within the greater adventure of planetary and universe evolution, 
      12. See themselves as Evolutioneers (individuals grounded in rationality and science who are willing to intentionally and continuously learn, adapt, and evolve for both the good of themselves and the shared good of all.) and also,
      13. See themselves as Planetary Citizens (or global citizens) and possibly even Universe Citizens.

     

    Click here to see the next page of this document. It describes the four different kinds of Universe Communities and how and when they will be launched. This page will help you decide which Universe community type is best for your current situation.


  • published What are Universe Eco-Communities in Members 2021-01-20 12:45:35 -0800

    What are the New Survive to Thrive Universe Eco-Communities

    Prologue

    The best chance of surviving a global warming-triggered Great Global Collapse and the unavoidable extinction of much of humanity by mid-century is by being a part of a well-prepared, well-designed eco-community. Many pages on our two websites will help you create these critically needed new eco-communities in the safest possible locations and recruit community members with the best qualities to weather the many storms ahead.

    It is a major goal of our organization to support the creation of many new eco-communities of Evolutioneers in global warming safer locations. To reach this goal we have provided essential information for this eco-community-building effort. The information on our eco-community pages was designed to help you prepare for, adapt to, and survive the rapidly accelerating global warming emergency and the steady worsening of our 11 other major global crises.

    Building new Universe styled eco-communities is vital because individuals, small family groups, or clans will not be large enough or able to provide enough resources or backup defense necessary to make it through the later stages of the great global collapse and post collapse transitional dark age. Only those sustainable eco-communities that are well-prepared, well-defended, and that have the deepest emotional, philosophical, and shared spiritual ties will have the physical, psychological, and spiritual resilience needed to survive the horrors and difficult daily decisions they will be forced to make to survive.

    Both Job One for Humanity and its sister website Universe Spirit will provide this critical physical, psychological, and spiritual information these new eco-communities need. (Job One will focus on the physical and emotional aspects of being well prepared and adapting to what is coming, and Universe Spirit will focus on the equally important best philosophical and spiritual common ties and vision needed in these new communities.) 

    This complete spectrum of physical, psychological, and spiritual information will give these new communities a fighting and good chance to make it through the Great Global Collapse to build a better world from the painful lessons learned, (the Great Global Rebirth.) We also will provide information to help and your new community understand the multi-threat global emergency we all now face due to the worsening of global warming worsening the world's other 11 major global crises.

    Hopefully, many individuals and businesses will use our information to:

    a. help slow global warming,

    b. make emergency preparations for global warming and the world's other 11 major global crises, and

    c. adapt to them so they can survive and learn from the coming painful lessons.

    If the lessons of the Great Global Collapse are learned, those lessons can become the foundation of a new and Great Global Rebirth. (Both Job One and Universe Spirit are also actively forwarding the many positive possibilities of the Great Global Rebirth.

    We support creating as many new sustainable eco-communities as is possible even if they do not use the same ethical, philosophical, or spiritual models from the Universe Eco-communities discussed below and on subsequent pages. Only by having many of these new communities can we really hope that at least, some of them will survive.

    And finally, creating these new Universe eco-communities in global warming safer areas is best done by younger individuals in their 20s and 30s. However, if you are older and already living in a global warming safer place, creating a new Universe eco-community could work for you as well.

    Introduction

    Thank you for reviewing the following information about the new Universe eco-community model and our four different types of Universe communities. You likely are reading about our eco-community model because you are a progressive person, and you have observed that things in the world are not going well right now. You see the accelerating effects of things like:

    a. the Covid-19 pandemic, 

    b. the global recession, 

    c. the escalating climate emergency, 

    d. widening inequality, 

    e. serious governmental failures to protect us, or 

    f. these other 11 converging, escalating, and dangerous major global crises which the world now faces. 

    Maybe it is only your intuition quietly nagging you that you and your loved ones need to make some reasonable changes to prepare for what a world that looks like it is getting worse at least temporarily. Maybe it's your intuition suggesting that you need to make some reasonable changes to prepare for what will likely be a bumpy and dangerous future ahead. 

    We are not survivalists or believers that the end of humanity, civilization, or the world is close to certain. But, reviewing our Universe community information and our other emergency preparation-related information will help you create a more safe and secure future and help reduce the anxiety about making it through our many coming global and regional crises.

    This information will also help you create the many benefits of a sustainable and equitable lifestyle and livelihood also needed to survive the dangers we face today and the rising dangers of the following decades. 

    Additionally, our organization chooses to use what we have learned from our many societal mistakes. From this information, we are working to evolve a successful new eco-community model which will be tested over time that can be used in the future by others. 

    Reading about the Universe community on the following pages will also help you decide if you want to become a member. You may even discover that you hold many of our Universe Community core values already!

    The core goals of the new Universe Communities

    Our fundamental goal in creating these new communities is to bring caring and progressive individuals with similar science-grounded worldviews together in a mutually supportive relationship. This union will give us a better collective chance to survive and thrive through pending and future crises.

    The core goals of the new Universe Communities are:

    1. Get the community and individuals within it prepared for what is coming. (See Part 1 of the Job One plan.)

    2. Have the community and individuals within it start adapting to what is coming. Hence, they are as sustainable as they can be. (See Part 2 of the Job One Plan.)

    3. Keep Pushing our governments to do what is necessary to slow down what is now unavoidable and prepare themselves for the coming catastrophes. (See Part 3 and Part 4 of the Job one Plan.)

    4. Have each community build an archive of the most useful post-collapse information so survivors do not have to "reinvent the human knowledge wheel." These archives also would include as much of humanity's art, culture, and literature in digital form.

    5. Make all additional preparations needed so that these new eco-communities can survive a post-collapse dark age that could last decades to centuries. 

    6. Do everything needed so that these eco-communities become "beacons of light" of a better future. They will be the preservers, examples, and promoters of the new vision and actions needed to eventually create the Great Global Rebirth.

    Our new eco-communities will also align well with the UN's current global sustainable development goals. The illustration below will give you a quick snapshot of much of what we value.

    One useful way to think about these new Universe communities is that they will be doing what any wise and informed individual would do in creating a healthy, sustainable and equitable lifestyle and livelihood --- even if, global warming was not accelerating and most of these 11 other crises were not worsening

    And finally, the many links in this multi-page Universe community overview will bring you to expanded explanations of what we mean by some particular idea or statement.

    The Core Motivations for the Creation of the Universe Eco-Communities

    As a non-profit organization, we are supporting the urgent creation of new and diverse Universe eco-communities worldwide because:

    1. Most of these 12 escalating global crises are getting dangerously worse! (These crises are described on this page and documented in the links on this page.)

    2. People need good information and a supportive community to endure the many things necessary to survive and thrive on the difficult road ahead.

    How we will achieve the goals for the new Universe Communities

    1. Use science and the principles of successful universe evolution to build new eco-communities (small-scale sustainable cultures) that are likely to survive what is coming and preserve what is best about our civilization. (We achieve this by learning from our societies’ current inequities and ecological, economic, and political mistakes.)

    2. Use the above corrective information to adapt, create and evolve the new behaviors, values, policies, and models needed within our small-scale communities. It is our deepest plan (and hope) that the new community model that we are creating will eventually inspire a more equitable and sustainable large-scale culture (world) for ourselves and future generations.

    3. Do 1 and 2 above in such a way that we:

    a. help save and salvage whatever we can,

    b. help reduce the coming harm and suffering,

    c. create new possibilities for a more evolved future, while still 

    d. experiencing as much meaning and joy as possible throughout the painful process that is to come.

    The above also means that if you join us in this great endeavor, you too will get to help co-create the urgently needed solutions that will help save the future and, you will also get to enjoy

    We are now facing an unparalleled moment of peak collective challenge far beyond the hardships of the Covid pandemic and its economic hardship. This unprecedented collective moment will require wisdom, tremendous sacrifice, and enduring new hardships that humanity has never faced before to survive and thrive through what is coming.

    If you are looking for intelligent actions to make it through the unfolding 12 major global crises for as long as is possible, the Universe community model, the Job One and Universe Spirit websites, and the Job One for Humanity Plan were developed for this unique moment in time. 

    The Universe community with its ideas and programs is based on the logic of honestly facing our biggest global and local challenges; (currently the unprecedented scale of unavoidable mass extinction by mid-century and a highly-possible total extinction before the end of the 21st century). 

    Because of these two unthinkable consequences, it is appropriate to want to use your remaining time and energy wisely.

    This wise use of remaining time and energy could naturally include:

    1.) making your remaining time as fulfilling, meaningful, and comfortable as possible for as long as you can. (See Parts 1 and 2 of the Job One for Humanity Plan and the open-source, personalized Evolution Spirituality of the Universe Spirit organization.)

    2.) doing everything you can to save and salvage as much of humanity and civilization as you can, for as long as you can. This is critical because doing nothing means losing everything, even sooner! Saving something while we still can is always better than saving nothing! (See Parts 3 and 4 of the Job One for Humanity Plan.)

    3.) Being a part of living within and co-creating a sustainable and safe eco-community that will help support and protect you both physically and emotionally (and spiritually if you are of a spiritual nature,) as we go through these unprecedented present and future times. It will be very difficult to survive the later phases of the Great Global Collapse unless you have the protection of a well-organized and resourced community. More importantly, if you are not in such a community, it is also highly unlikely you or your children will be around for the Great Global Rebirth.

    Universe Spirit can do all three of the above. If those things are valuable to you, please join us and help with this worthy work.

    If you are not already a member

    of the Job One for Humanity or the Universe Spirit organizations, we suggest that after you read this multi-page overview, spend additional time exploring our two websites. This review will help you determine if the Universe Spirit's philosophy of life and the description of Job One for Humanity's twelve escalating global crises are compatible with your views about the serious challenges and the needed solutions for the 12 global crises we now face.

    Click here to see another page of this document on the essential member and community qualities.

    Click here to see the four Types of Universe communities.

    Click here to see how to Join the Universe community. 


  • Three New Climate Emergency Articles Well Worth Reading

    How bad is the climate emergency really and, are current government solutions working? Make up your own mind with these three new articles.

    Read more

  • donated 2020-12-31 16:11:42 -0800

    Become a Donor & Get a Membership Here

    $16,181.33 raised
    GOAL: $20,000.00

    To make a secure one-time, tax-deductible online donation of any amountplease use the fill-in form at the bottom of this pageWe are a 25-year-old, tax-deductible United States IRS recognized and approved 5013(c) non-profit organization. You will get a reciept.

    And, if you make a one-time donation of $9.00 or more, you will also get:

    a. four amazing ebooks (a $35.00 value) as our thank you gifts, (described below.) And... 

    b. a 1-year members-only access to the members-only area of our website which is loaded with member-only information that will help you prevent huge global warming financial and related losses. This critical information can also help save your family and business from untold suffering. 

    Make a one-time, monthly, or by-mail donation of any amount by using one of the 3 methods linked below 

    1. To make a secure one-time, online donation, please use the fill-in form at the bottom of this page

    2. To make a secure monthly online donation automatically, click here.

    3. To begin or renew our annual membership, use the one-time secure online donation form at the bottom of this page. (The many membership benefits including 3 free books are listed further below.)

    4. To make a donation by mail, make your check payable to Factnet, PMB 2167, 1650 S. Casino Dr. Laughlin, Nevada 89029.

    5. For all other types of donations and ways of giving, bequests, annuities, trusts, life insurance, etc., click here.

    We are a 25-year-old, tax-deductible United States IRS recognized and approved 5013(c) non-profit organization. We have received the Seal of Financial Transparency by Guidestar. Guidestar is a non-profit organization that evaluates other non-profit organizations for financial and mission transparency. 

    A.) Become an Annual Member or Renew an Annual Membership and get the following $35.00+ in extra items and services!

    You will get all of the member benefits listed below when you become an annual member/donor now for just $9.00 per year! 

    We want to make it easy for you to become a supporting member! With any $9 donation, you will also receive four important ebooks with a $35.00 value, and that is just to start! 

    You will receive ebook copies of four critical new books relevant to global warming and other global issues:

    a. The first free ebook is Climageddon; the Global Warming Survival Kit is an $8.95 value. This ebook is getting great reviews on Amazon. You can download it in one of the three most popular ebook reader formats. 

    b. For those who do not like reading complex scientific research and still want to be entertained and educated about this challenging subject. We have just added the ebook version of "On Vestige Way" by David Spielberg (a $9.00 ebook value.) It is an emotion-packed CLI-Fi (climate fiction) novel about how global warming affects the future and fate of the world's Millennials, generation Z, corporations. It also describes a massive rearrangement of the political alliances we take for granted. 

    It is so hard to put down you will be missing work and sleep wondering what will happen next to the story's heroes and heroines struggling with a superb rendering of our global warming future. Yet, it is one of the most scientifically accurate CLI-FI books we have reviewed. (The author, like the other listed authors, made their Ebooks available to us because they wanted to support our critical mission work!)

    c. You will also receive a free ebook copy of Climate and Ecological Delusions and Contradictions that Will Soon End Humanity by Michael MielkeThis $8.95 value ebook explains and elaborates in great detail on the carbon capture technology delusion and the many other global extraction, consumption, and waste-related crises we now face.

    d. You will also receive a free ebook copy of Collapse 2020, Vol 1: Fall of the First Global Civilization by Bruce Nappi. This $8.95 value ebook lays out a strong case on why we must prepare for the first-ever global warming-aggravated, global collapse coming within mere decades. Collapse 2020 digs into the major chaos of today's world: climate change, liberal-conservative polarization, gridlock in governments, and massive social injustice.

    While the four free ebooks above are an excellent extra benefit for making a $9.00 donation and becoming a member (or renewing your membership), there are several other valuable reasons why you will want to access the members-only section of our website! 

    More Big Member Benefits

    As a member, you will know what the ultra-wealthy know about our global warming future and what they don't know (unless, of course, they are also members at Job One.) Our nonprofit organization has spent almost $100,000 acquiring and researching the information found in the members-only section.

    Hedge funds, investment bankers, real estate conglomerates, and ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations worldwide are spending thousands of dollars each year with global warming risk analysis companies to access the information you will find in our members-only section. As a result, trillions in personal and corporate wealth will either be made or lost because one understands or does not understand the many consequences of our rapidly accelerating global warming emergency.

    As a member, you will have full access to nonpublic global warming website information as described below:

    1. critical prediction information on how, when, and where the escalating global warming emergency will affect:

    a. local, regional, and national real estate values and finances,

    b. stock market values, specifically corporations whose stocks and bonds will be most affected as the global warming emergency worsens,

    c. commodity prices as regionalized crops and other commodities fail because of increased heat or other global warming consequences, as well as which food prices will rise the fastest, etc.,

    d. increased political conflict or instability probabilities, particularly relating to a nation's regionalized specific global warming consequences.

    2. first alerts and early warnings about the coming global warming catastrophes,

    3. exclusive global warming emergency preparation and adaptation information for your family, home, and business. 

    4. well-researched global warming family and business migration options for the sparse global warming safer zones (For those of you who live in global warming high-risk areas.)

    The members-only area of our website also will provide critical details on how and when the consequences of the global warming emergency can affect your investments, financial transactions, real estate, and even your individual or business physical survival. Luckily, you will not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year (like the ultra-wealthy) to access it. 

    And finally, in addition to the above, your donations provide critical financial support for our nonprofit organization's ongoing research, goals, and mission

    Why donate and become a member now?

    When you donate nine dollars (or hopefully more,) you:

    1. become a member for one year and you receive all of the many valuable members-only benefits listed above.

    2. help us promote the effective Job One for Humanityglobal warming survival plan and our mission focused on serving the public good and doing everything necessary to slow or prevent a global warming-caused mass extinction event

    3. honor one of the most cost-effective organizations among all global warming educational groups. We are an all-volunteer organization and, there is no paid staff! Your donations go only for rent, utilities, office expenses, internet hosting, and other Internet-related web security and service costs our volunteers are unable to perform. 

    What could be more important to support and be a part of? 

    Here is what donations helped us do in 2021

    We have already done a lot of mind-shaking and life-changing education this year speaking painful climate truths to power, and

    the year is not over yet!

    We are very proud to update you and share our 2021 accomplishments as of the end of this October.

    These are just a few of our many accomplishments:

    1. We have had exponentially more shares and likes of our posts and original articles in scores of Facebook climate and environmental groups and on our websites!

    2. The number of new volunteers, memberships, and global warming petition signatures has grown at faster rates and to greater levels than ever before!

    3. According to Google Analytics:

    a. Over 200,000 unique visitors have viewed our websites.

    b. Over 4,100 hours of free online education on the global warming emergency and what we must do for sustainable lifestyles and livelihoods occurred in 2021.

    4. We have been actively pushing for declaring a worldwide global warming state of emergency since 2010. At the 2021 COP26 Climate Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, Greta Thunberg ahas now made that very same demand to the conference attendees.

    5. More individuals than ever before are working their way through the preparation, adaptation, and other critical action steps of the Job One for Humanity Climate and Global Crises Resilience Plan. These steps will make their lives and business far safer and more stable as global warming consequences accelerate.

    6. We have continued updating our analysis of worsening climate conditions based on new research and existing fossil fuel reduction activity or inactivity. Click here to see that continuously updated climate consequence information.

    7. Our brutally honest dialectical, multi-systemic, dynamic analysis of the climate’s complex adaptive systems, (which are unfolding this emergency,) are slowly, but surely, influencing the leadership at other climate change and environmental organizations.

    We can see the growing influence of our detailed and evolving climate analysis work in the changes in their global warming terminology and their new discussions about its most serious global warming consequences. Click here to see the master list of primary and secondary global warming consequences we all now face.

    8. We have had far more new donors and more donations to forward our goals and mission than any other year since 2009! And, we still need more support to expand our service and do more because we are growing so fast!

    How to donate without using any of your own money! 

    Of course, we hope you will become an annual member or make a tax-deductible donation, but there is another easy way for you to donate without spending any of your money! All you have to do is sponsor our organization when you buy products at Amazon Smile by following the following simple procedure.

    Keep in mind that this does not affect or add anything to the cost of your Amazon purchases. When you sponsor us, our organization gets a tiny percentage from every purchase you make. These small percentages will add up as we can get our thousands of members and visitors to sign and use it.

    How to use AmazonSmile on a web browser:

    Visit smile.amazon.com

    Sign in with the same account you use for Amazon.com 

    Select your charity. Be sure to select Factnet Inc. (Job One for Humanity is a DBA, and a part of the 25-year-old 501c(3), IRS-recognized, US tax-deductible, not-for-profit organization called Factnet.)

    Start shopping! Remember to always start at smile.amazon.com to generate donations for your chosen charity.

    Tip: Add a bookmark to make it easier to shop at smile.amazon.com for the next time you buy something.

    How to use AmazonSmile using the Amazon app on your mobile phone:

    Open the Amazon Shopping app.

    Navigate to the main menu (=)

    Tap on Settings and then select "AmazonSmile."

    Select your charity. Be sure to select Factnet Inc. (Job One for Humanity is a DBA, and a part of the 25-year-old 501c(3), IRS-recognized, US tax-deductible, not-for-profit organization called Factnet.) Then follow the on-screen instructions to turn ON AmazonSmile in the mobile app

    Once AmazonSmile has been activated in your app, future eligible app purchases will generate a donation for the charity you have selected.

    Note: The tablet app is not yet supported. Please visit smile.amazon.com/onthego to learn more.

     

     

    If you cannot afford $9.00 a year for our annual membership and access: We feel that everyone should have access to this critical global warming information, not just the ultra-wealthy. That is why we have made this critical information available at a cost we believe everyone can afford (a $9.00 a year website membership.) If you cannot afford $9.00 a year or live at the poverty level or below in your region and nation, please email us at [email protected] with relevant details, and we will get you a free scholarship. This scholarship award will also give you access to all of our members-only website areas. 

    Special Notice for All Previous Climageddon Book Purchasers: You get a free 1-year membership

    All Climageddon book purchasers also get free access to the members-only section of our website for 1 year. To get this free 1-year book purchaser's membership, email us at [email protected] and tell us where you bought your Climageddon book and how much you paid. Within 3-5 business days, we will activate your free one-year book purchaser's membership. 

    You can also become a new member with all the gifts and benefits for a $2 per monthly donation by clicking here.

    Donation Receipt Information

    You will always receive either an electronic or mailed tax-deductible donation receipt for your donation. The name "F.A.C.T.net Inc." will show on the PayPal payment screen if you are using Pay Pal online or on the electronic record of your donation to Job One for Humanity. Use this receipt for tax deduction purposes. Job One for Humanity is a DBA and subsidiary of Factnet Inc., which since 1993 has been a recognized 501(c)(3) IRS not-for-profit social benefit organization. 

    Donate

  • published Carbon Unicorns 2020-12-12 10:26:57 -0800

    Carbon Unicorns

    Carbon unicorns and fossil futures. Whose emission reduction pathways is the IPCC performing?

    Wim Carton – [email protected]
    Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)

    This is a book chapter in an anthology on the politics of geoengineering. It is published as:

    Carton, W. (2020). Carbon unicorns and fossil futures. Whose emission reduction pathways is the IPCC performing? In: Sapinski JP., Buck H., Malm A. (eds) Has it Come to This? The Promises and Perils of Geoengineering on the Brink. Rutgers University Press.

    Introduction

    If one is to believe recent IPCC reports, then gone are the days when the world could resolve the climate crisis merely by reducing emissions. Avoiding global warming in excess of 2°C/1.5°C now also involves a rather more interventionist enterprise: to remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, amounts that only increase the longer emissions refuse to fall.1 The basic problem with this idea is that the technologies supposed to deliver these “negative emissions” currently do not exist at any meaningful scale. Given the large uncertainties surrounding their feasibility, their expected effects on land use change, food security and biodiversity, and their scalability, it moreover seems improbable that they ever will.2 Indeed, there appears to be something of an unspoken consensus among scientists that the mitigation scenarios represented in the IPCC increasingly mirror science fiction-writing. The European Academies Science Advisory Council for example, in a recent assessment concluded that negative emission technologies (NETs) have “limited realistic potential” to help mitigate climate change on the scale that many scenarios assume will be needed.3 One expert summarized the skepticism well when she recently characterized such technologies as “carbon unicorns”,4 underscoring the widening gap between the level of mitigation that is needed, and the apparent infeasibility of the pathways that are supposed to take us there.

    Despite its fantastical nature however, the negative emissions idea has recently burst into the public arena, where it is already leading a life of its own. For skeptics, this raises the concern of a “moral hazard”, or the possibility that the mere promise of future NETs could act as a break on emission reductions in the present.5 Techno-optimist policy makers, the thinking goes, might very well seize on the negative emissions idea as a “get-out-of-jail” card, holding back from rapid near-term decarbonization in the belief that opportunities for future negative emissions offer sufficient guarantee that the climate crisis can be contained. It is above all future generations, and particularly the poorest among them, that would face the consequences when this “high-stakes gamble” eventually backfires and large-scale NETs turn out to be little more than a pipedream.6 At that point, the window of opportunity for avoiding dangerous warming through conventional mitigation would have closed, and the world would be left with the unenviable choice between runaway warming or implementing some of the more dystopian geoengineering technologies that this book documents. These are not empty fears: as I discuss below, the perceived necessity to defer the bulk of mitigation into a discounted future is the exact logic that underpins the rise-to-prominence of NETs in mitigation scenarios.7 How can we expect of policy makers that they guard against wishful thinking when even scientists appear unable to do so? Besides, the negative emissions concept has already strayed beyond the realm of abstract science and policy debates. The business case for mitigation deferral is already under construction, suggesting that NETs are already performing valuable political economic work. This makes it necessary to scrutinize much more closely what is actually going on in the various models that generate the apparent need for negative emissions.

    Take the example of Shell. While not exactly known for its vanguard mitigation actions, the company recently released a document in which it outlines its vision to keep global warming to “well below 2°C”.8 Unsurprisingly perhaps, Shell’s “most ambitious climate scenario” turns out to include substantial fossil fuel use well into the future. It for example assumes that demand for oil will grow until about 2025, and then decrease only gradually. By 2050, the year when the world needs to reach net zero emissions in order to stay below 1.5°C,9 oil demand in this scenario would still account for about 85% of current consumption. By 2070, the net zero target for 2°C, fossil fuel production is still responsible for 16.5 GtCO2, or almost half of what it is today. For Shell to be able to claim that these estimates are compatible with the targets of the Paris Agreement, it heavily relies on speculative technologies, in particular carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS) and NETs. It thus assumes that all that remaining fossil fuel carbon can be captured and/or compensated for by storing it in products (6.1 CO2/yr), applying direct CCS to oil and gas installations (3.4 GtCO2/yr), and deploying large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS - 6.1 CO2/yr), which is the NET most often favoured in models. In total this would require that “some 10,000 large carbon capture and storage facilities are built, compared to fewer than 50 in operation in 2020”.10 To reach 1.5°C, the company then imagines that an additional effort could be made by planting “another Brazil in terms of rainforest”.11

    These astonishing claims fulfill a clear function, even if they are only a scenario exercise, a best-case “possible” future, not a concrete prediction or commitment. The inclusion of NETs and CCUS in Shell’s future scenario constructs a vision in which the risk for stranded assets is minimized. It makes it possible to claim, as Shell does in its Energy Transition Report, that all of the company’s proven and potential fossil fuel reserves could be utilized – around 25 years of reserves at current production rates – while still staying within the limits of the Paris Agreement.12 Invoking a future of large-scale negative emissions in this way suggests that there is no need to cut fossil fuel production before its economic value has been fully recovered, no need for drastic short-term changes in the company’s business model.13 Given the urgency of the climate problem, this surely seems extraordinary. Is Shell making these numbers up? An analysis by Carbon Brief suggests that the math does indeed add up. Despite being somewhat optimistic about future energy demand in general, Shell’s projections of future coal, oil and gas demand, and of the scale at which NETs could be deployed, are all broadly in line with those of 2°C-compatible IPCC scenarios. If anything, Shell’s scenario is at the lower end of how much negative emissions models say could be deployed by the end of the century.14

    In itself, of course, it is unremarkable that a fossil fuel company would use all means possible to help justify the continued use of oil and gas, including fostering narratives about the large-scale deployment of future “carbon unicorns”. This, after all, is the company that has known about the dangers of climate change since at least the 1980s and still decided to double down on oil and gas investments.15 More surprising is the fact that this logic appears fully internalized in mainstream climate scenarios, in other words, that IPCC reports appear to feature emission reduction pathways that seem fully compatible with massive continued fossil fuel use in the medium term. More than a “moral hazard”, this suggests some fairly hazardous scientific morals. Surely this should raise a few eyebrows. How is it possible that the world’s most authoritative science on climate change is generative of scenarios that play directly in the hands of the fossil fuel industry? In this chapter I want to explore some of the reasons for why this is occurring. I want to argue that the path that led to the inclusion of negative emissions in models, and from there into the IPCC, was a profoundly ideological one, and that we need to understand it as such to make sense of the way in which negative emissions are already being invoked to justify business-as-usual. Doing so, I suggest, helps us in challenging the now common idea that negative emissions are somehow an inevitable reality of climate politics.

    Negative emissions as convenient fiction

    To unpack the work that negative emission scenarios perform, we need to start with the science that produces them. The scenarios represented in the IPCC are generated by using so-called integrated assessment models (IAMs), which are designed to model the complex relationship between social and biophysical systems.16 Briefly put, these models seek to project future technological innovation, economic growth, demographic change, energy use, etc., and how these interact with changes in the climate system. A first important observation is that economics plays a central role in this exercise, in that IAMs are generally made to operate in line with mainstream economic theories. The IPCC is quite explicit about what this means. The fifth assessment report (AR5) for example notes that “[t]he models use economics as the basis for decision making. This may be implemented in a variety of ways, but it fundamentally implies that the models tend toward the goal of minimizing aggregate economic costs of achieving mitigation outcomes [...]. In this sense, the scenarios tend towards normative, economics- focused descriptions of the future”.17 The IPCC also acknowledges that models “typically assume fully functioning markets and competitive market behavior” and therefore do not take account of existing asymmetries and (market) power relations.18

    This focus on economics is important for a number of reasons. Most directly, it means that climate policy in IAMs is interpreted as the implementation of a carbon price, that is, it is the assumed cost of carbon that gives the main incentive for a specific level of mitigation. Other mechanisms by which transformational change might come about, for example through mass behavioral changes or non- market government interventions on the scale of recent Green New Deal proposals, are largely ignored by the models.19 A second and related constraint lies in the cost-minimization focus that the IPCC mentions. Essentially, IAMs are designed to “maximize overall welfare” and find the most cost- effective emission reduction pathways. This effectively means that they prioritize between different mitigation technologies on the basis of primarily economic and technological criteria, and underplay social, political and broader environmental reasons why society might opt for one mitigation technology over another.20 In fact, this is the main reason why a technology like BECCS can be modelled by IAMs at such obviously unrealistic scales (e.g. requiring a land area twice the size of India). Even when modelers taken into account more explicitly social factors (for example to assess the public acceptability of different technologies), these are usually still translated to economic terms.21

    Now, this primary concern in IAMs with optimized, cost-effective mitigation pathways long meant that very few scenarios were compatible with keeping temperatures below 2°C. Up to the fourth assessment report or so, models tended to generate results that stabilized greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that were significantly higher than those corresponding with what are now the Paris Agreement targets.22 As political recognition on the need for a 2°C limit grew, first in Europe and then elsewhere, policy makers asked the modelling community to come up with scenarios that would be consistent with this.23 This confronted modelers with a considerable dilemma. As Parson notes, “[m]ost of the Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) [...] found that the target could not be met via plausible and cost-effective levels of mitigation”.24 The solution they came up with was as innovative as it is problematic. Modelers decided to include in IAMs novel mitigation options that allow for the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, primarily BECCS and afforestation. These were not entirely conjured out of thin air, of course. Afforestation had long been promoted as a carbon offsetting strategy, and researchers had put forward the possibility for BECCS already in the late 90s- early 2000s, though it had so far only been considered as a “backstop” option. Now, however, it became the go-to method.25 Not only did this significantly decrease the costs of achieving stringent mitigation targets,26 it also introduced a debt mechanism into the models.27 By allowing for large-scale carbon dioxide removal, it suddenly became possible to exceed carbon budgets in the short-term, on the assumption that this ‘overspending’ would be compensated for by net-negative emissions in the second half of the 21st century.28

    The inclusion of NETs in integrated assessment models in this way played a crucial role in upholding the possibility of the 2°C limit. As Dooley et al. argue, “the availability of BECCS proved critical to the cost-efficiency, and indeed the theoretical possibility, of these deep mitigation scenarios, leading to systemic inclusion of BECCS in RCP2.6 scenarios included in AR5”.29 It is worth underscoring what this means. NETs were mainstreamed in IAMs in order to square the request of policy makers (i.e. to provide 2°C pathways) with the specific economic framework within which these models operate. Current scenarios are in this sense the result of a cost-minimization exercise,30 a fully institutionalized effort to keep the costs of mitigation as low as possible. The models are therefore not actually telling us that NETs are a biophysical necessity to achieve stringent mitigation targets. They are merely saying that these technologies are more cost-effective than other forms of mitigation. Whether or not one accepts the need for negative emissions in this sense ultimately depends on whether one agrees with the various economic assumptions upon which the models are based. As I discuss below, there are plenty of reasons not to do so.

    The politics of a pathway

    Modelers tend to see their work as “objective input[s] to the climate policy debate”,31 as do, presumably, most policy makers. They are generally quite candid about the assumptions that underpin their models but insist that scenarios are still useful, because they are not actually meant to be policy- prescriptive, or offer accurate predictions of the future. Rather, modelers argue, scenarios are merely supposed to be policy-relevant, to “support policy decisions between different choices” and point to those pathways that what would be most efficient.32 The IPCC has in many ways sought to patrol this border between policy-relevant and policy-prescriptive science.33

    A rich literature in science and technology studies however suggests that this distinction is difficult to uphold in practice. Scholars in this discipline point out that any kind of scientific knowledge production comes with value-judgements, and therefore inevitably ends up fulfilling some kind of political function.34 The incorporation of NETs in IPCC scenarios is one clear illustration of how, as Turnhout et al. put it, “dominant political discourses compel scientists to create assessments that work within these discourses”,35 a process that involves the articulation of problems that are legible to, and the proposal of solutions compatible with, prevailing political and economic logics. Knowledge production, in other words, is often reflective of existing power relations in society, while at the same time contributing to, and justifying the reproduction of those relations. The future focus and therefore unverifiable and speculative character of scenario production significantly amplifies these dynamics.36 In this, the problem is not that science is political per se, but that its political character remains unrecognized or actively denied by the actors involved, either directly or as a consequence of the methods that are used. As a result, value-laden and contestable assumptions appear as somehow unavoidable or “natural”, which closes opportunities for debate and the involvement of dissenting voices. The use of models, particularly ones as complex as IAMs, further contributes to this process of depoliticization by shrouding assumptions and value judgements behind seemingly technocratic and objective modelling choices.37

    Beck and Mahony argue that the increasing importance of modelled emission reduction pathways in the IPCC in this way represents a shift towards a “new politics of anticipation, wherein potentially contestable choices for climate futures are woven into the technical elaboration of alternative pathways”.38 They note that by being included in the authoritative assessments of the IPCC, such pathways do not just describe possible climate futures, but potentially help bring them into being, that is, they perform certain futures as seemingly legitimate, necessary and desirable. IAMs in this sense provide scientific backing for the kind of mitigation scenarios that are “thinkable and therefore actionable”,39 while simultaneously sidelining others. One of the clearest examples of this is the negative emissions idea. Before they appeared in IAMs, negative emission technologies were virtually absent from the climate policy arena. Following their inclusion in models, they appeared in IPCC assessments and from there have become an increasingly common topic in mainstream policy debates. As the above Shell example shows, they have now moved into the delaying tactics of the fossil fuel industry. The modelling community in this way “performed an important legitimating function for the speculative technology of BECCS, pulling it into the political world, making previously unthinkable notions [...] more mainstream and acceptable, as well as perhaps pushing it ahead of policy options (such as radical mitigation) in political calculations”.40 The speculative and contestable inclusion of NETs in influential and seemingly neutral IPCC assessments served to normalize and mainstream the idea that negative emissions are both feasible and necessary.

    Taking this one step further, some scholars have argued that the negative emissions idea is performing an important legitimizing role for the existing architecture of climate policy as a whole.41 By perpetuating the idea that cost-effective pathways to 2°C, and now also 1.5°C are still available, the argument goes, the IPCC is providing a rather convenient narrative to governments. The possibility of future NETs appears to suggest that more of the same incremental policies will eventually get us there; that there is no need for drastic or economically “irrational” actions.42 As such it helps preserve a sense of normality against increasingly dire warnings – and observations – of an unfolding climate emergency, against 30 years of political delay in delivering serious mitigation efforts. The science- sanctioned normalization of negative emissions in this sense reproduces the idea that all is as it should be in the magical wonderland of climate politics, where mitigation need not imply efforts to cut actual fossil fuel production, at least not in the short-term. When at the same time this discourse builds on highly improbable projections of the future, on the hypothetical deployment of technologies that – at the scale they are being proposed – reasonably belong in the realm of science fiction; and when it so obviously constitutes a form of risk transfer, in which it is the powers-that-be that stand to gain, while it is future generations that will be left to pick up what pieces remain,43 then the need for critique runs very deep indeed.

    Performing the imperative of gradualism

    So how did it come to this? To understand how IPCC scenarios end up being “performative” in the way that they are requires that we scrutinize not just model outcomes and the political work that these perform, but also the logics that generate these outcomes in the first place. There is plenty to suggest that the dynamics described in the science and technology literature can in large part be traced back to the various, connected assumptions that underlie IAMs, assumptions that together constitute an ideological commitment to the postulates of mainstream economic theory. This is, of course, hardly a unique case. In important ways it reflects the wider trend by which economics has come to dominate the terms of the climate policy debate – of how to assess and understand both the problem and its potential solutions.

    Consider again the focus of IAMs on cost-effective mitigation. Why exactly is it that the prioritization of cost-effective solutions leads to the need for negative emissions? There are a number of intertwined reasons for this, and while I cannot consider all of them here, a few stand out as particularly important. First, it is worth noting that mitigation costs in IAMs are usually calculated on the basis of a comparison with a so-called “baseline”, meaning a counterfactual scenario of what the world would look like in the absence of climate policies. The cost of mitigation in other words is an estimate of what it takes, in economic terms, to move from the assumed baseline to the desired mitigation scenario. Observe that these baselines are necessarily hypothetical exercises, not in the least because, with a few exceptions, models so far do not take into consideration the many feedbacks of a warming climate itself.44 Essentially they assume that economic growth, population growth, consumption, energy demand etc. will continue as an extrapolation of existing trends, despite rapidly increasing temperatures, as if climate change has no societal impact at all. This crucial omission is acknowledged by modelers as a shortcoming, but in itself arguably already invalidates the entire scenario-building exercise. Calculating costs and cost-dependent mitigation pathways in relation to an impossible baseline clearly overstates the benefits of the “no-policy” scenario, and therefore presumably inflates the aggregate costs of mitigation. More generally, it means that the choice of baseline significantly influences the outcomes of the model.45 Modelers generally deal with this by considering a large range of possible baselines, which are grouped together under stylized ‘socioeconomic pathways’.46

    To different extents, these baseline scenarios assume continued (and often growing) fossil fuel consumption and trade well into the 21st century.47 Moving to a mitigation scenario then logically implies significantly reducing that consumption and trade as well as its corresponding economic value (since baselines are seen as economically optimal, any deviation from them becomes a cost). The extent to which fossil fuel consumption needs to be reduced, however, and the exact costs this corresponds to, fundamentally depend on the kind of mitigation technologies that are included in the model. For example, if one assumes a future in which no CCS technologies are implemented, then fossil fuel consumption needs to fall rapidly to stay within the targeted temperature limits, reaching zero before the end of the century.48 Indeed, many of the scenarios that explicitly exclude CCS (including BECCS) are unable to generate 2°C-compatible pathways at all, because of prohibitively high costs.49 This not only reflects the substantial investments needed to rapidly replace current high-carbon infrastructure, but also the fact that for many sectors where there are currently few low-carbon technological alternatives on the horizon – think cement and steel production, aviation, etc. – drastic emission cuts would almost by necessity involve cuts in economic production. With CCS, some of those fossil fuels can continue to be used and their corresponding economic value recovered. The inclusion of negative emissions from BECCS in particular extends this effect further. BECCS essentially enlarges the carbon budget while also providing a source of energy, allowing even more fossil fuels to be used in the medium-term.50 Observe here that the cost-effective focus of IAMs in this way renders different mitigation technologies qualitatively substitutable, meaning that as long as a given technology is available and economically attractive (within the assumptions used by the model), it will be prioritized. As noted above, this ignores obvious social justice or environmental sustainability concerns.

    From this discussion it appears that the cost of mitigation tends to decrease the more fossil fuels we can continue using. This is obviously not fully true. As the IPCC points out, aggregate mitigation costs in IAMs generally increase when action is delayed.51 The reason for this is fairly simple – scenarios still need to reach 2°C or 1.5°C by the end of the century. The longer mitigation is delayed, the more fossil fuels that are “locked into” a (growing) economy, and the more investments and/or devaluations it will therefore take to eventually bring emissions down to net zero/net negative. The cost of mitigation is therefore not a function of continued fossil fuel use per se, but of the steepness of the mitigation curve, that is, of how quickly fossil fuel consumption needs to fall in order to reach the specified temperature target. The faster fossil fuels are eliminated, the steeper the emission reduction curve, and therefore the higher the cost. This seems like a trivial consideration but it is critical to understand its implications. Since IAMs are designed to minimize mitigation costs, this means that they by definition select for the most gradual reduction in fossil fuel use. As long as emissions and fossil fuel consumption go hand in hand, this also means that they select for the most gradual emission reduction curve. Including CCS in IAMs essentially decouples fossil fuel consumption from emissions, and therefore allows the former to fall more slowly relative to the latter. Negative emissions go even further in that they actually extend the carbon budget and thus stretch out the emission reduction curve itself. The effect is to reduce the rate at which fossil fuel use needs to fall, which in turn leads to lower mitigation costs. One could say that the inclusion of NETs in IAMs in this way serves to recover as much economic value from fossil fuel consumption and trade as possible within the limits of a 2°C or 1.5°C budget.

    Some of this “gradualizing” of the mitigation curve is done quite explicitly by modelers themselves. Van Vuuren et al.,52 for example, using an earlier version of the integrated assessment model IMAGE, explain the criteria they used when developing their mitigation pathways as follows:

    “[F]irst, a maximum reduction rate was assumed reflecting the technical (and political) inertia that limits emission reductions. Fast reduction rates would require the early replacement of fossil-fuel-based capital stock, and this may involve high costs. Secondly the reduction rates compared to baseline were spread out over time as far as possible – but avoiding rapid early reduction rates and, thirdly, the reduction rates were only allowed to change slowly over time”.53

    Kriegler et al.,54 using a different IAM, similarly note that their model does not allow for the early retirement of existing fossil fuel infrastructure. In other words, the models are actively designed so as to avoid the devaluation of economically valuable fossil fuel assets, believing this to be unfeasible, and so as to make full use of the window of opportunity for reaching the desired mitigation target. In this, their assumptions are directly in line with the arguments of the fossil fuel industry. In Shell’s “well- below 2°C” scenario as well, the imperative for NETs logically follows from the assumed inevitability of socio-economic and technological inertia, i.e. the idea that until 2030 or so, “energy system CO2 emissions are largely locked in by existing technologies, capital stock, and societal resistance to change”.55 Modelers and industry interests in this way agree that there is no alternative to incremental change, even if that means conjuring up improbable technological solutions.

    These dynamics are reinforced by the idea that future costs and benefits need to be discounted relative to the present. IAMs generally use a discount rate of 5%,56 which means they weigh costs and benefits in the present more heavily than those that will occur in the future. The reasoning here, imported directly from financial markets, is that future generations will be wealthier (given continued economic growth) than current generations, and will therefore better be able to pay for any future costs that arise from climate change. This is a contentious and oft-debated assumption. For one, it assumes, wrongly, that the costs and benefits of mitigation/adaptation, and indeed the impacts of climate change itself, can be straightforwardly captured/compensated for in monetary terms. As above, it also suggests that growth can and will continue despite an accelerating environmental crisis, which seems improbable to say the least. There is furthermore no consensus among economists about what exact discount rate to use, which is unsurprising given the inherently subjective and speculative nature of the exercise.57 As Stanton et al. note, selecting a discount rate essentially means making a judgement about how to value the benefits of avoided warming for future generations, which is “a problem of ethics, not economic theory or scientific fact”.58 A high discount rate is an implicit prioritization of short-term interests over long-term ones, or as Jasanoff pointedly puts it, “erases the distant future as a topic of calculable concern”.59 In the IAMs we are here concerned with, applying a discount rate of 5% has the effect of deferring mitigation costs into the future, when those costs will supposedly be more affordable. Because large-scale NETs are projected to be implemented mainly in the 2nd half of the century, discounting makes them comparatively more attractive than mitigation measures that are rolled out in the near-term, and therefore gives them a direct advantage in the model.

    So what is actually going on here? Clearly, the supposed necessity of negative emissions in mitigation scenarios is the result of a number of specific assumptions and value-judgements, all of which can reasonably be questioned. But the problem seems broader than just the negative emissions issue alone. Essentially, what is being performed in IPCC scenarios is the imperative of gradualism, that is, the idea that mitigation needs to be incremental if it is to materialize at all. The “naturalization” of fossil fuel benefits through business-as-usual baselines; the management of the rate of mitigation by way of cost-effective technology choices; the direct “gradualization” of model inputs and the application of a high discount rate; all of these modeling characteristics perform the idea that some degree of emissions are inevitable, indeed, that the economic benefits of fossil fuel production must be defended to the extent possible. Models in this way institutionalize the assumption that short-term devaluation of fossil fuel assets is untenable and economically undesirable, hence that socio-economic inertia is an unavoidable feature of the current energy system. This de facto enacts inertia as some kind of natural law, rather than a condition that is maintained and reproduced through historically- specific socio-economic structures and therefore responsive to political choice.

    Connecting integrated assessment modelling to the interests of polluters like Shell, then, is a commitment to the ideology of mainstream economics, a narrow reliance on cost-effectiveness as the most appropriate way to mediate between alternative climate futures. By reducing mitigation to a question of carbon costs and then applying a cost-minimization model to it, IAMs render climate change mitigation legible to vested political and economic interests, but at the same time also delimit the range of mitigation options that seem feasible. As a result, modelled pathways end up being biased against more radical, near-term emission reductions, against opportunities for widespread behavioural changes or the kind of state-driven economic planning proposed by Andreas Malm in this book.60 It then becomes more logical to imagine that warming will be contained by a massive roll-out of fantastical negative emissions technologies than to try and project, for example, a portfolio of more short-term and risk-averse strategies, even if that means accepting a higher economic cost (for some!). By giving IAM-based scenarios center stage in its assessments, the IPCC in this way reproduces the idea that it is the (contestable and flawed) laws of economic theory that should determine the rules of engagement in climate policy, not the laws of the biogeochemical carbon cycle or consideration for the ethical distribution of mitigation risks and responsibilities. The inevitable end-result, ironically, is that the IPCC, as the most authoritative international body on climate change, is providing scientific backing for the kind of delaying tactics that companies like Shell excel in.

    The point is to change it

    To be sure, there are plenty of good reasons to support certain kinds of carbon dioxide removal, at least in principle. Afforestation is direly needed not just to sequester carbon but also to bend the trend of rapid biodiversity loss. Soil carbon sequestration not only takes carbon out of the atmosphere but also increases soil organic matter and therefore improves soil structure, helps build soil fertility and benefits soil organisms.61 Neither of these however are the silver bullets that IPCC scenarios are projecting with NETs. Implementing these technologies at planetary scale comes with enormous challenges, and it therefore seems problematic to treat them as real alternatives to direct emission cuts. In fact, no new research is needed to demonstrate that afforestation, bioenergy production or CCS are not the convenient and inexpensive mitigation options that they are now being portrayed as. These technologies already exist at smaller scales and have already been extensively studied. The vast literature on carbon forestry, for example, confirms the potential benefits that tree planting offers, but also vividly illustrates the trade-offs commonly involved, including a real possibility for violence and dispossession, project failure, public disapproval, or the marginalization of the interests and voices of those most affected.62 Debates on forest-based carbon offsetting – a mechanism that in many ways overlaps with the logic of negative emissions – furthermore underscore the ethical problems with the idea that land use change should compensate for the continued emissions of fossil fuels. Fairhead et al. in this context speak of the “economy of repair”, or the idea that “unsustainable use ‘here’ can be repaired by sustainable practices ‘there’”,63 where “there” often ends up meaning the developing world, since the “economy of repair” too is a cost-optimizing one. If large-scale negative emissions provide the next frontier for this perverse logic, as seems a real risk, it needs to be challenged and resisted.

    I have suggested that a good place to start this task is by scrutinizing the idea that negative emissions are necessary in the first place. It turns out that NETs were introduced in models first and foremost as an economic necessity, given in by the character of the models themselves. Whether or not we accept the inevitability of negative emissions – at scale – is therefore entirely contingent on whether we subscribe to the economic assumptions that they extend from. These assumptions ultimately revolve around the treatment of climate change as primarily a question of cost-minimizing economics. It seems obvious that this is a wholly inadequate way to decide on the most feasible, desirable or appropriate way to cut emissions. It falsely constructs all forms of mitigation as qualitatively equal (ignoring important ethical, political and ecological differences64), perpetuates simplistic assumptions of how change occurs in complex social systems, and orients the mitigation curve towards gradualism despite the social and environmental risks this entails. The cost of mitigation in models is moreover a constructed category, fully dependent on assumed long-term technology costs, the exclusion of climate feedbacks and the choice of discount rates and baselines. Translating this inherently partial approach into concrete mitigation pathways seems like high-risk theoretical myopia and ends up ignoring real opportunities for more just and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Modelers might insist that their scenarios are not predictions, but their inclusion into the IPCC still gives them undue real-world validity and political influence. It is illuminating in this respect that Van Vuuren et al. recently published a study that modelled scenarios to 1.5°C with minimal negative emissions, simply by assuming more rapid electrification of the energy system and far-reaching lifestyle changes, among other things.65 While they don’t provide a cost analysis for these scenarios, one can assume that they would be significantly more costly – in the way IAMs assess this – than “standard” mitigation approaches. What this illustrates is that, if one tinkers long enough with inputs and assumptions, it is possible to make these models come up with virtually anything. As Tavoni and Socolow note, this “should make the reader cautious about carrying modeling results into the real world”.66

    In the end then, while modelers acknowledge that the choice between different mitigation options remains a political one, their models only give credibility to a select range of options. By reducing climate policy to a question of cost-optimization, IAMs appear to take the cost of mitigation outside of the political debate. They seem to suggest that mitigation needs to be cost-effective if it will materialize at all, which underplays both the scope and the urgency of the change that is needed. The need for rapid, radical emission reductions suggests a need to repoliticize discussions on what forms of mitigation are most appropriate and how we will be paying for it. Surely, if the responsibility of the IPCC extends beyond minimizing the devaluation of fossil fuel assets – as of course it does – then its work should involve highlighting, in a much more direct way, the benefits of certain emission reduction pathways in spite of their cost, that is, to illuminate the many uncertainties and risks of incremental climate policy? Surely assessing opportunities for mitigation should involve not just acquiescing to the inevitability of fossil-infused inertia, but actively challenging it, by providing an open an honest evaluation of the social, economic, political and environmental pros and cons of the full range of mitigation options, including those that are inconvenient to vested political and economic interests?

    Of course some economists would fume that no such thing is possible, that high-cost scenarios are politically unrealistic, not policy-relevant; that no politician or business would implement a policy that is not cost-effective. But that would be missing the point entirely. As Alyssa Battistoni rightly observed recently, there are no politically realistic climate change mitigation options.67 There is nothing politically realistic about assuming that large-scale NETs are going to save the day. It merely defers the political inconvenience of implementing those technologies to future generations, pushing the problem out of sight for the current generation of decision makers. To accept this as a matter of fact is to fail to stand up to the magnitude of the challenge, to default on our collective responsibility towards future generations. It is to deny that the only realistic way forward involves a fundamental change of politics. Moreover, even if it were true that political decisions are necessarily made in narrowly defined, cost-optimizing ways, hence that the political arena is locked into long-term socio- economic inertia – why should scientists have to play by that game? Why would modelers need to build political feasibility into their models, if all this does is lead to future scenarios populated by carbon unicorns? Why should the academic community not point out that there is in fact a choice here, even if it is an unpopular and economically difficult one? When climate policies turn out to be so woefully inadequate, it is perhaps time for the scientific community to become a little less policy- relevant, and a little more confrontational in its engagement with decision makers.68 It is perhaps time to start refusing to perform, through seemingly innocuous models, the kind of gradualism that has long-ago proven incapable of taking us out of this mess.

    Footnotes

    1 Schleussner et al., “Science and Policy Characteristics of the Paris Agreement Temperature Goal”; Peters and Geden, “Catalysing a Political Shift from Low to Negative Carbon”; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre- Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change”; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.

    2 see Anderson and Peters, “The Trouble with Negative Emissions”; Scott and Geden, “The Challenge of Carbon Dioxide Removal for EU Policy-Making”; Smith et al., “Biophysical and Economic Limits to Negative CO2 Emissions”; Larkin et al., “What If Negative Emission Technologies Fail at Scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for Big Emitting Nations”; Fuss et al., “Betting on Negative Emissions”; Harper et al., “Land-Use Emissions Play a Critical Role in Land-Based Mitigation for Paris Climate Targets.”

    3 European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), Negative Emission Technologies: What Role in Meeting Paris Agreement Targets?
    4 McGrath, “Caution Urged over Use of ‘carbon Unicorns’ to Limit Warming.”

    5 Markusson, McLaren, and Tyfield, “Towards a Cultural Political Economy of Mitigation Deterrence by Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs)”; Lenzi, “The Ethics of Negative Emissions”; Minx et al., “Negative Emissions: Part 1 - Research Landscape, Ethics and Synthesis.”
    6 Shue, “Climate Dreaming: Negative Emissions, Risk Transfer, and Irreversibility”; Anderson and Peters, “The Trouble with Negative Emissions.”

    7 Minx et al., “Negative Emissions: Part 1 - Research Landscape, Ethics and Synthesis.”
    8 Shell, “Shell Scenarios: Sky - Meeting the Goals of the Paris Agreement.”
    9 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change.”
    10 Shell, “Shell Scenarios: Sky - Meeting the Goals of the Paris Agreement,” 6.
    11 Vaughan, “Shell Boss Says Mass Reforestation Needed to Limit Temperature Rises to 1.5C.”

    12 Shell, “Energy Transition Report.”
    13 Carton, “‘Fixing’ Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay.”
    14 Evans, “In-Depth: Is Shell’s New Climate Scenario as ‘Radical’ as It Says?”
    15 Carrington and Mommers, “‘Shell Knew’: Oil Giant’s 1991 Film Warned of Climate Change Danger.”
    16 Note that there is also a different set of IAMs, which are used to calculate the social cost of carbon and are not used in producing emission reduction pathways. These more simple models make a cost-benefit analysis of different emission reduction pathways, by weighing the economic costs of various mitigation options against the risks (again, in economic terms) of climate change. This is the kind of thinking that for example leads William Nordhaus – using his DICE model – to the conclusion that the economically “optimal” level of warming is somewhere from 2.6°C to 3.5°C and that “the advantage of geoengineering over other policies is enormous”. See Nordhaus, “Projections and Uncertainties about Climate Change in an Era of Minimal Climate Policies”; Nordhaus, A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies; Stern, “The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models.”, Nordhaus, “An Optimal Transision Path for Controlling Greenhouse Gases,” 1319.

    17 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, 422. 18 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 422.
    19 Beck and Mahony, “The Politics of Anticipation: The IPCC and the Negative Emissions Technologies Experience.”

    20 Larkin et al., “What If Negative Emission Technologies Fail at Scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for Big Emitting Nations”; Van Vuuren et al., “Open Discussion of Negative Emissions Is Urgently Needed.”
    21 Carbon Brief, “Q&A: How ‘Integrated Assessment Models’ Are Used to Study Climate Change.”
    22 Tavoni and Socolow, “Modeling Meets Science and Technology: An Introduction to a Special Issue on Negative Emissions”; Van Vuuren et al., “Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Low Levels: An Assessment of Reduction Strategies and Costs.”

    23 Tavoni and Socolow, “Modeling Meets Science and Technology: An Introduction to a Special Issue on Negative Emissions”; Beck and Mahony, “The IPCC and the Politics of Anticipation.”
    24 Parson, “Climate Policymakers and Assessments Must Get Serious about Climate Engineering,” 9228.

    25 Hickman, “Timeline: How BECCS Became Climate Change’s ‘Saviour’ Technology.”
    26 Van Vuuren et al., “Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Low Levels: An Assessment of Reduction Strategies and Costs”; Azar et al., “Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuels and Biomass - Costs and Potential Role in Stabilizing the Atmosphere.”
    27 Carton, “‘Fixing’ Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay.”
    28 Geden, “The Paris Agreement and the Inherent Inconsistency of Climate Policymaking”; Geden, “Politically Informed Advice for Climate Action.”
    29 Dooley, Christoff, and Nicholas, “Co-Producing Climate Policy and Negative Emissions: Trade-Offs for Sustainable Land-Use,” 6.
    30 Parson, “Climate Policymakers and Assessments Must Get Serious about Climate Engineering.”
    31 Dooley, Christoff, and Nicholas, “Co-Producing Climate Policy and Negative Emissions: Trade-Offs for Sustainable Land-Use,” 7.
    32 Carbon Brief, “Q&A: How ‘Integrated Assessment Models’ Are Used to Study Climate Change.”
    33 Beck and Mahony, “The Politics of Anticipation: The IPCC and the Negative Emissions Technologies Experience”; Dooley, Christoff, and Nicholas, “Co-Producing Climate Policy and Negative Emissions: Trade-Offs for Sustainable Land-Use.”

    34 Turnhout, “The Politics of Environmental Knowledge”; Jasanoff, States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order.
    35 Turnhout, Neves, and De Lijster, “‘Measurementality’ in Biodiversity Governance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes),” 583.

    36 Low, “The Futures of Climate Engineering.”
    37 Demeritt, “The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science”; Mahony and Hulme, “Epistemic Geographies of Climate Change”; Beck and Mahony, “The Politics of Anticipation: The IPCC and the Negative Emissions Technologies Experience.”
    38 Beck and Mahony, “The IPCC and the Politics of Anticipation,” 312.
    39 Beck and Mahony, “The Politics of Anticipation: The IPCC and the Negative Emissions Technologies Experience,” 5.
    40 Beck and Mahony, 4.
    41 Geden, “The Paris Agreement and the Inherent Inconsistency of Climate Policymaking.”

    42 Larkin et al., “What If Negative Emission Technologies Fail at Scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for Big Emitting Nations.”
    43 Shue, “Climate Dreaming: Negative Emissions, Risk Transfer, and Irreversibility.”
    44 Carbon Brief, “Q&A: How ‘Integrated Assessment Models’ Are Used to Study Climate Change”; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, chap. 6.

    45 cf. Van Vuuren et al., “Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Low Levels: An Assessment of Reduction Strategies and Costs”; Riahi et al., “The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and Their Energy, Land Use, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implications: An Overview.”
    46 Riahi et al., “The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and Their Energy, Land Use, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implications: An Overview.”

    47 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, sec. 6.3.1.3.
    48 Klein et al., “Global Economic Consequences of Deploying Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).”

    49 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, chap. 6.
    50 Kriegler et al., “Is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal a Game Changer for Climate Change Mitigation?”
    51 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, sec. 6.3.6.4.

    52 Van Vuuren et al., “Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Low Levels: An Assessment of Reduction Strategies and Costs.”
    53 Van Vuuren et al., 131.
    54 “Is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal a Game Changer for Climate Change Mitigation?”

    55 Shell, “Sky Scenario,” 23.
    56 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change; Van Vuuren et al., “Open Discussion of Negative Emissions Is Urgently Needed.”

    57 Pindyck, “The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy.”
    58 Stanton, Ackerman, and Kartha, “Inside the Integrated Assessment Models: Four Issues in Climate Economics,” 174.
    59 Jasanoff, “A New Climate for Society,” 242.
    60 Larkin et al., “What If Negative Emission Technologies Fail at Scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for Big Emitting Nations”; see also Beck and Mahony, “The Politics of Anticipation: The IPCC and the Negative Emissions Technologies Experience.”

    61 Crews, Carton, and Olsson, “Is the Future of Agriculture Perennial? Imperatives and Opportunities to Reinvent Agriculture by Shifting from Annual Monocultures to Perennial Polycultures.”
    62 Edstedt and Carton, “The Benefits That (Only) Capital Can See? Resource Access and Degradation in Industrial Carbon Forestry, Lessons from the CDM in Uganda”; Milne et al., “Learning from ‘Actually Existing’ REDD+: A Synthesis of Etnographic Findings”; Leach and Scoones, Carbon Conflicts For. Landscapes Africa; Cavanagh and Benjaminsen, “Virtual Nature, Violent Accumulation: The ‘spectacular Failure’ of Carbon Offsetting at a Ugandan National Park”; Corbera and Friedli, “Planting Trees through the Clean Development Mechanism: A Critical Assessment”; Osborne, “Tradeoffs in Carbon Commodification: A Political Ecology of Common Property Forest Governance.”
    63 Fairhead, Leach, and Scoones, “Green Grabbing: A New Appropriation of Nature?,” 242.
    64 Cusack et al., “An Interdisciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering Strategies.”

    65 Van Vuuren et al., “Alternative Pathways to the 1.5 °c Target Reduce the Need for Negative Emission Technologies.”
    66 Tavoni and Socolow, “Modeling Meets Science and Technology: An Introduction to a Special Issue on Negative Emissions,” 7.

    67 Battistoni, “There’s No Time for Gradualism.”

    References

    Anderson, Kevin. “Duality in Climate Science.” Nature Geoscience 8, no. 12 (2015): 898–900. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2559.

    Anderson, Kevin, and Glen Peters. “The Trouble with Negative Emissions.” Science 354, no. 6309 (2016): 182–83. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567.

    Azar, Christian, Kristian Lindgren, Eric Larson, and Kenneth Möllersten. “Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuels and Biomass - Costs and Potential Role in Stabilizing the Atmosphere.” Climatic Change 74, no. 1–3 (2006): 47–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-3484-7.

    Battistoni, Alyssa. “There’s No Time for Gradualism.” Jacobin, October 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/climate-change-united-nations-report-nordhaus-nobel.

    Beck, Silke, and Martin Mahony. “The IPCC and the Politics of Anticipation.” Nature Climate Change 7, no. 5 (2017): 311–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3264.

    ———. “The Politics of Anticipation: The IPCC and the Negative Emissions Technologies Experience.” Global Sustainability 1 (2018): e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.7.

    Carbon Brief. “Q&A: How ‘Integrated Assessment Models’ Are Used to Study Climate Change,” 2018. https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-integrated-assessment-models-are-used-to-study- climate-change.

    Carrington, Damian, and Jelmer Mommers. “‘Shell Knew’: Oil Giant’s 1991 Film Warned of Climate Change Danger.” The Guardian, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film- warned-climate-change-danger.

    Carton, Wim. “‘Fixing’ Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay.” Antipode 51, no. 3 (June 22, 2019): 750–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12532.

    Cavanagh, Connor, and Tor A. Benjaminsen. “Virtual Nature, Violent Accumulation: The ‘spectacular Failure’ of Carbon Offsetting at a Ugandan National Park.” Geoforum 56 (2014): 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.013.

    Corbera, Esteve, and Charlotte Friedli. “Planting Trees through the Clean Development Mechanism: A Critical Assessment.” Ephemera 12, no. 1/2 (2012): 206–41.

    Crews, Timothy E., Wim Carton, and Lennart Olsson. “Is the Future of Agriculture Perennial? Imperatives and Opportunities to Reinvent Agriculture by Shifting from Annual Monocultures to Perennial Polycultures.” Global Sustainability 1 (November 13, 2018): e11. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.11.

    Cusack, Daniela F., Jonn Axsen, Rachael Shwom, Lauren Hartzell-Nichols, Sam White, and Katherine R.M. Mackey. “An Interdisciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering Strategies.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12, no. 5 (2014): 280–87. https://doi.org/10.1890/130030.

    page13image11608128

    68 Anderson, “Duality in Climate Science.”

    13

    Demeritt, David. “The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91, no. 2 (2001): 307–37. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0004-5608.00245/abstract.

    Dooley, Kate, Peter Christoff, and Kimberly A. Nicholas. “Co-Producing Climate Policy and Negative Emissions: Trade-Offs for Sustainable Land-Use.” Global Sustainability 1 (2018): e3. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.6.

    Edstedt, Karin, and Wim Carton. “The Benefits That (Only) Capital Can See? Resource Access and Degradation in Industrial Carbon Forestry, Lessons from the CDM in Uganda.” Geoforum, no. 97 (2018): 315–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.09.030.

    European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC). Negative Emission Technologies: What Role in Meeting Paris Agreement Targets? EASAC Policy Report, 2018. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Negative_Carbon/EASAC_Report_on_N egative_Emission_Technologies.pdf.

    Evans, Simon. “In-Depth: Is Shell’s New Climate Scenario as ‘Radical’ as It Says?” Carbon Brief, 2018. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-is-shells-new-climate-scenario-as-radical-as-it-says.

    Fairhead, James, Melissa Leach, and Ian Scoones. “Green Grabbing: A New Appropriation of Nature?” The Journal of Peasant Studies 39, no. 2 (2012): 237–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770.

    Fuss, Sabine, Josep G Canadell, Glen P. Peters, Massimo Tavoni, Robbie M. Andrew, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, et al. “Betting on Negative Emissions.” Nature Climate Change 4, no. 10 (2014): 850–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2392.

    Geden, Oliver. “Politically Informed Advice for Climate Action.” Nature Geoscience 11, no. JUNE (2018): 380–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0142-4.

    ———. “The Paris Agreement and the Inherent Inconsistency of Climate Policymaking.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7, no. 6 (2016): 790–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.427.

    Harper, Anna B., Tom Powell, Peter M. Cox, Joanna House, Chris Huntingford, Timothy M. Lenton, Stephen Sitch, et al. “Land-Use Emissions Play a Critical Role in Land-Based Mitigation for Paris Climate Targets.” Nature Communications 9, no. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018- 05340-z.

    Hickman, Leo. “Timeline: How BECCS Became Climate Change’s ‘Saviour’ Technology.” Carbon Brief, 2016. https://www.carbonbrief.org/beccs-the-story-of-climate-changes-saviour-technology.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416.

    ———. “Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change,” 2018. http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf.

    Jasanoff, Sheila. “A New Climate for Society.” Theory, Culture and Society 27, no. 2 (2010): 233–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409361497.

    ———, ed. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge, 2004.

    14

    Klein, David, Florian Humpenöder, Nico Bauer, Naomi E Vaughan, Clair Gough, Michael J Walsh, Léda Gerber Van Doren, et al. “Global Economic Consequences of Deploying Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).” Environmental Research Letters 11, no. 095004 (2016): 1–9.

    Kriegler, Elmar, Ottmar Edenhofer, Lena Reuster, Gunnar Luderer, and David Klein. “Is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal a Game Changer for Climate Change Mitigation?” Climatic Change 118, no. 1 (2013): 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0681-4.

    Larkin, Alice, Jaise Kuriakose, Maria Sharmina, and Kevin Anderson. “What If Negative Emission Technologies Fail at Scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for Big Emitting Nations.” Climate Policy 3062, no. August (2017): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1346498.

    Leach, Melissa, and Ian Scoones. Carbon Conflicts and Forest Landscapes in Africa. Edited by Melissa Leach and Ian Scoones. New York: Routledge, 2015.

    Lenzi, Dominic. “The Ethics of Negative Emissions.” Global Sustainability 1 (2018): 1–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.546.

    Low, Sean. “The Futures of Climate Engineering.” Earth’s Future 5 (2017): 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/eft2.182.

    Mahony, Martin, and Mike Hulme. “Epistemic Geographies of Climate Change.” Progress in Human Geography, 2016, 030913251668148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516681485.

    Markusson, Nils, Duncan McLaren, and David Tyfield. “Towards a Cultural Political Economy of Mitigation Deterrence by Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs).” Global Sustainability 1 (2018): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.10.

    McGrath, Matt. “Caution Urged over Use of ‘carbon Unicorns’ to Limit Warming.” BBC News, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45742191.

    Milne, Sarah, Sango Mahanty, Phuc To, Wolfram Dressler, Peter Kanowski, and Maylee Thavat. “Learning from ‘Actually Existing’ REDD+: A Synthesis of Etnographic Findings.” Conservation and Society, 2018, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_13.

    Minx, Jan C, William F Lamb, Max W Callaghan, Sabine Fuss, Jérôme Hilaire, Dominic Lenzi, Gregory Nemet, et al. “Negative Emissions: Part 1 - Research Landscape, Ethics and Synthesis.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (2018).

    Nordhaus, William D. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008.

    ———. “An Optimal Transision Path for Controlling Greenhouse Gases.” Science 258, no. 5086 (1992): 1315–19.

    ———. “Projections and Uncertainties about Climate Change in an Era of Minimal Climate Policies.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 10, no. 3 (2018): 333–60. http://cowles.yale.edu/.

    Osborne, Tracey. “Tradeoffs in Carbon Commodification: A Political Ecology of Common Property Forest Governance.” Geoforum 67 (2015): 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.10.007.

    Parson, Edward A. “Climate Policymakers and Assessments Must Get Serious about Climate Engineering.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 35 (2017): 9227–30. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713456114.

    Peters, Glen P., and Oliver Geden. “Catalysing a Political Shift from Low to Negative Carbon.” Nature 15

    Climate Change, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3369.
    Pindyck, Robert S. “The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy.”
    Review of Environmental

    Economics and Policy 11, no. 1 (2017): 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rew012.

    Riahi, Keywan, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Elmar Kriegler, Jae Edmonds, Brian C. O’Neill, Shinichiro Fujimori, Nico Bauer, et al. “The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and Their Energy, Land Use, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implications: An Overview.” Global Environmental Change 42 (2017): 153–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.

    Schleussner, Carl-friedrich, Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Tabea Lissner, Rachel Licker, Erich M Fischer, Reto Knutti, Anders Levermann, Katja Frieler, and William Hare. “Science and Policy Characteristics of the Paris Agreement Temperature Goal.” Nature Climate Change 6, no. July (2016): 827–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3096.

    Scott, Vivian, and Oliver Geden. “The Challenge of Carbon Dioxide Removal for EU Policy-Making.” Nature Energy, 2018, 2016–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0124-1.

    Shell. “Energy Transition Report,” 2018. https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy- future/shell-energy-transition- report/_jcr_content/par/toptasks.stream/1524757699226/f51e17dbe7de5b0eddac2ce19275dc 946db0e407ae60451e74acc7c4c0acdbf1/web-shell-energy-transition-report.pdf.

    ———. “Shell Scenarios: Sky - Meeting the Goals of the Paris Agreement,” 2018. https://www.shell.com/promos/meeting-the-goals-of-the-paris- agreement/_jcr_content.stream/1521983847468/5f624b9260ef2625f319558cbb652f8b23d331 933439435d7a0fc7003f346f94/shell-scenarios-sky.pdf.

    ———. “Sky Scenario,” 2018. https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy- future/scenarios/shell-scenario-sky.html.

    Shue, Henry. “Climate Dreaming: Negative Emissions, Risk Transfer, and Irreversibility.” Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 8, no. 2 (2017): 203–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307.

    Smith, Pete, Steven J Davis, Felix Creutzig, Sabine Fuss, and Jan Minx. “Biophysical and Economic Limits to Negative CO2 Emissions.” Nature Climate Change 6, no. December (2016): 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2870.

    Stanton, Elizabeth A., Frank Ackerman, and Sivan Kartha. “Inside the Integrated Assessment Models: Four Issues in Climate Economics.” Climate and Development 1, no. 2 (2009): 166–84. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2009.0015.

    Stern, Nicholas. “The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models.” Journal of Economic Literature 51, no. 3 (2013): 838–59. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.3.838.

    Tavoni, Massimo, and Robert Socolow. “Modeling Meets Science and Technology: An Introduction to a Special Issue on Negative Emissions.” Climatic Change 118, no. 1 (2013): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0757-9.

    Turnhout, Esther. “The Politics of Environmental Knowledge.” Conservation and Society 16, no. 3 (2018): 363–71.

    Turnhout, Esther, Katja Neves, and Elisa De Lijster. “‘Measurementality’ in Biodiversity Governance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes).” Environment and Planning A 46, no. 3 (2014): 581–97.

    16

    https://doi.org/10.1068/a4629.

    Vaughan, Adam. “Shell Boss Says Mass Reforestation Needed to Limit Temperature Rises to 1.5C.” The Guardian, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/09/shell-ben-van- beurden-mass-reforestation-un-climate-change-target.

    Vuuren, Detlef P. Van, Michel G.J. Den Elzen, Paul L. Lucas, Bas Eickhout, Bart J. Strengers, Bas Van Ruijven, Steven Wonink, and Roy Van Houdt. “Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Low Levels: An Assessment of Reduction Strategies and Costs.” Climatic Change 81, no. 2 (2007): 119–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9172-9.

    Vuuren, Detlef P. Van, Elke Stehfest, David E.H.J. Gernaat, Maarten Van Den Berg, David L. Bijl, Harmen Sytze De Boer, Vassilis Daioglou, et al. “Alternative Pathways to the 1.5 °c Target Reduce the Need for Negative Emission Technologies.” Nature Climate Change 8, no. 5 (2018): 391–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8.

    Vuuren, Detlef P Van, Andries F Hof, Mariësse A E Van Sluisveld, and Keywan Riahi. “Open Discussion of Negative Emissions Is Urgently Needed.” Nature Energy, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0055-2.

    17


  • commented on 10 Facts the World's Governments and Largest Environmental Groups are Hiding about Climate Change 2021-04-20 21:43:19 -0700
    Hi LN,

    Our Job One for Humanity Plan and this page mention the degrowth and overshoot you thought we do not cover. See this page to start: https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/world_s_most_critical_global_challenges The Job One Team

  • A Fun 4 min Video Inspiring Improvement on Global Challenges Including Global Warming

    You have to see this short fun global video and get re-inspired!  It was the #Film4Climate 1st Prize Short Film Winner. 

    Read more

  • commented on Climate Week 2020 Weak Response from Governments 2020-10-02 15:43:36 -0700
    Dear Liz,

    While local governments can do many small things, the global warming problem is so far out of control that only national government action can save us at this time. Please see our detailed action plan for governments at the following page link. Local governments can also do many of the actions described on this page as well. https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/the_job_one_plan_part_3_collective_actions_to_survive_global_warming

  • commented on Record High Northern Hemisphere Summer Heating is the Worst News 2020-10-02 10:46:22 -0700
    Great article Peter! You really make the climate starvation link clear, but will our leaders react?

  • Here Are the Surprisingly Aligned Positions on Climate Change and Global Warming from the World's Major Religions

    Most major world religions have released important statements on the need to end Climate Change and Global Warming. Here they are.

    Read more

  • commented on Author"s Bio 2020-08-15 10:00:52 -0700
    Hi Alton,

    I am going to read your paper on Viking villages. If it aligns with the ecovillage work I and our team is doing at JobOneforHumanity.org and particularly at UniverseSpirit.org I will get back with you with an invitation to collaborate with us on creating these new communities. If you would like, email me at [email protected] and I will send you specific links that our design team is reviewing to create the principles, policies and the goals for these new communities/villages.

    Lawrence Wollersheim
    Executive Director
    Job One for Humanity

  • commented on The Many Surprise Benefits of Climate Change & Global Warming 2020-06-27 10:10:47 -0700
    Thanks Peter for your comment. The future can be so much better once we come together to finally solve the global warming emergency, which will give us the needed time to solve our other major global crisis.

    The Job One team

  • commented on What will it REALLY take for our governments to end the global warming-caused extinction emergency? 2020-03-05 11:50:40 -0800
    Dear Michael,

    Thank you for your kind comments and evaluation of the fossil fuel reduction process we are proposing. How to get everyone together and started is the remaining issue as you have said.

    At this point, I have to leave it to the far bigger environmental groups and trust their members will see our article and hound their executives until they act. There is also a bit of faith and trust involved here as well. I and our organization have done everything we can within our resources.

    I have faith that other rational individuals will stand up and I trust the deep processes of evolution that always find a way to take every situation and evolve some good out of it.

    Best,

    Lawrence Wollersheim
    Executive Director at Job One for Humanity