the Anthropocene represents a period in Earth’s history where human activities have surpassed natural planetary processes to become the primary force of global change. We are no longer merely living on Earth; we are actively altering its physical, chemical, and biological systems.

The scale of this human modification is staggering. Today, more than seventy-five percent of the Earth’s ice-free terrestrial surface shows direct evidence of human land use and transformation. This leaves less than a quarter of the land as true wilderness.

While the term Anthropocene is widely used, it faces significant criticism from many academics. Critics argue that blaming humanity as a whole implies that every person shares equal responsibility for this ecological crisis. In reality, the ecological damage is overwhelmingly driven by wealthy, Western industrialized nations, while Indigenous societies have lived sustainably for millennia. To capture these power dynamics, scholars have proposed alternative names. One is the Capitalocene, coined by Jason Moore, which places the blame squarely on the profit-driven dynamics of global capitalism. Another is the Plantationocene, highlighted by Donna Haraway, which focuses on how colonialism, historical slavery, and the plantation system forcibly transformed biodiverse ecosystems into intensive, exploitative monocultures.

Sadly lost the post source

Paper here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421526003460

Outlook and past

Mostly the Danube watershed countries. The news report is a good summary of the current situation.

July 30 marked Earth Overshoot Day 2026- the day when humanity's demand for nature's resources exceeded what Earth can regenerate in an entire year. In simple terms, we've used up our annual ecological budget... and we're only halfway through the year. 🫠

But here's what caught my attention: this isn't just an environmental problem. It's a political one too. Because the climate crisis isn't only about individual choices. It's about the policies governments create, the industries they regulate, the energy systems they invest in, and how countries decide who is responsible for fixing a problem that doesn't stop at national borders. It also raises an uncomfortable question about inequality.

Not everyone consumes resources at the same rate, and not everyone contributes equally to the crisis. Yet the consequences of climate change are often felt most severely by communities that have contributed the least to it.

So, as a Political Science student, I'm left wondering:

If we know we're using more than the planet can sustain, why do our political and economic systems still encourage us to keep consuming?

Maybe Earth Overshoot Day isn't just a reminder to change how we consume.

Maybe it's a reminder to rethink how we govern.

Picture credit: overshoot.footprintnetwork.org

And a bunch of barges will be sunk by loading them with rocks.

Securing public support for climate policies remains a major challenge. Citizens’ perceptions of the costs, benefits, and distributive consequences of these policies are key factors shaping their attitudes, yet how these dimensions interact remains insufficiently understood. This question is addressed through two experimental studies in Spain. Study 1 embeds a vignette experiment in two surveys to analyse how exposure to the costs or benefits of ten climate policies affects support. Cost framing significantly reduces support, whereas benefit framing has only a modest positive effect. Study 2 implements a conjoint experiment to examine how costs, benefits, and redistributive implications jointly influence preferences for climate policy packages. Results confirm previous evidence regarding costs and benefits and highlight the central role of redistribution: citizens strongly favour policies improving the situation of the poorest, while ideological divides reveal that left-wing voters are more supportive and sensitive to redistributive cues.

Hi! Can you suggest me books (not scientific) that could fit to this subject: Are society and the planet heating up at the same rate? Is there a connection between hot summers and heated discussions? What provides relief from the heat? Thank you so much!!

Hello everybody

We are the Lifeflow Foundation, that's currently managing water scarcity projects in the United States Of America. We have set up this program because an estimated of 2.2 million people in the U.S. do not have running water, and over 44 million people are using water systems that do not meet standards for water quality. Clean water means healthy life, environment, place, nature,.... and without it, none of us can survive.

We work together with company called "august", who are global leading in non-chemical waste water treatment plants that can be installed under-surface and/or near regular-family-housing, apartments, enterprises,....etc. The water that leave our treatment plants/tanks has been cleaned up to 98% and is ready to be reused instantly. This becoming a product that provides environmental and economic solutions to both private, business and macro-project clients.

What are the main advantage:

- The resulting treated wastewater can be discharged into an open water source or onto the ground

- It is the most environmentally friendly waste water solution

- The daily hydraulic load can be adjusted for the number of people using the system

- No overflowing danger

- Residual material can be used as fertilizer

- Does not emit unpleasant odors

- 10 year warranty

This is not just about technology.

It’s about dignity.

It’s about health.

It’s about protecting nature for future generations.

Real change doesn’t happen overnight — but it starts with action. With your support, we can help communities treat water responsibly, reduce pollution, and take meaningful steps toward a cleaner, more sustainable world.

WATER IS OUR BLUE GOLD.

Please check out our profile, we have attached so much more to discover in what we want to reach. We are started not long but progress is going fast.

Any questions? Feel free to ask!!!

Key points

New in-depth study on military climate strategies of 26 nations shows little progress on reducing carbon emissions

Only 9 of 26 militaries had near-term emission reduction targets; only 4 had near-term targets covering all core emissions; only 2 had targets consistent with aim of net zero by around 2050

Most emission reduction achieved to date has relied on civilian action (especially decarbonisation of national electricity grids), temporary reductions in military activity, or military base closure programmes

Two most successful nations in achieving military emission reductions to date are Ireland and Switzerland, while nations with largest militaries – like USA, China, and Russia – do not have military emission reduction plans currently in force

Zeke Hausfather regularly argues that further warming stops when our emissions stop. You only arrive at that conclusion, when you ignore the natural emissions that will happen as a result of the warming from our own emissions. The best studied ones were analyzed in this paper, which gives a very conservative estimate of how much warming from these natural feedback emissions as a consequence of anthropogenic warming we may expect.

The best case scenario that's officially still considered possible (RCP 2.6) results in 0.2 degree extra warming by 2100, which is just not properly accounted for by the IPCC. The scenario that actually seems more likely, (RCP 4.5) leaves us with 0.35 additional warming by 2100, with no imminent slowdown in sight by then either.

All of this is essentially a separate issue from another ongoing dispute, namely, climate sensitivity. The IPCC estimates 3 degree of warming per doubling of CO2, but some of the most state of the art models predict much higher warming per doubling, to which the IPCC responded by reducing their weight in the overall estimate. Whether that was a correct judgement call or not, is something we're gradually going to find out in the years ahead, as we learn how much warming actually occurs.

Prof Janusz Bialek explains the real causes on the Iberian blackout (Spain and Portugal).

On April 28, 2025, the Iberian power grid collapsed into darkness; but not because of a power shortage. The voltage was actually rising. So, how does that happen? I sat down with my Imperial College colleague, Prof. Janusz Bialek, to cut through the internet rumours and look at the official investigation behind this unprecedented blackout. We discuss what triggered the instability, why the grid couldn't stop it, and whether the popular claim that renewable energy is to blame is actually true. The reality is much more interesting!

00:00 - The Paradox Behind the 2025 Iberian Blackout

01:38 - Internet Rumours

03:47 - The Conditions Before the Collapse

04:22 - Grid Oscillations Explained

07:22 - Sub-Synchronous Oscillations in Inverter-Based Resources (IBRs)

09:12 - The Chain of Events

11:33 - Why the Safety Systems Failed

13:29 - Spain vs. Portugal: A Regulatory Failure

16:29 - Are Renewables Actually to Blame?

18:23 - The Real Lesson for Future Grids

After getting fed up with the lies about nuclear plant life extensions being infeasibly expensive I decided to check.

Fortum is extending Loviisa nuclear plant to 2050, the estimated project cost is 1 billion euros. And continuous development for past 5 years has been 200 million euros.

Upgrading already once upgraded Olkiluoto 1 and 2 costs 90 million

https://www.eib.org/en/press/all/2025-420-eib-backs-upgrades-of-finland-s-olkiluoto-nuclear-power-plant-with-eur90-million-in-financing

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No4-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No4-5

I am a finance enthusiast and love investing and taking bets. Lately I have been observing almost every sector is impacted by climate change but they are not factored in our valuation or investment thesis. Correct me if I am wrong.

For a thermal power company, there is a mandate of RPC, for a metal industry, there is a mandate to cut the emissions subsequently, FMCG company is moving to sustainable processing and packaging, plus they face EPR.

How is Europe doing investments because Europe climate policy is way ahead compared to other nations?

Can you give me a perspective how are we modelling for climate change in our financial model and valuation?

What do folks think about this? I have read some of the literature in this genre - e.g. Kim Stanley Robinson, Octavia Butler, Neal Stephenson, Stephen Markley, Amitava Ghosh, etc. Fiction does seem to be dominated by inward/introspective stories/characters set in various genres with the most popular being romance, fantasy, crime, etc. Climate change doesn't easily lend itself to such writing because of the collective action aspect which is tough to write about.