a vision of a bright green future that is both bold and beautiful

Thank you Alex for this one... No need for me to add anything:
The whole text can be found here.

"Carbon-neutral prosperity is possible. We can design and build a sustainable society within the time we have remaining. The matter hinges entirely on having the will to build it. And that's what's going to be tested now, and big time: our will.

Beyond the political barriers, though, I think there are some habits of mind that impede the gathering of that will.

The first is, as we've said here frequently, the lack of compelling and credible visions of what that society would look like. Without those visions, it is very difficult for any of us to seriously imagine transformational change. As Bucky said, "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." We need to cultivate a vision of a bright green future that is both bold and beautiful, that goes far enough and offers people better lives."

From marginal to structural approaches to climate change – The case of IT

Almost every day there are reports about the increased CO2 contribution from the IT/ICT sector. The sad thing is that almost all of them (I have not found one of the major magazines running a story about the potential of IT/ICT). The latest two, that I got in my inbox today, is in New Scientist and a Reuter article (even if I have to say that Reuter is one of the few mainstream outlets that actually have covered the potential of ICT to reduce CO2)

It makes me a bit sad to see that Consumer Electronics Show (CES) will go for offsetting through planting trees and will try to see if they could support a scheme where “offsetting” can be used to trigger a really sustainable development and address the problem that is being offset. In the case of CES the obvious way would be to invest in virtual meetings/video conferencing infrastructure so we do not need to fly so much in the future… For an outline of such a project see this page.

Obviously it is not totally unimportant with the direct and LCA impact of IT and high tech equipment, but we must start to focus on the role this sector have in the transition towards a low carbon economy. That require us to move a way from a perspective where we look at each sector and see how they can (on the margin) reduce their reductions and shift the focus to how we can provide the services (right temperature, light, meetings, transportation, etc) we need. Then we start asking the questions that can guide us to the structural changes we need to see.

See this page for more information about my work in this area.

From marginal to structural approaches to climate change – The case of IT

Almost every day there are reports about the increased CO2 contribution from the IT/ICT sector. The sad thing is that almost all of them (I have not found one of the major magazines running a story about the potential of IT/ICT). The latest two, that I got in my inbox today, is in New Scientist and a Reuter article (even if I have to say that Reuter is one of the few mainstream outlets that actually have covered the potential of ICT to reduce CO2)

It makes me a bit sad to see that Consumer Electronics Show (CES) will go for offsetting through planting trees and will try to see if they could support a scheme where “offsetting” can be used to trigger a really sustainable development and address the problem that is being offset. In the case of CES the obvious way would be to invest in virtual meetings/video conferencing infrastructure so we do not need to fly so much in the future… For an outline of such a project see this page.

Obviously it is not totally unimportant with the direct and LCA impact of IT and high tech equipment, but we must start to focus on the role this sector have in the transition towards a low carbon economy. That require us to move a way from a perspective where we look at each sector and see how they can (on the margin) reduce their reductions and shift the focus to how we can provide the services (right temperature, light, meetings, transportation, etc) we need. Then we start asking the questions that can guide us to the structural changes we need to see.

See this page for more information about my work in this area.

The climate discussion 30 years ago in Sweden – can you spot the difference?

Found this clip on YouTube when Olof Palme talks to Shirley MacLaine. It is from 1977 and a few minutes are spent on the energy issue. Those talking about climate as a new issue should remember that it was used as an argument to defend the investments in Nuclear Power in Sweden already then, and that the nuclear plants should only be there as a transition… Sounds frightening similar to the discussions today here in Sweden 30 years later.

If we need to change the energy system in about 8 years to avoid dangerous climate change we should remember that a lot of people in power today have seen pretty much the same discussion for more than 30 years without changing, even if the danger/promises then focused on nuclear meltdown/transmutation and today it is coal (climate change/CCS).

When will we see an end to the focus on end-of-pipe solutions like transmutation and CCS?

The whole interview (energy part 22:30-28:30) can be found here.

The climate discussion 30 years ago in Sweden – can you spot the difference?

Found this clip on YouTube when Olof Palme talks Shirley MacLaine. It is from 1977 and a few minutes are spent on the energy issue. Those talking about climate as a new issue should remember that it was used as an argument to defend the investments in Nuclear Power in Sweden already then, and that the nuclear plants should only be there as a transition… Sounds frightening similar to the discussions today here in Sweden 30 years later.

If we need to change the energy system in about 8 years to avoid dangerous climate change we should remember that a lot of people in power today have seen pretty much the same discussion for more than 30 years without changing, even if the danger/promises then focused on nuclear meltdown/transmutation and today it is coal (climate change/CCS).

When will we see an end to the focus on end-of-pipe solutions like transmutation and CCS?

The whole interview (energy part 22:30-28:30) can be found here.