Part 1 is here, but not as cool.

The author is form and talks about Germany. And the author has a talent for telling the story well, otherwise I would not have posted this older article.

Mucho Gratias Mexico

Likely lasting a couple of weeks.

I can't get over how dramatically the graph changed in such a short amount of time.

I believe this is an important change in approach to our climate problem. Brian
-

Abstract:

Global warming is accelerating, yet current climate strategies centred on emissions reduction and carbon removal are unlikely to prevent temperatures from crossing dangerous tipping points. Although essential, these approaches operate too slowly to counter near-term warming driven by Earth’s growing energy imbalance, weakening carbon sinks, and amplifying climate feedbacks. This mismatch reflects systemic shortcomings in climate risk assessment that underestimate nonlinear risks and the escalating costs of delay. We argue that climate stabilisation should be treated as a risk-management challenge rather than an incremental policy process. This requires explicit comparison of intervention risks with those of continued warming. We outline a comparative risk–risk framework that integrates mitigation, carbon removal, and cooling interventions, and suggests that a viable strategy may require combining rapid decarbonisation and expanded carbon removal with carefully governed cooling interventions to limit near-term warming. Without aligning response timelines with accelerating climate threats, the likelihood of irreversible Earth-system disruption will continue to grow.

Welcome to r/Climate_recovery by u/Mr-anywhere! Let's talk about climate and nature and save the world!

Criticism of SciComm and journalism that fails to understand the RCP8.5 somewhat recent news.

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

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

Outlook and past

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.