Fascinating indeed. Similar concepts can be drawn in politics about rivers from lines that separate us (as they do in most political maps) to rivers and their basins as shared places
Nice 😀 it’d also be interesting to see how much of that seasonality and variability through years is attributable to hydroelectric - or how more diversified sources are changing that
Tipo : muito obrigado, é uma honra. Percebi que talvez a diversidade do evento poderia melhorar se vcs invitarem também XYZ
O q vc fez foi muito corajoso. Um possível meio-termo seria não rejeitar, mais indicar aos organizadores as outras opções é como elas são boas para a diversidade do evento
No big news, really, but sad to read how fundamentally broken carbon credit standards are www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Celebrate Vizzuality’s 15th anniversary with us! Our comms team created a snapshot of how Vizzuality has evolved over the last 15 years through 15 #impactstories.
Visit our website to know more:
vizzuality.com/15-years
Indeed! At my company we’re always on the look for impact driven, talented individuals, kindly point them our way 😉
I feel the “not through personal action” point is quite important. Young (and older) people can get quite anxious and frustrated by not doing enough-recycling, cutting out meat, not taking planes, etc- and get blocked forgetting there are many other ways to change things
Companies willing to reduce their impacts on nature can (and should) do so even with limited data on their supply chains. Thanks, @planettracker.bsky.social, for proving the point
medium.com/vizzuality-b...
Excellent presentation, Jonathan. This is a great way to communicate the issue to a general, non-scientific audience 👏
Great paper, thanks! But isn't there an obvious tension between the emphasis on integrating biodiversity metrics into financial and corporate decision-making and the fact that many of those mentioned in the paper are not fully open-access (at least for commercial use)?
Also, coincidentally, $1.3T is about the amount that currently goes to fossil fuel subsidies annually
In other words, for every $ we give developing countries to fight climate change, we hand out 3$ to fossil fuel companies in direct financial support and tax breaks, which in turn creates 18$ of environmental damage and health costs.
It makes no sense
Parties reached a "breakthrough agreement" at #COP29 that will raise finance to developing countries to $300 billion annually.
Just to put things in context, explicit fossil fuel subsidies were well over $1 trillion ($7 trillion if we count unpriced externalities) in 2022 alone.
We can do better
