RadReduction (Larry Edwards)
LightNews LightNews
radreduction.bsky.social
RadReduction (Larry Edwards)
@radreduction.bsky.social
360 followers 560 following 770 posts
Follow me about radical reductions of climate harming emissions (especially from flying, cruise). Interests: climate, policy, overtourism.

My location: Under the global cloud of GHGs.

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Larry-Edwar
Posts Replies Media Videos
radreduction.bsky.social
The story included in that email ended with the graphically arranged text, below.

The whole story is here:
www.bloomberg.com/news/newslet...
"An unfortunately perfect 10: The last 10 years have been the Arctic's hottest 10 on record. (And separately below that): "Brave new world: 'More severe and more frequent,' Tobias Grimm, Chief climatologist, Munich Re"
January 14, 2026 at 9:59 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
What the well-off (esp. ones in governance) need to "see" & *accept* is: fossil fuels must be eliminated & other GHGs cut—fast (10-15 years)—because, physics.

We can't "see around the corner" of adapting to that but must *accept* necessity of the cuts and, yes, to raise the poor up while doing so.
The chart shows the inexorable rise of global temperature, from a zero index in 1970 to what looks to be 1.2C in 2025 (black line, with ups and downs along the way). Under that line, the contribution to the year-by-year rise is shown by linearly increasing effects of CO2 (red), methane (blue) and other GHGs (yellow) areas. CO2 is by far the greatest contributor. The chart is titled "Human Influence on Global Temperature, and notes is a subheading that "The rate of global warming has accelerated since 2023." Under the chart it is noted: "Source Berkeley Earth" and "Note: Temperature and greenhouse gas contributions normalized to 1970." The chart itself is branded "Bloomberg."
January 14, 2026 at 9:45 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
Story: CO2 "per kmflown has been falling as aircraft become gradually more fuel efficient."

But "growth in the number of flights has far outstripped this, meaning…emissions helping…fuel the climate crisis are rising. Aviation’s [CO2] emissions could double or…triple by 2050…"

Paper: open access.
The image is of a January 7 post by the Guardian, and the link is in the post I replied. The text is the article's headline and lede: "Revealed: how aviation emissions could be halved without cutting journeys Exclusive: Getting rid of premium seats, ensuring flights are near full and using efficient aircraft could slash CO2, analysis suggests"
January 8, 2026 at 8:03 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
National Acadamies, just published:

"Effects of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions on U.S. Climate, Health, and Welfare" (126pp.), countering Trump's move to kill EPA's 2009 CO2 "endangerment finding."

Free PDF: www.nationalacademies.org/projects/NRC...

Two summary extracts:
The committee’s report focuses on evidence gathered by the scientific community since the Technical Support Document was published in 2009 and describes supporting evidence, the level of confidence, and areas that are under continuing debate or are unknown. On the basis of the scientific evidence outlined in the body of this report, the committee reached the following overarching conclusion: Overarching Conclusion: EPA’s 2009 finding that the human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases threaten human health and welfare was accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence. Today, many of EPA’s conclusions are further supported by longer observational records and multiple new lines of evidence. Moreover, research has uncovered additional risks that were not apparent in 2009. This overarching conclusion is supported by the following five conclusions: (1) Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. Human activities—such as the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, cement and chemical production, deforestation, and agricultural activities—emit GHGs, which include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and fluorinated gases (F-gases), to the atmosphere. Total global GHG... ... emissions continue to increase, even though U.S. emissions of CO 2 have decreased slightly in recent years largely due to changes in energy production and consumption. Multiple lines of evidence show that GHG emissions from human activities are the primary driver of the observed long-term warming trend. No known natural drivers, such as incoming solar radiation or volcanic emissions, can explain observed changes. (2) Improved observations confirm unequivocally that greenhouse gas emissions are warming Earth’s surface and changing Earth’s climate. Longer records, improved and more robust observational networks, and analytical and methodological advances have strengthened detection of observed changes and their attribution to elevated GHGs. Trends observed include increases in hot extremes and extreme single-day precipitation events, declines in cold extremes, regional shifts in annual precipitation, warming of the Earth’s oceans, a decrease in ocean pH, rising sea levels, and an increase in wildfire severity. (3) Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change harm the health of people in the United States. Climate change intensifies risks to humans from exposures to extreme heat, ground-level ozone, airborne particulate matter, extreme weather events, and airborne allergens, affecting incidence of cardiovascular, respiratory, and other diseases. Climate change has increased exposure to pollutants from wildfire smoke and dust, which has been linked to adverse health effects. The increasing severity of some extreme events has contributed to injury, illness, and death in affected communities. Health impacts related to climate-sensitive infectious diseases—such as those carried by insects and in contaminated water—have increased. New evidence is developing about additional health impacts of climate change, including on mental health, nutrition, immune health, antimicrobial resistance, kidney disease, and negative pregnancy-re…
December 27, 2025 at 1:30 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
I think it's worth considering that partly what led to the mess we're in was calling what needed to be a ceiling, instead a threshold or target.

And it could be said that we have been in overshoot since 1C (or perhaps 350 ppm).

This from Hare (1997, www.researchgate.net/publication/...):
"Taking the climate sensitivity to be 3.5 oC, with a limit of a 1 oC increase in global mean surface temperature above pre-industrial levels and assuming that other greenhouse gases contribute about one quarter of the effect of CO2 alone in the long term, the ‘carbon budget’ over the next century can be estimated in terms of billions of tonnes of carbon (GtC). With these assumptions, the ‘carbon budget’ is: - 145 GtC - With no action to stop current trends of deforestation (as forests release carbon when destroyed), with 80 GtC emitted from this source over the next century. - 225 GtC - With major action to halt deforestation, stabilising the role of forests at current levels, which would involve a significant global reafforestation programme next century. - 265 GtC - With major action to halt deforestation and a major global afforestation programme to sequester (take up) an extra 40 GtC. There is an uncertainty of around 50% associated with these budgets deriving from uncertainties in the climate sensitivity, the role of other greenhouse gases, in the carbon cycle models and other factors. It should be noted that limiting the long term temperature rise may mean getting back below a 1.0 oC increase above pre-industrial levels as it may not be possible to avoid a rise of 1.0 oC. Because of the lag between temperature rise in the air and the thermal ...
November 25, 2025 at 8:09 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
Paul Brown's Guardian op-ed ("As I write my last column, the facts on climate crisis speak for themselves") is potent, even though wonderfully brief.
(www.theguardian.com/news/2025/no...)

Despite that brevity, I think this summary is worthwhile (note - "them" being scientists):
"In 1995, when the first “conference of the parties” (Cop) of the UN’s climate change convention met in Berlin, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was approximately 360.67 parts per million. The then German chancellor, Helmut Kohl, gave a passionate speech about how greenhouse gases must be reduced to save the planet from overheating. ... Scroll forward through Kyoto, Paris and the annual ritual of 30 years of Cops and the same speech Kohl made has been repeated, sometimes almost word for word, by prime ministers, presidents and campaigners year after year. ... According to them [scientists], the planet is heading towards oblivion. All that time news editors have told me not to be too downbeat; let’s have some optimism."
November 22, 2025 at 7:11 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
This calls to mind a graphic from a new paper by
@danielrosenbloom.bsky.social
and others (here with my editorial addition).

The paper is labeled "Dead-end pathways: Conceptualizing, assessing, avoiding," journals.plos.org/climate/arti...
Fig 1. Simple visualization of a dead-end pathway. Adapted from Layzell & Beaumier [25] and Meadowcroft et al. [26]. The illustration shows two mount that are accessed from the same pathway. The shorter one and the path to its top are labeled "Dead-end Pathway: Cannot reach long-term goal without retracing steps." I have labeled this pathway "Von der Leyen." The top of the taller peak is labeled "Long-term Goal," and the several possible pathways to its top are collectively labeled "Capable Pathways: Long-term goal is accessible."
November 21, 2025 at 11:17 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
This calls to mind a graphic from a new paper by @danielrosenbloom.bsky.social and others (here with my editorial addition).

The paper is labeled "Dead-end pathways: Conceptualizing, assessing, avoiding," doi.org/10.1371/jour...
Fig 1. Simple visualization of a dead-end pathway. Adapted from Layzell & Beaumier [25] and Meadowcroft et al. [26]. The illustration shows two mount that are accessed from the same pathway. The shorter one and the path to its top are labeled "Dead-end Pathway: Cannot reach long-term goal without retracing steps." I have labeled this pathway "Von der Leyen." The top of the taller peak is labeled "Long-term Goal," and the several possible pathways to its top are collectively labeled "Capable Pathways: Long-term goal is accessible."
November 21, 2025 at 6:18 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
"This is what institutional capture looks like when it succeeds: not through exclusion, but through the reproduction of powerlessness disguised as inclusion. ... the conference goes on." And, industrial lobbyists are part of some countries' official delegations.

www.analystnews.org/posts/cop30-...
Article title and lede: COP30 and the ritual of emergency: How climate summits perfect the performance of crisis. Viewpoint: Corporations and governments only agree to frameworks they can circumvent. Any process that requires consensus from polluters will never produce policies that restrict pollution. BY Hasani J. Gunn | The Analyst | November 21, 2025
November 21, 2025 at 3:14 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
For those who may find that interesting, here is a snippet from a review of the book, in MIT Press (muse.jhu.edu/article/428894):
Review by: Alastair Iles Of: Maniates, Michael, and John M. Meyer, eds. 2010. “The Environmental Politics of Sacrifice.” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Environmental organizations and scientists have often called on societies to reduce their consumption, invoking worrisome trends in resource use and degradation. In response, politicians and citizens dismiss this summons as futile and naïve because they view forgoing consumption as too difficult and unfair. Sacrifice appears to be extraordinary, impractical, and impossible to integrate into [End Page 127] existing institutions and ways of living. The essays that Michael Maniates and John M. Meyer have assembled make an important argument about the role of sacrifice in environmental politics: not only is sacrifice not exceptional, societies are depriving themselves of a broader set of potential options by denying that sacrifice can be beneficial. Sacrifice, the editors note, can be understood in many terms: for example, forgoing something now in return for a benefit later; giving up something that is desired; or acting against one's self-interest for societal or communal gain. The essays are grouped into four categories: the role of sacrifice in democratic politics; sacrifice in philosophy and religion; linkages of sacrifice practices to "everyday life"; and examples of sacrifice in the environmental arena. Sacrifice is rightly presented not as a single phenomenon but as a spectrum of varying types ranging from material, welfare, and political, to existential. As Meyer points out, evaluating who is asking for sacrifice, why, and how, can be critical. Some contributors point out that demanding sacrifice can be highly inequitable. The definition of sacrifice has focused on narrow materialistic interests to the exclusion of more socially grounded interests. Sacrifice is equated with loss, yet it can be a way to transform and expand the quality of human life through changing relations with fellow humans and ecosystems...
November 18, 2025 at 5:57 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
Just like dealing with the mob (which this is, under Trump).

A clip from the FT article. (H/T @allouryesterdays.bsky.social). Nice post, Doug.
While the Trump administration has made no secret of its disdain for the UN and multilateral organisations, diplomats and experts warned that the behaviour at the IMO crossed a line, with potential long-term consequences for global governance. “It was like the New York street,” said a diplomat from a nation that was threatened with visa restrictions for shipping crews and other penalties, including increased fees to access US ports, if it did not drop its support for the framework. “They went from delegation to delegation ... threatening them. Telling them to go back and speak to their capitals, warning what would happen if they didn’t change their minds,” the diplomat said. A second veteran of IMO meetings said the US tactics had left the entire organisation — usually a forum for technocratic discussion and consensusbased decision making — in a state of “complete shock”. “It’s like dealing with the Mob,” the veteran added. “It’s bully-boy tactics. They don’t need to tell you exactly what they’re going to do to you, just make it clear that there will be consequences.” A State Department official did not address the personal threats to delegates
November 4, 2025 at 1:52 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
[email protected], just a wild shot here that this may be something you would be interested in reporting on, when he has it ready.

See: www.herringscraps.com/hs40/
In the course of several years living in Sitka, Alaska, I noticed and became curious about the discrepancy at the heart of this thesis: In governing/managing the Sitka sound sac roe herring fishery, the Alaska Dept of Fish & Game is applying a knowledge system about herring that seems out of sync with the lived experiences and observations of locals generally and Indigenous elders specifically. I recognized in this problem an important example of how scientific authority can override community opposition to extractive projects. I returned to school to develop this thesis, in hopes of better understanding this particular knowledge controversy. In the thesis, I attempt to draw on a deep reservoir of archival material - decades of annual reports, newspaper articles, and Board of Fisheries records - to trace how the bundle of knowledge involved in herring enumeration and biomass allocation has been constructed by the State over time, to describe how that knowledge has then been enacted in the world, including by promoting an expanding commercial fishery, and to reflect on what this case study means in the context of concepts like Shifting Baselines Syndrome.
October 13, 2025 at 6:27 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
Just published, in Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences:

"Flight from reality: sustainable aviation, Jet Zero, and the technofix"

Open access:
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Screen shot:
Flight from reality: sustainable aviation, Jet Zero, and the technofix Gareth Dale, Josh Moos and Alistair Bernal Holmes ABSTRACT This paper argues that rising aviation emissions, which are disproportionally driven by the wealthy, pose a serious threat to climate goals. Using the UK’s Jet Zero strategy as a case study, it explores how policymakers and industry promote speculative technologies—efficiency gains, electric and hydrogen aircraft, sustainable aviation fuels, carbon capture, and offsetting—to justify continued aviation growth. We critically assess these claims: electric aircraft are limited to short routes; hydrogen faces major storage and infrastructure barriers, and green hydrogen remains scarce. SAFs, often derived from land-intensive crops, risk deforestation, biodiversity loss, and higher net emissions. Second generation SAFs, such as used cooking oil, are scarce, and power-to-liquid is speculative and prohibitively expensive. Carbon capture is unproven at scale, and offsetting enables airlines to claim reductions without cutting actual emissions. These “solutions” align with a political agenda that prioritises economic growth and airport expansion. We argue that this techno-optimism delays real action. Rather than gambling on future breakthroughs that may never materialise, policymakers should pursue immediate demand-reduction strategies and support a just transition—ending frequent-flyer incentives, shifting short-haul flights to rail, removing aviation fuel subsidies, and retraining workers for low-carbon sectors.
October 10, 2025 at 9:37 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
Here is a powerful, eye-opening video lecture by @naomioreskes.bsky.social summarizing her latest work & the core of her new 500-page book "The Big Myth."

Even if you know a lot about how industry has captured US & European politics & culture, this will shock!

dist02.tobira.ethz.ch/mh_default_o...
This is the introduction slide of Naomi Oreskes 6 May 2025 talk titled "How the Myth of the Free Market has blocked climate action." The biography on the slide is, "The renowned scientist Naomi Oreskes (Harvard University) on economic ideology and its role in obstructing science-based responses to today's most pressing challenges." The talk is a Speed-2-Zero perspective, sponsored by ETH Zurich, eawag, Empa, EPFK, PSI and WSL. The moderator is Swiss climate scientist Sonia Senevirantne. The talk runs 50 minutes, followed by 18 minutes of pithy questions, and answers. The talk is a summary of the core of Oreskes' new book "The Big Myth," covering how untruths about the free market and how the economy works in broad terms got ingrained in US and European culture from the 1920s onward, through an intentional corporate collusion relying on propaganda.
September 27, 2025 at 9:07 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
Among your most interesting points, in my view, are these at the end of your reply to Question 4:
The climate realities of 2005 and 2025 are worlds apart. The pace, scale, and nature of the challenge have shifted so dramatically that earlier modelling offers little useful guidance. Still, some lessons remain: 1. Challenge the framework: Whether net zero, 1.5°C or 2°C, we must question the boundaries of accepted analysis, and even whether temperature is the best framing. 2. Widen the lens: Climate change is one part of a broader ecological and social crisis. Treated in isolation, it invites narrow, technocratic fixes that deepen injustice and shifts damage elsewhere. 3. Break the taboo on discretionary emissions: Structurally locked-in emissions dominate discourse; discretionary emissions – especially from the middle and upper classes – are ignored. Even now, questioning these lifestyles remains taboo, despite their hugely disproportionate impact and capacity for rapid change.
September 13, 2025 at 8:41 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
And then there is this, from Hare (1997).

www.researchgate.net/publication/...
Taking the climate sensitivity to be 3.5oC, with a limit of a 1oC increase in global mean surface temperature above pre-industrial levels and assuming that other greenhouse gases contribute about one quarter of the effect of CO 2 alone in the long term, the ‘carbon budget’ over the next century can be estimated in terms of billions of tonnes of carbon ( GtC). With these assumptions, the ‘carbon budget’ is: - 145 GtC - With no action to stop current trends of deforestation (as forests release carbon when destroyed), with 80 GtC emitted from this source over the next century. - 225 GtC - With major action to halt deforestation, stabilising the role of forests at current levels, which would involve a significant global reafforestation programme next century. - 265 GtC - With major action to halt deforestation and a major global afforestation programme to sequester (take up) an extra 40 GtC. There is an uncertainty of around 50% associated with these budgets deriving from uncertainties in the climate sensitivity, the role of other greenhouse gases, in the carbon cycle models and other factors. It should be noted that limiting the long term temperature rise may mean getting back below a 1.0oC increase above pre-industrial levels as it may not be possible to avoid a rise of 1.0oC. Because of the lag between temperature rise in the air and the thermal expansion of the sea, it is still possible to avoid breaking the limit for sea-level rise if fast enough action is taken.
September 11, 2025 at 1:56 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
That's all true, and is again a nice generality. If government acts on it, it's hard to say what you will actually get.

An example of specifics—Hawaii's Dept of Transport, seeing cruise tourism as less important that sea cargo, put the below cruise ship restrictions in its June draft GHG plan:
(Table) Marine Strategies HAR: Harbors HAR-1, Description Reduce the Number of Cruise Ship Calls and the Size of Cruise Ships Allowed to Dock: HDOT, in coordination with cruise Lines, Local businesses, stevedores, ground transportation providers, and affected communities, will implement regulations to reduce both the number and size of cruise ships visiting Hawaii ports. This strategy is designed to reduce marine sector emissions in the state, enhance Local air and water quality, and Lessen the environmental and social impacts of Large-scale cruise tourism. implementation Timeline: 2030: 50% reduction in overall cruise vessel calls, 75% in >3,000 passenger vessel calls. 2035: 75% reduction in overall cruise vessel calls, 100% in >3,000 passenger vessel calls. 2040 through 2045: Limit the cruise vessel calls to 75% below 2023 levels. Roles and Responsibilities: • HDOT: Develop, adopt, and implement the regulation/policy. Benchmark: Reduction in Cruise Ship Traffic - Track the percentage decrease in total cruise ship calls and large cruise ship calls (those carrying more than 3,000 passengers) at commercial ports compared to 2023 Levels using PortCall.com data.
September 8, 2025 at 9:47 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
Final paragraph of Fressoz (2025), doi.org/10.1016/j.er... "In tech we trust: A history of technophilia in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate mitigation expertise" (open access):
New questions need to be studied. What, for instance, would be the social and economic implications of deliberately downsizing or phasing out specific sectors? How would a sustained decline in international tourism affect welfare and employment? What would be the conse­ quences of halting new road construction in high-income countries, of reducing drastically meat consumption and car usage or of dismantling the military-industrial complex? How might such structural shifts reshape broader economic systems and collective well-being? These questions may appear speculative, but they are arguably no more so than the vision of hydrogen-powered aircraft featured in the recent IPCC working group III report. Only by engaging these questions can mitigation expertise begin to support a serious democratic debate on sufficiency, reduction, and dismantlement. As CO2 concentrations continue to rise, such issues are no longer peripheral—they are central to any realistic assessment of climate futures. If climate expertise re­ mains tied to speculative technological assumptions, it risks being judged not as a force for political or economic reorientation, but as a system that delayed necessary action by narrowing the scope of legiti­ mate solutions.
September 7, 2025 at 6:56 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
In thinking of the trillions in should-be-stranded fossil assets Trump & the GOP are protecting, don't overlook the huge Paris-Agreement-sanctioned expansion of aviation and cruise industry assets: more airliners, more cruise ships, airport expansions, new cruise destination resorts. Big business!
Image of the original Bsky post by David Ho, @davidho.bsky.social on August 28, relaying a New York Times article: David's post says, "Because destroying the US is not enough, Trump is using tariffs, visa restrictions, and trade deals to pressure other countries to abandon climate goals and increase fossil fuel use, further destroying the world and the future." The NYT headline was, "Trump, With Tariffs and Threats, Tries to Strong-Arm Nations to Retreat on Climate Goals," and the link to it is https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/climate/trump-international-pressure-climate-oil.html?unlocked_article_code=1.hk8.Ks3F.S-JFEYw8YcUW&smid=bs-share
August 28, 2025 at 7:31 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
Some more or the text from the petition (280,000 signatures so far, 300,000 targeted):

www-change-org.translate.goog/p/claudiashe... ):
This project directly threatens: Our rights of access and use of the sea, beaches, and mangroves, our local identity, our way of life, our freedom to live here, and above all, the survival of unique and threatened ecosystems: three species of sea turtles, resident manatees, living mangroves, and the second largest coral reef in the world. We have already witnessed their environmental management: videos circulating showing the dumping of wastewater into the mangroves adjacent to their facilities. And today, it's not just a cruise ship dock, but a giant water park. 📍 This project is not an isolated case. In CocoCay (Bahamas), an identical Royal Caribbean project already led to : The exclusion of local populations from their coastline, with the privatization of coastal areas that were previously freely accessible, The massive destruction of biodiversity through the elimination of mangroves and pollution of the reef, causing a drastic reduction in marine fauna, The almost exclusive enrichment of the multinational . Royal Caribbean plans to welcome up to 20,000 tourists per day: with them, tons of chemical sunscreen, plastic waste, water-polluting mega-cruise ships, and absurd freshwater consumption in a region already suffering from water stress. All of this destroys mangroves and still-living coastlines, without a serious environmental impact study, and dispossesses local communities of their own territories, as has already happened elsewhere.
August 25, 2025 at 10:30 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
This chart from the report shows how Hawaii's Dept of Transport is planning to reach net-negative maritime sector emissions by 2045.

It features a deep cut in cruise tourism because, "Unlike cargo vessels, cruise ships primarily serve tourism and…do not necessarily enhance core economic sectors…"
Figure 3-3. Marine Net-Negative Emissions Strategy HDOT's overarching goal is to achieve absolute zero emissions as soon as possible. It is a chart, with "CO2 Emission in metric tonnes on the Y axis, and years 2025 through 2025 on the X axis. 1. Cruise Activity: 50% reduction by 2030, and 75% by 2035; restrict vessels > 3000 pax 2. Cruise Vessel: Non-home ported vessels transitioning to bio-LNG near term and e-fuels longer term 3. Interisland Operation: 100% biodiesel by 2030, transitioning to e-fuels by 2045. 4. Inter-state Operation: 70% bio-LNG by 2030, shifting to e-fuels by 2045. 5. Assist Tugs : 100% biodiesel by 2030, moving to zero emissions by 2045.
August 24, 2025 at 8:48 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
Here is a summary of Hawai'i DOT's move for reducing visits by cruise ships and the climate-harming emissions of these ships.

See previous post for a link to the June 2025 draft plan.
Marine Strategies (HAR: Harbors) Strategy Description HAR-1 Reduce the Number of Cruise Ship Calls and the Size of Cruise Ships Allowed to Dock: HDOT, in coordination with cruise lines, local businesses, stevedores, ground transportation providers, and affected communities, will implement regulations to reduce both the number and size of cruise ships visiting Hawai‘i ports. This strategy is designed to reduce marine sector emissions in the state, enhance local air and water quality, and lessen the environmental and social impacts of large-scale cruise tourism. Implementation Timeline: 2030: 50% reduction in overall cruise vessel calls, 75% in >3,000 passenger vessel calls. 2035: 75% reduction in overall cruise vessel calls, 100% in >3,000 passenger vessel calls. 2040 through 2045: Limit the cruise vessel calls to 75% below 2023 levels. Roles and Responsibilities: • HDOT: Develop, adopt, and implement the regulation/policy. Benchmark: Reduction in Cruise Ship Traffic – Track the percentage decrease in total cruise ship calls and large cruise ship calls (those carrying more than 3,000 passengers) at commercial ports compared to 2023 levels using PortCall.com data.
August 24, 2025 at 8:34 AM
radreduction.bsky.social
In 2020 @coxstan.bsky.social & I took a stab at answering that dilemma: www.researchgate.net/publication/....

We also reported in 2022 on scientists testifying on a policy "palatability" pathway, at a hearing of the Oireachtas (Ireland's legislature), below: www.resilience.org/stories/2022... 3/3
As the scientists discussed several times [at the Oireachtas hearing] during the hearing, the governmental action they are calling for is “not easy” and is “politically risky”, because “none of it is palatable” to the public, at least at present. But the climate physics and the now all-too-apparent and rapidly escalating climate impacts show that the only “realistic” course is for politicians, scientists and activists to strive – paraphrasing the words of the four – to make unthinkable policy thinkable, and the unpalatable palatable. There are no easy choices left; the easy choices evaporated years or decades ago. We have found that among climate scientists and politicians, advocacy for a direct fossil fuel phase-out with adaptation through resource allocation and rationing, is very rare indeed. That’s why we found the Oireachtas hearing so encouraging. We hope that the views of McMullin, Price, Sweeney, and Anderson will emanate through the world climate community.
August 18, 2025 at 7:51 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
This was the status of the Washington Monument the last time forces threatened to invade Washington, D.C.

(Circa 1861)

(Well, except for Jan. 6, but things are starting to look even more serious now.)
A photo of the stub of the unfinished Washington Monument, in 1861.
August 17, 2025 at 10:27 PM
radreduction.bsky.social
CRUISE SHIP CAP: This article details Monday's substantial win in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals by defendant Town of Bar Harbor, Maine and defendant-intervenor Charles Sidman.

The cap will stand, depending on how lower court rules on 1 remanded issue.

theqsjournal.substack.com/p/how-us-cir...
The headline from Lincoln Millstein's article in his Quietside Journal on August 12, 2025: "How U.S. Circuit Court dismantled APPLL's interstate commerce arguments" Note: APPLL is a group of Bar Harbor (Maine) businesses that formed to litigate against a citizen initiative passed by local citizens in November 2022 to greatly limit the daily number of cruise ship passengers landing there. The initiative had passed by a 2-to-1 margin.)
August 13, 2025 at 7:16 AM