Andreas Malm is a professor of human ecology in Sweden, and he wants to blow up pipelines. Well, sort of. His argument: The climate movement in its current form will not achieve the drastic changes needed. It needs a more radical wing, one that will literally «destroy the property that’s destroying the planet». In this hour-long conversation, he lays out his case in detail, and responds to obvious objections. Thought-provoking.

The carbon footprint is a flawed concept. Not only because BP popularised it to shift blame to individuals. It also limits itself to what can conveniently be measured (how much energy you use, what you eat, how much you fly,…). If we’re interested in an individual’s impact on the climate crisis, we’d want something more sophisticated. That’s why I like the idea of the «climate shadow». It «helps each of us visualize how the sum of our life’s choices influence the climate emergency». It includes how you vote. Where you work. How you use your influence on others. Anything that has an impact, good or bad. It might not be easy to measure, but that’s not the point.

The most impressive example of international cooperation on any challenge in history» — What can we learn from how humanity dealt with the depleted ozone layer for tackling the climate crisis? The historical perspective provides valuable insights. However, as the author points out, there is one key difference: Just like with the climate crisis, rich countries contributed most to causing the problem. Unlike with the climate crisis, they also had the most to lose if it didn’t get fixed. Honi soit qui mal y pense…

Election matter — that much we knew. But how much, exactly, when it comes to an individual’s actions to mitigate climate change? I am equal parts intrigued by the attempt and wary of what looks like false precision in this article. Based on research for Canadian elections, the median emissions responsibility of a voter who selected a winning candidate was 34.2 tons of Co2 equivalents — way more than the average person emits per year.

Two weeks ago, people in Switzerland voted against a modest piece of climate legislation — as if we can just wait and see. This week, as a scorching heat wave hit Canada with temperatures of up to 49.7 degrees, I came across a comment: «This moment will be talked about for centuries.» My immediate reaction was: Well, that’s the best case scenario. As I’m trying to understand what is happening here, I discovered this helpful essay. At its core: our inability to grasp discontinuity — the «moment where past experience loses its value as a guide to decision-making about the future.» And it lays out a simple choice: «Disruption now, or even more discontinuity (and then more disruption).» So far, we pretend there’s a third option: to just wait and see. Read it now

Humanity needs to drastically reduce its carbon footprint, and fast. The only surefire way to reduce emissions is…to reduce emissions. The case against the techno-optimistic way towards «net zero», which the authors describe as «a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach». Read it now

The economy is one of the driving forces on this planet. So one would think economists have a thing or two to contribute to solving arguably the biggest issue before us. Yet, Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith argues how «climate economics has almost completely failed to be useful to the national policy discourse». A good read. Also, more opinion pieces should include the phrase «That’s obviously bananapants.»

A great piece in its own right, but also an excellent pairing with this week’s recommendation #1. When it comes to addressing the climate crisis, we have a tendency to put our hopes on promising technological solutions in the future rather than going for the obvious fixes that work right now (hence the reference to Occam’s Razor).

A vivid time-travel into our planet’s climate past, where there are rainforests in the Arctic, camels in Canada, and the Amazon is running backwards. It’s stunning that we’re able to study the earth’s climate from millions of years ago. Scary, too. «Taking in the whole sweep of Earth’s history, now we see how unnatural, nightmarish, and profound our current experiment on the planet really is. Read it now. (Audio version available, too)

Industrial countries have disproportionally caused the climate crisis that developing countries disproportionally suffer from. Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò and Beba Cibralic make a strong case for a «historically informed response to climate migration» that would make the West «grapple with their role in creating the climate crisis and rendering parts of the world uninhabitable.» (I absolutely love the illustration created for this article. Such a great metaphor — one I haven’t seen in this context yet. If you’re unsure what it means, google «Kintsugi»)