Hello, and happy Friday! This COP26-laden correspondence is arriving a week early as it seemed only right that it should be timed with the end of the summit, which is scheduled to wrap up today in Glasgow.
The good news: the climate crisis has been resolved! Okay, no—not really. In fact, a sobering assessment from Climate Action Tracker warns that countries’ short-term targets puts the world on track for a 2.4°C temperature increase by the end of the century—a significant jump from the 1.5°C limit we’ve all been hearing about since the Paris Climate Accords.
Speaking with environmental campaigners over the past couple of weeks tempered whatever expectations I had about how this COP would go. They told me that if they are optimistic about anything, it’s that this summit will prompt more people to come to terms with the fact that “Nobody is coming to save us.” The sooner that happens, they reasoned, the sooner more people will be galvanized to join them. More on that below. But first…
In podcast news: I joined this week’s Bunker panel, which featured special guest Fiona Hill, the British-American intelligence analyst of Trump impeachment trial fame. We discussed her testimony, the looming threat of Trumpism, and more. Tune in if you want to hear me coin the term “Sorosification,” which is surprisingly difficult to say. The episode can be found on all good podcasting apps (find yours here).
What I’ve written
There was plenty of talk about the importance of keeping 1.5°C alive during COP26. I wrote about the other number that climate activists are thinking about:
There isn’t a magic figure guaranteed to tip the balance in favor of widespread climate mitigation, of course. But some environmental campaigners have worked with a particular number in mind: 3.5 percent. This comes from the work of the political scientist Erica Chenoweth, whose research found that nonviolent movements require the active participation of at least 3.5 percent of a population in order to achieve serious political change. This so-called 3.5 percent rule was derived from Chenoweth’s study of hundreds of protests from 1900 to 2006, and has made an impact on contemporary movements, including Extinction Rebellion, an international climate-advocacy group based in London whose founders cite Chenoweth as a source of inspiration (the group publicly states that it needs the involvement of 2 million people, or roughly 3.5 percent of the British population, in order to succeed). Keep reading here
Nationalist leaders are increasingly talking a big game about their commitment to tackling climate change. I wrote about why, in the case of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, we shouldn’t be too optimistic:
The kind of multilateral engagement required to tackle the climate crisis is anathema to the nationalist leaders governing some of the world’s biggest polluters, Bolsonaro among them. While the international community may be cheered by promises to change tack, the real test will be what happens after COP26 ends. Keep reading here
What I’ve read
This important piece about how Democrat-majority states—including my native California—are failing to live up to their progressive values (The New York Times)
In key respects, many blue states are actually doing worse than red states. It is in the blue states where affordable housing is often hardest to find, there are some of the most acute disparities in education funding and economic inequality is increasing most quickly.
Instead of asking, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” Democrats need to spend more time pondering, “What’s the matter with California?”
This story about whether soccer can unite the Divided States of America (The Atlantic)
One of the primary joys of cheering for your country in international sport—at the Olympics, the World Cup, or a particularly rowdy curling championship—is the opportunity to be nationalistic in a (mostly) harmless way. Chanting “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” in a stadium is dramatically different from chanting it at, say, an insurrection. But the Trump years made it hard for Americans alienated by the former president’s particular brand of “America First” politics to be overtly, and loudly, patriotic. Maybe soccer can help bring that back.
This lovely essay about family, identity, and memory, as told through the author’s search for a dish that her father would make at home: Mansaf (The New York Times)
Food, more than borders, helps us to know who we are and where we came from. Whether descended directly from the Silk Road or reimagined by a national tourism board, certain dishes express memory and emotion, the traditions of the self.
What I’m thinking about
A few of you pushed back against my (entirely correct) characterization of Irn Bru in our previous correspondence. This is not a mea culpa, but you’ll be happy to know that AOC agrees with you. Mabrook to all who care.
Until next time,
Yasmeen