Kim Lund
@sustainabletakes.bsky.social
Founder of the boutique communication agency Formatfabriken which predominately serves sustainability NPOs and impact tech. Philosophy major with an extensive business background. Here to learn, discuss and be insired.
I know there are studies suggesting that CFCs were gone from consumer products before the last bans came into place. Consumers killed the demand - not bans.
One could thus argue that the Montreal Protocol was unnecessary. But that'd be a very questionable isolation of cause/effect imho.
One could thus argue that the Montreal Protocol was unnecessary. But that'd be a very questionable isolation of cause/effect imho.
November 25, 2025 at 12:10 PM
I know there are studies suggesting that CFCs were gone from consumer products before the last bans came into place. Consumers killed the demand - not bans.
One could thus argue that the Montreal Protocol was unnecessary. But that'd be a very questionable isolation of cause/effect imho.
One could thus argue that the Montreal Protocol was unnecessary. But that'd be a very questionable isolation of cause/effect imho.
If the rate of decarbonization has not yet improved that is a failury if some claim that it should have and falsely allege that it has. But maybe they shouldn't have made that claim.
Other benefits emerge sooner. Urban polution. Rising living stanards in China. More efficient tech.
Other benefits emerge sooner. Urban polution. Rising living stanards in China. More efficient tech.
November 25, 2025 at 12:00 PM
If the rate of decarbonization has not yet improved that is a failury if some claim that it should have and falsely allege that it has. But maybe they shouldn't have made that claim.
Other benefits emerge sooner. Urban polution. Rising living stanards in China. More efficient tech.
Other benefits emerge sooner. Urban polution. Rising living stanards in China. More efficient tech.
When indeed!
If I make the claim that the Paris agreement has failed, the natural follow-up Q is why.
A. Weak ambitions
B. Inept execution
C. Wrong success criteria
I believe the firmly established camps for A and B - who both have a point - should consider C more.
If I make the claim that the Paris agreement has failed, the natural follow-up Q is why.
A. Weak ambitions
B. Inept execution
C. Wrong success criteria
I believe the firmly established camps for A and B - who both have a point - should consider C more.
November 25, 2025 at 11:53 AM
When indeed!
If I make the claim that the Paris agreement has failed, the natural follow-up Q is why.
A. Weak ambitions
B. Inept execution
C. Wrong success criteria
I believe the firmly established camps for A and B - who both have a point - should consider C more.
If I make the claim that the Paris agreement has failed, the natural follow-up Q is why.
A. Weak ambitions
B. Inept execution
C. Wrong success criteria
I believe the firmly established camps for A and B - who both have a point - should consider C more.
While I agree that the touted achievements appear to be an illusion, it'd be unfortunate if people interpet that as is if there are no achievements. We could have invested everything into nuclear the day after Paris and that probably wouldn't (yet!) show up in that data either.
Key word: yet.
Key word: yet.
November 23, 2025 at 7:49 PM
While I agree that the touted achievements appear to be an illusion, it'd be unfortunate if people interpet that as is if there are no achievements. We could have invested everything into nuclear the day after Paris and that probably wouldn't (yet!) show up in that data either.
Key word: yet.
Key word: yet.
I'm just a communicator so what do I know, but it makes a huge difference to argue that you have to give all of the meat and saying you have to give up all of it except this bit here. You can have as much of that as we can sustainbly produce (which is not going to be much).
November 11, 2025 at 1:03 PM
I'm just a communicator so what do I know, but it makes a huge difference to argue that you have to give all of the meat and saying you have to give up all of it except this bit here. You can have as much of that as we can sustainbly produce (which is not going to be much).
Right. Arguing for grass-fed beef from an emission perspecive seems very flawed. But I just don't think it's reasonable to push a strategy that say ignores the fact that under ideal conditions grass-fed dairy cows can have a Protein Conversion Rate < 1.
It's way too hard a sell.
It's way too hard a sell.
November 11, 2025 at 1:01 PM
Right. Arguing for grass-fed beef from an emission perspecive seems very flawed. But I just don't think it's reasonable to push a strategy that say ignores the fact that under ideal conditions grass-fed dairy cows can have a Protein Conversion Rate < 1.
It's way too hard a sell.
It's way too hard a sell.
That's a perplexing binary premise. To suggest it’s one or the other is disingenuous and, I think, very destructive to efforts aimed at promoting behavioral change.
November 11, 2025 at 11:51 AM
That's a perplexing binary premise. To suggest it’s one or the other is disingenuous and, I think, very destructive to efforts aimed at promoting behavioral change.
I mean, not impossible. I think I choose to believe the take the destruction of USAid etc has exposed (an even more) urgent need that he's chosen to focus on but...
October 30, 2025 at 4:25 PM
I mean, not impossible. I think I choose to believe the take the destruction of USAid etc has exposed (an even more) urgent need that he's chosen to focus on but...
If there ever was a published correction to any wording in the above post then I did not read it, will not read it and it never existed :-)
October 30, 2025 at 4:23 PM
If there ever was a published correction to any wording in the above post then I did not read it, will not read it and it never existed :-)
Not sure how that is related but I tend to believe the many claims that he is - in some capacity.
October 30, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Not sure how that is related but I tend to believe the many claims that he is - in some capacity.