@Gary
Gary
116 w
Article format: Statements related to evidence are referenced with research. Links to the referenced papers & websites are in the “reference” section. This article is generally written in the format of an American Psychological Association paper, however, this article has not been peer-reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, I have been clear when statements align with the general scientific consensus, or when there is disagreement. For example, there is a scientific consensus that smoking tobacco harms human health (Edwards, 2004), and there is a scientific consensus that inhaling wood smoke harms human health (Orozco, 2006). This consensus is the general scientific literature on the subject and can be accessed via the provided references (Peer-reviewed papers) The UK's conservative government published a document (DEFRA, 2019) that misinforms &, arguably ( i.e., in a court of law) disinforms the public regarding the health impacts of smoke pollution. In other words, misinformation. The scientific consensus is explicit that exposure to wood smoke, & air pollution, in general, is harmful to human physiology (Pintos et al., 1988). Furthermore, many scientists agree that burning wood fuel is a leading cause of deforestation and climate heating (Booth et al., 2020; Johnson, 2009). Although, some scientists disagree and advocate the burning of biomass as “carbon neutral” ( Berndes et al., 2016). However, Berndes (2016) paper, amongst others, explicitly “cherry-pick” the evidence. They don’t mention the medical evidence regarding how burning wood fuel causes human disease. Personally, I consider the Berndes (2016) paper unprofessional, because, considering the general evidence, the paper is discussing a method that increases human disease, whilst not significantly discussing the healthier alternatives to burning wood fuel. For instance, zero-emission technologies are available in the UK (e.g., Heat Pumps). Although, Berndes (2016) does discuss, whether biomass (e.g., wood fuel) is Carbon neutral, or not. However, because of this “cherry-picking” the evidence methodology by only focusing on specific CO2 emissions, it could be argued that the wood fuel “carbon neutrality” claims are not factoring in the CO2 emissions associated with, for example, the logging industry. For example, deforesting woodlands for tree plantations degrades the soil (Hajabbasi et al., 1997), and the logging industries standard practices use fossil fuels to power their machinery, process the wood and transport the wood fuel (often overseas). Furthermore, 500+ scientists including economists (2022) wrote a polite letter to the politicians explaining that burning wood fuel maybe two to three times worse than burning fossil fuels. However, the politicians tend to respond more to climate protests (Extinction rebellion Global, 2021) Whilst I will not speculate whether organisations such as the Homeowners alliance (2022) are intentionally spreading disinformation (e.g., “Ecodesign” wood stoves), I do think the case made in this article is sufficient to argue (e.g., in a court of law) that the UK government is intentionally spreading disinformation (DEFRA., 2019). I have tried to discuss the evidence with conservative and labour politicians on numerous occasions either by email or on social media (e.g., Twitter). Members of parliament not replying to emails that contain details of the scientific evidence, is arguably one method to avoid being held accountable too that evidence (i.e., ignoring science) The UK conservative government has a history of publishing advice about burning wood fuel for home use that features the same forms of misdirection as the fossil fuel and wood fuel industries. For example, using words associated with health (E.g., “fresh”, "good") and words associated with good behaviour (E.g., “right”, "good"). For instance, the “burn right” DEFRA (2019) publication has phrases such as "burn right", "fresh wood", & indicates that "lighting bonfires" is a "nuisance", when in fact it's a severe health hazard (Erlandsson et al., 2020) Whilst the DEFRA (2019) publication does acknowledge that wood smoke is harmful when inhaled, to quote "What you can do to help reduce the harmful effects from smoke", the DEFRA's (2019) general advice is arguably misinforming and advocating wood burning by suggesting, to quote "Think if you have to burn","burn seasoned wood", "For more good practice tips". However, whether the UK conservative government is intentionally using a form of associated "good" word promotion method or not, it's certainly the fact that the UK conservative government is advising "good practice tips" that evidently will mean some people will believe that burning wood fuel is merely a "nuisance" (DEFRA, 2019), when in fact, regular exposer to wood smoke causes disease, mental health issues and decreases life expectancy ( Calderon et al., 2002; Orozco et al., 2006) The research clearly states that wood smoke is hazardous to human health ( Erlandsson et al., 2020) and the conservative party has been informed of this research on numerous occasions. I can provide personal examples of emails sent to UK conservative & labour politician[s], referencing the research, emails that have received no reply. I can also provide examples of emails sent to organisations that either directly sells wood fuel & / or woodstoves or promote wood fuel. Their general reply as been, to paraphrase “that’s only your opinion” (woodstove industry) or “considering the evidence of wood smoke exposure is beyond our mandate” (e.g., The woodland trust, UK) To quote the misleading information from the UK government “burn right” publication. "Defra exemption permitting its use in smoke control areas or an Ecodesign Ready stove. These have been rigorously tested and demonstrate low-smoke emissions." (DEFRA, 2019). The DEFRA (2019) publication does not reference the “rigorous test”. Industries often use the prefix “eco” to greenwash products. "Ecodesign" is misdirection. Even if a woodstove (in lab conditions) emitted, for example, 20% less smoke pollution, if governments motivate more consumers to install more woodstoves by promoting “burn right” (DEFRA, 2019), that will cause the general level of wood smoke pollution (& CO2 emissions) in the environment to increase. In conclusion, DEFRA (UK government) should be tried in a court of law regarding this complaint. In a democracy, the role of government is to correctly inform the public of the scientific evidence. The general evidence this article provides, arguably converges on the conclusion that the UK government intentionally user’s misdirection & mixed messaging so as to try and disinform the public. For example, to burn wood “right”. When in fact, & good conscience, the Gov should be informing and helping the public not to burn wood fuel at all. References 500 Scientists (2022). https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdmmcnd0d1d2lq5/Scientist%20Letter%20to%20Biden%2C%20von%20der%20Leyen%2C%20Michel%2C%20Suga%20%26%20Moon%20%20Re.%20Forest%20Biomass%20%28February%2011%2C%202021%29.pdf?dl=0 Berndes, G., Abt, B., Asikainen, A., Cowie, A., Dale, V., Egnell, G., ... & Yeh, S. (2016). Forest biomass, carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation. From science to policy. https://nbsapforum.net/sites/default/files/efi_fstp_3_2016.pdf Booth, M. S., Mackey, B., & Young, V. (2020). It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 12(12), 1036-1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12716 Edwards, R. (2004). The problem of tobacco smoking. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7433.217 Calderon-Garciduenas, L., Azzarelli, B., Acuna, H., Garcia, R., Gambling, T. M., Osnaya, N., ... & Rewcastle, B. (2002). Air pollution and brain damage. Toxicologic pathology. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01926230252929954 DEFRA., (2019). Department of Environment and Rural Affairs. Open fires and wood-burning stoves – a practical guide https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1901291307_Ready_to_Burn_Web.pdf [DOA:2022] Erlandsson, L., Lindgren, R., Nääv, Å., Krais, A. M., Strandberg, B., Lundh, T., ... & Malmqvist, E. (2020). Exposure to wood smoke particles leads to inflammation, disrupted proliferation and damage to cellular structures in a human first trimester trophoblast cell line. Environmental Pollution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114790 Extinction rebellion global (2021) "This is an emergency" https://rebellion.global/ Hajabbasi, M. A., Jalalian, A., & Karimzadeh, H. R. (1997). Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical properties, Lordegan, Iran. Plant and soil. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004243702208 Homeowners alliance (2022) Wood-burning stoves: What do the new rules mean for your fireplace? https://hoa.org.uk/2021/11/wood-burning-stove/ Johnson, E. (2009). Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right. Environmental impact assessment review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.11.002 Newbury, J., Stewart, R., Fisher, H., Beevers, S., Dajnak, D., Broadbent, M., . . . Bakolis, I. (2021). Association between air pollution exposure and mental health service use among individuals with first presentations of psychotic and mood disorders: Retrospective cohort study. The British Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.119 Orozco-Levi, M., Garcia-Aymerich, J., Villar, J., Ramirez-Sarmiento, A., Anto, J. M., & Gea, J. (2006). Wood smoke exposure and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.06.00052705 Pintos, J., Franco, E. L., Kowalski, L. P., Oliveira, B. V., & Curado, M. P. (1998). Use of wood stoves and risk of cancers of the upper aero-digestive tract: a case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/27.6.936 Additional reading Doctors & Scientists against wood smoke pollution (2022) https://woodsmokepollution.org/
126 more agrees trigger social media ads
Gary
110 w
The answer is to sustain the Planet's biosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere It is an all-too-common mistake to assume something before one has data (facts). Insensibly one begins to twist the facts to suit opinions, instead of opinions to suit facts. Money (free market economy) is the core motivator of ecological degradation. Profit is the motivating reason most countries’ economies are focused on an unsustainable linear economy (e.g., get rich now, screw the long-term). Cultures that burn fuels are a typical example of unsustainable economies that are based on a linear product paradigm (take, make, waste). Fossil fuels or biofuels (e.g., wood fuels) are single-use products that degrade ecology (mining, extraction, plantations), take energy to process, only to end up as a "cloud of smoke" or Gas (e.g., Carbon particles & gases such as CO₂, CH4, & N₂O. i.e., environmental pollutants). The burning of fossil fuels and wood fuels (biomass) is why so many natural habitats have been destroyed (biodiversity crisis) & polluted to either mine the fossil fuel resources underneath or take the natural resources above the ground (e.g., wood fuel) and then use the land for plantations. To restore (e.g., "rewilding") a sufficient percentage of the Earth's lithosphere and to prevent pollution from entering the lithosphere, atmosphere & hydrosphere, a radical change is needed. That change is: - A circular economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy - Rights of nature. https://unitednationsofnature.com/ - Science-based targets. https://sciencebasedtargets.org/ What is a circular economy? "To solve big problems like climate change, waste, and pollution, we need a big idea. It’s time to rethink how we design, make, and use the things we need, from the food we eat to the clothes we wear. Together, we can create a better future for business, society and the natural world." https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ What are the rights of nature? "The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) establishes that in order to ensure an environmentally sustainable future, humans must reorient themselves from an exploitative and ultimately self-destructive relationship with nature, to one that honors the deep interrelation of all life and contributes to the health and integrity of the natural environment." https://www.garn.org/ What are science-based targets? "Science-based targets show organizations how much and how quickly they need to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to prevent the worst effects of climate change." https://sciencebasedtargets.org/ The aim is to have science-based targets as the rule, not the exception. In other words, a science-based governmental organisation that has the regulatory authority to ensure all industries are transitioning towards environmentally sustainable business models.
Gary
113 w
The answer to everything = A circular economy. Nature (ecology) has already provided a sustainable way. A circular economy is the answer to everything because all other routes lead to nothing. In other words, a linear economy causes the degradation of ecology, therefore, in time, the degradation of our civilisations. Most products today are manufactured using a linear economic paradigm. Most of the products we buy & use today such as a fuels, a watch, a gold ring, an electric car or a mobile phone, etc, are causing more mining and deforestation. Mining and deforestation are causing pollution and the extinction of wildlife. Only a Circular economy & humans that care enough to want one (politics), will save wildlife (biodiversity) from the "appetites" of humans. Therefore, only a circular economy will save humanity from its own "appetites" for consumption. Transitioning towards a circular economy is taking many small steps in the right direction, not one giant leap. For example, for a limited amount of eco-sustainable Jet travel within a circular paradigm, electric jets will need to be manufactured using a circular economic system. Burning Carbon-based fuels ( e.g., oil & its derivatives, wood fuel or other biofuels) is inherently a linear economic system ( e.g., mine, use & destroy the product). Therefore is not ecologically sustainable, therefore is not economically sustainable.
•
•
113 w
Very true, we need a circular economy, it should be mandatory for companies to have a transition plan to a circular business model
•
113 w
Agreed. As I'm sure you are aware, the caveat is that many companies are based on a profit first and foremost business model ( i.e., not an eco-sustainable model). Whilst government could implement a "level playing field" designed to motivate a circular economy, the linear "take & pollute" business model is the current status quo. And many politicians (business-minded people) are part of that status quo. The effects of human-caused climate change are positively correlated with the "take & pollute" business monopoly. Essentially, we have to get business out of politics to save the economy ( i.e., unbiased ecologically informed management). Politics is the decision process, not the business agendas ( that have taken over many political decisions)
•
113 w
Any practices of these are compensated at EverGreenCoin
Gary
114 w
References are provided (in text), and the weblinks can be found in the reviews reference section. This climate warning is specifically for the Lake District National Park Authority (2022). However, it could also be for Forestry England (2022) & generally England's conservative government (2022) because they are all government organisations ( business as usual government industries) The national parks of England are generally all in a severely ecologically degraded state. The Lake District National Park, Cumbria, England, is no exception. In general, England's biodiversity crisis is due to the historic and present ecological mismanagement of the landscape by business as usual methods. If biodiversity loss is not halted, factors such as insect declines will have a devastating effect on human civilizations (Ecological Armageddon, 2017; Plummeting insect numbers, 2019). The photo, see below, was taken (22/02/22) in England's Lake District National Park, Cumbria. The area in the photo is approximately 1 km west of Whinlatter tree plantation. They call it Whinlatter Forest Park (2022), however, it is predominantly a mono-agriculture tree plantation. The photo is a representative example ( a common example) of how The Lake District National Park authority and forestry England (or some other logging industry) manage the landscape in England or more accurately mismanages the landscape ecology of many areas. The landscape looks the way it does today because historically, the ancient woodlands (e.g., Atlantic oak woodlands) that existed in the area were deforested and sheep farming became the dominant practice. The tree plantation industry (they call it a forestry industry) generally developed later due to mechanised machinery. I don't have access to the information regarding how much of England’s tree plantations' trees becomes timber or wood fuel, however, the UK has the biggest wood-burning power station in Europe (Drax, 2022). Though Drax does import wood fuel from overseas. Drax misinforms the public by stating that its wood-burning operations are "renewable" or "sustainable". When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The logging industry ecologically degrades huge areas of land ( such as the land in the photo). Landscapes that used to be biodiverse habitats, for example, woodland habitats. In short, Drax's sustainable claims are another example of a polluting industry using greenwash to sell its air polluting product. "all of the corporate executives who were in charge of making deadly products knew exactly what they were doing. They were fully aware of the consequences but did it anyway" (Corporate ecocide, 2020) Tree plantations are not ecologically sustainable in the long term. The logging industry emits (burns Carbon-based fuels) far more greenhouse gas emissions (CO2), for example, processing, transporting wood fuel using diesel fuel, & burning wood fuel, than tree plantations can sequester. However, the wood fuel industry users' misinformation such as "renewable" wood fuel or "carbon lean" wood fuel as greenwash marketing slogans. Misinformation disguises the logging industries' ecocide methods (Hidden emission, 2019). In general, the logging industry's standard industrial practices use ecologically degrading and polluting methods that mismanage the ecology of landscapes (The photo is an example of this). The photo of a typical tree plantation in England shows a, comparably, ecological desert. There are very few wild animals (species-poor) in the area due to the poor-quality conditions of tree plantations & the surrounding sheep wrecked landscape. In other words, mono-agriculture tree plantations and overgrazing caused by mono-agricultural animal farming, are a leading cause of the biodiversity crisis (& a contributor to the climate emergency). And this is England’s typical landscape. For example, England’s Lake District National Park's ecological landscape generally consists of mono-agricultural tree plantations and overgrazed sheep wrecked fells. Besides adding to greenhouse gas emissions (Booth, et al., 2020) & destroying wildlife's home (habitats. i.e., flora & fauna), tree plantations degrade the soil quality (Hajabbasi et al.,1997). That means, over time, tree plantations soils emit greenhouse gases and lead to land erosion ( i.e., they are not ecologically valid habitats). If you walked into a conifer tree plantation during the day, you’d notice that they are generally dark (low light levels), consist of nearly all the same tree species, & the floor is covered in pine needles (i.e., not much else). A tree plantation is comparably an ecological desert with a low diversity of flora (plants, fungi) and fauna (insects, amphibians, birds, etc). However, there is an ecologically sustainable method to manage forests & harvest timber. This method is termed agroforestry (The agroforestry research trust, 2022) and that ecologically sustainable method doesn't include burning wood. "How to produce electricity without heating up the Planet's Biosphere." https://app.wedonthavetime.org/posts/4d29c8de-5677-4053-b710-fa216fb02c8f?utm_source=url-copy%26utm_medium=wdht-web-app-share%26utm_campaign=gary_noon The Lake District National Park has a myriad of locally extinct native species, such as Golden Eagles and Lynx. Species that were driven to local extinction, due to land change use ( e.g., sheep farming & tree plantations), trapping, poisoning, "sport" shooting or hunting. Many of these species were driven to local extinction before many of us were born. Any efforts to improve wildlife habitats in the area are by charitable organisations such as wildlife trusts, that have limited resources and manage only a small fraction of the land (Cumbria wildlife trust, 2022) Generally, The Lake District National Park is an ecological disgrace because of the historic and present land mismanagement practices. The social norms and values of the culture generally are aimed at business with little regard for ecology. Whilst England's conservative government does have a business-as-usual scheme, which it promotes with the rhetoric, to quote "scheme to help boost tree-planting rates in the fight against climate change” this scheme is generally just another business as usual greenwash scheme ( i.e., more like scheming). For example, the "small print is "Successful participants will be offered the option to sell Woodland Carbon Units (business talk for selling trees) to the government over 35 years at a guaranteed price set by auction, providing new income for land managers who help businesses compensate for their carbon emissions" (Gov UK, 2022) Generally, this means that the tree-planting will take the form of more mono-agricultural tree plantations, many of these trees will be destined to be burnt in the furnaces of power stations or used in wood stoves (with all the negative health impacts associated with woodsmoke pollution). There has been a sharp increase in the installation of wood stoves in England & an increase in burning wood in power stations such as Drax (2022). So, whilst England’s Conservative government “blah blah blah’d” at COP26 about other countries not deforesting their landscape, for example, for plantations, it’s hypocritical considering that is what England has generally done and continues to do to its ecological landscape. This post is one example of why the governance in England is ruining the future for our children and our children's children. They're essentially just an industry of business-minded folk, that greenwash the public that they’re doing something about mitigating climate change. When in fact, they’re generally doing the opposite. References. Booth, M. S., Mackey, B., & Young, V. (2020). It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 12(12), 1036-1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12716 Corporate ecocide (2020). Whyte, D. In Ecocide (pp. 1-21). Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526151063.00005 Cumbria wildlife trust (2022) https://www.cumbriawildlifetrust.org.uk/ Drax (2022) ) https://www.drax.com/uk/ Ecological Armageddon (2017). More evidence for the drastic decline in insect numbers. Annals of Applied Biology. Leather, S. R. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12410 Forestry England (2022) https://www.forestryengland.uk/ Gov UK (2022) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-new-scheme-to-boost-tree-planting Hidden emissions (2019) Gingrich, S., Lauk, C., Niedertscheider, M., Pichler, M., Schaffartzik, A., Schmid, M., ... & Erb, K. (2019). Hidden emissions of forest transitions: a socio-ecological reading of forest change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.005 Hajabbasi, M. A., Jalalian, A., & Karimzadeh, H. R. (1997). Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical properties, Lordegan, Iran. Plant and soil. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004243702208 Plummeting insect numbers ‘threaten collapse of nature’ ( 2019) Carrington, D. The Guardian, 10, 2019. https://files.schudio.com/west-lancashire-community-high-school/files/documents/l2insectnumbers_2021-01-13_10_41_42.pdf The Lake District National park (2022) https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/ The agroforestry research trust, 2022). https://www.agroforestry.co.uk/ Whinlatter Forest Park (2022) https://www.forestryengland.uk/whinlatte Additional reading. Wood smoke pollution cause diseases. https://app.wedonthavetime.org/posts/c904bd4a-1b9c-4b0e-9c4b-a380caee7d5e?utm_source=url-copy%26utm_medium=wdht-web-app-share%26utm_campaign=gary_noon
32 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Gary
114 w
"Mark Z. Jacobson’s career has focused on better understanding air pollution and global warming problems and developing large-scale clean, renewable energy solutions to them" https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/ ‘Engineering professors of the world: Are you teaching a course on climate change, or planning one? If you are, this is the textbook https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-USA.html you should be adopting. Civil, mechanical, electrical, materials, and chemical engineering aspects of the energy transition are exhaustively addressed. And this book has soul: today's engineering student feels the need to do something about climate change, and this book empowers them." Let's do this! 100% Wind, Water, and Solar (WWS). Plus restoring landscape ecology! ("rewilding", etc) https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/restoration-ecology Job done! (right) #climateaction #engineering #climatechange #scienceandenvironment #ecology #RestorationEcology #ConservationBiology
32 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
114 w
Very interesting, I didn't know about Mark Z Jacobson before and will have a read
•
•
114 w
@gary_noon oh! Will give him a follow, hopefully soon active here as well 🙂
•
114 w
He's active on Twitter and LinkedIn @mzjacobson ( twitter)
Gary
115 w
Image from hiotbiosphere.weeblyA Jargon light article without all the business & politcal vagueness of "carbon markets" and "climate-friendly" blah blah blah. Generally, Carbon Dioxide (CO₂), Methane (CH 4) & Nitrous Oxide (N₂O), which are collectively termed Green-House-Gases (GHG), regulate the average temperature of the Planet's atmosphere and Planet's surface. Human activities are increasing ( Fig. 1) the levels of atmospheric CO₂ (e.g., burning Carbon-based fuels), CH 4 & N₂O (e.g., animal agriculture) The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. I'd also add biomass (plants) and biofuels use to that carbon dioxide concentration. In other words, assuming that the CO₂ is sequestered (e.g., plant growth. i.e., photosynthesis) sometime in the future, when biomass (e.g., forests) or biofuels are burnt, is based on erroneous science ( e.g., research that does not consider other variables such as woodland ecology and human health) "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level" (INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, 2007) Figure 1. Graphs provided by NOAA. Global monitoring laboratory. Human activities are increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The science says we must reduce atmospheric CO₂, CH 4 & N₂O (GHG) emissions to prevent disruptive climate change (but we are increasing GHG emissions). "Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Scientists are also observing changes across the whole of Earth’s climate system; in the atmosphere, in the oceans, ice floes, and on land" ( INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, 2021) That doesn't mean the actual target is reducing our present GHG emissions. Reducing our present GHG to zero emissions is the method to aim for if we are to eventually reduce the CO₂, CH 4 & N₂O that human activities have already emitted into the Planet's atmosphere (post-industrial revolution). The Planet's atmosphere needs to go net negative GHG in order to "rebalance the books" CO₂, CH 4, N₂O emissions (+) & CO₂, CH 4, N₂O sequestered (-) = The Atmospheric Carbon balance Generally, the aim is to stabilize the atmospheric GHG to the levels before the industrial revolution. Before humans began, for example, burning Carbon-based fuels ( coal, etc) on an industrial scale. In general, human activities need to reach zero GHG emissions so as to give the planet a chance to sequester (e.g., photosynthesis. i.e., plant, phytoplankton growth) the GHG emissions we have already emitted. However, anthropogenic activities are still increasing atmospheric GHG. In others words, the decision-makers (politicians & industry) are causing GHG emissions to increase. In other words, going the wrong friggin way! (back-to-front decision-makers). Whilst there are many reasons why we are emitting GHG into the atmosphere, these reasons are generally due to the poor choices of governments & industries ( i.e., business-as-usual). For example, the burning of wood fuel (biomass), promoted by many politicians, some biased science papers, & of course, the wood fuel industries, has replaced the burning of fossil fuels in power stations, such as Drax in the UK. Drax's "renewable" energy claims are based on weak scientific research and industrially biased & unethical monetary agendas ( burning wood produces particle pollution that causes diseases) "It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral!","the authors did not do full carbon accounting, instead ignoring biogenic CO2 from combustion" Burning wood fuel is increasing GHG emissions, & causes air pollutants that are harmful to humans (i.e., inhaling particle-smoke pollution causes disease) Burning "Biomass" is not "renewable" energy because it's generally degrading the Planet's ecology. For example, when forests are destroyed and turned into tree plantations, that method has devastating effects on wildlife populations and, over time, degrades soil quality. Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical properties Generally, burning stuff ( a favourite human pastime) is ecologically unsustainable & causes a myriad of health & environmental issues. The fossil fuel industries go to a lot of effort (energy expenditure), to acquire and sell a single-use product, that is then destroyed. In other words, during use, the product goes up in smoke. In other words, is turned to "dust" & waste gases ( air pollution, particle pollution) It would seem that too many politicians and industries "leaders" don't understand how to produce electricity without heating up the Planet's atmosphere & without poisoning our immediate air supplies (how "silly" of them?). So, here is a step by step guide to help these politicians and industries make better decisions. The guide could be called "100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything" 1. Construct renewable technology that once operational (i.e., generating electricity), emits very little CO₂, to remain operational (& zero CH 4 & N₂O emissions) 2. Use that electricity to power stuff & for the hydrolysis of H2O (water) to produce green hydrogen. Use that green hydrogen (H₂) to manufacture steel. Use that steel to manufacture renewable energy technologies (etc) 3. Recycle the steel! (reduce CO₂ emitting mining operations) "Scottish Power has submitted plans to build the UK’s largest renewables-powered hydrogen plant in the outskirts of Glasgow" More Hopeful Calculations for the Energy Transition Fundamentally, we need a low CO₂ electrical energy system, that once operational, can be maintained using the electricity it generates & the green hydrogen it helps to produce (hydrolysis). Nuclear power & burning biomass are toxic "lemons" ( misinformation! "cherry-picking" the information that aligns with the agenda & ignoring the information that contradicts the agenda ). In other words, unsustainable choices (technologies) that produce & leave behind toxin pollution "problems". However, many are cognitively biased by their priors ( e.g., money) How much CO₂ does the construction, operation, decommissioning (they stockpile nuclear waste) of a nuclear plant emit? I'd like to see an unbiased, side by side comparison, of the "lifecycle" CO₂ emissions of nuclear V's renewable technology ( & the generally ecological degradation that each method courses. e.g., mining). For your information, we also need to stop eating agricultural animal meat, which will free up land that can be ecologically restored (e.g., rewilding), so as to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. For example, by eating a plant & fungi based diet. There are already many alternative non-animal agricultural meat (& products) food choices available, ranging from "meat alike products" to cultured meat. Cultivated meat is produced by in vitro cell cultures of animal cells. Our meat is made from plants. Packed with nutrients and better for the planet. So pass on pork, chuck the chicken and drop the beef. It's time to get with Impossible Personal disclaimer. I don't work in any industry, nor have shares in any industry. However, If I had the money to invest, it would be in renewable energy. Not the "fake renewable" biomass industries, nor the non-carbon neutral & dangerously polluting nuclear industries.
•
114 w
Development is expensive cause it is a weak market. The new paradigm is paying people for eco work. Which is what EverGreenCoin is doing.
•
115 w
Nice idea
•
•
114 w
This is a very good guide that should be used by our decision-makers
•
114 w
It should. Though many of those decision-makers are influenced by the fossil fuel, wood fuel & nuclear industries ( in fact some politicians own coal companies)
Gary
115 w
Thumbs up (like) to Plockhugget. Plockhugget advocates the sustainable use of timber (sustainable forest management). For example, homes can be built from Timber, & they can be powered using renewable energy technology and heated using low-energy technology ( e.g., heat pumps) Unlike some other companies that sell wood fuel, which is the opposite of "sustainable", or "renewable", or "carbon lean", or whatever greenwash the wood fuel industries spins. Thumbs down to air-polluting fuels such as biofuels. In other words, wood fuels & plant-based fuels in general because they predominantly consist of Carbon (e.g., emit CO2 and particle pollutants when burnt). Also thumbs down to methane ( another Carbon-based fuel) And of course, a thumbs down to fossil fuels ( coal, crude oil & oil derivatives & natural gas) Booth, M. S., Mackey, B., & Young, V. (2020). It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 12(12), 1036-1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12716 Orozco-Levi, M., Garcia-Aymerich, J., Villar, J., Ramirez-Sarmiento, A., Anto, J. M., & Gea, J. (2006). Wood smoke exposure and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.06.00052705
15 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
115 w
Interested to know what Plockhugget think about the use of wood to create textile fibres such as viscose? Are you involved in those production processes?
•
115 w
I'm not associated with Plockhugget. I reviewed them based on the information on their website. Info which aligns with the Science ( e.g, woodland ecology) of harvesting timber sustainably.
Shared by Gary
Plockhugget
115 w
•
CCFG’s primary role is to promote the transformation of even-aged plantations to structurally, visually and biologically diverse woodlands. They also aim to enhance the production of high quality timber according to the principles of continuous cover management. They are a technical and professional organisation dedicated to developing skills and disseminating knowledge. In addition, they contribute to policy formulation and wider debates about sustainable forestry in Britain. https://www.ccfg.org.uk/
39 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
112 w
Their vast and comprehensive knowledge on forest restoration, conservation and management is required world wide in a bid to ensure a reasonable forest cover that will greatly help sequester the ages long clogged carbon emissions from the atmosphere.Trees play a crucial role in that manner.
Shared by Gary
115 w
•
•
115 w
Stop 🛑🛑🛑 cutting trees instead plant more
Write a comment...
Gary
116 w
Age rating 15+ Please keep in mind that throughout this article I’m writing in the context of population averages. As an example, many forms of scientific research are based on population statistics. For instance, scientific research may include one thousand voluntary research participants and the results are based on the average of that population (statistics). Therefore, when I write “the population” or “the culture”, that is an averaged assessment. Therefore, some people, or in the context of this article, some politicians and business people, will be more like that average description, than others (A spectrum of behaviours). For instance, a statistical bell curve ( Fig.1) where most of the population are more like the average. For example, an average measurement of height. I considered naming this article "the culture of misinformation". However, ethical people can appreciate that people make mistakes and may believe in hopeful fallacies. It's intentionally misinforming others (i.e., deception) for monetary or political gain that is particularly damaging to our cultures because it corrodes trust and therefore cooperation. Furthermore, within the context of fake climate "pledges", deception is ecocide. The general assessment of the country I live in is that they haven’t got a “cat in hells chance” of preventing the ecological crisis, because they're the “blind being led by the blind”, towards ecological oblivion. This socio-ecocide phenomena is analogous to that asteroid impact in the "Don't look up" film. Before you head into the woods to build an eco-fallout bunker, I am only talking about the country I live in. Many countries of the world are looking after their environments far better than the country I live in. For example, the country of Costa Rica is a far better example of how to protect and restore natural habitats. Also, as one close to “home” example, the country of Scotland is edging in the right direction as they are rewilding habitats and investing in renewable energy ( e.g., Tidal power) However, & in general, my culture won’t look to its neighbour Scotland or “across the pond” to Costa Rica as a good example, because they are generally narrow-minded nationalists. Is there any other kind? Of course, narrow-minded prejudiced folk can’t perceive that they're narrow-minded due to self-theory of mind. (e.g., “Brexit”, for a clue of the culture I speak of). The culture was even spoon-fed a “Brexit means Brexit” non-think narrative, to give you another clue of the cultures socio-political depth. This is the general underlying problem of why, the culture I presently live in, is failing to meet its international responsibility to mitigate human-caused climate heating. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a “dig” at the general population, in many ways, they're victims of a type of biased political system and their own ignorance and faith in their deceiving government (on average! So that also means many people are aware that the current conservative government is ecocide!). To be clear, less than 50% (43.6%) of the population voted for the current government in the last general election. The country I live in has a "first past the post" form of non-representative politics, where a minority vote can actually have the most political power ( go figure?) Whilst the youtube The Honest Government Ad | Hung Parliament video isn't about the country I live in, because I live in the UK which does not use a preferential voting system, the honest government ad does explain proportional political representation. Fundamentally, the people in England ( one country in the UK) believe they're making their own decisions, because, for example, they get to vote. What they don’t know is that their decisions are being made for them by the type of media they consume. To all extents and purposes, they are told what to believe in (e.g., greenwash) and whom to vote for (e.g., political spin). They have faith in their government because the government & the mainstream media sell them a faith-based narrative. For example, being told what to believe in, & what not to believe in. I reiterate I’m not of course writing about everyone in a country, in the context of ecological sustainability and democracy, it’s the majority that counts. For example, if that majority, or rather a 43.6% minority, vote in another ecocide form of greenwashing governance ( as they keep doing). The government users the people ( especially the working "class") like pawns in a rigged game. For example, a minority ( the ruling class) are millionaires (& billionaires) whilst some of the public can’t afford the food they need. The "middle" income earners don't generally tend to mind, provided it's not them queuing at the food banks. The people of the nation are so washed they don’t know right from wrong. The population's government intentionally spreads misinformation to remain in power (i.e., to make money). Pitifully, & tragically, the people blindly will follow their blind “leaders” (the greenwashed are also greenwashes) over the "ecological cliff edge". In other words, many of the public have faith (they don't study climatology, etc) that their government is doing something about that "asteroid impact". OK, enough with the metaphors, The government is the ecological crisis!. They are the type of misinformed & or unethical governance that has caused the climate emergency. For example, their "leaders" are in the "pockets" of the fossil fuel and wood fuel industries (& associated industries). Some of the politicians even go back into working for these industries when they leave politics. The conservative government receives "donations" from the business-as-usual industries and the politicians receive "favours" from the industries. It has been said that faith is blind!. Or was that love? Well, I don't think that the English people love their "Tory" government, therefore, faith is blind also. A person may well ask, why would a government do this to its own people? the people that put their trust in the people they vote for? Whilst that’s a book in of itself (that would get very little media coverage), a commonly experienced narrative can help people understand (if they can handle the dark truth). The government is a business! (The end!). Ok, I should provide more substance. The government is generally run by businesspeople, the end! Are you getting the general problem now? Business-minded people are generally about making money (business!). Furthermore, as with many businesses, the government use marketing tactics to sell information to people so that the people are more likely going to buy their rhetoric (& products). You know, like a business does. These sales tactics could be a photoshoot of a grinning politician wearing that all too familiar polished business suit (with a promise of money & jobs). A planned photoshoot where the millionaire politician is seen as being “one of the people” which the mainstream media loves to promote. As a thought experiment, imagine if the country of England was in charge of managing the global climate emergency under a conservative rule, and using the current forms of mainstream media (e.g., the BBC & the other dominant news media channels & newspapers) There are many words & phrases in the English language, however, one colloquial phrase fits the conservative government quite well. Whilst England's conservatives government could probably just about “manage a piss-up in a brewery”, they will never be able to manage a climate emergency. Because, to all extents and purposes, they are the friggin cause of the climate emergency! I’m aware that speaking out against a corrupt form of politics, isn't on any ethical persons "like" list because those that support that form of politics may be extremely ethically corrupt ( e.g., forms of tribalism can cause sociopathological social behaviours). However, what’s an ethical conservation biologist meant to do? Let his culture “go up in a cloud of smoke”? Metaphorically & actually. It often stinks of wood & coal smoke where I live. I don’t dislike the generally greenwashed English population, for they know not what they do. For example, they are either greenwashed into buying the products the industries and government tell them to (the psychological effects of greenwashing), & the healthier alternatives are not part of the government's business as usual agenda. For example, the government spends money on the fossil fuel, wood fuel & nuclear industries when it should now only be investing in renewable energy, insulating peoples homes, & installing low energy heat pumps for the heating of buildings The key points to consider are: The Scientific consensus! (e.g., The intergovernmental panel on Climate Change) To paraphrase the United Nations “Code Red” report, “We must! leave fossil fuels in the ground because burning them is heating up the Planet’s atmosphere which will be friggin “very bad” for us wee humans (“wee” is Scottish for “little”). “Also, burning fossil fuels & wood fuels (biomass) causes people to die from painful, yet preventable, diseases” (The Scientific consensus. World health organisation ) Also, the engineers know that there are much safer (for our climate) and healthier alternatives than burning fossil and wood fuels. However, these empirical facts (science), that the business-as-usual politicians don’t act like they understand, and good ethical reasons (not monetary agendas) to act differently, don’t seem to be enough to change many of the business-peoples & politicians motivated reasoning (agendas), as they're signing deals to extract fossil fuels. https://theecologist.org/2021/mar/08/sunaks-fossil-fuel-super-tax-break To quote an ignorant business or political as usual person “Kwasi is actively resisting insane calls from Labour and the eco-lobby to turn off UK [oil] production.” Compared to the “United Nations “Code Red” report, to paraphrase “We must! leave fossil fuels in the ground! Or else we are friggin f###ed!” I did give advanced warning that the article was age 15 rated! And the climatologists did give advanced warning decades ago about the dangers of burning fossil fuels. Who is more probably “insane”? (Kwasi’s politics as usual words not mine) Another ignorant politician that has probably never read any of the science of psychology, yet gives out mental health "advice" ( i.e., unethical arrogance). Is Kwasi right or the United Nations (whoever the frig Kwasi is? I really am not motivated to find out. i.e., just another foolish politician or businessperson). Which person[s] are simply wrong about human caused climate change? The businessperson?, the politician? or the myriads of Scientists (using research) that inform the United Nations “code red” report on climate change? To add more “insanity” (ignorance) to this crass, are the greenwashed and greenwashing media such as the BBC that write misleading “clickbait” headlines. News headlines that feature their usual rhetoric. Misinformation infers that the non-Science opinion should be equally compared to the Scientific consensus. For example, of the BBC’s headline-grabbing wash “The clash of science and politics over North Sea oil and gas”. By using the headline politics and Scientist’s “Clash”, the BBC infers that there is some difference of “opinion”. When in fact, it’s simply ignorant business people (that happen to be politicians) that do not understand the science and are motivated to make money. The BBC “cherry picks” the Science that aligns with its socio-political ideological agendas. The news reporter’s Job isn’t to provide a “balanced” opinion about whether it's raining outside or not? the news reporter’s Job is to look outside the friggin window and see if it’s raining! A professional news organisation or news reporters role is to accurately report the science in layperson's terms. For example, If I read a news article about climate change, I'm not interested in a politician or business person opinion about what they think about the "science", because they may simply not understand the science & may be biased ( e.g., by a monetary agenda in fossil fuels) So, the question is? Are they out of their tiny little minds? Well, no! they're simply dangerously ignorantly arrogant people. They really don’t understand what the #### they are talking about or writing about within the context of anthropogenic climate change. For if they did (understand the Science), yet continued to act as they do, they’d be sociopaths! Trump, for example, isn’t a sociopath (not in the real psychological meaning of the word). He’s simply a businessman that does not “get” science. For example, to paraphrase Mr Trump “what about drinking disinfectant?”. In other words, "Doh!". And Trump was a president! ( that's another analogy to the "don't look up" film) Ignorantly arrogant businesspeople (people with a certain temperament, not specifically business) in a position of authority (e.g., government), that actively represses the science and misinforms the public about the science, is an extremely dangerous state of affairs at the “best of times”. Cultures that consist of ecologically illiterate politicians and business leaders, as the decision makers, is ecological suicide. In other words, ecocide mismanagement! If you have had more than enough of all the political spin and posturing. Try something completely different!. The actual source of the information from the listed websites I have provided is most often Scientific Journals (that peer-review the papers that scientists ask them to publish in their journals). People can also find Scientific papers by searching on scientific web search engines. General science \ Science news https://ourworldindata.org/ https://www.science.org/ https://theconversation.com/global (click "edition" to access the different regional publications) https://www.sciencenews.org/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/ Climate change & the conservation of nature www.iucn.org https://www.ippc.int https://www.ipcc.ch/ A general socio-political fact-checking website (too many business politicans have less than a School level comprehension of basic science. And yet, they believe their incorrect opinions) https://fullfact.org/
Gary
116 w
Image: NASA Important information! This article is rated for an 18 years of age, or over, general adult audience. This is because of the type of information that's discussed in this article. However, it's very important for Adults to discuss these topics because there are many good adults that want to "save the world" ( biosphere), from the too many ill-informed Adults that want to save, for example, their shares in the fossil fuel industry. So, if you're slightly under 18 years of age, be advised that this article may, or may not, be for you. Too many decision-makers priorities are back-to-front. This back-to-front form of motivated reasoning is why the decision-makers are deciding to, for example, pollute the land, air and sea. They prioritise their monetary agendas first and foremost (the fundamental business-as-usual problem). This is why too many industry "leaders", that are epistemologically business people, and politicians, that are also epistemologically business people (i.e., a state of mind. i.e., perception. i.e., a general attitude); generally promote political ideas related to keeping themselves in government whilst supporting their business interests. These personal interests ( motivated reasoning) often means they spread implicit misinformation or disinformation (e.g., greenwash). In general, they simply are not aware of the information relevant to protecting the Planet Earth's Biosphere ("saving the Planet"). Furthermore, due to human knowledge about death, some politicians and business people are not motivated to consider the form of politics and business that will help to protect the Planet's Biosphere, because they believe climate change won't affect them (e.g., they are simply motivated to continue "business as usual". i.e., selfish. e.g., politicians signing fossil fuel contracts) I've been aware that human activities were harming the planet's environment for approximately thirty years. During this time, trying to discuss environmental issues with most adults was, generally, pointless. This is because it's not possible to reason with someone that is using a different form of motivated reasoning. Before I studied biology and ecology, in general, I used more emotive narratives to try and "change hearts and minds". For an example of the method, I often used: "your polluting your own children & detroying their future!" It was only after I've studied the science of psychology, that I understood why this "changing hearts and minds" method, didn't usually change adults minds ( e.g., cognitive dissonance) Once I'd self-educated and graduated with a conservation biology degree, it became clear that the majority of people I spoke to about environmental subjects, did not understand and also didn't seem to care. This is when I was motivated to try and find out more about human psychology because some things did not make sense. For example, These people (population statistically speaking) went to work, to earn money so as to, for example, buy food for their families. In other words, they demonstrated they cared in other ways (motivated reasoning) Once I'd developed the logic to not let my emotions cloud my reasoning, I came to release, that in general, people do not understand Science. Or, they "cherry-pick" some scientific narratives & maybe also "cherry-pick" the science they want to understand. That's why, for example, families with young children will happily sit around the campfire, & even when the children wake up with a cough in the morning, the adults do not (understand) associate the cause of that coughing with the wood smoke the children inhaled the night before. From a scientific perspective, it's known that inhaling wood smoke is as harmful as inhaling tobacco smoke ( i.e., depending on the level of exposure. e.g., wood smoke is more toxic than tobacco smoke). Generally, people are motivated by the emotive aspects of sitting around a warm fire, their reasoning is also only to enjoy sitting around a warm fire (what's missing is the knowledge of the medical evidence). Information motivated reasoning. These families did not have a reason to not enjoy sitting around a warm campfire. Furthermore, it was usually impossible for me to explain the reason why inhaling wood smoke is a bad idea, because they did not have the background knowledge ( & they were far more motivated to prefer their campfire than hear my bad "news"). This article isn't specifically about the severe health hazards of air pollution, I used the campfire as an example of how it's not always possible to explain the research findings of biology or ecology because people won't understand ( unless they have some of the background information). There is also another type of motivated reasoning why people may not want to listen to the advice from others, pride!. I have posted a scientifically referenced article that tries to explain the science including medical evidence related to smoke exposure, using more colloquial terms (non-science terms). The following also describes the known science using more colloquial terms, it's the general history of humans (homo-sapiens). Whilst this narrative could have many, sub-narratives, this article generally attends to the most important matter at hand. And that is the conservation (protection) & restoration of our Planet's biosphere (ecosystems). Good decisions require ordered priorities, from most to least important. Many moons ago (or sun risers or millions of years ago. i.e., Earth orbits around a Star, the Sun), the ancestral group that evolved to be present day homo sapiens lived-in small hunter-gatherer communities (a few of their descendants, i.e., present-day humans, still do live in hunter-gatherer cultures). In many ways, these "peoples" lived lifestyles not that different from our own. In general, they awoke to daylight and tended to the needs of their young and old. They went out to work, but their jobs were hunting (non-human animals) and gathering (plants, fungi to eat & non-edible resources such as wood for their fires) Listen to episode 132 of "The common descent" podcast for more background information about the facts, for example, fossils, that have contributed to the theory of human evolution. To quote "Mary and Louis Leakey are two of the biggest names in the history of paleoanthropology and human evolution, and they’re one of history’s most impressive scientific duos. In this episode, our special guest takes us through the tales of the Leakey’s most important scientific work, their personal lives, and the ongoing impact they’ve had on modern science." It's not possible to say what these hunter-gather-cultures socio-political systems were (i.e., what social rules they may have had), because they left no written records (though they did leave stone tools). However, we do know they were hominids (fossils that shared many of the same characteristics as present-day humans) so they, in general, shared the same anatomy and physiology as we do now (e.g., skeleton, forward-facing eyes, hands, etc). I write "we do now" because fundamentally we were these peoples, we are their descendants ( with a "few" mutations. i.e., inherited DNA), and they were our ancestors. Because their fossils indicate, they, generally, shared the same DNA as modern humans (generally speaking). What has changed more than our biology, since that time, are the technologies in our culture (in most parts of the world). Our ancestors "talked" (communicated using sounds) to one another, rather than posted messages or "twittered". The idea of a computer was million[s] of years away. Maybe our prehistoric ancestors did count objects using other methods ( e.g., birds can be logical), we can only speculate because there is no direct evidence one way or another. However, & In general, we continue to awake in daylight, tend to the needs of our young and old. We head out to work, but our Jobs are now far more varied. Those jobs may be farming non-human animals for food or cultivating plants, fungi & non-edible resources. Some peoples "gathering" may be going to the shops (stores) to purchase wood for their, not comparably modern, fires. It's amazing how much has changed and how much has not changed in that time (millions of years). What has massively changed are our technologies (for some) & science (understanding. For some), what hasn't massively changed are our behaviours (DNA). Of course, our socio-political systems (laws, etc) & socioeconomic systems mean many aspects of our more primal instincts have been mitigated. In the most fortunate cultures (countries) socio-pathological brutes can't persecute the masses & our agricultural systems provide more than enough food for everyone (e.g., we waste food). However! In a "nutshell", if it were not for human activity (e.g., deforestation, pollution, mono-agricultural farming i.e., ecocide business practices), the general ecological health of the terrestrial & aquatic (streams, rivers & oceans) areas of the planet, would be in a far better state of ecological health. There would be more fauna, in other words, wildlife, & flora, in other words, plants and fungi. It's also probable that the species humans have driven to extinction would exist. So, someone may ask, what's gone wrong? and how do we make things right? In general, it’s our political and economic systems that are causing the ecological emergency. In other words, ecocide businesses and politicians know no better than ecocide business as usual. And they are habitual animals that are often motivated by instincts rather than logic. Many of whom have no perception that their animals! ( theory of mind. Their unknown unknowns) What's wrong is that there is (in many cultures) an influential rich minority ingroup of people (crony capitalism, corporatocracy. E.g., billionaires) that tend to be motivated to spend the nation's resources (money, etc) within their minority in-groups, rather than sharing those resources with the general population (the commons, as in general population). In theory, they could keep their status quo indefinitely, in practice, their business methods are undermining the fabric of our planet’s ecology. The richer minority do this in ways that also use disinformation to control & regulate the general population (e.g., greenwash), so they can keep making money in their business-as-usual ways (e.g., fossil fuels and wood fuels). Whilst we can judge that for what it is, ask yourself this question, within the current capitalist system, if you'd been born into money or got rich some other way, would you be willing to make less money? ( people's motivated reasons to, for example, vote for business-as-usual politics) Capitalism is an economic system, nothing more, nothing less. In general, capitalism is an economic system where we compete for the resources of the planet, whilst socialism is an economic system where we share the resources of the planet. Humanity has never had a truly social system where the goods and services are owned by all! (We find sharing, problematic) We've had capitalist systems (a rich minority) that were pseudo-socialist. Maybe that's why socialism is often misconstrued, & criticised by that richer minority, that feels threatened that socialism will take away their stuff (e.g., their bling!). However, socialism or capitalism are not "dirty" words. They're economic tools. "Social" generally infers being cooperative. A win-win. In other words, cooperative altruism. In other words, not trying to win by defeating the opposition. Trying to win by defeating the opposite is a win-lose. Someone wins and, by default, someone must then lose. Social "ownership" refers to everyone owning the products and services of our culture (& I’d suggest, with a right to privacy caveat, for good mental health) Within the context of ecology, we need an economic system that motivates us to have the reason to protect our planet's natural systems (more alive, than dead). Capitalism, whilst it has certainly benefited many (me included), and not many others, seems to be failing at that "mission-critical" task. Maybe it was simply just too early for socialism to work? In theory, it sounded good, or rather sharing the goods of the commons, yet in practice, it lacked an effective management plan. However, things change, especially our technologies. What has been the biggest change in modern times? a tool that is brilliant for sharing information! if that information is regulated by a peer-reviewed methodology. And the peers are regulated by a methodology that increases the probability of successful outcomes (i.e., being right!). The worldwide web! (management), cooperative altruism (social) and science (regulation) that leaves more free time for fun (Art) As for music. Music is a form of management (physical control. i.e., dance), social activity (or alone) and science (maths and music technologies) and art (imagination) What's not to like about that sustainable plan? Well, at least in theory, some rich and influential humans may disagree. However, the “get rich quick by scheming plan” (business-as-usual) of digging up and burning fossil fuels and burning the wood of forests isn’t a comparably intelligent plan when you really think about it! In other words, when any person of good ethical values considers the science of ecology, conservation biology, climatology, etc, the business-as-usual plan is an ecocide plan. Therefore, there are two logically deduced behavioural psychological options to choose from within the context of what is the motivated reasoning behind the ecocide plan (the business-as-usual plan). 1. They do not consider (understand) the science of ecology, conservation biology, climatology, human biology, etc? 2. They're sociopaths? ( Alcohol won't remedy that, quite the opposite) It took me quite a while to work out which one of these options had to be generally true. The truth came to me whilst observing a local farmer light a bonfire upwind from his family’s home. As I watched the wood smoke engulfing the house, I thought to myself? (As you do), what kind of man would poison his own families air? Was the man a crazy sociopath? I was asking the wrong type of question! The right question to ask is, in general, what type of caring human would poison their own families air? And the answer to that question is option 1! They do not consider (understand) the science of ecology, conservation biology, climatology, human biology, etc. And that’s what makes them dangerously ignorant! But ignorance can be corrected (e.g., self-education). If only they were not so dam greenwashed either by others monetary agendas or their own monetary agenda’s. For your information, that does not mean that some, for example, rich fossil fuel or wood fuel CEO’s or politicians may be aware that business-as-usual is an ecocide plan. In every population, there are some socio-pathological temperaments. Some just happen to be rich!. For example, they may not care because they think they will be dead by the time the worst happens (i.e., selfish). What it does mean is that there is a real chance to save our cultures from ecological collapse (the real potential exists). When, and only when, the general population understood enough about the relevant sciences ( e.g., ecology), their general level of ethics (care) would then be reasonably (Sciences), motivated “to save the Earth” “In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful [e.g., social status]. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”― Carl Sagan We must un-greenwash people by informing them of the Science. Un-greenwashing maybe explaining the subjects that Scientists study, such as ecology. Un-greenwashing maybe informing people of the fundamental principles of science (the philosophy of science), so they can, in general, be confident that a scientific subject is being regulated ( i.e., peer-reviewed). In fact, the scientific peer-review process includes cooperation and competition. In general, scientists want to know the facts about, for example, nature. This means they're also reasonable motivated to critically evaluate other scientists research. Fundamentally, critical evaluation is how the scientific peer review process works. This does not mean that scientists spend much time personally criticizing other scientists (in research papers), it means, reliable science is open to accommodating facts. And ethical science is regulated by democratic ethics committees. For example, so the (informed) people get to choose if an experiment, that for example is trying to find a cure for a genetically inherited disease ( e.g., that causes premature death in children), should go ahead, or not, if the methods of the experiment would be on non-human animals. That's a "call" that one person, or group, should not make alone. In other words, that's a well informed (of the science. e.g., medical evidence) cultural level decision to make.
Gary
116 w
Have you heard? They have greenwashed my parrot! Nobody believes they're greenwashed! not even my parrot. Nobody believes they're indoctrinated. In general, everyone believes in their own narratives. Beliefs are information processing. If we watch a movie, we process a different story. Our held beliefs are stored in our memories & in our cultural records. We live on a planet ("the world") with billions of other humans that have many differing beliefs & social agendas (social norms & values); political ideologies, religions, business ideas. Therefore it’s logical to state that not everyone can be correct. Assuming any of these ideologies are correct! Some beliefs must be fallacies! Although Everyone will believe that their cherished belief is the one that is correct. However, there is one form of, partially indoctrinated ideology, that is particularly pervasive to our own long-term interests. The general term for this ideology is greenwash! Greenwash is not any specific belief. For example, some Scientists & Engineers have a reasonable understanding of how to solve the ecological emergency, for example, conservation biologists, ecologists & climatologists ( & some Engineers). However, I believe we may? or may not? mitigate the ecological crisis, because presently, so many people are greenwashed which makes them greenwashers. To fix the ecological mess we find ourselves in, we will have to demand that greenwashing and greenwashed politicians & their industry paymasters stop greenwashing the people they are meant to represent. What are 'science-based targets'? Science-based targets provide a clearly-defined pathway for companies and financial institutions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, helping prevent the worst impacts of climate change and future-proof business growth. But! the fuel industries & governments have even greenwashed my parrot! Polly keeps repeating "burn wood good, burn wood good, give Polly a cracker?" ( Inhaling smoke pollution is bad for our health. Smoking tobacco is also bad for our health) I don't really have a pet parrot! the "parrot" is for satire, to make a point. But if I did, they'd try to friggin greenwash Polly, by offering Polly parrot a friggin cracker. And I would not want my imagined pet parrot to be greenwashed ( for Polly's own health) In one of my earlier articles, there is an image that says “we wash you a Merry Christmas” .The image is a metaphor for a certain type of sales pitch and politics that do misinform & or disinform people & parrots so as to sell polluting products, political ideologies or crackers (e.g., they want your money or vote & may try greenwash to get it) Of course, in of itself, a transparent (mutually explicit trade) sales pitch is all well & good, between two consenting people, for example, a sales-person & a customer (or trade, in general) However, because we must look after our environments better, we must not sell, for example, polluting fuels using "good" or rather bad, eco-greenwash. The following is a warning to those that do intentionally greenwash. In other words, intentionally lie about the products they sell or knowingly lie about the science, that, for example, says some of the industries products cause disease & or climate heating. If that does not apply to you, then may your truth un-greenwash the masses. Those that do intentionally greenwash others are also greenwashed. Examples of greenwash are trying to sell "green coal", they did try that greenwash, or "burn right" wood fuel, etc. Some people are greenwashed by their own, self-greenwashing, monetary agendas 🤔 Whilst money is often a motivator to do wrong & or right, in the context of degrading ecology, a government or business that greenwashes the public to, for example, "burn wood right", is also digging its own grave 💀 "Climate change is widespread, rapid, and intensifying, and some trends are now irreversible, at least during the present time frame, according to the latest much-anticipated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, released on Monday" Within the context of burning wood (biomass) “digging our own graves” is an accurate metaphor. For example, smoke pollution reduces life expectancy &, when all factors are considered, burning wood heats the planet's atmosphere more than burning fossil fuels. One reason for this, amongst many, is that to produce the same amount of heat, less volume of coal is burnt than wood. References can be provided, though it’s “common” knowledge that coal produces more heat than wood when burnt. Burning wood is not a replacement for burning fossil fuels (& they both cause air pollution that causes disease). Renewable energy & green hydrogen technology is (100% clean, 2022). Another reason why burning forests ( e.g., deforesting forests for tree plantations) is ecocide is that forests are home to wildlife (is the Earth experiencing its 6th mass extinction event) and deforestation is degrading the Earth’s soils Our civilisations can do far better (100% Clean, 2022) than having greenwashed parrots as the decision maker[s] No offence intended Polly! Sometimes, there are more important things than getting that next cracker ($£, etc). In other words, not slaughtering farm animals (e.g., the animal industry), or wildlife, not heating up the planet’s atmosphere & not polluting our own air supplies is more important than, for example, mining for and consuming ecologically degrading “crackers”. Meet Polly’s friends https://www.paws.org/resources/keeping-wild-animals-unsafe-illegal-and-inhumane/
•
116 w
www.cleancityair.org Nature has answers We Remove Airborne Pollution and Reverse climate change we make Green Infrastructure we are proposing a Mass Deployment today By the way Kids are entitled to breath clean air in the school playground just saying !
Shared by Gary
Sarah Chabane
116 w
•
Rishi Sunak has definitely lost it and is scrapping Boris Johnson's green plans and decided to push back against “insane” demands to go further on net zero. The Chancellor has pressed Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, to fast-track the licences amid Treasury fears over the economic impact of making the UK a net-zero carbon emitter by 2050. 🤡 The six oil and gas areas, which have already been given a preliminary licence by ministers, are expected to be given approval by Britain’s oil and gas regulator to begin construction of rigs in the North Sea. The combined reserves of all six sites are thought to be enough to power the whole UK for six months (long term planning right?!) with 62 million tonnes of oil equivalent fuel in the ground. And this person could become the next UK Prime Minister. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/07/six-north-sea-oil-gas-fields-fired-amid-cabinet-row-net-zero/
52 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
116 w
For your information. It may not be prudent to have a smiling Rishi Sunak on the image. Without the text, that image could be misconstrued as a promotion to extract oil. Maybe find a photo where Rishi Sunak looks self-serving ( i.e., greedy)
•
•
116 w
Good point, I just used his official picture, but will see if I find another good one 🧐
•
116 w
Fundamentally ( first and foremost), Rishi Sunak is a business-as-usual person ( we need innovative business, not fossil fuel cronies) that will most probably not understand the science of climate change ( if he does, yet ignores that science? he's also corrupt). He's made his money ( i.e., he is very rich) investing in the business-as-usual polluting industries (e.g., fossil fuels). This means he will have lot's of business as usual fossil fuel connections that he wants to arrange deals with. Rishi Sunak could have invested all that money in renewable energy, electric car charge points, and installed heat pumps in peoples homes ( plus insulation). He doesn't because he is a business-as-usual man who is serving his own money interests. Rishi Sunak also happens to be a politician (many politicians come from a business background) Which is a handy role to arrange business-as-usual favours. Rishi Sunak is an unethical and arrogant business-as-usual man (though he may greenwash himself) and here is why. The United Nations published a "code red for humanity report" (2021) that clearly states "Climate change is widespread, rapid, and intensifying, and some trends are now irreversible, at least during the present time frame, according to the latest much-anticipated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, released on Monday." https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097362 And yet Rishi Sunak, or to be more precise England's conservative party (dam! they are so conservative. i.e., not innovative) as nobody can make these decisions alone, continues to promote the burning of fossil fuels. So, what's wrong with that? Is Rishi Sunak so arrogant that he believes he knows better than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate? ( he so obviously is) This is because of Rishi Sunak's motivated reasoning. For example, " Ka-ching!".i.e., he's got rich from his fossil fuel interests. But? why doesn't he invest his own money in renewables, etc, &, essentially, our money ( e.g., Tax) in renewables? Maybe Rishi Sunak is simply another rich & ignorantly arrogant business-as-usual man ( that is what the facts imply!)
Gary
116 w
The pseudoscience of "The Witcher". This post will compare the pseudoscience of the Netflix TV series "The Witcher” with greenwash & other forms of misinformation. There are in-text links to trusted science-based websites provided in the article and I have provided some more links in the "trusted science" section which you will find if you scroll down to the bottom of this article. I'd advise that the Witcher is suitable for people that are 15 years of age and over. Personal Disclaimer: The Witcher is one of my Favourite Netflix series, although I won’t let that bias my Scientific evaluation (& why would it? It’s not like I have any vested interests in Netflix or the Witcher series, I just like watching it for entertainment). This post is about mitigating greenwashing (i.e., reducing the amount of greenwash). First, before I discuss The Witcher Netflix series, this article will discuss information related to information (i.e., meta information). To understand what is greenwash, it’s helpful to understand what is meant by the word pseudoscience (or “quackery”). In general, the words quackery or pseudoscience are interchangeable as they relate to the same problem (misinformation & disinformation). Quackery can be dishonest practices and claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field. For some background reading about what quackery is not, please read the linked-too non-quackery article: https://app.wedonthavetime.org/posts/d43257d4-90e0-4c27-a297-5d6adca0f2e3?utm_source=url-copy%26utm_medium=wdht-web-app-share%26utm_campaign=gary_noon Alternatively, if you'd prefer to have a deeper read into what quackery is not, there are some well-referenced books that have been written by qualified authors ( in other words, not quacks). These are generally university level Textbooks that discuss the philosophy of science. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25242066-the-meaning-of-science Broadly speaking within the context of the internet, misinformation is believing in & sharing information that is not correct. Quackery is spreading fake "science" sounding information (i.e., disinformation). Quackery may be intentional deception (in other words, lies. For example, greenwash from the fossil fuel industry & associated politicians) or maybe spread by a person on the internet that isn’t qualified in a subject, though believes they know what they’re talking about. There are many websites on the internet where quality science-based information can be found. Which website that is, depends on the subject. For example, if your seeking good quality health information, then the World Health Organization website will serve you well. https://www.who.int/ Empirical evidence or science takes more time to learn than, for example, reading a fiction book that has an emotive story (for example, a fantasy story). The general cultural psychological reasons for quackery are beyond the scope of this brief post (in other words, read the textbook on the philosophy of science to be more informed of the scientific methods). However, as a brief generalisation of what quackery is, we can use a form of comparative psychology. For example, one of my favourite series on Netflix is "The Witcher". The Witcher is set in a dark, magical, though often cruel, fantasy world. Although, the main "Witcher" character (see image), Geralt of Rivia (Polish: Geralt z Rivii) tries his best to be a good Witcher (a good "mutated" man). In the Witcher world, there are also people that say they use "science". However, when compared to our real science (e.g., the peer-reviewed science) the Witcher "science" is only pseudoscience (non-science) that users some "science" sounding words and narratives. Of course, this post isn't critically evaluating the "science" of a Netflix TV fantasy series. It's simply an example of how one of the most highly rated TV shows isn't science (& Netflix doesn't say it is Science! For example, Netflix correctly says The Witcher is "Sci-fi & Fantasy"). Using this comparative approach, we can see that one of the reasons why quackery spreads on the internet, is that many of the people that love "The Witcher" Netflix series (as one example of a Fantasy & Sci-fi TV series), would understand more if they understood what science is. For example, Science isn't the subject that Scientists study, it's the method scientists use. To be clear, not understanding the methods of science is not usually so much of a problem. For instance, younger children won't understand the methods of science. Though they can still appreciate parents explaining some, for example, information that a Scientist explained to them. The problems related to quackery occur when people unknowingly spread pseudoscience (misinformation) or intentionally spread pseudoscience (disinformation. For example, greenwash) Hopefully, you understand enough about what science is? if that is the case, you'd be motivated to share, for example, peer-reviewed research papers or science articles written by actual scientists that, for example, work for universities (or other organisations that are regulated by the rigours of science. i.e., professionals that are qualified) https://theconversation.com/global On social media ( e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc) some adults infer that they are scientists & \ or claim they are scientifically motivated ( & yet? they do not reference the peer-reviewed scientific literature. e.g., they tend to post links to politically opinionated articles). For example, they may have titles that may say "ecological" & \ or they spread misinformation about medical subjects (e.g., about vaccines, yet they don't provide any links to the medical research that is used to study vaccines, etc). Some people are motivated to say they are something they are not. The best way to be sure that information is more accurate is to, for example, look up the information at a reliable website (e.g., the World Health Organisation or a Scientific journal). Too many people spread pseudoscience because they are not qualified to know any different (implicitly spreading misinformation). For example, they have not read (& understood & appreciated) a textbook on the philosophy of science & / or have not had any professional training in the subject they advertise. Of course, we can generally trust people who, for example, work as medical doctors in hospitals, far more than, for example, someone who says they read about some treatment in a magazine. Furthermore, and for your information, there are of course people that intentionally spread lies (disinformation) on social media (e.g., greenwash). This is usually because they are motivated to try and make money (e.g., fossil fuel, wood fuel & a lot of other industries), or to "sell" some political ideology. The scientific peer-review method (the method that real scientists use) is anti-pseudoscience & anti-pseudo-fake "scientists". That includes the scientists that are, for example, not qualified in a certain subject and spread misinformation about another scientific subject. For example, non-climatologists, spreading greenwash or non-virologists or non-micro-biologists spreading anti-vaccine narratives) Personal disclaimer: The writer of this article is a qualified pro-conservation biologist and is anti-prejudice (e.g., anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc) Below are some of the trusted Science websites that are accessible to people that are laypeople in any particular subject. The author of this article is a layperson in quantum mechanics, however, I can read articles or listen to podcasts about quantum mechanics. The listed websites base their information on peer-reviewed information. Though in an emergency situation. e.g., a pandemic, they may inform the reader that they are discussing pre-prints from well-established scientists (i.e., before they have been formally peer-reviewed). For example, from scientists or medical institutions that already have published many peer-review publications. The actual source of the information from the listed websites is most often Scientific Journals ( that peer review the papers that scientists ask them to publish in their journals). People can also find Scientific papers by searching on scientific web search engines. Science web search engines. https://scholar.google.co.uk/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/ General science \ Science news https://ourworldindata.org/ https://www.science.org/ https://theconversation.com/global ( click "edition" to access the different regional publications) https://www.sciencenews.org/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/ Climate change & the conservation of nature www.iucn.org https://www.ippc.int https://www.ipcc.ch/ A general sociopolitical fact-checking website https://fullfact.org/ Finally, you may have noticed that some politicians believe they know better than Science. For example, some politicians are climate emergency deniers. Human-caused climate emergency denialism really is a form of ignorance, selfishness & / or denial (e.g., anxiety can cause denial). Because even though some politicians and some people in the fossil fuel, wood fuel (i.e., biomass) industries are simply disinforming people for monetary reasons, if they understood the dangers of heating up the atmosphere of the planet, they'd have to be complete idiots (or sociopaths) to promote the burning of fossil fuel and biomass. For your information, wood fuel, biofuel or biomass are Interchangeable words. For example, the words all relate to fuels that have originated from living things (i.e., biology). Some fossil fuels come from the fossilized remains of organisms (i.e., living things) that were living millions of years ago (e.g., coal comes from fossilized plants. e.g., trees). To think, these organisms had no idea they would cause climate heating.....? just like some of the politicians and industry leaders of today ;-)
Gary
116 w
This post is about sharing more accurate information. Within the context of mitigating ecological degradation, reducing the amount of greenwash on social media, and cultures, in general, is mission-critical ( to save our cultures from climate change, etc) In the UK, if a person isn't a qualified electrician, yet advertisers that they are, that is fraud. In the UK, if a person isn't a qualified medical Doctor, yet advertisers that they are, that is fraud. In the UK, if a person isn't a qualified psychologist, yet advertisers that they are, that is a fraud. I clearly state in my bio that I'm studying for a psychology MSc degree. I don't work as a psychologist. I do refer people to the relevant psychological research. I can advertise as an ecologist or conservation biologist because I have the relevant degree (& have practical work experience). I used to be a qualified electrician. I worked as a "sparky" for approx 20 years. I worked on large industrial projects like the Eurotunnel. I also have a test & inspection licence so I was qualified to inspect and test other electricians work. I'm not a qualified electrician anymore! I'm not even qualified to put a socket in my own home. I could do the work, but I'd have to pay for a qualified electrician to come and test and inspect it. The reason I am not a qualified electrician anymore is that I stopped working as an electrician. I would have to take a course in the latest wiring regulations and be "part P" registered to advertise as an electrical contractor. In the context of professional experts, there are clear ways for cultures to have a system where actual expertise is recognised. Depending on the profession, these routes to being qualified are apprenticeships or accredited degrees. However, Imagine if a person was not qualified though they intentionally gave a false impression that they were (disinformation). In Science, we call these people "quacks" or "armchair experts" or "climate deniers" or "anti-vaxxers", etc. "quacks" usually offer poor quality misinformed advice. There is too much "quack quack quack" spread on social media. What can we do to improve the quality of the information on the internet? We can reference the source of that quality information. That may be, for example, referring someone to a regulated electrical contractor or to a peer-reviewed research paper published in a scientific journal. For Your Information, there are also scientific databases such as PubMed "a free resource supporting the search and retrieval of biomedical and life sciences literature with the aim of improving health–both globally and personally." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/
Gary
117 w
How do we stop the fossil fuel and wood fuel industries from polluting on an industrial scale? ( information to give to others if they ask you this question) 1. Raise awareness. This could be talking to your friends, family, etc, or taking part in an environmental protest (or posting about the issues online) I've also been told that writing to your politician may raise awareness, however, if the politician is greenwashed or the political party receives "donations" from the fossil fuel industry, that method may get a poor response. Of course, it's not, for example, green party politicians, that need an attitude re-adjustment regarding their views of fossil fuels. Though even some Green Party of England and Wales politicians may need an attitude readjustment about the air pollution, & land degradation, associated with wood fuel. 2. If you have a bank account, pension, use a provider that does not invest your money into fossil fuels, deforestation, etc. 3. Change your energy provider to one that prioritises renewable energy. 4. Use heat pumps for home heating. 5. Reduce your own CO2 emissions where practical (e.g., plant & fungi based diet), and keep campaigning & protesting until the governments and industries help us make living a zero CO2 emission lifestyle, as convenient, safe & healthy, as riding a bicycle ( on a traffic-free cycle route in the fresh air) FYI, of course, people have differing abilities, & we design different EV's to meet their needs.
Gary
117 w
Personal Disclaimer. I also like space rockers & space robots ( e.g., Mars curiosity). l don't let that preference cloud my judgement regarding the protection of the planet's ecology. It's a matter of having our priorities in the right order. Greenwashing (more often) men who like space rockets, robots and cars, is child's play! "space cowboys" agendas are not aimed at protecting natural habitats ( e.g., forests) or reducing mining. Though they may sell an "environmentally friendly" image, they are the opposite of that. This post is about explicit scientific censorship & "cherry-picking" science to construct a form of pseudoscience that backs up an industries agenda. For example, if you try posting a science referenced critique of Elon Musk's business operations on the Musk-associated YouTube channels such as: SpaceX https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceX Tesla Daily https://www.youtube.com/c/TeslaDaily Elon Musk rewind https://www.youtube.com/c/ElonMuskRewindSpaceX -the channel moderators remove the post (often within seconds to minutes). The more straightforward way to explain why industries that censor the science are promoting the spread of misinformation, & in some context, disinformation (e.g., the fossil fuel industries), is to use the Netflix film "don't look up", as a comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up In the "don't look up film" the businessman (The "business as usual" agenda, acted by Peter Isherwell) censored the Science (& Scientists) that didn't advocate his business agenda. To quote the astronomer (acted by Leonardo Dicaprio) “I just want to make sure you're open to the scientific review process, and that you're not just approaching this like a businessman”. The businessman then responded by personally insulting the astronomer. That's the analogy that's equivalent to the climate scientists, ecologists, conservation biologists, etc, that regularly get personally insulted on social media by simply trying to inform people of their research. For example, the Elon Musk associated YouTube channels censor the science they don't "like", yet don't tend to not remove homophobic users replies. E.g., try posting, a scientifically referenced, critical reply about Elon Musk’s business operations and you will probably receive "troll" replies (& the channel moderators don't tend to remove those attempts at personal insult) Finally, in the "don't look up" film, when the Astronomer finally lost his "cool" on the chat show, with the idiocrasy of the situation, he shouted in desperation, "they are firing the scientists!” (the relevant YouTube channels only "cherry-pick" the scientists that advocate the industries "mars", etc, agenda) & “many of the viewers won’t listen to this because they have their own political ideologies" ( just as the millions of Elon Musk fan's are being greenwashed by the industries agendas. i.e. because the associated YouTube channels are not providing balanced content & they are moderating against critical scientific evaluation of their methodologies) Of course, this issue isn't only Elon Musk (industries) specific, the same can be said for the business as usual celebrities such as Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson ( i.e., the billionaire space rocket owners) Try it for yourself using this Scientific method! 1. Find a Scientific paper (e.g., on Google Scholar, Science direct, etc) related to how industries are degrading the planet's ecology. FYI, these industries have their "fingers in many pies", even some scientific "environmental impact" papers have greenwashed titles. For example, a paper on google scholar is titled " Environmentally friendly design of SpaceX Falcon Heavy". That's disinformation! (greenwash). For example, it would be like calling cigarettes "healthy". https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Environmentally+friendly+design+of+SpaceX+Falcon+Heavy&btnG= 2. Post a link to the Science paper on the Musk-associated YouTube channels, along with a short critical evaluation. See how long it takes to be removed! ----------- The point isn't whether, or not, scientific space inquiry is important (it is), the point is that SpaceX is a business that isn't regulated by the rigours of science. For example, at this moment in time, using resources that will degrade \ pollute the Planet's ecosystem, to get some humans onto Mars, isn't a prudent plan. That is the type of egomania plan that is equivalent to someone that would send their own car into space, as part of a media stunt, & then after the stunt received some public criticism, disinform people by suggesting that the stunt was somehow for "science". FYI, please share! Our future depends on making the right decisions for our planet's ecology. That means we will have to reduce the number of "decision-makers" that are greenwashers & \ or greenwashed.
51 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
•
•
•
105 w
Dear Gary Noon Thank you for getting your climate warning to level 2! We have reached out to UK Parliament and asked for a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Adam We Don't Have Time
•
98 w
@WeDontHaveTime Hello the "We Don't Have Time" team. I assume the UK parliament have declined to reply in ways that deny they are greenwashing?
•
116 w
I agree. The uk government must be taken to court