The Environment

NM11046 said:
Is this April Fools?
Click to expand...
no...that is their actual news and science guys saying that.   the evening propaganda programs will whip up anger and hate towards anyone and everyone they feel like targeting tonight though so no worries about the "fake news" the afternoon crew is reporting

 
Powerful stuff:
'You did not act in time': Greta Thunberg's full speech to MPs

You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.

Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.

Sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfil something, we can do anything. And I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable: we can still fix this. But the opportunity to do so will not last for long. We must start today. We have no more excuses.

We children are not sacrificing our education and our childhood for you to tell us what you consider is politically possible in the society that you have created. We have not taken to the streets for you to take selfies with us, and tell us that you really admire what we do.

We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

I hope my microphone was on. I hope you could all hear me.
Click to expand...

 
According to this, climate change is only the third leading cause of mass extinctions:

UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’

The Report finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.
Click to expand...


To increase the policy-relevance of the Report, the assessment’s authors have ranked, for the first time at this scale and based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are, in descending order: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species.
Click to expand...

 
giphy.gif


 
I try not to read this stuff since Trump has become president, because it's the most important issue to me, and his policies will kill people.

I made a mistake and read this one. This is f#&%ing disgusting, and it's disgusting people are okay with them fudging the numbers to make their s#!t policies look less bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/climate/epa-air-pollution-deaths.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency plans to change the way it calculates the health risks of air pollution, a shift that would make it easier to roll back a key climate change rule because it would result in far fewer predicted deaths from pollution, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.

The E.P.A. had originally forecast that eliminating the Obama-era rule, the Clean Power Plan, and replacing it with a new measure would have resulted in an additional 1,400 premature deaths per year. The new analytical model would significantly reduce that number and would most likely be used by the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks of air pollution rules if it is formally adopted.

The proposed shift is the latest example of the Trump administration downgrading the estimates of environmental harm from pollution in regulations. In this case, the proposed methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires. Many experts said that approach was not scientifically sound and that, in the real world, there are no safe levels of the fine particulate pollution associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

Fine particulate matter — the tiny, deadly particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream — is linked to heart attacks, strokes and respiratory disease.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I try not to read this stuff since Trump has become president, because it's the most important issue to me, and his policies will kill people.

I made a mistake and read this one. This is f#&%ing disgusting, and it's disgusting people are okay with them fudging the numbers to make their s#!t policies look less bad. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/climate/epa-air-pollution-deaths.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Click to expand...


They're so deep in the Fossil Fuel lobby's pocket they've decided to just do worse science to justify worse policies.

We're in a pretty screwed up place when Republicans decide that instead of improving their policies they can just use junk science to prop them up.

But I mean we've basically had two Big Energy lobbyists in a row in charge of the EPA, so...

 
Back
Top