|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2021 10:16:01 GMT
Facing Catastrophe With Calm Joshua Marsh has fashioned a world where a sweet, wise humor in the face of mortality and inescapable change prevails. hyperallergic.com/667751/facing-catastrophe-with-calm/BEACON, NY — I have been following Joshua Marsh’s work ever since I saw and reviewed Ten Things, his first show of paintings and drawings at the now-defunct Jeff Bailey Gallery in the fall of 2010. Then, in 2017, I reviewed Joshua Marsh: Paper Garden at Jeff Bailey Gallery, after it had relocated to Hudson, New York. Two things struck me about the latter exhibition. The first is that Marsh is creating two distinct bodies of work: pencil drawings, where textures are articulated with a hallucinatory precision, and tonally saturated paintings, in which form and dissipation, materiality and immateriality, create a site of contemplation. The second is that Marsh, who started the drawings in Paper Garden while he was an artist-in-residence in the Troedsson Villa in Japan, which is located on the grounds of a former temple in Nikko, a city north of Tokyo and UNESCO World Heritage site, has experienced some of the landscapes recorded by Classical Japanese artists. Marsh picks up on a theme common to Classical Japanese and Chinese painting: the meeting of water and stone. Even though he is inspired by traditional Asian art, his acrylic paintings of water and rocks are as distinct in their own way as, for instance, Morris Graves’s late visionary still lifes.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2021 23:43:42 GMT
New UN Climate Report Is ‘Code Red for Humanity,’ but Joining Forces and Using Indigenous Knowledge Could Avert Disaster independentmediainstitute.org/efl-tat-20210810-3/In a grim report released on Monday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that climate change was “unequivocally” caused by human activity, and that within two decades, rising temperatures will cause the planet to reach a significant turning point in global warming. The report’s authors—a group of the world’s top climate scientists convened by the United Nations (UN)—predict that by 2040, average global temperatures will be warmer than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, causing more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts and extreme weather events. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the bleak findings a “code red for humanity.” The report found global warming increasing at a faster rate than earlier predictions estimated. “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land… [and] at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years,” the report says. “Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.” Even if the world’s nations enacted sharp and stringent reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases today, overall global warming is still estimated to rise around 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next 20 years. That means that the hotter, more dangerous future that scientists and the Paris climate agreement sought to avoid is now unavoidable. Linda Mearns, a senior climate scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research and one of the report’s co-authors, offered a stern warning: “It’s just guaranteed that it’s going to get worse,” she said, adding that there is “[n]owhere to run, nowhere to hide.” In an interview with the Hill, Kim Cobb, the lead author of the report’s first chapter, said, “We’re already reeling, clearly, from so many of these impacts that the report highlights, especially in the category of extremes that are gripping these headlines and causing so much damage, but of course the 1.5 degree C world is notably and discernibly worse.” “The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk,” Guterres said in a statement on the report. “Global heating is affecting every region on Earth, with many of the changes becoming irreversible.”
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 11, 2021 21:52:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 16, 2021 18:07:55 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn: Climate Crisis Is a Class Issue BY JEREMY CORBYN In a column for Jacobin, Jeremy Corbyn writes that we need class politics to transform our economies and save humanity from climate apocalypse. There’s no other way. jacobinmag.com/2021/08/jeremy-corbyn-climate-crisis-global-warming-ipcc-un-report-columnThe UN secretary-general declaring climate scientists’ report a “code red for humanity” is a critical warning. The evidence in this week’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report speaks for itself: the hottest five years in recent history, tripling rises in sea levels, and the global retreat of glaciers and sea ice. But it is also nothing significantly new. Scientists are taking an urgent tone because they have been making the same warnings for decades — while serious action on our warming world has failed to materialize. Indeed, oil giant Exxon predicted climate change in the 1970s — before going on to spend decades publicly denying its existence. The political and economic system we live in does not produce climate change by accident but by design, rewarding big polluters and resource extractors with superprofits. This is our historical legacy. In the UK, imperial-era fortunes were made from oil from places like the Persian Gulf, where Britain sponsored an antidemocratic coup in the 1950s to preserve the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s profits. AIOC later became BP, which continues to pump hundreds of millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere at sites from the Gulf of Mexico to the Caspian. And much of the world’s fossil money is handled by City of London financial institutions which specialize in managing oil profits. More Disasters Are Coming Around the world, governments continue to act on behalf of these fossil networks, even as they claim to be taking climate action. Boris Johnson has even copied the Green Industrial Revolution language we in the Labour Party developed. But he has copied only the words, not the actions. In June, the UK’s Climate Change Committee demonstrated that on its current course the government will fail to reach even its own woefully insufficient targets. On May Day 2019, as leader of the Opposition, I successfully moved a parliamentary statement for Britain to declare a climate emergency — making ours the first parliament in the world to do so. I was, and remain, determined that the Labour Party and our movement should take the climate and environmental crisis very seriously. If this system remains unchallenged, we can expect a swift increase in the floods, droughts, and wildfires that have ripped through Australia, Siberia, British Columbia, East Africa, California, and much of Europe over the last year. Intense rainstorms are up by two-fifths this century. The heaviest are three-quarters stronger than they were in the 1950s, and once-in-an-epoch hurricanes are now commonplace. But it is not just the physical consequences of these events we need to worry about; it is also the political ones. In Greece, austerity, deregulation, and the neglect of fire services have magnified the impact of horrific blazes in Evia. In Texas earlier this year, the state allowed energy firms to price-gouge on emergency power, leaving people with unpayable debts. And from the United States to the European Union, governments are investing in surveillance technology and military equipment to attack the refugees that environmental crises help create. The billions being spent on new guards and drones in the Mediterranean is money not being spent on a green transition, instead going to the profits of a border, surveillance, and military industry deeply tied to the fossil economy. The British Parliament is even currently debating a draconian Nationality and Borders Bill aiming to make it illegal to save refugee lives at sea — putting Britain at odds with the universal law of the sea. With military budgets ballooning across the world, powerful countries are preparing for conflict, not cooperation, to deal with the climate emergency. Such false solutions will increase all our suffering; but as ever, will favor the wealthy few while punishing the many — whether people flooded out of their homes in England or people fleeing drought in North Africa. We Can Stop This But it doesn’t have to be like this, and our reaction must be one of hope rather than fear. Climate scientists can and do tell us with forensic accuracy what a temperature rise of 1.5 or 3 or 5 degrees will do to sea levels, water scarcity, or biodiversity. But the reason they cannot predict what that rise will be is because it is impossible to predict the choices we will make next. Those, as the IPCC report reminds us, are still up to us. And if we take on the powerful, removing the systemic incentives to burn the planet for a quick windfall, we can do things differently. That means workers everywhere mobilizing for a global Green New Deal at COP26 this year which takes carbon out of the atmosphere and puts money back in workers’ pockets, while tackling injustice and inequality in the Global South. There is no town anywhere that would not benefit from green public transport, or rewilding with new forests, or local renewable energy, or jobs in the green industries of the future. From climate change, to poverty and inequality, to our dangerous collective failure to get poorer countries vaccinated against COVID-19, we are living through the consequences of a system that puts billionaires first and the rest of us last. The climate and environmental crisis is a class issue. It is the poorest people in working-class communities, in polluted cities, and in low-lying island communities who suffer first and worst in this crisis. But we do still have the power to change it. In 2019, schoolchildren striking for climate action captured the imagination and attention of people around the globe overnight. If they can do it, so can we. Our response to the climate “code red” must be to work in our communities, in politics, in schools and universities, in our workplaces and with our trade unions to demand and win a livable planet — and a system which puts human life and well-being first.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 13, 2021 13:32:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 14, 2021 22:29:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 17, 2021 10:46:00 GMT
September 15, 2021News » Cover Story Time's Up It's the End of World, and We Know It. By Jim Catano www.cityweekly.net/utah/times-up/Content?oid=17298723Commentary by Jim Catano Picture six friends chatting about the environment. "There's no such thing as global warming," the first says. "Climate change is fake news." "No, the planet is warming," says another, "but in a gradual, natural cycle that's repeated itself throughout Earth's history. Higher temperatures may even benefit some places." "What we're experiencing is not natural," counters a third. "It's caused by human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels. But luckily, we've got time to get it under control." "On the contrary," the fourth person suggests, "climate change is entering a critical stage. We need to keep lobbying Congress because if we don't get emissions under control within the next couple of decades, we may experience big problems." "Sorry, but Congress—or any other political entity—isn't doing anything close to what could make a difference in time," the fifth says. "There will be huge consequences in most parts of the world, but hopefully our species will soon wake up and take drastic steps to avert total environmental and societal collapse. We must end our reliance on fossil fuels and pursue new technologies for removing carbon from the air." The sixth friend lets out a heavy sigh, then speaks. "I hate to be the bearer of bad news," he says, "but we've simply gone too far down the hole. Rapid conversion to a renewably fueled society and carbon capture are technologically and logistically impossible for several reasons. Even if we were to immediately stop using fossil fuels today—which we won't—there is already too much heat-trapping greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to stop the rise in global temperatures. A cascade of tipping points—many already in the rear-view mirror—will almost certainly make the Earth's climate inhospitable for humans and most mammals. The best, long-shot case would be if small pockets of habitability can continue to sustain human existence." That hypothetical conversation demonstrates what I consider to be the six major schools of thought on climate change. And I should know—over the past 30 years, I've personally enrolled in five of those schools. But as updated information has poured in and times have changed, however, so has my awareness of the threat humanity faces. The End is Near Recent environmental news reports have made the first two schools of thought simply impossible to defend. Even the third—the idea that we have lots of time to correct the problem—has seen its credibility plummet in light of increasing record-setting extreme temperatures worldwide, severe and destructive storms, massive flooding in some areas, prolonged droughts in others, accelerating glacial and ice cap melting, sea level rise and devastating wildfires. At long last, public opinion is coming in line with what science has been warning us about for decades. But as it is increasingly apparent that the way we've lived on this planet has tragically altered its chemistry, biology and ecology, the question then becomes how bad things will get. Is it possible that our world could become uninhabitable for humans and most other species? A growing number of scientists and laypersons who choose to be guided by facts and observable trends—as opposed to forming their opinions around hopes and wishes—say such a scenario is very likely, if not inevitable. The end of the world as we know it has been debated, discussed and predicted by intellectuals, mystics and prophets for millennia. What will happen to our planet and its inhabitants has also been considered by science, in fiction writing and cinema, and at around-the-campfire discussions since time immemorial. Potential catalysts bringing about the end have included plagues, asteroids, super-volcanoes, alien invasions, nuclear war, an energy burst from a quasar, a deity declaring "time's up" on the human drama or the death of our sun in a few billion years. By comparison, catastrophic, abrupt climate change is the relatively new kid on the block. Mainstream science is gradually narrowing in on the final two scenarios described by the six friends as possibilities. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a chilling report in August that's far less hopeful than the previous five assessments published by the IPCC since 1990. The organization has been criticized for being overly optimistic. Its latest report, however, contains dire warnings of imminent, catastrophic and irreversible climate impacts given the quantity of greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane and others mostly released by industrial activities) that are already in the atmosphere and oceans and that continue to be released relatively unabated. Three terms are useful in discussions about abrupt climate change. The first is "overshoot," when a society surpasses in population and consumption the capacity of its environment to sustainably support it. The second is "tipping point," which is when a condition reaches a critical stage and can no longer be stopped. The third is "feedback loop," which is when a condition deepens as a result of itself. (One example is how Arctic ice shrinks each year, allowing more sunlight to penetrate ocean water instead of reflecting back into space, which heats the oceans and contributes to further ice melt.) Humans began leaving a carbon footprint about 10,000 years ago with the dawn of agriculture. Things went into overdrive three centuries ago when societies started mining large quantities of carbon that had been deposited over hundreds of millions of years as decaying plant and animal life sank to the bottoms of oceans, seas and swamps, becoming oil, coal and natural gas. Our ancestors started burning these fossil fuels to power their lives, and carbon dioxide was released as its waste. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, we've spewed more than a half-trillion tons of CO2 into the air. By weight, that amount of carbon dioxide would roughly equal two Mount Everests. An Invisible Killer Unfortunately, carbon dioxide appears "clean." Despite coming from mostly pitch-black sources, CO2 is invisible, odorless and toxic to humans only in high concentrations. Unlike soot and other emissions that exit smokestacks and tailpipes—and which humanity has done a better job capturing—excess CO2 gave the appearance of being relatively harmless until quite recently. Even though CO2 was identified as a heat-trapping atmospheric gas in 1859 by Irish physicist John Tyndall, the cheap, concentrated energy that burning fossil fuels provides has been too tempting and too addictive to spark the motivation to adequately address its downsides. Carbon dioxide's cousin, methane or CH4, is initially 84 times more potent as a heat-holding greenhouse gas, and billions of tons of it lie just below the Earth's surface in the frozen northern tundra and seabed. As temperatures climb, this natural gas is being released in ever-increasing amounts to the point that there is now more than twice as much in the atmosphere as there was in pre-industrial times. Some scholars predict that an upcoming, rapid release of methane will be the trigger for a large and catastrophic spike in global temperatures. We've created an entire society and economy based on fossil-fuel use and, so far, our species has shown little resolve to significantly change its ways, due in large part to centuries of self-centered thinking and decades of misinformation disseminated by fossil-fuel companies and the government officials who back them. Many individuals in industrialized societies simply resist change. "I can't give up my ," the First World opines, while at the same time, less-wealthy societies aspire to our profligate lifestyle. Our lack of will to abandon biosphere-killing ways is why a growing number of experts see humanity as simply too addicted to have ever averted disaster.
There's also a world population that has swelled from 2.5 billion when I was born in 1950 to nearly 8 billion today. The global population could reach 10 billion, but some researchers have calculated that even if humans were doing everything right in terms of living simply and using alternative and renewable energy, the planet could support, at most, about 2 billion of us in perpetuity.
In This Together I'm aware this may be the biggest downer that City Weekly readers have ever encountered in these pages. Many will reject it as inaccurate and overly pessimistic, and that's a perfectly normal human response. Denial is the first of psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's classic five stages of grief, and some never move beyond denial even when contemplating their own death—let alone that of all of humankind within a relatively short time frame.
As I've passed backward and forward through Kubler-Ross's five stages while contemplating what all this means for me, my partner, children, grandchildren and recently-arrived first great grandchild, I've mostly carried the burden alone without asking others to help shoulder it. Fortunately, resources and support groups exist to help people first get their minds around these horrific possibilities and then turn anxiety and fear about them into courage and resolve to live nobly and well in whatever time we have left.
I reached out to four thought leaders on abrupt climate change. As you will see, these scholars differ in their views, but each wishes they were wrong about what they see coming. So do I.
The following responses were provided individually via email, but are presented in the form of a panel discussion.
When did you realize climate change would be inevitably catastrophic? Guy McPherson (an internationally recognized speaker and award-winning scientist who specializes in abrupt climate change): In 2002, it seemed we had already triggered self-reinforcing feedback loops, any one of which make climate change irreversible. As a typically conservative academic, I kept my conclusion to myself. I finally went fully public with an essay I posted on my blog in June of 2012.
Max Wilbert (an organizer, wilderness guide and author of "Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It"): In 2010, I traveled to the Russian Arctic to document a National Science Foundation climate science expedition. In Siberia, we walked on thawing permafrost and saw "drunken forests," which look like a game of pick-up-sticks as the soil melts underneath the trees. That year was the hottest year on record in Russia at the time.
Michael Dowd (a bestselling eco-theologian, TEDx speaker and environmental advocate): It was in 2012 after watching David Roberts' TEDx talk, "Climate Change Is Simple (Remix)"
When will the climate disaster become so intense nobody will deny it? McPherson: Denying reality will continue until the last person draws his or her last breath. COVID-19 serves as a recent example.
Wilbert: It's already that way. If you live in a small island nation, or in New York, or along the Gulf Coast, or in the wildfire-ravaged West, climate crisis is not something in the future.
Dowd: Most will go to their grave in one form of denial or another.
Erik Michaels (a researcher of ecological overshoot, its symptoms and the human denial of them): Those who deny it now will most likely continue denying it. Facts don't often change people's beliefs, unfortunately.
Will civilizational collapse occur? Wilbert: Every civilization that has ever existed has destroyed its own ecological foundations and then collapsed. Collapse is not an event, it's a process. We're already in the early stages of collapse. Aquifers are shrinking, increasing disease and civil conflict, droughts and extreme weather. It's here.
And in places like Syria, or Pakistan, or Columbia, collapse is already well underway. It's well underway here in the United States, too. Just look at the homeless encampments in your city. The consumerist "prosperity" of the post-war 1950s is gone and is never coming back.
Michaels: Civilizational collapse is already happening and deepening—it's a very slow process, however, and it really affects the most complex societies first.
Will humans survive? McPherson: No life on Earth will survive abrupt, irreversible climate change.
Wilbert: Humans will eventually go extinct, but who knows when? With nearly 8 billion of us on the planet, we're nowhere close to extinction now. I'm more concerned about the 100-200 other species that are being driven extinct every day. If we can't halt that trend, the future for humanity is bleak.
Dowd: The stability of the biosphere has been in decline for centuries and in unstoppable, out-of-control mode for decades. This "Great Acceleration"—just Google it—of biospheric collapse is an easily verifiable fact. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, but the vast majority of people will deny this, especially those still benefiting from the existing order, those understandably concerned about the effects of collapse, and those who fear that "accepting reality" means "giving up." And, yes, that means most of us.
Michaels: A quote from Carl Sagan: "Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception." So, yes, we will go extinct—the only question is when, not if. I find it hard to believe that humans will still populate the planet by 2100. If there are still groups alive at that point, the likelihood that they will be functionally extinct is very high. Most likely, six or seven people out of every eight will die over the next two decades as energy and resource decline deepens.
As conditions deteriorate and social institutions breakdown, will individuals and groups be able to offer assistance to others? Wilbert: We've already seen governments increasingly unable to provide meaningful aid in disasters, whether they be economic or natural. The future—if there is going to be one—is local.
Dowd: There will always be compassionate and generous people, especially in super hard times. Nevertheless, I think half or more of the human population—3 to 5 billion—will likely starve within 16 months of the first multi-bread-basket failure, most likely this decade.
Michaels: One will see all ranges of social responses unfolding as time moves forward. People will do good things to help and to provide assistance where they can and people will do nasty, selfish and brutish things as well as everything in between. Fewer people will have the resources and abilities to help as time moves forward and resiliency is removed from location after location.
As collapse deepens and unfolds, fewer people will be able to help as their own conditions deteriorate. There will also be those who decide to be competitive and take whatever they can. So, there will be moments of beauty and moments of depravity.
Will American climate refugees from flooded coasts or drought-plagued areas be welcomed elsewhere? Michaels: Many of us suffer greatly from a sense of privilege and what the Indigenous Americans call "wetiko," a form of colonialism. Because everyone alive today grew up with the culture of always having "more," very few people will know how to handle a life of constantly having less.
Do some religious millennialists see catastrophic climate change as fulfillment of the prophesied, fiery end of the world and even welcome it? Dowd: Yes, of course! Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians are likely to interpret all this as God's will, not climate change.
Michaels: I have met individuals who talked about these claims. They are troubled by their beliefs and denial of reality. The bottom line is that the world is not really ending. A new world will unfold and new species will fill niches once held by species going extinct.
Between now and the end, what's the best way to live? McPherson: Treat family, friends, and others with whom you interact frequently as you would treat your beloved, dying grandmother. Would you lie to your grandmother as she is dying? Would you disrespect her?
Once you've mastered this way of treating your friends and family, extend the relevant behaviors to everyone. Work in your community to overcome the ills associated with every civilization, including racism, misogyny and monetary disparity. And work to safely decommission all nuclear facilities. Failure to do so likely spells the loss of all life on Earth.
Wilbert: It's not too late. Yes, a lot of change is already baked into the climate and ecological system. A lot of bad things are going to happen. But the Earth is incredibly resilient, and so are human beings. If you're in love with your family, your partner, your kids, how can you give up?
When you see a wild river, or an old-growth forest, or an alpine meadow, or a herd of elk, how could you not want to protect the future? Resisting the destruction of the planet is the most normal and natural thing we could do.
Dowd: Live fully, trustingly, courageously, compassionately and with deep and profound gratitude for the gift of being alive and conscious and in love with life.
Michaels: Live now. It sounds so simple but can be quite difficult for many people because of our cultural programming and indoctrination.
Jim Catano lives and fights for the environment in Salt Lake City. Readers looking for support dealing with the emotional impact of abrupt climate change can find resources through the Good Grief Network.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 17, 2021 14:33:38 GMT
A Palliative Approach to the End of the World What if we accept that we’ll never solve climate change? humanparts.medium.com/the-palliative-environmentalist-8a3a3fe77a72Slag I grew up on the lip of a crater. Sudbury is a mining city, but it is at the same time a place of rugged beauty. It is a place where the Canadian shield reveals itself, protruding to the surface like a leviathan’s rocky spine, cold and prehistoric. Ten million years ago, one of the largest meteors ever to strike Earth made contact here. It thrust veins of underground ore to the surface, and only very recently — in the last 150 years — have humans tapped these veins. Their rich deposits of nickel and copper have helped feed global demand in times of peace and of war. The towns that established themselves on the crater’s periphery were not so much places to live as shelters for miners who needed to access the ore. Settlers gave these towns jagged, alien names: Falconbridge, Coniston. The names sound as if they were cut from diamond drills. Levack. Skead. I grew up in one of these towns. It’s where I learned to name the world and to begin to find my place within it. My high school sat on one end of the crater and my house sat on the opposite end. The commute involved an hour-long trip across the valley, skirting along a stretch of black hills where, for decades, rail cars would tip the byproduct of smelting: a river of molten rock known as slag. When rail cars poured the slag at night, the hills glowed a phosphorescent orange. Crowds would gather in anticipation as for a fireworks display. For some reason, it took years for me to realize that slag is effectively garbage. Mining executives prefer the term “tailings.” Tailings are the dirty secret of the mining industry. They are the back end, the bathroom, the stuff we don’t want to see. We hide our waste to forget it exists. Notably, Sudbury has made little attempt to hide its slag hills. In fact, quite the opposite: Slag has become a symbol of the area, a source of local pride. There’s even a music festival named after it. A postcard from Sudbury will typically feature one of three images, all related to mining: the Superstack, the Big Nickel, or the slag hills. Molten ore is a sign of a robust economy. Slag is jobs; slag is Sudbury. In the last two decades, the pours have slipped from sight — but they have not stopped. Mining executives have simply relocated them. They have disappeared, hidden from public view. Mining executives seem to appreciate that while the phosphorescent show delights the eye, it might also appall the conscience. Appall When we drape cloth over a dining table we call it a tablecloth; on a mattress, a sheet. Drape a cloth over a coffin, however, and it becomes a pall. It is a curious object, the pall, its purpose being to hide what we feel should not be seen. To make us forget what is beneath it. Namely, death. When we call something “appalling,” we say that something would be best covered up, tucked away where it is less likely to disturb our thoughts. (Notably, to call something appalling says less about the thing itself than it does about the person saying it.) The word “pall” may have fallen out of popular use in the last few decades, but we have not stopped using palls themselves. Rather, the concept of a pall remains as ubiquitous and essential as ever. Palls grant peace of mind; they allow us to carry on with our lives. We depend on palls. Yet, rarely are they pieces of cloth. Palls take all kinds of forms. They can look like a helpful euphemism, words carefully chosen to mask an abhorrent truth. A death becomes a “passing,” a funeral labeled a “celebration of life.” In Western culture, hospice care is still often seen as a sort of acquiescing, an act of giving up. The way we structure our lives — our waking hours filled with business and busyness — is another sort of pall. Our schedules allow us to defer any serious meditation on the certainty that we and everything we know will certainly perish. How adept we are at this trickery, this tucking away of the unpalatable. We like our palls. Though we may recognize them as a full to-do list or a trip to Cancún, these palls are everywhere. We depend on them to help us carry on with a semblance of stability and purpose. But, at what expense? At its most innocuous, the pall is the little white lie, the rug which hides dirt. In the Anthropocene era, literally defined by humanity’s impact on Earth’s ecosystems, the pall is the hand that guides our gaze away from cold, black hills and glowing orange rivers. Away from a century’s worth of mining waste. Concrete When my mother-in-law was working as a nurse in the ‘80s, she treated a number of patients facing uncomfortable deaths. Too many doctors, she found, were giving these patients acute care. Regardless of a bleak prognosis, doctors treated these patients as if they could, and would, get better. These doctors were trained to remedy and to cure. Many of them made healing their perennial objective, even when the likelihood of recovery was slim. They feared patients and families would interpret any alternative approach as failure. My mother-in-law had an idea to start a hospice, but her superiors shot it down. The healthcare system was not yet ready for what patients and families considered an unconventional approach to end-of-life care: acceptance. Hospice was a white flag in a field where most preferred to fight. For some, the idea of resorting to palliative care remains, ironically, appalling. (“Appall” and “palliate” are linguistic cousins, but have evolved to take almost opposite meanings.) In Western culture, hospice care is still often seen as an act of giving up. No one likes a quitter, and palliative care sure feels like quitting. (In the ‘80s, when my mother was a nurse, that popular “Hang In There, Baby” poster with the cat dangling from a clothesline was only a decade old.) Though it is difficult to say what precisely we are quitting with a palliative approach. Not life, to be sure. Hospice Toronto advocates “adding life to days,” rather than days to life. This simple inversion captures a profound shift in end-of-life care, not to mention in how we might approach our own intervals of health. Palliative care is not about quitting. It is about committing to improving the quality of this life, right now, in small, concrete ways. A palliative approach just might serve as a hopeful new mantra for the weary, modern environmentalist. I-4 Phosphor So much of what environmentalists fight against falls within the category of “appalling”: the plastic island in the Pacific, the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, the melting of arctic glaciers. Mine tailings. Photographer Edward Burtynsky captures images of a planet in need of palliative care. His photographs reveal hidden landscapes — the open scar of a quartz mine, the clear-cut rain forests of Brazil or British Columbia. We prefer to keep these scenes out of sight. We prefer to forget about them. In Phosphor Tailings #5, a silver line protrudes into the frame, spewing a pewter blob onto a muddy surface. The image strikes the viewer as an abstraction: It could be a Petri dish under a microscope, or a distant planet’s lifeless surface. But it belongs to this world. It is not far, in fact, from Disney World — just a short drive down the I-4 outside the town of Lakeland, Florida. There, thousands of liters of phosphor spill out into freshwater. All of this goes unseen, a 45-minute drive from The Most Magical Place on Earth™. We do it well: We take that which is toxic and place it in a hidden part of our geographies, of ourselves. We do it with the certainty that we will die. We reserve a compartment of our psyche for this terrible truth, placing it there to revisit later. But that moment is not yet, never now. Palliate The palliative approach, conversely, hides nothing. It does not believe in magic. When we remove the pall from a hard truth — like the certainty of death — we are asked to weigh and negotiate that truth. And perhaps, in time, accept it. In my work as a hospice volunteer, I encounter two types of families. The first relegates the notion of death to the furthest corner of the home, stuffed in the darkness somewhere between the winter coats and board games. The second lays death out for guests to see and hold. Maybe it’s not a centerpiece of the home, but it’s there in the room for your consideration. Death is in the room. There it is. And it is okay. There is death, too, in Burtynsky’s images. If his subjects — an aquaculture farm in Spain, a landfill in Kenya — strike us as otherworldly, it is because we have chosen not to be familiar with them. Where else, aside from an exhibit or an obscure coffee table book, are we asked to look directly at the face of our dying planet? “It’s important to acknowledge,” Jonathan Franzen writes in his recent essay collection, The End of the End of the Earth, “that drastic planetary overheating is a done deal. […] The Earth as we know it resembles a patient with a bad cancer. We can choose to treat it with disfiguring aggression […] or we can adopt a course of treatment that permits a higher quality of life.” Liberal democracy and global conventions come at the problem acutely — that is, with a goal of remedying it. We have passed the window of time where the appropriate response to climate change is an effort to cure. The threats we should fear most are those which escape our view. I distrust solutions that claim to benefit future generations because I am not convinced it is always possible to act in the interest of an unseen, intangible future generation. I will choose not to direct my energy at solutions that seek to steer the ship of global industry from its irrevocable course. Fracking, industrial farming, rampant capitalism: These are untreatable cancers. So, I will embrace a palliative approach to living in the Anthropocene: one which aims small, which focuses on comforting my immediate world, my school, my street, the ravine behind my house. The palliative environmentalist, concerned with the planet’s health but honest about its prognosis, performs acts which focus on the short-term, the local, the concrete. On protecting one species of bird, or omitting red meat from her diet. Adopting such a narrow approach may come off as futile, given the magnitude of the problem before us. But then, global summits and accords like the Paris Agreement have turned out to be no more effective in staving off the world-altering effects of climate change. The palliative approach is not resignation, nor should it be mistaken for giving up. The Earth deserves hospice care. Are we prepared to provide it? Tail end Sudbury had it right: Don’t hide your fearsome secret in the night. Get close to it and let its terrible beauty cast a dangerous glow on your body. We can name only what the senses can know. Only then might an honest discussion begin. Not to celebrate, but to bear witness. The threats we should fear most are those which escape our view. We must stare at the tailings, the terrible fire, name it, and remember that we caused it. It is ours, our burden to bear and to bear witness to. To hide a thing is a kind of lie. It would be more honest to acknowledge the real possibility of our destruction. To accept environmental degradation, like death itself, as an inevitability, as the fate of humankind, of being in and of this world. To walk up to the terrible glow and let it warm our faces. To then turn to our neighbor and ask, “Isn’t it sublime?”
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 18, 2021 20:30:02 GMT
Jun 24, 2016,08:00am EDT Millennials Are Doomed To Face An Existential Crisis That Will Define The Rest Of Their Lives www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2016/06/24/millennials-are-doomed-to-face-an-existential-crisis-that-will-define-the-rest-of-their-lives/?sh=4c87fec075b0Psychologists from Sigmund Freud forward have generally agreed: our core attitudes about life are largely locked in by age five or so. Changing those attitudes requires intense effort. Neil Howe and William Strauss took this obvious truth and drew an obvious conclusion: if our attitudes form in early childhood, then the point in history at which we live our childhood must play a large part in shaping our attitudes. It’s not only early childhood, however, that forms us. Howe and Strauss think we go through a second formative period in early adulthood. The challenges we face as we become independent adults determine our approach to life. These insights mean we can divide the population into generational cohorts, each spanning roughly 20 years. Each generation consists of people who were born and came of age at the same point in history. These generations had similar experiences and thus gravitated toward similar attitudes. At this year’s Strategic Investment Conference, Howe illustrated the point with this cartoon. (I think we should now add an illustration of a couple texting on their phones, saying “Let’s tell our friends online first.”) Amusing, yes, but true. Young love, a universal experience, took different forms for Americans who grew up in the 1950s vs. the 1970s vs. the 1990s. Ditto for many other aspects of life. Four generational archetypes: Heroes, Artists, Prophets, & Nomads In their book The Fourth Turning, Howe and Strauss identified four generational archetypes: Hero, Artist, Prophet, and Nomad. Each consists of people born in a roughly 20-year period. As each archetypal generation reaches the end of its 80-year lifespan, the cycle repeats. Each archetypal generation goes through the normal phases of life: childhood, young adulthood, mature adulthood, and old age. Each tends to dominate society during middle age (40–60 years old) then begins dying off as the next generation takes the helm. This change of control from one generation to the next is called a “turning” in the Strauss/Howe scheme. The cycle repeats on a “fourth turning” as a new hero generation comes of age and replaces the nomads. Each fourth turning, however, is a great crisis. (The turnings have their own characteristics, which I describe in detail in this article. Today’s economic and political landscape, unfortunately, makes it clear we are about halfway through the fourth turning.) Now, let’s get back to the archetypes and see how they match the generations alive today. Birth Year Archetype Generational Name 1901-1924 Hero G.I. 1925-1942 Artist Silent 1943-1960 Prophet Baby Boom 1961-1981 Nomad Generation X 1982-2004 Hero Millennial 2005-? Artist Homeland The characteristics of each archetype aren’t neatly divided by the calendar; they are better seen as evolving along a continuum. (This is a very important point. It’s why we get trends and changes, not abrupt turnarounds. Thankfully.) People born toward the beginning or end of a generation share some aspects of the previous or following one. Hero generations are usually raised by protective parents. Heroes come of age during a time of great crisis. Howe calls them heroes because they resolve that crisis, an accomplishment that then defines the rest of their lives. Following the crisis, heroes become institutionally powerful in midlife and remain focused on meeting great challenges. In old age, they tend to have a spiritual awakening as they watch younger generations work through cultural upheaval. The G.I. Generation that fought World War II is the most recent example of the hero archetype. They built the US into an economic powerhouse in the postwar years and then confronted youthful rebellion in the 1960s. Further back, the generation of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, heroes of the American Revolution, experienced the religious “Great Awakening” in their twilight years. Rest in Link
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2021 11:41:56 GMT
Bjørn Lomborg www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/Bjørn Lomborg Credentials Ph.D., Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen (1994). [1] M.A., political science (1991). [1] Background Bjørn Lomborg is a political scientist, economist and the founder and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC). Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) was founded in 2006 in Denmark and registered as a non-profit organization in the United States in 2008. The center has attracted more than $4 million in funding since 2008. A DeSmog investigation found that the CCC received at least $200,000 in 2013 from “vulture capitalist” Paul Singer’s charitable foundation. [2], [1], [86] According to his website, Lomborg.com, Bjorn Lomborg is also a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He received his Ph. D. in Political Science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994. [1] Lomborg is listed as a ”Speaker” by The Sweeney Agency, which works to make “the speaking business more client focused,” by booking speakers for clients “based solely on [their] needs.” The Sweeney Agency describes Lomborg as an “Author and Speaker on the Environment and Climate Change,” noting that one of the topics Lomborg speaks about is “The Truth About Global Warming”: [3] “This thought-provoking talk is based on Dr. Lomborg’s bestselling book and film, Cool It. Here, Lomborg will demonstrate how we’re often told very one-sided and exaggerated claims about the environment and climate change, leading to unwarranted panic, instead of rationally assessing where and how we can do the most good. He argues that to tackle global warming we need smarter solutions focused on getting long-term solutions like cost-competitive renewables and that many of the impacts of global warming would be better addressed through adaptation.” [3] Lomborg is best known as the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, two books that downplay the risks of global warming. Lomborg does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles in journals devoted to climate change research. He has, however, authored policy studies arguing against climate change prevention measures. He wrote a similar article in the peer-reviewed journal Technological Forecasting and Social Change where he claimed, “Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits.” TFSC describes itself as a “major forum for those wishing to deal directly with the methodology and practice of technological forecasting and future studies as planning tools as they interrelate social, environmental and technological factors.” [113] Lomborg’s Errors Lomborg’s errors in his discussion of climate change have been documented by many sources including a 2010 book published by Yale University Press titled The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming. Lomborg-errors.dk is a website focused on documenting his errors, although it does not appear to have been recently updated. It also maintains a timeline documenting the events leading to Lomborg’s fame, and how he is regarded among his fellow Danes. [4] Stance on Climate Change In a 2010 report in The Guardian, Lomborg acknowledged that global warming is “a challenge that humanity must confront.” Lomborg goes as far as calling for a carbon tax and a $100 billion investment in clean technologies. [5] However, in his new book Smart Solutions to Climate Change, Lomborg argues that it would be too expensive to implement any major carbon reduction policy, and that “drastic carbon cuts would be the poorest way to respond to global warming.” [6] As Desmog reports, Lomborg appears to be directly contradicting himself. [7] On December 6, 2013 (three days after Lomborg wrote an op-ed for The New York Times Opinion page), The Guardian released an article entitled, “Is Bjorn Lomborg right to say fossil fuels are what poor countries need?” where Lomborg’s latest solution to climate change is again to give the globe more access to cheap fossil fuels. This has developed into a term which was coined ‘energy poverty.’ [8], [9] Green Energy Lomborg has described solar panels as inefficient and states this is “why you have to subsidize them.” [10] In what appears contradictory, Lomborg then advocates for investments in green energy technologies, “…At the same time, wealthy Western nations must step up investments into research and development in green energy technologies to ensure that cleaner energy eventually becomes so cheap that everyone will want it.” [8], [9] Geo-Engineering Lomborg has promoted the controversial idea of geo-engineering to address climate change. In one instance, Lomborg envisioned a fleet of 1900 robotic ships that will patrol the ocean while releasing spouts of ocean water to reflect the sun’s rays in an attempt to reduce global warming. [11], [12] Geoengineering research proponent Ken Caldeira has said “the vision of Lomborg’s Climate Consensus is ‘a dystopic world out of a science fiction story … Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions … If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it’s pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly’.” [13] Key Quotes October 9, 2018 In an article at the Wall Street Journal, Lomborg criticized the recent United Nations report on climate change: [93] “The new report has no comparison of the costs and benefits of climate targets. Mr. Nordhaus’s most recent estimate, published in August, is that the ‘optimal’ outcome with a moderate carbon tax is a rise of about 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Reducing temperature rises by more would result in higher costs than benefits, potentially causing the world a $50 trillion loss.” December 7, 2017 Lomborg has consistently criticized the Paris climate Treaty. For example, he wrote at the Herald Sun: [92] “By the United Nations’ own estimates, all of the promised cuts up to 2030 will reduce emissions by less than 1 per cent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2C. Paris will deliver far less than politicians promise and cost more than most people are willing to pay.” June 2016 “[J]ust like every other issue, there’s both positives and negatives to global warming. Overall, and in the long run, the negatives will outweigh the positives, but there is a lot of positives to global warming right now.” [70] April 6, 2016 Bjorn Lomborg wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal titled “An Overheated Climate Alarm” which claims that cold temperatures are more deadly than heat, following the publication of the US Global Change Research Program’s (US GCRP) overview of the impact of climate change on public health: [14] “Climate change is a genuine problem that will eventually be a net detriment to society. Gradually rising temperatures across decades will increase the number of hot days and heat waves. If humans make no attempts whatsoever to adapt—a curious assumption that the report inexplicably relies on almost throughout—the total number of heat-related deaths will rise. But correspondingly, climate change will also reduce the number of cold days and cold spells. That will cut the total number of cold-related deaths.” [14] “In pushing too hard for the case that global warming is universally bad for everything, the administration’s report undermines the reasonable case for climate action. Focusing on only the bad side of the ledger destroys academic and political credibility.”[14] January 2, 2015 Lomborg was quoted in a piece titled, “Climate change real, deadly says David Attenborough,” in which Lomborg says that “the UN should focus on more cost-effective environmental policies,” and increase their global target for limiting warming from 2C to 3C: [15] “Pursuing this 2C target is very costly and not guaranteed to be successful. Much better, then, to target a maximum of, say, 3C rise, which will cost about $40 trillion but avoid most damages. “If we insist on 2C, we will pay an extra $60,000 billion, but only prevent a stream of $100 billion damages that begins in 70 to 80 years. Moreover, all of these estimates assume cost-effective climate policies, whereas in real life they have often become many times more expensive.” [15] April 29, 2014 In an opinion piece written by Lomborg in The Australian entitled, “Renewables pave path to poverty,” Lomborg encourages everyone engaged in the debate [of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET)] to “recognise:” [16] “The Australian government recently released an issues paper for the review of the renewable energy target. What everyone engaged in this debate should recognise is that policies such as the carbon tax and the RET have contributed to household electricity costs rising 110 per cent in the past five years, hitting the poor the hardest.” [16] Further on, he states: “In 1971, 40 per cent of China’s energy came from renewables. Since then it has lifted 680 million people out of poverty using coal. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23 per cent of its energy from wind and solar. Africa gets 50 per cent of its energy today from renewables — and remains poor. New analysis from the Centre for Global Development shows that, investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of poverty for about $US500. But, using gas electrification, we could quadruple that. By focusing on our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to leave more than three out of four people in darkness and poverty. Addressing global warming requires long-term innovation that makes green energy affordable. Until then, wasting enormous sums of money at the expense of the world’s poor is no solution at all.” [16] February 2014 “A new paper by Todd Moss and Ben Leo from the nonprofit think tank, Center for Global Development, puts it very clearly. If Obama spends the next $10 billion on gas electrification, he can help lift 90 million people out of poverty. If he only uses renewables, the same $10 billion can help just 20 million-27 million people. Using renewables, we will deliberately choose to leave more than 60 million people in darkness and poverty…Our development aid should be used to help 60 million more people out of poverty, not as a tool to make us feel virtuous about facile, green choices.” [17] December, 2013 In an op-ed in The New York Times, Lomborg writes: “There’s no question that burning fossil fuels is leading to a warmer climate and that addressing this problem is important. But doing so is a question of timing and priority. For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty.” [9] November 12, 2013 Lomborg hosts a TED Blog video titled, “What do global problems cost us?” as a follow up to his previous TED Talk in 2005: Rest in Link.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2021 11:47:56 GMT
The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank ByGraham ReadfearnonJun 25, 2014 @ 23:28 PDT www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center/In early 2012, it seemed like the future of Bjørn Lomborg’s influential think tank was in serious doubt. The Danish Government had changed its political stripes and the millions in public funds that had poured into his Copenhagen Consensus Center had come to an abrupt halt. Lomborg told The Ecologist magazine he was worried there would be a limited pool of donors willing to part with cash to support his work. “We have to make sure that that funding, if it’s going to go forward, is unassailable,” Lomborg said. The impression back in 2012 might have been that Lomborg’s think tank was struggling for cash, but a DeSmogBlog investigation suggests the opposite. The nonprofit Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) has spent almost $1 million on public relations since registering in the US in 2008. More than $4 million in grants and donations have flooded in since 2008, three quarters of which came in 2011 and 2012. In one year alone, the Copenhagen Consensus Center paid Lomborg $775,000. Lomborg is the blonde-haired political scientist, economist and “skeptical environmentalist” who is a beacon for many climate change contrarians and so-called “luke warmists” around the world. While Lomborg accepts the fact that human emissions of greenhouse gases cause climate change, he argues the net economic impacts will not turn negative for more than 50 years. If the world is to spend big money combating climate change, it should do it by “making green energy cheaper”. His stated aim is fighting global poverty and he frequently argues that deploying renewable energy generation and cutting emissions should be well down any list of the world’s priorities. Lomborg’s name regularly appears in lists of international influencers. In 2002, Time magazine named him as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. Esquire magazine named him as one of the 75 most influential people of the 21st century. According to Lomborg, his syndicated columns are read by more than 30 million people around the world in more than 30 newspapers translated into 19 different languages. He has written books, made documentary films, given TED talks and been invited to share his controversial views on television shows across the world. The Copenhagen Consensus Project The headline act for Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center is to bring together a group he describes as “the world’s top economists” to prioritise spending “to do the most good in the world”. In 2008, Lomborg’s project ranked mitigating global warming at the bottom of a list of 30 issues. In its latest 2012 report, climate change featured three times. Ranked sixth was spending on research to improve crop yields, in 12th was research spending on geoengineering and in 17th place was money for “green energy” research. When Lomborg told The Ecologist about his cash concerns, there was no mention that four years earlier his organisation had been quietly registered as a nonprofit think tank in Washington DC. Documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service show that by the end of 2011, some $2 million in donations had already hit CCC’s US bank account. Since registering as a US-based non-profit organisation in 2008, tax records show the Copenhagen Consensus Center has attracted $4.3 million in donations with almost half that coming in 2012, the most recent year where public records are available. Lomborg’s compensation for his CCC work that year was $775,000, according to the tax records.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 20, 2021 17:32:13 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrivG4h7B8MFacing Future 20.9K subscribers The 2021 Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, #IPCC, report marks an alarming turning point, but its summary message for policy makers misses the reality that stabilizing at 1.5-2°C over pre- industrial levels will fail to preserve a livable environment. Already, at under 1.2°C, extreme weather and climate tipping points have been reached. The #CarbonSinks that supported a carbon budget are already stressed to the limit. The Amazon, once a major sink, is now a net emitter of greenhouse gases, due to rainforest destruction for animal and industrial agriculture and wildfires. The Arctic is melting fast, releasing methane from peat bogs, tundra, and from under the disappearing ice, whose ability to reflect heat, is also essential. Even as industrial and fossil fuel interests control political and financial agendas, food security may be the decisive threat that makes policy-makers listen. As people become increasingly aware of the devastation around them, surveys show that a large percentage of the world’s population is now in support of the major changes that are necessary to survive the existential threat of climate change. Code Red is the highest level of alert, but we are almost out of time to heed it and to reduce human-produced emissions sufficiently to slow down the rising concentration of greenhouse gases, and to preserve the Earth’s essential carbon sinks. Peter Carter, Brian Wright, and Mark Anderson reveal that the IPCC report needs to send a clearer and even more urgent message. Fire Map - firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#d:24hrs;@10.3,-5.5,3z
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 22, 2021 15:06:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 22, 2021 16:57:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 23, 2021 2:34:56 GMT
Warning signs of ‘mass extinction event’ on Earth are growing, scientists say www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/warning-signs-of-mass-extinction-event-on-earth-are-growing-scientists-say/ar-AAOI5zXDangerous algal and bacterial blooms are becoming increasingly common in freshwaters river and lakes, potentially indicating an ecological disaster reminiscent of Earth’s “most severe mass extinction,” according to a troubling new study. The mass extension in question is the End-Permian Extinction (EPE), otherwise known as the “Great Dying,” which resulted in the extinction of 95 percent of on the planet 251 million years go. Summarised by St. Andrews, it was the “period when life on Earth has never been so close to becoming extinct,” so finding parallels today isn’t exactly great news for the planet. But that’s exactly what Chris Mays, a postdoctoral researcher and palaeobotanist at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm, has discovered. Mays’ research, published in Nature Communications Journal, reveals that present-day algal and bacterials bloom bare striking similarities to those present during the Great Dying. What’s more, their presence is linked to deforestation, soil loss and global warming,” the study says, all of which are caused by humans. From the Sydney Basin, Mays et al. reveal how bloom events following forest ecosystem collapse during the end-Permian event have consistently inhibited the recovery of freshwater ecosystems for millennia t.co/En8OH79v5r @palaeomays@vajda_vivi@DrTracyfrank — Nature Communications (@naturecomms) September 17, 2021 “We are not there yet,” Mays told VICE, in reference to the dire conditions of the planet prior to the EPE. “There was probably a six-fold increase in carbon dioxide during the EPE, but today carbon dioxide levels haven’t yet doubled since pre-industrial times.”
|
|