#climate security

[greenhorizonblog]

FOOD, WATER, HOUSING, HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION ARE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS THAT SHOULD ALWAYS BE FREE!!!

[ireton]

Climate Communism - Dutch Farmers - WEF

This is the REAL REASON they want to get rid of the Farmers.

[ramsesja]

Tax the rich!

Be sure to follow us on all platforms!

Add Civic Cipher to your podcast favorites!

[historyforfuture]

This is what happens while we are watching . Imagine what happens when we are not ?❤️‍🔥

Don,t stop talking about Palestine 🇵🇸

Don,t stop talking about GAZA

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[spotlightstory]

MeidasTouch shows clips of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in Arizona in front of a HUGE crowd.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Quebec farmers are speaking out about what they’re calling an unprecedented and disastrous season. They say the massive amounts of rain they’ve received have been drowning their crops, and that the weather has been costing them millions.

Farm owners are calling on the Quebec government to offer them more support as they face the effects of climate change head-on.

“We lost hundreds of acres of broccoli. It’s completely destroyed,” said Julien Cousineau, operations director at Les Jardins Paul Cousineau, a large-scale vegetable farm in Saint-Constant, Que.

He showed Global News videos of fields annihilated by a hail storm Thursday night. Cousineau’s family has been farming for three generations, and he says they have never experienced weather this bad for business.

“In 50 years of farming, we have never seen that much rain,” he said.

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada, @vague-humanoid

[thoughtlessarse]

You probably missed it, but a few months ago a report was published that inspected how the UK government prepared for major emergencies. What it found has profound implications for the whole country. The report was written by the UK’s public inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic and explained how the pandemic was an example of what’s called a “non-malicious threat”. These are major threats to our collective security that arise not from hostile intent – like terrorism or war – but as a result of human error, structural failure, or natural disasters. In this instance it was a novel virus that jumped from animals to humans and then rapidly spread. The pandemic affected everything. Its impact was so severe that it created what the government calls a “whole-system civil emergency”, a rapidly escalating crisis that significantly affected multiple dimensions of the UK’s security, from the health system, through economic stability, to public trust. This was the UK’s greatest security crisis since the second world war. Yet it had nothing to do with armed conflict. The inquiry found that successive governments grossly underestimated pandemic threats. They were not given the same priority as security threats coming from hostile action, like Russian aggression or terrorism. The subsequent tragedy proved how much of a mistake this was. When it came to planning and responding to whole-system civil emergencies, the UK government “failed their citizens”, the inquiry said, before concluding that “fundamental reform” was needed. We have worked on a new report that finds worrying similarities to another, even greater “non-malicious threat” to security: climate change.

continue reading

[notwiselybuttoowell]

A hundred years ago, the plant scientist Arthur Watkins launched a remarkable project. He began collecting samples of wheat from all over the globe, nagging consuls and business agents across the British empire and beyond to supply him with grain from local markets.

His persistence was exceptional and, a century later, it is about to reap dramatic results. A UK-Chinese collaboration has sequenced the DNA of all the 827 kinds of wheat, assembled by Watkins, that have been nurtured at the John Innes Centre near Norwich for most of the past century.

In doing so, scientists have created a genetic goldmine by pinpointing previously unknown genes that are now being used to create hardy varieties with improved yields that could help feed Earth’s swelling population.

Strains are now being developed that include wheat which is able to grow in salty soil, while researchers at Punjab Agricultural University are working to improve disease resistance from seeds that they received from the John Innes Centre. Other strains include those that would reduce the need for nitrogen fertilisers, the manufacture of which is a major source of carbon emissions.

“Essentially we have uncovered a goldmine,” said Simon Griffiths, a geneticist at the John Innes Centre and one of the project’s leaders.

“This is going to make an enormous difference to our ability to feed the world as it gets hotter and agriculture comes under increasing climatic strain.”

Today, one in five calories consumed by humans come from wheat, and every year the crop is eaten by more and more people as the world’s population continues to grow.

“Wheat has been a cornerstone of human civilisation,” added Griffiths. “In regions such as Europe, north Africa, large parts of Asia, and subsequently North America, its cultivation fed great empires, from ancient Egypt’s to the growth of modern Britain.”

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The world isn’t on track to meet its climate goals — and it’s the public’s fault, a leading oil company CEO told journalists.

Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods told editors from Fortune that the world has “waited too long” to begin investing in a broader suite of technologies to slow planetary heating.

That heating is largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and much of the current impacts of that combustion — rising temperatures, extreme weather — were predicted by Exxon scientists almost half a century ago.

The company’s 1970s and 1980s projections were “at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models,” according to a 2023 Harvard study.

Since taking over from former CEO Rex Tillerson, Woods has walked a tightrope between acknowledging the critical problem of climate change — as well as the role of fossil fuels in helping drive it — while insisting fossil fuels must also provide the solution.

In comments before last year’s United Nations Climate Conference (COP28), Woods made a forceful case for carbon capture and storage, a technology in which the planet-heating chemicals released by burning fossil fuels are collected and stored underground.

“While renewable energy is essential to help the world achieve net zero, it is not sufficient,” he said. “Wind and solar alone can’t solve emissions in the industrial sectors that are at the heart of a modern society.”

International experts agree with the idea in the broadest strokes.

Carbon capture marks an essential component of the transition to “net zero,” in which no new chemicals like carbon dioxide or methane reach — and heat — the atmosphere, according to a report by International Energy Agency (IEA) last year.

But the remaining question is how much carbon capture will be needed, which depends on the future role of fossil fuels.

While this technology is feasible, it is very expensive — particularly in a paradigm in which new renewables already outcompete fossil fuels on price.

And the fossil fuel industry hasn’t been spending money on developing carbon capture technology, IEA head Fatih Birol wrote last year on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

To be part of a climate solution, Birol added, the fossil fuel industry must “let go of the illusion that implausibly large amounts of carbon capture are the solution.”

He noted that capturing and storing current fossil fuel emissions would require a thousand-fold leap in annual investment from $4 billion in 2022 to $3.5 trillion.

In his comments Tuesday, Woods argued the “dirty secret” is that customers weren’t willing to pay for the added cost of cleaner fossil fuels.

Referring to carbon capture, Woods said Exxon has “tabled proposals” with governments “to get out there and start down this path using existing technology.”

“People can’t afford it, and governments around the world rightly know that their constituents will have real concerns,” he added. “So we’ve got to find a way to get the cost down to grow the utility of the solution, and make it more available and more affordable, so that you can begin the [clean energy] transition.”

For example, he said Exxon “could, today, make sustainable aviation fuel for the airline business. But the airline companies can’t afford to pay.”

Woods blamed “activists” for trying to exclude the fossil fuel industry from the fight to slow rising temperatures, even though the sector is “the industry that has the most capacity and the highest potential for helping with some of the technologies.”

That is an increasingly controversial argument. Across the world, wind and solar plants with giant attached batteries are outcompeting gas plants, though battery life still needs to be longer to make renewable power truly dispatchable.

Carbon capture is “an answer in search of a question,” Gregory Nemet, a public policy professor at the University of Wisconsin, told The Hill last year.

“If your question is what to do about climate change, your answer is one thing,” he said — likely a massive buildout in solar, wind and batteries.

But for fossil fuel companies asking “‘What is the role for natural gas in a carbon-constrained world?’ — well, maybe carbon capture has to be part of your answer.”

In the background of Woods’s comments about customers’ unwillingness to pay for cleaner fossil fuels is a bigger debate over price in general.

This spring, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will release its finalized rule on companies’ climate disclosures.

That much-anticipated rule will weigh in on the key question of whose responsibility it is to account for emissions — the customer who burns them (Scope II), or the fossil fuel company that produces them (Scope III).

Exxon has long argued for Scope II, based on the idea that it provides a product and is not responsible for how customers use it.

Last week, Reuters reported that the SEC would likely drop Scope III, a positive development for the companies.

Woods argued last year that SEC Scope III rules would cause Exxon to produce less fossil fuels — which he said would perversely raise global emissions, as its products were replaced by dirtier production elsewhere.

This broad idea — that fossil fuels use can only be cleaned up on the “demand side” — is one some economists dispute.

For the U.S. to decarbonize in an orderly fashion, “restrictive supply-side policies that curtail fossil fuel extraction and support workers and communities must play a role,” Rutgers University economists Mark Paul and Lina Moe wrote last year.

Without concrete moves to plan for a reduction in the fossil fuel supply, “the end of fossil fuels will be a chaotic collapse where workers, communities, and the environment suffer,” they added.

But Woods’s comments Tuesday doubled down on the claim that the energy transition will succeed only when end-users pay the price.

“People who are generating the emissions need to be aware of [it] and pay the price,” Woods said. “That’s ultimately how you solve the problem.”

[farmerstrend]

1,300 Kenyan Farmers Graduate After Four Years of First-of-its-Kind Sustainable Agroforestry and Climate Action Training Program

Discover how over 1,300 farmers in Homa Bay, Kenya, are transforming their livelihoods and restoring the environment through Trees for the Future’s Forest Garden Program, a sustainable agroforestry initiative. Learn how agroforestry techniques like composting, crop rotation, and tree planting are empowering farmers in Kenya to combat climate change, increase food security, and boost…

[unopenablebox]

important part of my relationship is that my girlfriend isn't subscribed to money stuff, so when we walk to work together i can just describe really good money stuff bits to them

[historyforfuture]

Gaza every day genocide

[originalleftist]

If you're facing the threat of gun violence?

Republicans will kill you.

If you need an abortion for medical reasons?

Republicans will kill you.

If you are an immigrant, or Palestinian, or gay or trans?

Republicans will kill you.

If you depend on Social Security or Medicare?

Republicans will kill you.

If there's another pandemic?

Republicans will kill you.

If you live in an area (ie, the Earth) that's affected by Climate Change?

Republicans will kill you.

A vote for Republicans is suicide.

[faithfromanewperspective]

alright it's time to find smth out

please note that with labels like flexitarian especially it's not about 'oh i never eat these things'; it's a sliding label with things like vegan and vegetarian and pescatarian where you can identify however you feel comfortable. some people just eat meat etc on special occasions or when they go out or when they don't have time/spoons to cook something nutritious, and that's perfectly valid!! whatever you're able to do has an impact that's felt and there's no pressure to do it to whatever standard we have of 'perfect' in our heads <3