#global climate change

[221bshrlocked]

The sheer amount of unbotheredness Californians are displaying right now, including myself, is kinda hilarious and terrifying.

[sleepyleftistdemon]

(via xkcd: Greenhouse Effect)

[biocheminpics]

I'm gonna say this with my whole chest and without hesitation:

If, in the face of current events, you continue to deny the reality of climate change, you are a deeply flawed, amoral person. You are an existential threat to our future, our present civilization, and our entire species. You are literally and demonstrably, a member of the worst group of humans who have ever existed on this planet.

The last 5 years are the hottest 5 on record, record breaking hurricanes in unprecedented hurricane seasons, a destabilized polar vortex, warming oceans, mass extinction, the list goes on and on. It's time to pull your head from your rear. It's time to fix this. It's never too late for us to start.

[defleftist]

Anybody else completely unable to enjoy warm fall weather because it’s just a reminder of the progress of climate change? Because yeah, when I was little, our autumn weather was much cooler.

[firnen-the-teragram-teabag]

[womynson]

Re-Vealing the Aggroculture

The sole purpose of the argument Kathy Freston speaks to in “Vegetarian is the New Prius” can be described as biting more off than which can be chewed. To further prove her point Freston dives into the difference between following with perfunctory effort and leading in conscious effort. The argument she addresses touches on everything in between our diets to the cars we drive setting a new standard of living consciously. As Freston’s use of Rogerian argument is formed into an article through the Huffington post, this only amplifies her “rebel with a cause” demeanor. Naturally, she supports her argument with statistics, facts, and reasons that back her role as health and wellness activist, and even credibility as an author. In one of her claims she states,” Going veg provides more bang for your buck than driving a prius” (Freston, par. 11). The only gain here then is the inhabitants of “a cooler planet.” Freston then raises the issue of what farmed animals bring to the table. Realistically, other than meat, it’s methane! With opportunity presented so often throughout the article, Freston displays matters of scientific facts mixed with pop culture reference to seek out a medium rare approach to find common ground with her readers. Serving up data collected from the United Nations and research from the University of Chicago, she also puts logical appeal into perspective. Although this topic reaches socially and logically it has the potential to reach politically and culturally, too. After all, it seems to serve a global cause. Her argument is quite effective as Freston acquires such a casually sophisticated tone in the language and style of her article to persuade the audience to at the very least think twice about eating a salad before purchasing a new hybrid prius. Freston certainly excels in countering balance of a steady flow between emotional, logical, ethical, and contextual arrangements through a widely known news source.

Forward thinking isn’t as complicated as it seems, or at least after a first glance of Freston’s column introduction which presents an ethical solution to a practical matter. With simple, yet captivating vocabulary she begins to unravel the complex values in the words of a true “vegetarian”. As you notice Freston’s engaging sense of humor in her metaphorical title it becomes clear she feels strongly about her role as an environmentalist and health advocate. At such a time where all the rage of a lengthy waitlist to own a Prius seemed more logically appealing to consumers rather than laying off the meat, opportunity became nothing short of an upcycled possession to share for Freston. By referring to the 31st POTUS Herbert Hoover’s promise, she puts into question what really defines status in relation to caring for humanly basic needs. Furthermore, proves a point to the alternatively trendy choices that are available in our time since the 44th president, Barack Obama. After revisiting such a nostalgic time, reports on “the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global” (Freston, par. 2) as climbing percentages of greenhouse gases support her argument. With such an outrageous awakening that defines an interchangeable connection between global emissions and “what you had for dinner last night,” (Freston, par. 3) this only seems to be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to uncovering environmental issues– and it looks like Leo DiCaprio is along for the ride anyhow. Overall, an audience can begin analyzing Freston’s use of all four rhetorical strategies to form a beefy argument without all the stakes. And based on the first few components of the article makes for an effective argument at that.

In logical terms that can be simply put to describe rationale–there is, in fact, evidence to consider regarding the atmospheric plunge. That despite the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, “the researchers found that when it’s all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius “(Freston par. 5). What is neglected to mention is that complex natural processes resulting from agricultural gas emissions are much more difficult to measure. This, in turn, would challenge scientists to gauge how far it would take to make much of a difference in choosing a hybrid vehicle over a meatless meal. Just to top it all off only estimates suggest, “the United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year” (Freston par. 8). Of course, this puts a damper on logical accumulation where common sense ought to be. Think of where else animals are slaughtered and how many don’t get to live a full life.

Feeling strongly on the matter of such a pressing topic is one thing but posting about it online for wandering eyes to bear witness to is another. And with such a knack for the wellbeing of others–who better to speak up for many who feel the planet’s earthly decline? As Freston mentions, “we are eating our planet to death” (par.8), but that doesn’t come at the cost off recognizing “we have a powerful new weapon to use in addressing the most serious environmental crisis ever to face humanity” (Freston par. 10). So, while the most successful celebrities like Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin–unfortunately–, Paul McCartney, and Leonardo DiCaprio opt in for the minimum sacrifice; everyone else has a sustainably accessible choice of swapping out their chicken wings for a veggie burger. “Doing so has never been easier” (Freston par. 13). There is no better time than now. And the world isn’t getting any younger.

In light of Freston's argument, America is not an entire nation made up of full-fledged vegetarians. However, it is a nation that has capitalized on the existing colonized land. Before the Americas introduced such a convenient process of cultivating and reaping the fortifying meats we consume at our dining room tables, there were hunters. Even then, natural selection seemed more... natural. Due to the revolutionary technology that has been developed since, Americans easily find themselves parked next to a drive thru window with to-go place mats ready in their laps. I would argue that it seems rather peculiar that eating meat is so accessibly inexpensive because it even encourages an imbalanced diet. And I am in full support of “using every part of the buffalo,” but this just takes dietary function to the extreme. Just ask the cows about the methane they produce. "Cattle contribute the most methane, and growth in US methane emissions has been linked to the country's growing population of beef cattle," writes Emily Joiner and Michael A. Toman of "Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions 101". Certainly, keeping track of how much meat we consume requires work, but reducing our carbon footprints requires far more.

For taking on so much work somehow our positive self-image nears at risk of becoming undervalued due to the overexposure of an imbalanced diet at the hand of justifiable human behavior. This is where we should draw the line. It seems almost normal to work ourselves to exhaustion stuck between the thought of our next meal and the easiest meal; regardless of the involvement meat has in either. Surely enough, we can fit some form of exercise or another into our busy schedules. Now, just for a moment let’s look at the effort it takes physically to reach that of a bodybuilder. And though not everyone hopes to achieve such aesthetics, it is not dietarily exclusive even to veganism. While a properly designed vegan diet can meet the needs of an endurance athlete through whole foods, to some extent–performing on plants alone may not have what it chalks all up to be. With the assistance of nutritional professionals and powder supplements such as whey protein, which “are considered to be high-quality proteins due to their digestibility and quantity of essential amino acids, providing the proteins in correct ratios for human consumption” (Callarelli, Gobbi par. 3), vegan bodybuilders can reach #goals, too. As “emerging data support the efficacy of vegan options of protein powder in fostering muscle hypertrophy post-resistance exercise, improving indices of body composition and exercise performance” (Callarelli, Gobbi par. 4) help achieve well suited results through endurance just alike. More than anything it’s a lifestyle choice.

Kathy Freston’s well-informed argument in her column “Vegetarian is the New Prius” sheds light on the truth of existential circumstances that are damaging to the ozone layer. By strategically using ethos, logos, pathos, and kairos Freston efficiently demonstrates her credibility through her humbling approach which works to shift preconceived notions and uncomfortabilities surrounding diet and lifestyle choices. She does also mention the dire results on environmental impact that come of making meaty choices such as water pollution and land degradation. The means by which her argument leads steer an audience to reconsider eating less, or no meat altogether because of environmental, political, and empathetic causes. Afterall, just because the meal on your plate doesn’t have a face doesn’t mean it never had a heart.

[solarbird]

It’s a dang good thing that the pro-democracy party also fights climate change.

We got lucky there, I suppose. The pro-authoritarian pro-fascism carbon-fuels companies are all on the fascist side. Despite their fetid ocean of dirty money, if this had to happen, we're better off this way.

See, they aren't in this for "the economy." They’re on the side of the fascists solely to extend the lives of their dead-end money machine companies, the entire world be damned.

And as people realise that solar and wind are now cheaper - well. This puts them on the wrong side of manufacturing interests, too - and pretty damn soon.

They are on the wrong side of history in more ways than one.

This is another pretty long one, so have a [continue reading] for your dash.

[thebigdeepcheatsy]

Throwaway Theory (BUT IT HAS CHAPTER 1113 SPOILERS)

Imu's Devil Fruit is not the Water Water Fruit, it's not the Ink Ink Fruit, it's not the Human Human Fruit: Model Umibozu, it's not the Devil Devil Fruit...

It's the Oil Oil Fruit!

Imu's an ancient being that refuses to die, eliminates anyone standing in their way with zero remorse, is power hungry and controls virtually the entire world via the government, exploits scientists for more malicious and selfish goals, is protected by a bunch of old people, is pitch black, cannot be near water, surrounded by excess wealth and the rich, and most importantly, is causing the world to sink into the ocean.

What else is like that?

Crude oil and the Oil Industry!

[boreal-sea]

"We can just send robots to the poles to make new ice! This is a reasonable solution!"

No it's not.

Can we send boats to the poles to make more ice? Yes.

But tell me, tell me: why are they melting in the first place?

Because the ice caps do not, on their own, keep Earth cool. They help, because of albedo (which is not a word I think anyone on the post I'm vagueing about even knows). And personally, if you don't actually know why and how the ice caps help keep Earth cool and why them melting is bad, if you don't understand positive feedback cycles... then stop talking about ice robots.

Because making more ice using solar-powered robot boats isn't like... harmful, theoretically. But it's not fixing the problem.

Example:

Imagine you have a bathtub. You want to keep the water in the bathtub cool. In the past this was easy to do because the thermostat in the house was set to a cool-warm cycle and it maintained itself just fine. Part of the bathtub was permanently frozen, and some ice froze and melted regularly throughout the year. You didn't have to do anything! Life was great.

Now imagine someone has gone down to the basement and cranked the house's heat onto high. The ice in the bathtub has started to melt, and even when the house goes through its cool cycle, not all of the ice comes back. Over and over, more and more ice is melting.

Can you run downstairs, go to the fridge, grab a cup of icecubes, run upstairs, and pour them into the tub? Yeah, sure. You could do that. Meanwhile, the average temperature in the house is getting warmer and warmer, so each trip you need to grab more ice, until you're carrying two buckets at a time. And you can keep doing that until your legs get tired and you can't possibly go on. But eventually, you're going to hit a point where you can't carry enough ice on each trip to keep the tub cool - all the ice melts in between your trips up and down the stairs. You spent all that time and all that effort on an activity that did not fix the actual problem, which is the fact that someone turned up the thermostat.

That is what "let's send ice robots to the poles!" will do. It will, temporarily, help maintain ice levels near the poles. But it will not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It will not stop countries from emitting more greenhouse gasses. It will not remove subsidies from the oil and gas industry worldwide. It'll probably make someone like Elon Musk a shit ton of money, and it'll make you ~feel good~.

But it won't fix the problem, which is global warming due to human-driven emissions of greenhouse gasses.

[rjzimmerman]

‘Fossil Fuels Are Still Winning’ as Carbon Emissions Reach Record Highs in 2024. (EcoWatch)

Carbon emissions caused by fossil fuels set a new record in 2023 and are expected to continue to increase by the end of 2024 according to the Global Carbon Budget project. NOAA provides about a quarter of all the atmospheric CO2 observations and about half of all the surface ocean CO2 observations used in the analysis. At current rates, the report estimates, there’s a 50% likelihood that global average air temperatures will regularly exceed the 1.5-degree Celsius target (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2031. The findings were announced today at COP29, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Excerpt from this story from EcoWatch:

The most recent Global Carbon Budget report has found that the world’s carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels reached a record high in 2024, pushing the planet further off track from avoiding the most destructive impacts of global heating.

The 2024 Global Carbon Budget — produced by the Global Carbon Project team of 120-plus scientists from around the world — projects that emissions from fossil carbon dioxide will reach 37.4 billion tonnes in 2024, an increase of 0.8 percent over the previous year, according to a press release from the Global Carbon Project.

“The impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly dramatic, yet we still see no sign that burning of fossil fuels has peaked,” said lead author of the study Professor Pierre Friedlingstein of Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, in the press release. “Time is running out to meet the Paris Agreement goals – and world leaders meeting at COP29 must bring about rapid and deep cuts to fossil fuel emissions to give us a chance of staying well below 2°C warming above pre-industrial levels.”

Total carbon dioxide emissions for 2024 are projected to be 41.6 billion tonnes, with 4.2 billion tonnes coming from deforestation and other land-use changes. Last year’s total emissions were 40.6 billion tonnes.

Over the course of the past decade, fossil carbon emissions have increased while carbon dioxide emissions from land-use changes have gone down on average, leaving total emissions approximately level for that period. In the past 10 years, overall emissions from land-use changes have gone down 20 percent.

This year, however, global emissions from both land-use changes and fossil carbon dioxide are in a position to rise. Drought conditions exacerbated emissions from deforestation, fires and forest degradation during the 2023-2024 El Niño climate event.

[playingplayer2]

Where is the snow. It's raining. Fucking STILL I saw WORMS in my BARE GRASSY YARD TWO FUCKING NIGHTS AGO. WORMS. In DECEMBER. and it's RAINING.

(More swearing and whatnot below the line)

IT'S FUCKING DECEMBER- IT'S FUCKING CHRISTMAS IN THE FUCKING MIDWEST THERE IS NO SNOW AND IT'S IN THE FUCKING 40 DEGREES RANGE AND THERE IS NO SNOWWWWWW???!!!!!!?!??!??!?? AND IT'S RAINING???!!!???!?!?!?!@(#$;9@+*!#9@)

Never in my 21 years of Midwest weather bULLSHIT have I EVEr had this kind of fuckery occured WHERE IS THE SNOWWWWWWWWWWWW WHAT THE FFFFFUUUUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKK?!?!

[deepbreakfast]

It’s too damn hot! Florida needs to fix their laws to grant more breaks for workers who work outside. I can’t believe this is something they have to ask for. It should be a no-brainer

[emperornorton47]