#infographic potus | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

animalistauntamedblog · 7 years ago

Text

Don’t panic. No-one is suggesting when we die our bodies should be scooped up and fed to hungry polar bears. Nothing quite that ghoulish. Though come to think of it, it’s not actually such a bad idea. I’d happily donate mine, if mama bear and her cubs could find enough meat on my skinny bones. But we’ll come to the what-to-do–with-our-dead-body bit shortly.

First the good news. Last week Professor Chris Thomas told us we should be cool about climate change and every other way humans are messing up the planet. Kick back and go with the flow. It’s just evolution taking its natural course. He also suggested we could be wasting good money trying to save endangered species that with the best will in the world, are headed inexorably for extinction. Well Prof Chris, maybe you should cast your eye over this –

“This paper sends a clear, positive message: Conservation funding works!”

So says John Gittleman, senior author of a new report about the effects on biodiversity of funding put into conservation projects around the world since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The results from the global study are in, and it’s looking good:

The $14.4 billion spent on conservation 1992-2003 reduced expected declines in global biodiversity by 29%

109 countries signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity saw a significantly reduced biodiversity loss

7 countries – Mauritius, Seychelles, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Poland and Ukraine saw their biodiversity improve between 1992-2008

7 other countries – Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, China, India, Australia, and Hawaii in the US are the locations where 60% of the world’s loss of biodiversity occurs

That last statistic doesn’t sound like good news, but it sort of is. If there are only 7 countries where most biodiversity loss is concentrated, then a little money in the right places goes a long way. Or, as Prof Gittleman puts it, “The good news is that a lot of biodiversity would be protected for relatively little cost by investments in countries with high numbers of species.”

“From this study, we know approximately how much a conservation dollar buys and where in the world it is best spent.”

Now, the study’s method of data analysis will provide policy-makers in every country of the world a fantastic new tool for setting accurate conservation budgets. And that in turn will help them achieve internationally-agreed conservation goals.

Study’, ‘findings’, ‘statistics’, ‘report’ – those words have a pretty dull and clunky sound to them. But in fact, it would be hard to overplay the importance of this research work – it’s a godsend for the entire international community in our attempts “to balance human development with maintaining biodiversity….[and achieving] true sustainability.” All of which equals more animals saved.

Now that’s what I call good news – and who’d have thought data analysis could be so exciting!

Where to put to rest our mortal remains

Now we have the proof that conservation funding delivers results, where to find those funds?

We don’t like to think too much about the end of our days, but wouldn’t it be brilliant if there was a way to continue helping animals from beyond the grave? Well now there is, with Dr Matthew Holden’s genius idea. We could call it ‘Green Burial Plus‘.

Green burials are gaining in popularity, I’m glad to say. No pollutants like the formaldehyde and non-biodegradable materials used in traditional burials. And no trees cut down to create the traditional coffin – no waste of Earth’s precious resources reduced to ashes and releasing greenhouse gases. Instead we get to help provide a natural habitat for wildlife, with the satisfaction of knowing all the stardust in our bodies is returning to the earth. For once, a human life and death can nourish the planet rather than deplete it. This has to be the be-all and end-all, literally, of recycling.

So what could be better than a green burial?

Dr Holden’s idea, that’s what: Use burial fees to buy and manage new land specifically for wildlife habitat. Is that it? Yes, that’s it. It’s that simple. “The nature reserve [where our bodies would be buried] could be placed in an area that specifically maximises benefits for endangered wildlife.”

Isn’t that the best?

How would this work? Well, take the US as an example. With 2.7 million folk reaching the end of their days each year, roughly $19 billion is being spent annually on funerals. Compare that huge sum with the mere $3-$5 billion the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) reckons are required to protect every threatened species on their lists.

And in the US conservation burial reserves are already a thing. There aren’t enough though. We need many many more in the US, in the UK – in every country if this way of conserving wildlife is to have any impact.

If we could get the powers that be to actually care enough about conservation, national registers on the model of organ donor registers could be set up for those of us who wish to donate our bodies and our funeral expenses to wildlife reserves. What a difference it would make. If we could…

Sadly, nothing is ever that plain sailing, is it? These are black times and conservation has serious opposition.

The Backlash – the Deadly Rise of Populism

“The recent trend toward populist politics has occurred, in part, as a result of a cultural backlash, where select segments of society have rallied against progressive social changes of the later 20th and early 21st centuries. This trend includes the Brexit vote in England, [and the] election of Donald Trump as U.S. President.”

Q. What has this got to do with conservation and wildlife? A. Everything.

Are you a populist? More likely a mutualist, I imagine. Mutualists see wildlife as “fellow beings in a common social community” – as opposed to populists who still cling to traditional ideas of human dominion over nonhuman animals, and view wildlife as either vermin to be exterminated, or quarry for their so-called sport.

Millennials swept forward on a tide of progressive ideas, mutualism for one. Just look at the incredible rise of veganism over the last couple of decades, matched by an ever-expanding interest in conservation and green issues. A survey in the millennial year 2000, found that 20 million Americans were registered members of the top 30 environmental organisations.²

But – and there’s always a but, isn’t there – Newton’s 3rd Law, “For every action force there is an equal and opposite reaction force”, is as true in society as it is in physics. Backlash was inevitable. In the US, the explosion between 2000 and 2016 of ballot initiatives to protect hunting rights is one sign of the pushback. This War on Wolves infographic exemplifies America’s populist backlash against conservation.

‘America First’ puts wildlife last

Donald Trump, the epitome of populism. To say he is an enemy of wildlife is an understatement. More like the grim reaper.

“With President Trump at the helm of our nation’s wildlife ark, we are setting an irreversible collision course toward an environmental catastrophe of epic proportions.”¹

Here are some of his proposals for the 2018 federal budget:-

Funding for the agencies involved in combating wildlife poaching and trafficking, cut by more than half from $90.7 million to $40.9 million

Funding for USAID’s biodiversity program which in 2017 aided conservation projects in 50 countries, cut from $265 million to $69.9 million

USFWS’s International Species program for African and Asian elephants, great apes, migratory birds, tigers, rhinos and sea turtles, cut from $9.15 million to zero

Funding to protect new species under the Endangered Species Act cut by 17%

Funding for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, cut $34 million, a 64% reduction

Funding for the State Department’s International Conservation Program giving financial support to the most important wildlife organisations including the IUCN, cut to zero

The savings made are less than a flea bite in a total federal budget of $1.15 trillion, but will spell the death sentence to thousands of animals all over the world.

Who will benefit?

Poachers and criminal trafficking cartels

Who will suffer?

Poor communities in Africa and Asia. Elephants, pangolins, lions, giraffes, snow leopards, great apes, migratory birds, tigers, rhinos, sea turtles and many many more.

That’s just abroad. At home, the Environmental Protection Agency has become the Environmental Pulverisation Agency under Trump’s appointee Scott Pruitt.

And as for That Wall at a cost of $1.6 billion – what a long way $1.6 billion would go protecting wildlife! Trump’s border wall will imperil at least 93 endangered and threatened species, including jaguars and ocelots, and cut its malignant swathe through several important wildlife refuges.

The POTUS’s war on wildlife will decimate many of America’s iconic species, and could see wolves for just one, after 20 years of tireless conservation efforts to save them from the brink, pushed once again to the cliff edge of extinction.

Wonderful as Matthew Holden’s vision is of reserves paid for by our burial fees, the clock is ticking for precious wildlife. The animals can’t wait for our demise. They need us now.

Congress has yet to sign off on Trump’s life-butchering budget. So if you are a US citizen, now is the time to let Congress hear your voice for wildlife.

Join the Center for Biological Diversity Join Defenders of Wildlife

A petition for everyone

Stop Federal Budget Cuts that Endanger African Wildlife

Petitions for US citizens:

Stop drastic budget cuts that devastate wildlife habitat

Protect the Endangered Species Act

Protect the Environment – Tell President Trump We Won’t Back Down

Stop Federal Budget Cuts that Endanger Africa’s Wildlife

More petitions

Sources

¹It will take a nation to combat Trump’s war on wildlife – Jeff Corwin in The Hill

²Environmental Movement – Encyclopedia.com

Investing in conservation pays off, study finds

We now have proof that conservation funding works

Spooky conservation: saving species over our dead bodies

Rise of populism affects wildlife management in US

Trump Budget Undercuts U.S. Commitment to Global Wildlife Conservation

What Trump’s Triumph Means for Wildlife

Good job Mr President – Your Action Plan for the Environment is the Best

Half for Us Half for the Animals

How Our Mortal Remains Could Save Every Endangered Species on the Planet – But Wildlife Can’t Wait Don't panic. No-one is suggesting when we die our bodies should be scooped up and fed to hungry polar bears.

#Animals #Bears #BigCats #Birds #ClimateChange #Conservation #Elephants #Endangered #Environment #Extinction #Hunting #InTheNews #PlanetEarth #Poaching #Rhinos #Vegan #Wildlife

0 notes

news-mashable-yahoopartner-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Kellyanne Conway said Trump empowers women and you can guess how that went

When you think of Donald Trump you immediately think of all he's done to make women feel empowered, do you not?

No? Oh, sorry — guess that's just Kellyanne Conway.

Others might be thinking about the Donald Trump who bragged about groping women, cut Obama's equal pay act, and rolled back access to birth control, but the man Conway knows apparently "elevates and empowers women," as she recently explained on Twitter.

SEE ALSO: Here is a glorious infographic ranking Kellyanne Conway's most embarrassing moments

On Thursday the White House counselor shared a Fox Business tweet announcing Trump had nominated cybersecurity expert Kirstjen Nielson as Department of Homeland Security Secretary.

In her own tweet Conway congratulated Nielson and added that Trump "continues his practice of elevating and empowering women to top positions."

Hmmmmmmm...

.@POTUS continues his practice of elevating and empowering women to top positions. Congratulations, Kirstjen! https://t.co/A9Ijp968a9

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) October 12, 2017

Considering the strained relationship Trump has cultivated with many women over the years — never forget when millions of women around the world marched in protest one day after his inauguration — many disagreed with Conway's statement and were eager to voice their concerns.

empowering women by taking away their access to health care? by attacking their physicality? by advocating sexual assault against them? 🚫

— kimberley yurkiewicz (@kimberley_yurk) October 13, 2017

Too bad he doesn't leave women's medical decisions to them or support equal pay or rights.

— XenaPeel (@XenaPeel) October 12, 2017

POTUS is an admitted perpetrator of sexual violence. You're a blight on the landscape Conway and a discredit to all women. Shame. Shame.

— Jimmy Cool (@Jimmy_Cool) October 12, 2017

"I just start kissing them... I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy."

— Seth Adam (@sethbadam) October 12, 2017

Do you actually have no clue how ridiculous this assertion is?

— Moron. (@UhDoubleUpUhUh) October 12, 2017

pic.twitter.com/P6JyShuIQU

— Kelly Novakowski (@KellyInTheWoods) October 12, 2017

Having the need, to tweet about this. Shows that he has a history of not caring about females

— 🇺🇸SnowFlake_Gur🗯️ (@A_Smart_Liberal) October 12, 2017

Um..... I'm not even touching this one. pic.twitter.com/TBg5ngf95e

— alt_KILLyanne💀🍊🍁 (@alt_kellyanne_) October 12, 2017

And then grabbing them? You know, what with his being a star and all.

— CommonSense (@4counting) October 12, 2017

Kellyanne, isn't the Trump cabinet about 90% white male? #SomeEmpowering

— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA_) October 12, 2017

This tweet serves as an awful reminder that I accidentally "Followed" you. Hitting "Unfollow." Good luck living in ur alternative world. ✌🏼

— Myra Maravilla (@MaravillaMyra) October 12, 2017

Though Conway's statement seemed to spark quite the reaction, it's not the first time one of Trump's administration members claimed he empowers women. Back in March, Trump's former press secretary Sean Spicer claimed the president has made women's empowerment a priority.

"Women’s History Month is coming to an end, but the Trump administration is committed to empowering women in the workplace," Spicer said. "The President made women’s empowerment a priority throughout the campaign, speaking out on affordable childcare and paid family leave, investing in women’s health, and the barriers faced by female entrepreneurs and business owners."

Like Conway, Spicer was also dragged for his comments — so it seems people think this claim is just another one of the administration's "alternative facts."

WATCH: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is waging a war on fake news

#_author:Nicole Gallucci #_uuid:1704699a-52fe-3e36-8a78-e4d81502e1f8 #_lmsid:a0Vd000000DTrEpEAL #_revsp:news.mashable

0 notes

dragoni · 6 years ago

Photo

Insider leaks Trump’s “Executive Time”

Checkout the interactive schedule.

"Executive Time" means watching Fox News, Fox & Friends and other right-wing media and listening to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. #TrumpBase

Trump made sure he always took an hour for lunch 🍔 #LowEnergyTrump

Trump is working part-time hours except he’s being paid as a full-time employee ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ #LazyTrump #lazyAF

Trump doesn’t read the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) #NatSec

Trump has spent around 60% of his scheduled time over the past 3 months in unstructured "Executive Time." #TrumpSCAM

Trump, an early riser, usually spends the first 5 hours of the day in Executive Time. Each day's schedule places Trump in "Location: Oval Office" from 8 to 11 a.m.

EXCEPT he’s not in the Oval...

He spends his mornings in the residence, watching TV, reading the papers, and responding to what he sees and reads by phoning aides, members of Congress, friends, administration officials and informal advisers.

We've published every page of the leaked schedules in a piece that accompanies this item. To protect our source, we retyped the schedules in the same format that West Wing staff receives them.

The president sometimes has meetings during Executive Time that he doesn't want most West Wing staff to know about for fear of leaks. And his mornings sometimes include calls with heads of state, political meetings and meetings with counsel in the residence, which aren't captured on these schedules.

Also checkout Presidential Office Hours: Donald Trump’s Schedule Vs. FDR Through Obama by Bill Frischling, Factbase

11 notes · View notes

socialcalcio01-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Social Calcio

How Government Agencies Use Social Media

Covfefe. Maybe that’s not the complete answer to how government agencies use social media, but it’s certainly an indication of how pervasive and influential social media has become in our political climate.

Presidents have used rich media to connect to their citizenry ever since Franklin Roosevelt’s famous fireside chats. What social media offers federal agencies is the ability to not only engage with their constituents, but to collect active data on their followers’ behaviour and political ideology.

Social media deeply influenced the 2016 election. In fact, this election might have been the most polarizing due to the freedom afforded to individuals to express their opinions over the cloak of social media. Unlike the 2012 election, the American populace were no longer social media neophytes.

With tremendous confidence, poll forecasters discounted social media trends and engagement metrics that easily predicted a Trump victory. Equipped with this knowledge, Clinton might have ran her campaign a little bit differently.

Social media not only provides a pulpit for politicians to campaign upon, but also a medium for federal agencies to engage with the American public and provide informative content. Let’s explore how the US federal government uses social media and provide some examples of how effective these campaigns have been for their promotional campaigns.

How the Government Uses Social Media

One study of every major US sector found that the government was viewed as the most unpopular industry and the most annoying over social media. The average response rate across all government agencies and accounts was a dilapidated 10.7 hours with an engagement rate of 8.91%.

It’s no secret that politicians use social media as much as many traditional media outlets to campaign and court favor with the American populace. According to a study by the American Congressional Management Foundation, 76% of policy makers polled revealed that “social media enabled them to have more meaningful interactions with their constituents.”

According to the Washington Post, the White House uploaded 400 videos to Youtube and posted 275 infographics to their official website in the first half of 2015 alone. The White House and many federal administrative agencies frequently use social media channels and publications, including Buzzfeed, Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook, etc.

Social listening allows politicians and federal agencies to gather public opinion on proposed policies, distribute public service announcements, derive solutions, and promote events and campaigns. There are many other perks as well:

Promotes transparency and government accountability

Builds awareness of agency goals

Real-time data driven analytics

Encourages citizen engagement

Influences agency perception

Every federal agency and policy maker conducts their social media campaigns differently. It’s nearly impossible to find the silver lining in any of their strategies. Consider how Obama’s social media presence differed vastly from president Trump’s.

@POTUS

Former president Obama remains the 2nd most followed Twitter handle and Donald J. Trump rests at number 25. Both presidents have used social media to advance their own policies, as well as engage with their citizenry and humanize their cult of personalities.

Obama used rich media to help promote his personal brand and likeability, including an appearance on Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis and starring in a Buzzfeed video, “Things Everyone Does But Doesn’t Talk About.”

The Obama administration frequently held interviews over many social networking channels with online only outlets and used microtargeting to attract the audience they wanted. President Obama frequently appealed to young voters and pop culture to help promote his personal brand.

On the other hand, president Trump may fall under the belief that any publicity is good publicity. One sharp contrast of president Trump’s social media distribution on the campaign trail was marked by his frequent sharing of notable internet influencers and news outlets, as opposed to Clinton or Sanders.

As opposed to Obama, Trump embraced controversy instead of avoiding it. In fact, social media research shows that Trump’s many controversies actually increased his share rate across all social channels propelling him to a rather pyrrhic 2016 victory.

While both presidents may have taken different approaches to their social media habits, it illustrates how powerful social networking has become in the making of a presidency.

Federal Agencies that Engage and Inform

Some of the most active social media accounts streaming from D.C. are not always from the @POTUS twitter handle. Aside from using social listening to develop awareness for agency goals, social media offers many practical purposes for its citizenry:

Posting job applications

Delivering time sensitive updates

Coordinating with local law enforcement

Providing aid and donations for disaster relief

Social media can also be used to humanize many of the federal agencies we associate with red tape. The Department of Education responds to individual’s questions about college over Twitter and Facebook in their #AskFAFSA campaign.

The TSA, almost as popular as the IRS, posts hilarious pictures to their Instagram of objects that people try to sneak through airports in their AskTSA campaign. The campaign attempts to answer travellers questions and concerns about what is legal to pack on a flight. It was rated above Beyonce as in Rolling Stone’s Top 100 Instagram Accounts.

Of course, sometimes federal agencies just have access to cooler technology and information than private citizens. NASA recently broadcasted a full Facebook live stream of the 2017 Solar Eclipse from different locations across the country to a massive audience. The CDC, in 2011, published a clever zombie apocalypse survival guide.

Ultimately, many federal agencies benefit from increasing their reach and promoting their own brand among the American voters. This probably affects whether they get to keep their job or not each budget cycle.

Final Thoughts

Social media media has completely transformed everyday interpersonal interactions and mass communication as a whole. The ability to engage with politicians and federal agencies overall leads to better governance and promotes greater transparency. Whether this effect on our current political climate can be viewed as positive or negative in light of these facts ultimately depends on your interpretation.

0 notes

socialcalcionet-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Social Calcio

How Government Agencies Use Social Media

How the Government Uses Social Media

Promotes transparency and government accountability

Builds awareness of agency goals

Real-time data driven analytics

Encourages citizen engagement

Influences agency perception

@POTUS

While both presidents may have taken different approaches to their social media habits, it illustrates how powerful social networking has become in the making of a presidency.

Federal Agencies that Engage and Inform

Posting job applications

Delivering time sensitive updates

Coordinating with local law enforcement

Providing aid and donations for disaster relief

Final Thoughts

0 notes