The silver lining of ecological degradation is that no amount of political posturing or businesses (ignorance) greenwashing will prevent the climate from deteriorating.
The planet's biosphere is the ultimate "authority", the ultimate power. As such, it's the ultimate "judgement" regarding how human cultures can, & can not, survive.
The planet is, what it objectively is. Ecological limiting factors are the ultimate long-term regulators.
The potential is certainly there. As well as liberating land for wildlife, there can be zones used for growing food using agroecological farming methods, which can also provide habitat for a variety of wildlife & locations for housing.
FYI, when you write "research has shown" please provide a weblink too that research, so that people that haven't read the relevant research & or science-based report can read it.
Fundamentally, mono-industrial farming is unsustainable.
The question is, are you not aware that you have been greenwashed? or are you trying to greenwash readers?
Humans started agriculture about 12,000 years ago. Especially since the industrial revolution (fossil-fueled machines), animal farming has destroyed vast areas of wildlife habitats (e.g., species extinction) & ruminants such as cows & sheep emit methane.
Good job that being popular isn't their primary goal because they won't be fairly treated by the popular press (where many folk get their opinions from)
So we have the politicians such as Rishi Sunak that are promoting policies that increase the probability of an ecological collapse, & then on the other extreme the preppers that are, well, at least preparing for a climate crisis.
It's a stretch to think how things turned out so friggin crazy? 🤔 🤑 🤥
It's actually as possible as - the majority of people understanding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (AKA not burning fossil fuels, not eating meat - NOT greenwashed) & wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in a democracy, that should do the "trick")
One person could only choose to reduce a tiny fraction of their direct or indirect greenhouse gases. Billions could choose to reduce a massive amount of greenhouse gases.
It's as "easy" as informed cooperation & will. But
Not related to money. Being concerned about climate change, but not relatively that informed about the science (e.g., ecology). Truly believing that the industries & politicians are dealing with the problems (because they say they're)
Being concerned & informed of the evidence. Understanding the general problems such as greenwashing governments & industries (AKA corruption). But, thinking that the effects of climate change will make people see sense.
There are various levels of climate optimism. E.g., From most to least optimistic.
Being rich & truly believing that climate change is a ridiculous belief & God will make them see the light eventually (i.e., oh happy days & rejoice the cumming of the lord!)
Being rich, knowing that climate change needs dealing with, but, the clever tech guys have it sorted.
Being rich, knowing that climate change will be a disaster, but, what the hell, right now I am rich.
Let's try to talk to the industry bosses & their political lobbyists as if they were ignorant & badly behaved children.
For example. Primary school level science. "Ok, settle down you naughty kids & listen up. To be serious about tackling #ClimateChange, you need to stop carbon emissions from getting into the atmosphere in the first place.
Conservative or progressive is often associated with political party's.
E.g., if the evidence suggests we should take a precautionary approach & not gamble the stability of the planet's climate on an unproven "carbon capture" tech, that would be conservative, or a precautionary approach (prudence).
But, the conservative party's & industries are promoting carbon capture. They're not conservative (cautious), they're venture capitalists (gambling for a profit)
I was going to disagree with you but then I noticed that you put everything in capitals.
If you go to a FRIGGIN supermarket & have two choices, a Hamburger or a plant-based burger, & you choose the Hamburger, no amount of CAPITALS will make that the right choice.
If you choose to drive 5 miles in a big diesel truck to pick up a hamburger, regardless of what BP said, your direct carbon emissions & the indirect methane emisisons are a part of the problem.
As l am sure you're aware, the problem has not been how we have been saying "it". The problem is because many sociopolitical business people (industries, rich people that own the media, corrupt politicians) have been saying the opposite (e.g., greenwashing, gaslighting)
@uphillbothways @climate
Well, in that case, we can only assume that some people think the election cycle is more important than people's lives.
@theendismeh @silence7 @climate
The "business as usual" approach reminds me of the saying "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
@nottelling @CleverNameAndNumbers
"rich people keep getting everything they want"
Even (most) rich people don't *want* death and destruction. They want money!
@VikingHippie @silence7 @climate
The silver lining of ecological degradation is that no amount of political posturing or businesses (ignorance) greenwashing will prevent the climate from deteriorating.
The planet's biosphere is the ultimate "authority", the ultimate power. As such, it's the ultimate "judgement" regarding how human cultures can, & can not, survive.
The planet is, what it objectively is. Ecological limiting factors are the ultimate long-term regulators.
Nature finds a way
@leafn4give @silence7
The potential is certainly there. As well as liberating land for wildlife, there can be zones used for growing food using agroecological farming methods, which can also provide habitat for a variety of wildlife & locations for housing.
FYI, when you write "research has shown" please provide a weblink too that research, so that people that haven't read the relevant research & or science-based report can read it.
Fundamentally, mono-industrial farming is unsustainable.
@bioemerl @silence7
The question is, are you not aware that you have been greenwashed? or are you trying to greenwash readers?
Humans started agriculture about 12,000 years ago. Especially since the industrial revolution (fossil-fueled machines), animal farming has destroyed vast areas of wildlife habitats (e.g., species extinction) & ruminants such as cows & sheep emit methane.
Most of our #food emissions come from processes on the farm, or from land use change. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
@raginghummus @AceFuzzLord @climate
Good job that being popular isn't their primary goal because they won't be fairly treated by the popular press (where many folk get their opinions from)
@cerement
Of course "farmers" covers a broad demographic (a spectrum). But yes, overall:
heard of, yes
acknowledge, no
comprehend, no
Is a fair assessment.
Though, l'd add "heard of yes, but, excuses" (some justifiable, many, simply excuses to not change their mono-industrial farming as usual methods)
@silence7
"Confounds Farmers"?
Hadn't they heard of climate change?
@InverseParallax @deus
So we have the politicians such as Rishi Sunak that are promoting policies that increase the probability of an ecological collapse, & then on the other extreme the preppers that are, well, at least preparing for a climate crisis.
It's a stretch to think how things turned out so friggin crazy? 🤔 🤑 🤥
@silence7
It's actually as possible as - the majority of people understanding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (AKA not burning fossil fuels, not eating meat - NOT greenwashed) & wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in a democracy, that should do the "trick")
One person could only choose to reduce a tiny fraction of their direct or indirect greenhouse gases. Billions could choose to reduce a massive amount of greenhouse gases.
It's as "easy" as informed cooperation & will. But
@silence7 @Codilingus
Not related to money. Being concerned about climate change, but not relatively that informed about the science (e.g., ecology). Truly believing that the industries & politicians are dealing with the problems (because they say they're)
Being concerned & informed of the evidence. Understanding the general problems such as greenwashing governments & industries (AKA corruption). But, thinking that the effects of climate change will make people see sense.
Doom!
@silence7 @Codilingus
There are various levels of climate optimism. E.g., From most to least optimistic.
Being rich & truly believing that climate change is a ridiculous belief & God will make them see the light eventually (i.e., oh happy days & rejoice the cumming of the lord!)
Being rich, knowing that climate change needs dealing with, but, the clever tech guys have it sorted.
Being rich, knowing that climate change will be a disaster, but, what the hell, right now I am rich.
@GuilhermePelayo @hillsanddales
Let's try to talk to the industry bosses & their political lobbyists as if they were ignorant & badly behaved children.
For example. Primary school level science. "Ok, settle down you naughty kids & listen up. To be serious about tackling #ClimateChange, you need to stop carbon emissions from getting into the atmosphere in the first place.
The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn’t really work https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/the-biggest-problem-with-carbon-offsetting-is-that-it-doesnt-really-work/
@Burn_The_Right @silence7
Conservative or progressive is often associated with political party's.
E.g., if the evidence suggests we should take a precautionary approach & not gamble the stability of the planet's climate on an unproven "carbon capture" tech, that would be conservative, or a precautionary approach (prudence).
But, the conservative party's & industries are promoting carbon capture. They're not conservative (cautious), they're venture capitalists (gambling for a profit)
@Polydextrous @RvTV95XBeo
I was going to disagree with you but then I noticed that you put everything in capitals.
If you go to a FRIGGIN supermarket & have two choices, a Hamburger or a plant-based burger, & you choose the Hamburger, no amount of CAPITALS will make that the right choice.
If you choose to drive 5 miles in a big diesel truck to pick up a hamburger, regardless of what BP said, your direct carbon emissions & the indirect methane emisisons are a part of the problem.
@kozy138
"Therefore, it is machines that are violent"
That's incorrect as machines have no agency. Of course, violent people can use machines to do violent acts.
@cxtinac
As l am sure you're aware, the problem has not been how we have been saying "it". The problem is because many sociopolitical business people (industries, rich people that own the media, corrupt politicians) have been saying the opposite (e.g., greenwashing, gaslighting)
@cxtinac
Even well intended ideas can have unforseen consequences.
What differentiates #GretaThunberg relative to the majority of adults, is (more) honesty (her "condition". That Greta calls her "super power")
To quote "I think it’s helpful that it doesn’t mention the obvious anxiety words that will cause people to tune out"
The audience you're referring to are adults not young children.
Say the truth! Even if it's "scary" (we can "sugar coat" it for youngsters)
#climate #psychology