Title – One Planet #Sustainability

The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).

Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)

Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.

Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).

Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)

However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.

To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).

There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)

Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.

There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.

More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)

People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)

That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).

However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).

Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).

The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)

Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)

In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.

To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology

Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.

1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate

3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/

#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy

#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution

Title – One Planet #Sustainability

The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).

Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore cases greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)

Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.

Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).

Unfortunately, human societies are severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. The crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)

However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.

To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

"More sustainable" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries live an extremely unsustainable way of life.

The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason)

The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason)

Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.

There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.

More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)

People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)

That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).

Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).

Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).

The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)

Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)

In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.

To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology

Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.

1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate

3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/

#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy

#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution

Title – One Planet #Sustainability

The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to)

First, it will be necessary to broadly define what is and what is not a sustainable society. Fundamentally, a society must not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted.

Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change. Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).

Unfortunately, human societies are severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. The crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)

However, humans could choose to live sustainably if they were prudent enough (in general).

The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason)

The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason)

Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.

There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.

More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)

People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)

That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).

Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).

Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).

The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)

Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)

In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.

To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology

Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.

1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate

3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/

#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy

#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution

Is honesty, generally, the best policy? Well, I've decided to be 'frank' - even if that honesty will make sociopaths angry and lie so as to slander my honest approach. It's what they habitually do anyway.

Morons behave comparably immoral, plus when their stupid behaviors are challenged, morons get offended and angry. Anger is the moron's way of trying to silence those that criticize them.

Morons also generally perceive what's right or wrong, or what's "normal" from their social in-groups. In other words, morons have an "ape see ape do psychology". For example, if a Morons thoughtless & ecologically damaging behaviors are criticized, a Moron will often respond by expressing that many other people do what the Moron is doing, therefore, in the Morons mind, this is proof that what they're doing, " can't be that bad".

By definition, Morons are comparably thoughtless & deluded. It's what they don't understand (e.g., ecology) & care about that makes them a danger to themselves, others & the environment in general.

There are many variants of Morons. For example, gullible Morons follow & support Morons that lie to them. A topical example of a first-class Moron is Rishi Sunak - a British politician who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since October 2022. Sunak is a rich class of moron. A businessman Moron displays many of the typically biased traits of "business as usual" - such as greenwashing the Morons that believe in him. So, in this context, Sunak can be grouped with Trump and his kind of successful business-oriented Moron.

Sunak parrot repeats the Fossil fuel industries bullshit. For instance, in the context of anthropogenic climate change, Sunak can be observed repeating the Fossil Fuel industries mantra of "Carbon Capture, Carbon Capture, Carbon Capture" & then Sunaks Moron followers will also then be parrot repeating the "Carbon Capture" mantra. Similar to how the UK working class was generally not saying "Brexit" until the sociopolitical business class started saying the word ("monkey hear monkey say")

To reiterate, Morons are "copycats", (More accurately, apes see, apes do. As humans are apes, not monkeys). "Carbon Capture" is the ecologically unsustainable & comparably expensive technology that the Fossil fuel industries have been promoting - as their answer to mitigating Climate Change. Generally, the business class only promotes an industrial "solution" to mitigate climate change. The consumerism neoliberal or right-wing agenda (money and power being the common dominator). For example, home solar panels and heat pumps will mean the fossil fuel industries, the energy companies, would lose money, so, they greenwash the public instead.

Honesty Government ad "Carbon Capture is a complex mining process whereby fuel companies inject donations into the assholes of politicians". https://youtu.be/MSZgoFyuHC8

Generally, the Fossil fuel industries promote "Carbon Capture" so as to try & maintain their ecologically wrecking business practices for as long as they can get away with it (for the Morons, it's about sustaining their social status, not sustaining ecology). In the context of the business class Moron, it's often what they avoid talking about that reveals their underlying agendas. For example, you won't hear Sunak challenge the Fossil fuel industry's long history of corruption. Sunak didn't get rich by criticizing the business-class Morons. Or rather, he won't criticize himself, he won't criticize corrupt capitalism that is generally a protect the rich, protection racket. He will and does smile on Camera and lie. Or at least, intentionally avoid the facts that don't promote his political career and those industries that make his career possible.

"Can We Still Limit Global Warming to 1.5°C? Here’s What the Latest Science Says" https://blog.ucsusa.org/kristy-dahl/can-we-still-limit-global-warming-to-1-5c-heres-what-the-latest-science-says/

So, there are many variants of Moron. Some Morons can be well-intended but, for example, are greenwashed. Well, all Morons believe in their own agendas, and, believing they're well intended, is the Moron norm. Even when those "well intentions" have caused massive amounts of harm to nature. The Morons don't perceive that the harm is their fault.

The rich class of Morons has its own sub-class of "working class" Moron that follows the elite Morons. The "working class" (their words not specifically mine) Morons religiously read the rich-class Moron's Newspapers. Village idiot Morons can be observed moto-cross (motorbikes) riding in England's "natural parks" that are already severely ecologically damaged, sheep-wrecked, "natural" habitats. The village idiot Moron feels their implicit ecologically harmful behaviors are exciting. Village Idiot Morons should be approached with caution - they do get aggressive if their stupid, but average ("normal"), behaviors are challenged.

Some Morons can be sociopaths that think nothing of deceiving the public so as to sustain their wealth. For example, the 'dieselgate' scandal was orchestrated by the business class Moron (though working-class Morons were also involved) https://phys.org/news/2018-06-vw-dieselgate-scandal.html

Whilst Morons have been trying to get rich by selling polluting fuels for as long as there have been Morons, Society did at least try to reduce some of the air pollutants by regulating how much toxic waste a combustion engine emits (and Morons are obsessed with Cars). Unfortunately, the Morons have generally failed to mitigate air pollution, because, for one example, the Morons promoted installing "Eco Stoves" in the UK, which emit more air pollution than diesel trucks. Whoops! Morons do make many simple mistakes. But, to reiterate, the business class Moron "mistakes" are intentional deception. For example, Sunak's Conservative party plans to open a Coal mine in England. Who backs the Conservative party? #FossilFuel #WoodFuel Industries.

"UK: Urban wood burning soars, with 18,000 complaints but only 3 fines" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uk-urban-wood-burning-soars-18000-complaints-only-3-fines-cox

So, this is another example of business-class Morons selling polluting technologies to working-class Morons (that really don't understand any better - they're Morons after all)

The phrase "woodsmoke is pollution" is not understood by the Moron. https://www.dsawsp.org/

So, no surprise, Moron's "green" ideas & policies simply don't add up to real progress. Morons don't learn from their mistakes - Morons believe their faults are normal. Because, in a world of fools, Morons are normally distributed (average behaviors).

What can we do to prevent the 'Morons as usual' agenda from causing more of the unfolding ecological crisis? #PolyCrisis #ClimateCrisis #SpeciesExtinction How do we prevent the Morons from causing (more of) the 6th mass extinction?

We can change - change the general sociopolitical & economic atmosphere. For example, listen to the sincere people that are really motivated to sustain ecology - not the business as usual and lifestyle as usual Morons.

"With equal parts humor and in-depth analysis, Asher, Rob, and Jason safeguard their sanity while probing crazy-making topics like climate change, overshoot, runaway capitalism, and why we’re all deluding ourselves." https://www.resilience.org/crazy-town-podcast/

#ClimateChange #psychology #ecology #ClimateJustice #satire #education #reeducation

#politics #economics #business #greenwash #politics #GroupThink

Is honesty, generally, the best policy? Well, I've decided to be honest even if that honesty will make sociopaths angry.

Morons behave comparably immoral, plus when their stupid behaviors are challenged, morons get offended and angry. Anger is the moron's way of trying to silence those that criticize them.

Morons also generally perceive what's right or wrong, or what's "normal" from their social in-groups. In other words, morons have an "ape see ape do psychology". For example, if a Morons thoughtless & ecologically damaging behaviors are criticized, a Moron will often respond by expressing that many other people do what the Moron is doing, therefore, in the Morons mind, this is proof that what they're doing, " can't be that bad".

By definition, Morons are comparably thoughtless & deluded. It's what they don't understand (e.g., ecology) & care about that makes them a danger to themselves, others & the environment in general.

There are many variants of Morons. For example, gullible Morons follow & support Morons that lie to them. A topical example of a first-class Moron is Rishi Sunak - a British politician who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since October 2022. Sunak is a rich class of moron. A businessman Moron displays many of the typically biased traits of "business as usual" - such as greenwashing the Morons that believe in him. So, in this context, Sunak can be grouped with Trump and his kind of successful business-oriented Moron.

Sunak parrot repeats the Fossil fuel industries bullshit. For instance, in the context of anthropogenic climate change, Sunak can be observed repeating the Fossil Fuel industries mantra of "Carbon Capture, Carbon Capture, Carbon Capture" & then Sunaks Moron followers will also then be parrot repeating the "Carbon Capture" mantra. Similar to how the UK working class was generally not saying "Brexit" until the sociopolitical business class started saying the word ("monkey hear monkey say")

To reiterate, Morons are "copycats", (More accurately, apes see, apes do. As humans are apes, not monkeys). "Carbon Capture" is the ecologically unsustainable & comparably expensive technology that the Fossil fuel industries have been promoting - as their answer to mitigating Climate Change. Generally, the business class only promotes an industrial "solution" to mitigate climate change. The consumerism neoliberal or right-wing agenda (money and power being the common dominator). For example, home solar panels and heat pumps will mean the fossil fuel industries, the energy companies, would lose money, so, they greenwash the public instead.

Honesty Government ad "Carbon Capture is a complex mining process whereby fuel companies inject donations into the assholes of politicians". https://youtu.be/MSZgoFyuHC8

Generally, the Fossil fuel industries promote "Carbon Capture" so as to try & maintain their ecologically wrecking business practices for as long as they can get away with it (for the Morons, it's about sustaining their social status, not sustaining ecology). In the context of the business class Moron, it's often what they avoid talking about that reveals their underlying agendas. For example, you won't hear Sunak challenge the Fossil fuel industry's long history of corruption. Sunak didn't get rich by criticizing the business-class Morons. Or rather, he won't criticize himself, he won't criticize corrupt capitalism that is generally a protect the rich, protection racket. He will and does smile on Camera and lie. Or at least, intentionally avoid the facts that don't promote his political career and those industries that make his career possible.

"Can We Still Limit Global Warming to 1.5°C? Here’s What the Latest Science Says" https://blog.ucsusa.org/kristy-dahl/can-we-still-limit-global-warming-to-1-5c-heres-what-the-latest-science-says/

So, there are many variants of Moron. Some Morons can be well-intended but, for example, are greenwashed. Well, all Morons believe in their own agendas, and, believing they're well intended, is the Moron norm. Even when those "well intentions" have caused massive amounts of harm to nature. The Morons don't perceive that the harm is their fault.

The rich class of Morons has its own sub-class of "working class" Moron that follows the elite Morons. The "working class" (their words not specifically mine) Morons religiously read the rich-class Moron's Newspapers. Village idiot Morons can be observed moto-cross (motorbikes) riding in England's "natural parks" that are already severely ecologically damaged, sheep-wrecked, "natural" habitats. The village idiot Moron feels their implicit ecologically harmful behaviors are exciting. Village Idiot Morons should be approached with caution - they do get aggressive if their stupid, but average ("normal"), behaviors are challenged.

Some Morons can be sociopaths that think nothing of deceiving the public so as to sustain their wealth. For example, the 'dieselgate' scandal was orchestrated by the business class Moron (though working-class Morons were also involved) https://phys.org/news/2018-06-vw-dieselgate-scandal.html

Whilst Morons have been trying to get rich by selling polluting fuels for as long as there have been Morons, Society did at least try to reduce some of the air pollutants by regulating how much toxic waste a combustion engine emits (and Morons are obsessed with Cars). Unfortunately, the Morons have generally failed to mitigate air pollution, because, for one example, the Morons promoted installing "Eco Stoves" in the UK, which emit more air pollution than diesel trucks. Whoops! Morons do make many simple mistakes. But, to reiterate, the business class Moron "mistakes" are intentional deception. For example, Sunak's Conservative party plans to open a Coal mine in England. Who backs the Conservative party? #FossilFuel #WoodFuel Industries.

"UK: Urban wood burning soars, with 18,000 complaints but only 3 fines" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uk-urban-wood-burning-soars-18000-complaints-only-3-fines-cox

So, this is another example of business-class Morons selling polluting technologies to working-class Morons (that really don't understand any better - they're Morons after all)

The phrase "woodsmoke is pollution" is not understood by the Moron. https://www.dsawsp.org/

So, no surprise, Moron's "green" ideas & policies simply don't add up to real progress. Morons don't learn from their mistakes - Morons believe their faults are normal. Because, in a world of fools, Morons are normally distributed (average behaviors).

What can we do to prevent the 'Morons as usual' agenda from causing more of the unfolding ecological crisis? #PolyCrisis #ClimateCrisis #SpeciesExtinction How do we prevent the Morons from causing (more of) the 6th mass extinction?

We can change - change the general sociopolitical & economic atmosphere. For example, listen to the sincere people that are really motivated to sustain ecology - not the business as usual and lifestyle as usual Morons.

"With equal parts humor and in-depth analysis, Asher, Rob, and Jason safeguard their sanity while probing crazy-making topics like climate change, overshoot, runaway capitalism, and why we’re all deluding ourselves." https://www.resilience.org/crazy-town-podcast/

#ClimateChange #psychology #ecology #ClimateJustice #satire #education #reeducation

#politics #economics #business #greenwash #politics #GroupThink

Morons behave comparably immoral, plus when their stupid behaviors are challenged, morons get offended and angry. Anger is the moron's way of trying to silence those that criticize them.

Morons also generally perceive what's right or wrong, or what's "normal" from their social in-groups. In other words, morons have an "ape see ape do psychology". For example, if a Morons thoughtless & ecologically damaging behaviors are criticized, a Moron will often respond by expressing that many other people do what the Moron is doing, therefore, in the Morons mind, this is proof that what they're doing, " can't be that bad".

By definition, Morons are comparably thoughtless & deluded. It's what they don't understand (e.g., ecology) & care about that makes them a danger to themselves, others & the environment in general.

There are many variants of Morons. For example, gullible Morons follow & support Morons that lie to them. A topical example of a first-class Moron is Rishi Sunak - a British politician who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since October 2022. Sunak is a rich class of moron. A businessman Moron displays many of the typically biased traits of "business as usual" - such as greenwashing the Morons that believe in him. So, in this context, Sunak can be grouped with Trump and his kind of successful business-oriented Moron.

Sunak parrot repeats the Fossil fuel industries bullshit. For instance, in the context of anthropogenic climate change, Sunak can be observed repeating the Fossil Fuel industries mantra of "Carbon Capture, Carbon Capture, Carbon Capture" & then Sunaks Moron followers will also then be parrot repeating the "Carbon Capture" mantra. Similar to how the UK working class was generally not saying "Brexit" until the sociopolitical business class started saying the word ("monkey hear monkey say")

To reiterate, Morons are "copycats", (More accurately, apes see, apes do. As humans are apes, not monkeys). "Carbon Capture" is the ecologically unsustainable & comparably expensive technology that the Fossil fuel industries have been promoting - as their answer to mitigating Climate Change. Generally, the business class only promotes an industrial "solution" to mitigate climate change. The consumerism neoliberal or right-wing agenda (money and power being the common dominator). For example, home solar panels and heat pumps will mean the fossil fuel industries, the energy companies, would lose money, so, they greenwash the public instead.

Honesty Government ad "Carbon Capture is a complex mining process whereby fuel companies inject donations into the assholes of politicians". https://youtu.be/MSZgoFyuHC8

Generally, the Fossil fuel industries promote "Carbon Capture" so as to try & maintain their ecologically wrecking business practices for as long as they can get away with it (for the Morons, it's about sustaining their social status, not sustaining ecology). In the context of the business class Moron, it's often what they avoid talking about that reveals their underlying agendas. For example, you won't hear Sunak challenge the Fossil fuel industry's long history of corruption. Sunak didn't get rich by criticizing the business-class Morons. Or rather, he won't criticize himself, he won't criticize corrupt capitalism that is generally a protect the rich, protection racket. He will and does smile on Camera and lie. Or at least, intentionally avoid the facts that don't promote his political career and those industries that make his career possible.

"Can We Still Limit Global Warming to 1.5°C? Here’s What the Latest Science Says" https://blog.ucsusa.org/kristy-dahl/can-we-still-limit-global-warming-to-1-5c-heres-what-the-latest-science-says/

So, there are many variants of Moron. Some Morons can be well-intended but, for example, are greenwashed. Well, all Morons believe in their own agendas, and, believing they're well intended, is the Moron norm. Even when those "well intentions" have caused massive amounts of harm to nature. The Morons don't perceive that the harm is their fault.

The rich class of Morons has its own sub-class of "working class" Moron that follows the elite Morons. The "working class" (their words not specifically mine) Morons religiously read the rich-class Moron's Newspapers. Village idiot Morons can be observed moto-cross (motorbikes) riding in England's "natural parks" that are already severely ecologically damaged, sheep-wrecked, "natural" habitats. The village idiot Moron feels their implicit ecologically harmful behaviors are exciting. Village Idiot Morons should be approached with caution - they do get aggressive if their stupid, but average ("normal"), behaviors are challenged.

Some Morons can be sociopaths that think nothing of deceiving the public so as to sustain their wealth. For example, the 'dieselgate' scandal was orchestrated by the business class Moron (though working-class Morons were also involved) https://phys.org/news/2018-06-vw-dieselgate-scandal.html

Whilst Morons have been trying to get rich by selling polluting fuels for as long as there have been Morons, Society did at least try to reduce some of the air pollutants by regulating how much toxic waste a combustion engine permits (and Morons are obsessed with Cars). Unfortunately, the Morons have generally failed to mitigate air pollution, because, for one example, the Morons promoted installing "Eco Stoves" in the UK, which emit more air pollution than diesel trucks. Whoops! Morons do make many simple mistakes. But, to reiterate, the business class Moron "mistakes" are intentional deception. For example, Sunak's Conservative party plans to open a Coal mine in England. Who backs the Conservative party? #FossilFuel #WoodFuel Industries.

"UK: Urban wood burning soars, with 18,000 complaints but only 3 fines" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uk-urban-wood-burning-soars-18000-complaints-only-3-fines-cox

So, this is another example of business-class Morons selling polluting technologies to working-class Morons (that really don't understand any better - they're Morons after all)

The phrase "woodsmoke is pollution" is not understood by the Moron. https://www.dsawsp.org/

So, no surprise, Moron's "green" ideas & policies simply don't add up to real progress. Morons don't learn from their mistakes - Morons believe their faults are normal. Because, in a world of fools, Morons are normally distributed (average behaviors).

What can we do to prevent the 'Morons as usual' agenda from causing more of the unfolding ecological crisis? #PolyCrisis #ClimateCrisis #SpeciesExtinction How do we prevent the Morons from causing (more of) the 6th mass extinction?

We can change - change the general sociopolitical & economic atmosphere. For example, listen to the sincere people that are really motivated to sustain ecology - not the business as usual and lifestyle as usual Morons.

"With equal parts humor and in-depth analysis, Asher, Rob, and Jason safeguard their sanity while probing crazy-making topics like climate change, overshoot, runaway capitalism, and why we’re all deluding ourselves." https://www.resilience.org/crazy-town-podcast/

#ClimateChange #psychology #ecology #ClimateJustice #satire #education #reeducation

#politics #economics #business #greenwash #politics #GroupThink

Morons behave comparably immoral, plus when their stupid behaviors are challenged, morons get offended and angry. Anger is the moron's way of trying to silence those that criticize them.

Morons also generally perceive what's right or wrong, or what's "normal" from their social in-groups. In other words, morons have an "ape see ape do psychology". For example, if a Morons thoughtless & ecologically damaging behaviors are criticized, a Moron will often respond by expressing that many other people do what the Moron is doing, therefore, in the Morons mind, this is proof that what they're doing, " can't be that bad".

By definition, Morons are comparably thoughtless & deluded. It's what they don't understand (e.g., ecology) & care about that makes them a danger to themselves, others & the environment in general.

There are many variants of Morons. For example, gullible Morons follow & support Morons that lie to them. A topical example of a first-class Moron is Rishi Sunak - a British politician who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since October 2022. Sunak is a rich class of moron. A businessman Moron displays many of the typically biased traits of "business as usual" - such as greenwashing the Morons that believe in him. So, in this context, Sunak can be grouped with Trump and his kind of successful business-oriented Moron.

Sunak parrot repeats the Fossil fuel industries bullshit. For instance, in the context of anthropogenic climate change, Sunak can be observed repeating the Fossil Fuel industries mantra of "Carbon Capture, Carbon Capture, Carbon Capture" & then Sunaks Moron followers will also then be parrot repeating the "Carbon Capture" mantra. Similar to how the UK working class was generally not saying "Brexit" until the sociopolitical business class started saying the word ("monkey hear monkey say")

To reiterate, Morons are "copycats", (More accurately, apes see, apes do. As humans are apes, not monkeys). "Carbon Capture" is the ecologically unsustainable & comparably expensive technology that the Fossil fuel industries have been promoting - as their answer to mitigating Climate Change. Generally, the business class only promotes an industrial "solution" to mitigate climate change. The consumerism neoliberal or right-wing agenda (money and power being the common dominator). For example, home solar panels and heat pumps will mean the fossil fuel industries, the energy companies, would lose money, so, they greenwash the public instead.

Honesty Government ad "Carbon Capture is a complex mining process whereby fuel companies inject donations into the assholes of politicians". https://youtu.be/MSZgoFyuHC8

Generally, the Fossil fuel industries promote "Carbon Capture" so as to try & maintain their ecologically wrecking business practices for as long as they can get away with it (for the Morons, it's about sustaining their social status, not sustaining ecology). In the context of the business class Moron, it's often what they avoid talking about that reveals their underlying agendas. For example, you won't hear Sunak challenge the Fossil fuel industry's long history of corruption. Sunak didn't get rich by criticizing the business-class Morons. Or rather, he won't criticize himself, he won't criticize corrupt capitalism that is generally a protect the rich, protection racket. He will and does smile on Camera and lie. Or at least, intentionally avoid the facts that don't promote his political career and those industries that make his career possible.

"Can We Still Limit Global Warming to 1.5°C? Here’s What the Latest Science Says" https://blog.ucsusa.org/kristy-dahl/can-we-still-limit-global-warming-to-1-5c-heres-what-the-latest-science-says/

So, there are many variants of Moron. Some Morons can be well-intended but, for example, are greenwashed. Well, all Morons believe in their own agendas, and, believing they're well intended, is the Moron norm. Even when those "well intentions" have caused massive amounts of harm to nature. The Morons don't perceive that the harm is their fault.

The rich class of Morons has its own sub-class of "working class" Moron that follows the elite Morons. The "working class" (their words not specifically mine) Morons religiously read the rich-class Moron's Newspapers. Village idiot Morons can be observed moto-cross (motorbikes) riding in England's "natural parks" that are already severely ecologically damaged, sheep-wrecked, "natural" habitats. The village idiot Moron feels their implicit ecologically harmful behaviors are exciting. Village Idiot Morons should be approached with caution - they do get aggressive if their stupid, but average ("normal"), behaviors are challenged.

Some Morons can be sociopaths that think nothing of deceiving the public so as to sustain their wealth. For example, the 'dieselgate' scandal was orchestrated by the business class Moron (though working-class Morons were also involved) https://phys.org/news/2018-06-vw-dieselgate-scandal.html

Whilst Morons have been trying to get rich by selling polluting fuels for as long as there have been Morons, Society did at least try to reduce some of the air pollutants by regulating how much toxic waste a combustion engine permits (and Morons are obsessed with Cars). Unfortunately, the Morons have generally failed to mitigate air pollution, because, for one example, the Morons promoted installing "Eco Stoves" in the UK, which emit more air pollution than diesel trucks. Whoops! Morons do make many simple mistakes. But, to reiterate, the business class Moron "mistakes" are intentional deception. For example, Sunak's Conservative party plans to open a Coal mine in England. Who backs the Conservative party? #FossilFuel #WoodFuel Industries.

"UK: Urban wood burning soars, with 18,000 complaints but only 3 fines" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uk-urban-wood-burning-soars-18000-complaints-only-3-fines-cox

So, this is another example of business-class Morons selling polluting technologies to working-class Morons (that really don't understand any better - they're Morons after all)

The phrase "woodsmoke is pollution" is not understood by the Moron. https://www.dsawsp.org/

So, no surprise, Moron's "green" ideas & policies simply don't add up to real progress. Morons don't learn from their mistakes - Morons believe their faults are normal. Because, in a world of fools, Morons are normally distributed (average behaviors).

What can we do to prevent the 'Morons as usual' agenda from causing more of the unfolding ecological crisis? #PolyCrisis #ClimateCrisis #SpeciesExtinction How do we prevent the Morons from casing the 6th mass extinction?

We can change - change the general sociopolitical & economic atmosphere. For example, listen to the sincere people that are really motivated to sustain ecology - not the business as usual and lifestyle as usual Morons.

"With equal parts humor and in-depth analysis, Asher, Rob, and Jason safeguard their sanity while probing crazy-making topics like climate change, overshoot, runaway capitalism, and why we’re all deluding ourselves." https://www.resilience.org/crazy-town-podcast/

#ClimateChange #psychology #ecology #ClimateJustice #satire #education #reeducation

#politics #economics #business #greenwash #politics #GroupThink

The photo shows the result of, the effects of, cooperative & altruistic human behaviours (""helping" one another")

If humans didn't cooperate, villages, towns & cites would not exist.

The photo is the result of many organisms (colloquially termed "human", "people", "mother", " baby", "grandfather" etc) that are social animals.

From the evolutionary perspective, 'kin selection', 'reciprocity', 'social reputation' are a few of the dominant theoretical concepts of why people evolved cooperative & altruistic behavioural psychologies.

However, this town does not consist of people cooperating to live sustainable lifestyles. Most of the energy for this town is produced by burning fossil & wood fuels.

Walk into this town, or the local villages, and you will smell smoke pollution. The reason why these cultures are still poisoning their air is actually very simple. The majority of the people do not hear that their way of living is harming their health.

They are living in social echo chambers where subjects, such as smoke pollution, are not discussed. The media they are exposed to doesn't educate them about how their open coal fire places, or wood stoves, are harming their health. In fact, quite the opposite, the media they are exposed to promotes the use of wood & coal fuel. That promotion may come directly from the fuel industries, for instance, the wood fuels industry posts leaflets to the houses in the areas, or that promotion maybe less explicit. For instance, watching a 'reality tv' where the house has a woodstove, etc. The point is, "they" (the average person) don't talk about air pollution round here.

And then you hear that Mrs "Smith" has died of a stroke & she was "only 65". Or that Mrs Jones baby has "breathing problems' (E.g., Asthma attacks).

Mrs Smith or Jones who lives at that typical house, in that typical small village, that l remember because it always stinks of smoke when l pass by.

But, l couldn't warn Mrs Smith or Jones that the air they were inhaling day after day, was damaging their health - because they probably couldn't understand my warnings & would feel threatened. Therefore, my warnings would 'back fire' & Mrs Smith & Jones would have double downed on their denial about their "beloved" fireplace or wood stoves.

And that's why l despise the lying fuel industries. For selling people toxic products using propaganda (I.e., greenwash).

The fossil fuel industries greenwashed cultures about the science of climate change & air pollution. And that greenwash took the form of psychological 'warfare'. Your average consumer had know way to know right from wrong - because the majority of the information they were exposed to was propaganda (not the science). They were, and some cultures are, awash with greenwash.

#psychology #health #MentalHealth #AirPollution #ClimateChange #FuelIndustres #Coal #WoodFuel #BigOil #corruption #Disinformation #greenwash

The photo shows the result of, the effects of, cooperative & altruistic human behaviours (""helping" one another")

If humans didn't cooperate, villages, towns & cites would not exist.

The photo is the result of many organisms (colloquially termed "human", "people", "mother", " baby", "grandfather" etc) that are social animals.

From the evolutionary perspective, 'kin selection', 'reciprocity', 'social reputation' are a few of the dominant theoretical concepts of why people evolved cooperative & altruistic behavioural psychologies.

However, this town does not consist of people cooperating to live sustainable lifestyles. Most of the energy for this town is produced by burning fossil & wood fuels.

Walk into this town, or the local villages, and you will smell smoke pollution. The reason why these cultures are still poisoning their air is actually very simple. The majority of the people do not hear that their way of living is harming their health.

They are living in social echo chambers where subjects, such as smoke pollution, are not discussed. The media they are exposed to doesn't educate them about how their open coal fire places, or wood stoves, are harming their health. In fact, quite the opposite, the media they are exposed to promotes the use of wood & coal fuel. That promotion may come directly from the fuel industries, for instance, the wood fuels industry posts leaflets to the houses in the areas, or that promotion maybe less explicit. For instance, watching a 'reality tv' where the house has a woodstove, etc. The point is, "they" (the average person) don't talk about air pollution round here.

And then you hear that Mrs "Smith" has died of a stroke & she was "only 65". Or that Mrs Jones baby has "breathing problems' (E.g., Asthma attacks).

Mrs Smith or Jones who lives at that typical house, in that typical small village, that l remember because it always stinks of smoke when l pass by.

But, l couldn't warn Mrs Smith or Jones that the air they were inhaling day after day, was damaging their health - because they probably couldn't understand my warnings & would feel threatened. Therefore, my warnings would 'back fire' & Mrs Smith & Jones would have double downed on their denial about their "beloved" fireplace or wood stoves.

And that's why l despise the lying fuel industries. For selling people toxic products using propaganda (I.e., greenwash).

The fossil fuel industries greenwashed cultures about the science of climate change & air pollution. And that greenwash took the form of psychological 'warfare'. Your average consumer had not way to know right from wrong - because the majority of the information they were exposed to was propaganda (not the science)

#psychology #health #MentalHealth #AirPollution #ClimateChange #FuelIndustres #Coal #WoodFuel #BigOil #corruption #Disinformation #greenwash

The photo shows the result of, the effects of, cooperative & altruistic human behaviours (""helping" one another")

If humans didn't cooperate, villages, towns & cites would not exist.

The photo is the result of many organisms (colloquially termed "human", "people", "mother", " baby", "grandfather" etc) that are social animals.

From the evolutionary perspective, 'kin selection', 'reciprocity', 'social reputation' are a few of the dominant theoretical concepts of why people evolved cooperative & altruistic behavioural psychologies.

However, this town does not consist of people cooperating to live sustainable lifestyles. Most of the energy for this town is produced by burning fossil & wood fuels.

Walk into this town, or the local villages, and you will smell smoke pollution. The reason why these cultures are still poisoning their air is actually very simple. The majority of the people do not hear that their way of living is harming their health.

They are living in social echo chambers where subjects, such as smoke pollution, are not discussed. The media they are exposed to doesn't educate them about how their open coal fire places, or wood stoves, are harming their health. In fact, quite the opposite, the media they are exposed to promotes the use of wood & coal fuel. That promotion may come directly from the fuel industries, for instance, the wood fuels industry posts leaflets to the houses in the areas, or that promotion maybe less explicit. For instance, watching a 'reality tv' where the house has a woodstove, etc. The point is, "they" (the average person) don't talk about air pollution round here.

And then you hear that Mrs "Smith" has died of a stoke & she was "only 65". Or that Mrs Jones baby has "breathing problems' (E.g., Asthmatic attacks).

Mrs Smith or Jones who lives at that typical house, in that typical small village, that l remember because it always stinks of smoke when l pass by.

But, l couldn't warn Mrs Smith or Jones that the air they were inhaling day after day, was damaging their health - because they probably couldn't understand my warnings & would feel threatened. Therefore, my warnings would 'back fire' & Mrs Smith & Jones would have double downed on their denial about their "beloved" fireplace or wood stoves.

And that's why l despise the lying fuel industries. For selling people toxic products using propaganda (I.e., greenwash).

#psychology #health #MentalHealth #AirPollution #ClimateChange #FuelIndustres #Coal #WoodFuel #BigOil #corruption #Disinformation #greenwash

Do you agree or disagree with my perception of reality?

1. We all live within an atmosphere that consists of gases such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc. And particulate matter, etc.

2. Some of those gases & particles are generally healthy to inhale (In a certain %) - such as oxygen and carbon dioxide, and some are not healthy, such as (carcinogenic) carbon particles.

3. Burning wood produces toxic gases, greenhouse gases & carcinogenic carbon particles - that harm human health & the environment.

Good health-related guidance https://www.familiesforcleanair.org/myths/

An example of corporate greenwash https://www.bioenergy-news.com/news/burning-wood-slightly-more-climate-friendly-than-natural-gas-new-research-shows/

Think? Does the website have a conflict of interest? (bioenergy website?) - If they're selling a product - are their views balanced? (very often, quite the opposite). The best place to learn about the environmental effects of any product - is typically *not* the product manufacturers or a sales website (if they mention any effects at all)

"the demand for wood pellets has sparked an increase in logging in the American south and across Europe. It's also fueled illegal old-growth logging in ecologically sensitive areas, including the Carpathian Mountains of Romania and national parks in Slovakia." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/

Even if woodfuel was "Carbon neutral", which it's certainly not, sensible people would promote clean air renewable energy solutions. But, since when are industries eco-sensible? Maybe one day, though not yet.

Wood Smoke (pollution) References and Links - Particulate Pollution. https://woodsmokepollution.org/references.html

#CleanAir #Renewable #technology #Climate #health #Woodlands #timber #biodiversity

#wood #woodfuel #AirPollution #disease #deforestration #TreePlantations #Soil #SoilDegradation #extinction #GlobalWarming #ForestFires #ClimateChange

Do you agree or disagree with my perception of reality?

1. We all live within an atmosphere that consists of gases such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc. And particulate matter, etc.

2. Some of those gases & particles are generally healthy to inhale (In a certain %) - such as oxygen and carbon dioxide, and some are not healthy, such as (carcinogenic) carbon particles.

3. Burning wood produces toxic gases, greenhouse gases & carcinogenic carbon particles - that harm human health & the environment.

Good health-related guidance https://www.familiesforcleanair.org/myths/

An example of corporate greenwash https://www.bioenergy-news.com/news/burning-wood-slightly-more-climate-friendly-than-natural-gas-new-research-shows/

Think? Does the website have a conflict of interest? (bioenergy website?) - If they're selling a product - are their views balanced? (very often, quite the opposite). The best place to learn about the environmental effects of any product - is typical *not* the product manufacturers or a sales website (if they mention any effects at all)

"the demand for wood pellets has sparked an increase in logging in the American south and across Europe. It's also fueled illegal old-growth logging in ecologically sensitive areas, including the Carpathian Mountains of Romania and national parks in Slovakia." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/

Even if woodfuel was "Carbon neutral", which it's certainly not, sensible people would promote clean air renewable energy solutions. But, since when are industries eco-sensible? Maybe one day, though not yet.

Wood Smoke (pollution) References and Links - Particulate Pollution. https://woodsmokepollution.org/references.html

#CleanAir #Renewable #technology #Climate #health #Woodlands #timber #biodiversity

#wood #woodfuel #AirPollution #disease #deforestration #TreePlantations #Soil #SoilDegradation #extinction #GlobalWarming #ForestFires #ClimateChange

BBC Inside Science: Killer smog.

Air pollution researchers are now concerned that rising emissions from wood burners may be undoing many of the gains from the UK's Clean Air Act.

We hear from Dr Gary Fuller, air pollution scientist at Imperial College London and author of The Invisible Killer, the Rising Global Threat of Air Pollution and How We can Fight Back.

Episode webpage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001fmtb

Media file: http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/6/redir/version/2.0/mediaset/audio-nondrm-download/proto/http/vpid/p0dl5nm4.mp3

#science #climate #GlobalHeating #ClimateChange #WoodFuel #WoodBurners #WoodStoves #AirPollution #diseases

Generally, the method to sustain a woodland is care. Really, if someone doesn’t care about sustaining the woodland, they will neglect it (exploit it). We can learn from the forestry industry - because they mismanage forests (in general). Good woodland practices are generally the opposite of what the ecologically harmful and health-harming industries do. So, by just doing the opposite of what the industries do – we will reverse the ecologically damaging activities that they are notorious for doing.

The industry's primary agenda is not sustaining ecology. That may sound "crazy" to some, though obvious to others. However, think if you were a CEO of one of these nature-exploiting industries. The Job description isn't sustaining their tree plantations (an oxymoron) for thousands and more years. The Job description is to make a profit in the short term.

500 Scientists sign a letter regarding the unsustainable use of forests for bioenergy \ woodfuel (2021). https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdmmcnd0d1d2lq5/Scientist%20Letter%20to%20Biden%2C%20von%20der%20Leyen%2C%20Michel%2C%20Suga%20%26%20Moon%20%20Re.%20Forest%20Biomass%20%28February%2011%2C%202021%29.pdf?dl=0

Young, V. (2020). It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 12(12), 1036-1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12716

Hajabbasi, M. A., Jalalian, A., & Karimzadeh, H. R. (1997). Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical properties, Lordegan, Iran. Plant and soil. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004243702208

Pintos, J., Franco, E. L., Kowalski, L. P., Oliveira, B. V., & Curado, M. P. (1998). Use of wood stoves and risk of cancers of the upper aero-digestive tract: a case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/27.6.936

Additional reading Doctors & Scientists against wood smoke pollution (2022) https://woodsmokepollution.org/

What is Sustainable Forestry? https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/insights/what-is-sustainable-forestry/

FYI, the UK's woodland "trust" promotes woodfuel (the last time I emailed them) - therefore they're not considering the medical evidence about smoke pollution nor the science of woodland ecology. Burning wood can not be sustained on an industrial level, and woodsmoke emissions cause harm to the local environment and human health (evidently. Basic science!). So, I don't trust the woodland trust. Though? they're at least not selling off the woodlands (what is left of them) to the construction industry.

#FollowTheFrog #RainForest #woodland #ecology #ClimateAction #sustainable #SoilSustainability #biodiversity

#unsustainable #forestry #industry #TreePlantations #SoilErosion #WoodFuel #AirPollution #disease #GreenHouseGases #GlobalHeating #ClimateChange

Generally, the method to sustain a woodland is care. Really, if someone doesn’t care about sustaining the woodland, they will neglect it (exploit it). We can learn from the forestry industry - because they mismanage forests (in general). Good woodland practices are generally the opposite of what the ecologically harmful and health-harming industries do. So, by just doing the opposite of what the industries do – we will reverse the ecologically damaging activities that they are notorious for doing.

The industry's primary agenda is not sustaining ecology. That may sound "crazy" to some, though obvious to others. However, think if you were a CEO of one of these nature-exploiting industries. The Job description isn't sustaining their tree plantations (an oxymoron) for thousands and more years. The Job description is to make a profit in the short term.

500 Scientists sign a letter regarding the unsustainable use of forests for bioenergy \ woodfuel (2021). https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdmmcnd0d1d2lq5/Scientist%20Letter%20to%20Biden%2C%20von%20der%20Leyen%2C%20Michel%2C%20Suga%20%26%20Moon%20%20Re.%20Forest%20Biomass%20%28February%2011%2C%202021%29.pdf?dl=0

Young, V. (2020). It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 12(12), 1036-1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12716

Hajabbasi, M. A., Jalalian, A., & Karimzadeh, H. R. (1997). Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical properties, Lordegan, Iran. Plant and soil. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004243702208

Pintos, J., Franco, E. L., Kowalski, L. P., Oliveira, B. V., & Curado, M. P. (1998). Use of wood stoves and risk of cancers of the upper aero-digestive tract: a case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/27.6.936

Additional reading Doctors & Scientists against wood smoke pollution (2022) https://woodsmokepollution.org/

What is Sustainable Forestry? https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/insights/what-is-sustainable-forestry/

FYI, the UK's woodland "trust" promotes woodfuel (the last time I emailed them) - therefore they're not considering the medical evidence about smoke pollution nor the science of woodland ecology. Burning wood can not be sustained on an industrial level, and woodsmoke emissions cause harm to the local environment and human health (evidently. Basic science!). So, I don't trust the woodland trust. Though? I least they're not selling off the woodlands (what is left of them) to the construction industry.

#FollowTheFrog #RainForest #woodland #ecology #ClimateAction #sustainable #SoilSustainability #biodiversity

#unsustainable #forestry #industry #TreePlantations #SoilErosion #WoodFuel #AirPollution #disease #GreenHouseGases #GlobalHeating #ClimateChange

Generally, the method to sustain a woodland is care. Really, if someone doesn’t care about sustaining the woodland, they will neglect it (exploit it). We can learn from the forestry industry - because they mismanage forests (in general). Good woodland practices are generally the opposite of what the ecologically harmful and health-harming industries do. So, by just doing the opposite of what the industries do – we will reverse the ecologically damaging activities that they are notorious for doing.

The industry's primary agenda is not sustaining ecology. That may sound "crazy" to some, though obvious to others. However, think if you were a CEO of one of these nature-exploiting industries. The Job description isn't sustaining their tree plantations (an oxymoron) for thousands and more years. The Job description is to make a profit in the short term.

500 Scientists sign a letter regarding the unsustainable use of forests for bioenergy \ woodfuel (2021). https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdmmcnd0d1d2lq5/Scientist%20Letter%20to%20Biden%2C%20von%20der%20Leyen%2C%20Michel%2C%20Suga%20%26%20Moon%20%20Re.%20Forest%20Biomass%20%28February%2011%2C%202021%29.pdf?dl=0

Young, V. (2020). It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 12(12), 1036-1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12716

Hajabbasi, M. A., Jalalian, A., & Karimzadeh, H. R. (1997). Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical properties, Lordegan, Iran. Plant and soil. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004243702208

Pintos, J., Franco, E. L., Kowalski, L. P., Oliveira, B. V., & Curado, M. P. (1998). Use of wood stoves and risk of cancers of the upper aero-digestive tract: a case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/27.6.936

Additional reading Doctors & Scientists against wood smoke pollution (2022) https://woodsmokepollution.org/

What is Sustainable Forestry? https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/insights/what-is-sustainable-forestry/

#woodland #ecology #ClimateAction #sustainable #SoilSustainability #biodiversity

#unsustainable #forestry #industry #TreePlantations #SoilErosion #WoodFuel #AirPollution #disease #GreenHouseGases #GlobalHeating #ClimateChange

Welcome to the NAP Satire News Podcast!

News About People - News about what people say, and don’t say - and what people do & don’t do. And News about what people say - when they don’t really mean what they say and don’t really do what they say they do.

In this Episode - In breaking Climate News

https://anchor.fm/bongo8/episodes/NAP-Satire-News-S01E01-e1sr4tp

#podcast #comedy #satire #politics #economics #cop27 #corruption

#science #climate #Globalheating #ClimateChange #Airpollution #FossilFuels #WoodFuel

The NAP Satire News Podcast S01E01. https://anchor.fm/bongo8/episodes/NAP-Satire-News-S01E01-e1sr4tp

This is the Transcript & weblinks to references for the NAP Satire News Podcast S01E01
--------------------------

This podcast has been written and produced by the Empirical Perspective. The following narratives are based on the environmental sciences. For example, climatology, the science about human caused climate change and the science about air pollution. Also, this podcast has been produced as a satire of the blah blah blah and the general inaction of many politicians and their associated industries to mitigate human caused climate change.

Welcome to the NAP News - News About People - News about what people say, and don’t say - and what people do & don’t do. And News about what people say - when they don’t really mean what they say and don’t really do what they say they do.

In Breaking Climate News.

In this year's cop-out COP27 climate conference, many politicians, fossil fuel lobbyists & environmentalists - travelled by fossil fuel burning jets to the holiday resort of Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt, to talk about ways to not burn fossil fuels. The politicians and industry lobbyists have agreed once again to not, I repeat, not - save our societies from the ravages of climate change by not burning fossil fuels. According to scientists that study the climate and ecology in general, we need to stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere because those gases, for example carbon dioxide and methane, are causing global heating, on average, which is causing the climate to change.

Reference. The Science of Climate Change.
https://pressbooks.umn.edu/environmentalbiology/chapter/the-science-of-climate-change/

A NAP News reporter asked a climate scientist what will happen if the fuel industries don’t stop selling fuels and cultures don’t stop burning fuels, to quote and parody-phrase, “If we don’t stop burning fossil fuels, and carbon-based fuel in general, sometime in the not too far away future we will be screwed. However, predicting when exactly we are screwed is a difficult assessment to make. Although every day we keep on burning fuels is another day closer to being screwed. Therefore, the clever cause of action would be to get very serious about not being screwed. However, context is everything, sometimes I do enjoy being screwed, but not by climate change”.

Reference for to be screwed or not be screwed? https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

A NAP News reporter asked a psychologist to comment on the idea of the fuel industries deciding to not extract and sell more fossil fuel, and instead transitioning towards a renewable energy provider, to quote and parody-phrase, “Well, that is a possibility, although, it’s also possible that somewhere in outer space, on a planet with a lower gravity, pigs can fly”.

Reference of fuel industries corruption. “For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change” https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

However, the good news is that at COP27 - the rich, quote, leaders, end quote - did agree a climate compensation package. Reimbursements that are to be paid after climate change has destroyed people’s homes and lives. Whilst the plan for a death insurance package was a welcome relief for the cultures that have been badly effected by climate change, the death assurance package also means that the fuel industries want to extract more coal, oil, gas and grow more biofuels such as wood fuel. And when they make more billions upon billions of profits by selling those fuels to cultures, the rich industries and rich governments say they will pay some of those profits as compensation - to the cultures that have been badly affected by the burning of those fossil fuels. So, business as usual but with an added, death insurance, twist. I don’t like that package – but it makes corrupt business-quote, sense - end quote.

Reference for death insurance package. “COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New “Loss and Damage” Fund for Vulnerable Countries” https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-agreement-on-new-loss-and-damage-fund-for-vulnerable-countries

When a NAP news reporter asked a wannabe environmental scientist to comment about the outcome of COP27 - the wannabe scientist said, to quote and parody-phrase - “Well, it’s of course a bit sad that the politicians and their fuel lobbyist best friends cannot agree to not pollute the air by not selling the fuels that make them rich. Although, I’m cautiously optimistic that they will manage to not agree again, for the 28th time, next year. So, next year at the COP28, the politicians and their fuel industry lobbyists best friends will fail to agree to protect families from the ravages of climate change by sometime in the closer, than last year, future. So, at least they’re consistent. However, my mummy and daddy say that some adults are greedy rotten eggs, and my younger sisters says that the fossil fuels industry is run by corrupt fools. And she oughter know because she’s nearly four years old! But my mummy and daddy say that if I prey to Jesus he will protect, but these are the same people that lied to me about Father friggin Christmas, so I just don’t know who to believe anymore. I can’t wait to be mature enough to be a scientists because then I will know for sure. #LuvYaScience, try to keep em real.

Reference for COP not being about stopping the burning of fuels. https://theconversation.com/cop27-flinched-on-phasing-out-all-fossil-fuels-whats-next-for-the-fight-to-keep-them-in-the-ground-194941

In more breaking news - the fuel industries and vehicle industries have agreed to honour the deaths of children who have died from air pollution; by donating .0000001% (made up for comic effect of an example of moral grandstanding) of their profits to the Children with asthma charity.

Reference. The corruption is making climate mitigation difficult https://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/news-and-resources/climate-change-and-corruption

When asked by a NAP reporter, why the industries have donated a miniscule fraction of their annual profits to the Children with asthma charity; the industry’s spokesperson said, to quote and parody-phrase, “I’m paid to say that the industry has decided that it's important to focus on the news - that paints the industry in a good light. News that shows the public - that the polluting industries really care, I mean, really really care - from the bottom of our black oily hearts, we really do - about the people that have developed diseases because of our products. And, in some cases - killed at a younger age.

Reference. “Landmark ruling says air pollution contributed to death of 9-year-old” https://www.newscientist.com/article/2263165-landmark-ruling-says-air-pollution-contributed-to-death-of-9-year-old/

Which is rather unfortunate. But! Hey ho! Its only business! Of course, no business in its right mind, and let me tell you the fossil fuel industry is very right minded - wants to kill its customers – because this isn’t good for-business! But the fuel industries are more than willing to sacrifice many people to sustain their rich status quo empire. However, I am not paid to say that, so I will never say that on record. Hang on! Wait a minute – are you still recording? Well, even if you are, you do know we can afford all the corrupt, erm, I mean best - lawyers and politician’s that are also part of the fuel industries protection racket”.

When asked to comment on the medical evidence that shows that air pollution also causes brain damage – the industry spokesman looked a bit lost & confused (possibly the early onsets of dementia - but quickly remembered what he had been told to say, to quote and parody-phrase, "that's not a proven science! and our fuels and vehicles are 30% healthier than they used to be!".

Reference “Accumulating data suggest that air pollution increases the risk of internalizing psychopathology, including anxiety and depressive disorders. Moreover, the link between air pollution and poor mental health may relate to neurostructural and neurofunctional changes.” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2022.10.011

However, A NAP News reporter asked an environmental psychologist to comment on the fuel industries 30% healthier claim, to quote and parody-phrase, “The science of the Toxicologic pathology of air pollution, clearly demonstrates that using the word “health” to describe air pollution is greenwash and something that only dumb, or corrupt, people would say. Furthermore, even if a combustion engine, or for example a woodstove, did emit 30% less air pollution, if 31% more people were buying those products that would make air pollution worse”.

Reference. All the fuel industries (& some governments) use various forms of misinformation and disinformation to sell their fuels. For example, The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra – UK government) uses conflicting and misleading information to promote the sale of wood fuels such as “fresh wood”, “Ecostove”. DEFRA also states “These [woodstoves] have been rigorously tested and demonstrate low smoke emissions”. https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1901291307_Ready_to_Burn_Web.pdf

However, that’s greenwash (misleading information. And they know it!). The correct information is that all woodstoves are harmful for health. “When wood is burned, even in newer certified wood stoves, it creates localized particulate pollution hot spots and releases surprisingly high levels of harmful toxins such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene and dioxins into our environment. Wood smoke shares many of the same toxic chemical compounds as tobacco smoke, but evidence suggests it may be even more harmful.” https://woodsmokepollution.org/

When the NAP news reporter asked the fuel industry to prove their 30% less air pollution claim - the industry's spokes-person produced a document that showed the results of laboratory tests that were carried out at the Dieselgate testing facility by the industry's own employees. The fuel industry spokesperson went on to say “ This proves that we are serious about selling more wood fuel to the public. Our air polluting consumers – the ecologically ignorant, greenwashed (by who I won’t say), &, or, those that can’t afford the cost of electricity to heat their homes. Hey Ho - it’s off to an ecological catastrophe they go. But I work for, and have shares in the fuel industries so, what do I really know?”

Reference. The Volkswagen emissions scandal, sometimes known as Dieselgate or Emissionsgate. For example, selling cars using “clean diesel” lies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

When a NAP News reporter asked the fuel industry spokesperson to comment on the environmental psychologist’s statement, the spokesperson said, “we are considering dealing with the air pollution problem by printing the prefix, "Eco", on all our diesel vehicles and woodstoves. This proves that we are deadly serious about selling more fuels to consumers. When we print the word “Eco” on fuel products or call them green, more of the public believe that our fuel products are somehow better. However, the public are not ignorant, so we are also considering colouring in the “Eco” word in the colour green. Also, we may offer the public a free car wash with every bag of wood fuel they purchase. Don’t put this on record, but say what you want about the public, they have a sense for a buy one, get one free deal, especially when there is a cost-of-living crisis. A crisis in which my industry and my political buddies are having to think up more excuses to explain to the public why we are getting richer, whilst they pay more for our fuels. The public don’t have the time, nor the inclination in their busy air polluting lives, to put two and two together, because that will equal an awful truth. The truth is that, duh!, the fuel industries are not really trying to deal with air pollution therefore climate change, quite the opposite, we are simply trying to stay rich by selling more fuels. So, we simply sell the public a happy narrative and greenwash them instead”.

When a NAP reporter then asked the fuel industries spokesperson to comment about those people that are struggling due to the price rises in fuels, the fuel industry spokesperson said, “due to the complexities of the economy, complexities that we clearly explain to the public that they can’t possibly comprehend, we had no choice but to put the fuel prices up because the fuel industry has no problem making a killing out of other peoples suffering”.

Reference. “The world is ablaze and the oil industry just posted record profits. It’s us or them”. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/02/oil-industry-record-profits-climate-crisis

This has been a NAP News podcast - News About People. News about what people say, and don’t say - and what people do & don’t do. And News about what people say - when they don’t really mean what they say and don’t really do what they say they do. This NAP News podcast has been about the Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah of politician’s, industry leaders and too many people in general. But, hey ho! Its only our future they’re jeopardizing.

Reference. Corporate ecocide, “The evidence set out in this chapter indicates that we have a problem that cannot simplistically be dismissed as the fault of a few “rogue” or “bad apple” corporations. In each of the examples discussed here – fossil fuels, tobacco, asbestos, synthetic chemicals and the car industry – all of the corporate executives who were in charge of making deadly products knew exactly what they were doing. They were fully aware of the consequences, but did it anyway.” https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526151063.00005

The NAP News podcast is produced by the Empirical Perspective. The podcast is copy lefted with a Creative Commons, Attribution, NonCommercial, No derivatives license. Which means that the podcast is free to download and share with others - if you credit the author - but the podcast cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

Finally, if you are concerned about climate change and air pollution, then you’re in good company. A good place to find information about air pollution is the World Health Organizations website. Also, air pollution masks can provide some protection against traffic fumes and woodsmoke pollution. Though of course, nothing beats living in places where the air smells fresh and is clean. If I was you, I’d do what I do, and promote clean air technologies such as renewable energy technology, heat pumps for the home, cycling, electric public transport, etc. All the methods that can put the fuel industries out of business. And not a moment too soon.

Thanks for listening and keep looking up.

More Science \ medical references and further reading.

500 Scientists sign letter regarding the unsustainable use of forests for bioenergy \ woodfuel (2021). https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdmmcnd0d1d2lq5/Scientist%20Letter%20to%20Biden%2C%20von%20der%20Leyen%2C%20Michel%2C%20Suga%20%26%20Moon%20%20Re.%20Forest%20Biomass%20%28February%2011%2C%202021%29.pdf?dl=0

Berndes, G., Abt, B., Asikainen, A., Cowie, A., Dale, V., Egnell, G., ... & Yeh, S. (2016). Forest biomass, carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation. From science to policy. https://nbsapforum.net/sites/default/files/efi_fstp_3_2016.pdf

Booth, M. S., Mackey, B.,
Young, V. (2020). It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 12(12), 1036-1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12716

Edwards, R. (2004). The problem of tobacco smoking. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7433.217
Calderon-Garciduenas, L., Azzarelli, B., Acuna, H., Garcia, R., Gambling, T. M., Osnaya, N., ... & Rewcastle, B. (2002). Air pollution and brain damage. Toxicologic pathology. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01926230252929954

UK’s DEFRA use greenwash to say bonfires are a “nuisance”, but…..(2019). Department of Environment and Rural Affairs. Open fires and wood-burning stoves – a practical guide https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1901291307_Ready_to_Burn_Web.pdf [DOA:2022]

Erlandsson, L., Lindgren, R., Nääv, Å., Krais, A. M., Strandberg, B., Lundh, T., ... & Malmqvist, E. (2020). Exposure to wood smoke particles leads to inflammation, disrupted proliferation and damage to cellular structures in a human first trimester trophoblast cell line. Environmental Pollution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114790

Extinction rebellion global (2021) "This is an emergency" https://rebellion.global/

Hajabbasi, M. A., Jalalian, A., & Karimzadeh, H. R. (1997). Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical properties, Lordegan, Iran. Plant and soil. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004243702208

Homeowners alliance (2022) promotes the use of Wood-burning stoves: What do the new rules mean for your fireplace? https://hoa.org.uk/2021/11/wood-burning-stove/

Johnson, E. (2009). Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right. Environmental impact assessment review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.11.002

Newbury, J., Stewart, R., Fisher, H., Beevers, S., Dajnak, D., Broadbent, M., . . . Bakolis, I. (2021). Association between air pollution exposure and mental health service use among individuals with first presentations of psychotic and mood disorders: Retrospective cohort study. The British Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.119

Orozco-Levi, M., Garcia-Aymerich, J., Villar, J., Ramirez-Sarmiento, A., Anto, J. M., & Gea, J. (2006). Wood smoke exposure and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.06.00052705

Pintos, J., Franco, E. L., Kowalski, L. P., Oliveira, B. V., & Curado, M. P. (1998). Use of wood stoves and risk of cancers of the upper aero-digestive tract: a case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/27.6.936

Additional reading Doctors & Scientists against wood smoke pollution (2022) https://woodsmokepollution.org/

#podcast #comedy #satire #politics #economics #cop27 #corruption

#science #climate #Globalheating #ClimateChange #Airpollution #FossilFuels #WoodFuel

Welcome to the NAP Satire News Podcast!

News About People - News about what people say, and don’t say - and what people do & don’t do. And News about what people say - when they don’t really mean what they say and don’t really do what they say they do.

In this Episode - In breaking Climate News https://anchor.fm/bongo8/episodes/NAP-Satire-News-S01E01-e1sr4tp

#podcast #comedy #satire #politics #economics #cop27 #corruption

#science #climate #Globalheating #ClimateChange #Airpollution #FossilFuels #WoodFuel

Welcome to the NAP Satire News Podcast!

News About People - News about what people say, and don’t
say - and what people do & don’t do. And News about what people say - when they don’t really mean what they say and don’t really do what they say they do.

In this Episode - In breaking Climate News https://anchor.fm/bongo8/episodes/NAP-Satire-News-S01E01-e1sr4tp

#podcast #comedy #satire #politics #economics #cop27 #corruption

#science #climate #Globalheating #ClimateChange #Airpollution #FossilFuels #WoodFuel