How to (really) stop the greenwashers.

*Prior knowledge needed to understand this post.

*Subjective = thoughts. What people think, believe, and say. What they may understand or not understand. What they may be honest or dishonest about.

*Objective = actions (activities). What people do and the effects of what they do.

*Thoughtlessness = Not thinking about the effects of actions (including behaviours). For example, not being consciously aware of medical knowledge (not informed or educated), which is the scientific literature (the consensus of that literature) that infers that air pollution is harmful.

*Delusion & illusion = How aligned are the subjective perceptions with objective reality? For example, if a person mistakenly believed that breathing in smoke was healthy, the research, the medical evidence, infers that that person is deluded. Or if a person did not generally think about smoke pollution, that is a, comparably, thoughtless psychology, or a lack of knowledge, that manifest as behaviours that cause harm. So, a delusion is an incorrect belief (perception) that causes harm. Whilst a benign or constructive belief can be termed an illusion (or in some contexts, an adaptation).

Being greenwashed is being deluded (because it causes harm). Therefore, intentional greenwashes are immoral. They know their disinformation is causing harm – they do it anyway (because they’re, comparably, immoral).
When thinking about sustaining ecology ("protecting the environment" or "saving the world"), what organizations are actually (objectively) leading the way? (Are leading by example) Which politicians or industry spokespeople are talking sense or nonsense? Which people are genuinely wanting to sustain ecology and which people are full of BS? Which people are informed, and which people are deluded?

There is so much greenwash & semi-greenwash - it would be constructive to credit those that are demonstrating that they are genuinely leading the way (on environmental issues). Leading by example, not leading people astray with their fake "green" BS. It would be constructive if greenwashes did not profit from their lies. However, the biggest greenwashes on Earth, the fuel industries, are making more profits than at any time in human history. The industries that have deluded so many are being rewarded for their criminal activities (have not been punished for them) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

It takes the knowledge of science to know what is, and what is not greenwash. Understanding that air pollution is harmful requires knowledge of the sciences of chemistry and biology. There are people that understand that air pollution is harmful. There are people that don’t understand, though they believe, or not, that air pollution is harmful, depending on what source of information they trust. Depending on who they trust, and which industries and politicians they trust. There are people that understand that air pollution is harmful, but say the opposite of that in public. In other words, some people become deluded (greenwashed) because they mistakenly trust the people, the industries, and the politicians, that lie about what they understand. Now, this disinformation would be mitigated “overnight” if the majority of people were generally scientifically literate, Unfortunately, that level of education won’t happen “overnight” because many adults are scientifically illiterate, and some adults are even anti-science (due to ignorance, paranoia and greenwash).

Whilst the fossil fuel industries and their associates are those that are most guilty of greenwash, there is also semi-greenwash. There are multitudes of semi-greenwash examples to choose from. For one example, the UK delivery company DPD advertises its "green" credentials by stating that some of its vehicles use biofuels. Burning biofuels is not "green". Suggesting that using biofuels is green – is greenwash. Biofuels are only less polluting when compared to the most polluting fuels such as diesel. Producing biofuels is not "green". Burning biofuels causes air pollution (therefore diseases) & Carbon Dioxide (though less CO2 than, for example, burning coal, diesel, or petrol). Therefore, biofuels are the opposite of "green". Advertising or promoting biofuels as “green” is mismarketing.

How to (really) stop the greenwashing.

This is not “rocket science”! (its ecology). There should be, must be, a (financially) independent science-based regulator, that provides guidelines on what is "green" & what is not. With the authority to stop greenwashing (e.g., fine greenwashes if they don’t comply with those guidelines. Close the repeat greenwash offending businesses). Of course, the greenwashes don’t want there to be a green regulatory authority. The explicit greenwashes are already demonstrating that they are immoral – so what they want (their cognitive bias), isn’t good for our cultures. In other words, we should not care about what “they” want (as their wants are causing an ecological crisis)

The UK delivery company, DPD, amongst many others, also incorrectly advertises its "recycled plastic" as "green". When in fact, true " green" is not using (fossil fuel-based) plastic in the packaging.

In summary, the "green" that many industries advertise, is nothing more than, at best, slightly less polluting. A national green regulator would be comparably easy to set up. Organisations that comply could be awarded a true green logo, that they can put on their products & services (e.g., electric delivery trucks). In other words, the businesses that are at least not greenwashing consumers and are using the best available sustainable methods. Without an effective regulator, greenwash will never be mitigated (there are too many people that are ignorant about what is "green" & or will lie for money).

A green regulator is not “rocket science” (complicated). We already use, for example, a 1,2,3, etc, or an A, B, C, etc, or a star rating system on product energy rating.
The green regulator can use an “eco’ rating traffic light system. For example:

1. Green = businesses (models) that are (scientifically) evaluated as being ecologically sustainable - are to be the only businesses that can use the true green logo on their products and services.

2. Amber = businesses that are (scientifically) evaluated as being not presently ecologically sustainable, however, have demonstrated that they are actively improving. Aiming to be ecologically sustainable.

3. Red = businesses that are (scientifically) evaluated as being not ecologically sustainable. And cannot be ecologically sustainable (not objectively possible. Not practical). Those businesses that are demonstrating that they are not ecologically sustainable and there is insufficient scope for improvement. For example, the coal industry (the fossil fuel industry).

Branded as criminals (because they are) = Those businesses that are demonstrating that they are not ecologically sustainable can never be ecologically sustainable but are deceiving the public about this. For example, the fossil fuel and biofuel industries (e.g., businesses that sell and promote Carbon-based fuels using “green” tech-sounding nonsense. E.g., “carbon capture”).

Note – some people may say, to paraphrase “why should scientists be the authority of what is green or is not green?. Who put them in charge!”. However, that’s an ignorant and biased point of view. A science-based regulator is only the organisation that is needed to make sure that businesses concur with the science. Because the regulator is based on the scientific literature, anyone that is knowledgeable of the scientific literature can know if, or not, that regulator is being scientifically informed (i.e., a transparent regulatory system in which any knowledgeable person can critically evaluate that system. i.e., a peer review regulator). This means that the regulatory system can be apolitical and only favour businesses that are demonstrating their green credentials. To reiterate, because there are many industries & lifestyles that are harming ecology, there are many people that will be against a scientific green regulator (there is a psychological reason why humans are trashing the planet & that reason isn’t prudence [a well-intended and informed intelligence])

So, if we have the knowledge to understand what is “green” (sustainable methods) and what is not - plus we can easily implement a scientific overseer to evaluate businesses' “green” credentials, what is stopping us? Are Ignorant and or immoral humans preventing “us” from sustaining ecology? The greedy greenwashes (the liars) are greenwashing the ignorant. The corrupt politicians that, on the one “hand” talk about mitigating climate change, and yet, on the other “hand” advocate opening a coal mine (e.g., UK’s Conservative party). Why don’t they advocate a green regulator that is “following the science”? Is it because they’re (rich &) corrupted by their own personal vested interests (rhetorical questions)

Fundamentally, mitigating human-caused climate change (ecological degradation), is about mitigating ignorance and corruption (crime). We honestly can sustain our environments (“nature”), but dishonesty and corruption mean they, the decision makers, are not (in general). To turn the “tide” of ecological destruction around, to reverse that trend, honesty must pay! Reverse the trend that, for example, the fossil fuel industries are making profits from their corruption (profit from their harm). Those that exploit nature, that exploit people's trust, are the worst of us (they must not be rewarded).

Sociopathological behaviours and ecocidal behaviours must not be rewarded!

#knowledge #intelligence #science #ecology #AirPollution

#politics #business #economics

#AntiIntelligence #GreenWash #propaganda #FossilFuelIndustry #BioFuels #WoodFuels #SmokePollution

How to (really) stop the greenwashers.

*Priors.

*Subjective = thoughts. What people think, believe, and say. What they may understand or not understand. What they may be honest or dishonest about.

*Objective = actions (activities). What people do and the effects of what they do.

*Thoughtlessness = Not thinking about the effects of actions (including behaviours). For example, not being consciously aware of medical knowledge (not informed or educated), which is the scientific literature (the consensus of that literature) that infers that air pollution is harmful.

*Delusion & illusion = How aligned are the subjective perceptions with objective reality? For example, if a person mistakenly believed that breathing in smoke was healthy, the research, the medical evidence, infers that that person is deluded. Or if a person did not generally think about smoke pollution, that is a, comparably, thoughtless psychology, or a lack of knowledge, that manifest as behaviours that cause harm. So, a delusion is an incorrect belief (perception) that causes harm. Whilst a benign or constructive belief can be termed an illusion (or in some contexts, an adaptation).

Being greenwashed is being deluded (because it causes harm). Therefore, intentional greenwashes are immoral. They know their disinformation is causing harm – they do it anyway (because they’re, comparably, immoral).
When thinking about sustaining ecology ("protecting the environment" or "saving the world"), what organizations are actually (objectively) leading the way? (Are leading by example) Which politicians or industry spokespeople are talking sense or nonsense? Which people are genuinely wanting to sustain ecology and which people are full of BS? Which people are informed, and which people are deluded?

There is so much greenwash & semi-greenwash - it would be constructive to credit those that are demonstrating that they are genuinely leading the way (on environmental issues). Leading by example, not leading people astray with their fake "green" BS. It would be constructive if greenwashes did not profit from their lies. However, the biggest greenwashes on Earth, the fuel industries, are making more profits than at any time in human history. The industries that have deluded so many are being rewarded for their criminal activities (have not been punished for them) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

It takes the knowledge of science to know what is, and what is not greenwash. Understanding that air pollution is harmful requires knowledge of the sciences of chemistry and biology. There are people that understand that air pollution is harmful. There are people that don’t understand, though they believe, or not, that air pollution is harmful, depending on what source of information they trust. Depending on who they trust, and which industries and politicians they trust. There are people that understand that air pollution is harmful, but say the opposite of that in public. In other words, some people become deluded (greenwashed) because they mistakenly trust the people, the industries, and the politicians, that lie about what they understand. Now, this disinformation would be mitigated “overnight” if the majority of people were generally scientifically literate, Unfortunately, that level of education won’t happen “overnight” because many adults are scientifically illiterate, and some adults are even anti-science (due to ignorance, paranoia and greenwash).

Whilst the fossil fuel industries and their associates are those that are most guilty of greenwash, there is also semi-greenwash. There are multitudes of semi-greenwash examples to choose from. For one example, the UK delivery company DPD advertises its "green" credentials by stating that some of its vehicles use biofuels. Burning biofuels is not "green". Suggesting that using biofuels is green – is greenwash. Biofuels are only less polluting when compared to the most polluting fuels such as diesel. Producing biofuels is not "green". Burning biofuels causes air pollution (therefore diseases) & Carbon Dioxide (though less CO2 than, for example, burning coal, diesel, or petrol). Therefore, biofuels are the opposite of "green". Advertising or promoting biofuels as “green” is mismarketing.

How to (really) stop the greenwashing.

This is not “rocket science”! (its ecology). There should be, must be, a (financially) independent science-based regulator, that provides guidelines on what is "green" & what is not. With the authority to stop greenwashing (e.g., fine greenwashes if they don’t comply with those guidelines. Close the repeat greenwash offending businesses). Of course, the greenwashes don’t want there to be a green regulatory authority. The explicit greenwashes are already demonstrating that they are immoral – so what they want (their cognitive bias), isn’t good for our cultures. In other words, we should not care about what “they” want (as their wants are causing an ecological crisis)

The UK delivery company, DPD, amongst many others, also incorrectly advertises its "recycled plastic" as "green". When in fact, true " green" is not using (fossil fuel-based) plastic in the packaging.

In summary, the "green" that many industries advertise, is nothing more than, at best, slightly less polluting. A national green regulator would be comparably easy to set up. Organisations that comply could be awarded a true green logo, that they can put on their products & services (e.g., electric delivery trucks). In other words, the businesses that are at least not greenwashing consumers and are using the best available sustainable methods. Without an effective regulator, greenwash will never be mitigated (there are too many people that are ignorant about what is "green" & or will lie for money).

A green regulator is not “rocket science” (complicated). We already use, for example, a 1,2,3, etc, or an A, B, C, etc, or a star rating system on product energy rating.
The green regulator can use an “eco’ rating traffic light system. For example:

1. Green = businesses (models) that are (scientifically) evaluated as being ecologically sustainable - are to be the only businesses that can use the true green logo on their products and services.

2. Amber = businesses that are (scientifically) evaluated as being not presently ecologically sustainable, however, have demonstrated that they are actively improving. Aiming to be ecologically sustainable.

3. Red = businesses that are (scientifically) evaluated as being not ecologically sustainable. And cannot be ecologically sustainable (not objectively possible. Not practical). Those businesses that are demonstrating that they are not ecologically sustainable and there is insufficient scope for improvement. For example, the coal industry (the fossil fuel industry).

Branded as criminals (because they are) = Those businesses that are demonstrating that they are not ecologically sustainable can never be ecologically sustainable but are deceiving the public about this. For example, the fossil fuel and biofuel industries (e.g., businesses that sell and promote Carbon-based fuels using “green” tech-sounding nonsense. E.g., “carbon capture”).

Note – some people may say, to paraphrase “why should scientists be the authority of what is green or is not green?. Who put them in charge!”. However, that’s an ignorant and biased point of view. A science-based regulator is only the organisation that is needed to make sure that businesses concur with the science. Because the regulator is based on the scientific literature, anyone that is knowledgeable of the scientific literature can know if, or not, that regulator is being scientifically informed (i.e., a transparent regulatory system in which any knowledgeable person can critically evaluate that system. i.e., a peer review regulator). This means that the regulatory system can be apolitical and only favour businesses that are demonstrating their green credentials. To reiterate, because there are many industries & lifestyles that are harming ecology, there are many people that will be against a scientific green regulator (there is a psychological reason why humans are trashing the planet & that reason isn’t prudence [a well-intended and informed intelligence])

So, if we have the knowledge to understand what is “green” (sustainable methods) and what is not - plus we can easily implement a scientific overseer to evaluate businesses' “green” credentials, what is stopping us? Are Ignorant and or immoral humans preventing “us” from sustaining ecology? The greedy greenwashes (the liars) are greenwashing the ignorant. The corrupt politicians that, on the one “hand” talk about mitigating climate change, and yet, on the other “hand” advocate opening a coal mine (e.g., UK’s Conservative party). Why don’t they advocate a green regulator that is “following the science”? Is it because they’re (rich &) corrupted by their own personal vested interests (rhetorical questions)

Fundamentally, mitigating human-caused climate change (ecological degradation), is about mitigating ignorance and corruption (crime). We honestly can sustain our environments (“nature”), but dishonesty and corruption mean they, the decision makers, are not (in general). To turn the “tide” of ecological destruction around, to reverse that trend, honesty must pay! Reverse the trend that, for example, the fossil fuel industries are making profits from their corruption (profit from their harm). Those that exploit nature, that exploit people's trust, are the worst of us (they must not be rewarded).

Sociopathological behaviours and ecocidal behaviours must not be rewarded!

#knowledge #intelligence #science #ecology #AirPollution

#politics #business #economics

#AntiIntelligence #GreenWash #propaganda #FossilFuelIndustry #BioFuels #WoodFuels #SmokePollution

In a fossil fueled society - virtue signaling and self-aggrandizing environmental "blah blah blah" is the most common behaviours.

Or disliking those that are really doing something to try & live more ecologically sustainable. For example, vegans.

In a fossil fueled society the most common criticism about fuel is how expensive it is - and what's the government doing so as to make the fuel more affordable.

In a fuel burning society the most common environmentally "friendly" or "green" actions - are virtue signaling ideologies or tiny actions such a "recycling" plastic (vast amounts of plastic - much of which eventually will be incinerated or land filled)

In a fuel burning society the general population simply keeps on burning fuels. Keeps ignoring, downplaying & or denying the health warnings about air pollution. And keeps being spoon fed climate disinformation - it feeds into their desire based optimistic delusions.

In a fuel burning society the most common "action" to *not* deal with air pollution is the excuse (to burn fuels).

In a fuel burning society, the people, the businesses, the governments, prefer to perceive climate change with an optimistic spin (or deny it).

In a fuel burning society (the opposite of dealing with climate change) - the lies support the virtue signaling, self-aggrandizing & deluded optimism.

So, what can we (the majority) actually do about our fuel burning lifestyles? What isn't greenwash, apathy & denial?

#psychology #VirtueSignalling #disinformation #deception #apathy #FossilFuels #WoodFuels

#ecology #climate #extinction

#ClimateAction #Renewables #electrification #insulation #AgroEcology #PlantBasedDiet #EcologicalRestoration #ExtinctionRebellion

In a fossil fueled society - virtue signaling and self-aggrandizing environmental "blah blah blah" is the most common behaviours.

Or disliking those that are really doing something to try & live more ecologically sustainable. For example, vegans.

In a fossil fueled society the most common criticism about fuel is how expensive it is - and what's the government doing so as to make the fuel more affordable.

In a fuel burning society the most common environmentally "friendly" or "green" actions - are virtue signaling ideologies or tiny actions such a "recycling" plastic (vast amounts of plastic - much of which eventually will be incinerated or land filled)

In a fuel burning society the general population simply keeps on burning fuels. Keeps ignoring, downplaying & or denying the health warnings about air pollution. And keeps being spoon fed climate disinformation - it feeds into their desire based optimistic delusions.

In a fuel burning society the most common "action" to *not* deal with air pollution is the excuse (to burn fuels).

In a fuel burning society, the people, the businesses, the governments, prefer to perceive climate change with an optimistic spin (or deny it).

In a fuel burning society (the opposite of dealing with climate change) - the lies support the virtue signaling, self-aggrandizing & deluded optimism.

So, what can we (the majority) actually do about our fuel burning lifestyles? What isn't greenwash, apathy & deniel?

#psychology #VirtueSignalling #disinformation #deception #apathy #FossilFuels #WoodFuels

#ecology #climate #extinction

#ClimateAction #Renewables #electrification #insulation #AgroEcology #PlantBasedDiet #EcologicalRestoration #ExtinctionRebellion

In a fossil fueled society - virtue signaling and self-aggrandizing environmental "blah blah blah" is the most common behaviours.

Or disliking those that are really doing something to try & live more ecologically sustainable. For example, vegans.

In a fossil fueled society the most common criticism about fuel is how expensive it is - and what's the government doing so as to make the fuel more affordable.

In a fuel burning society the most common environmentally "friendly" or "green" actions - are virtue signaling ideologies or tiny actions such a "recycling" plastic (vast amounts of plastic - much of which eventually will be incinerated or land filled)

In a fuel burning society the general population simply keeps on burning fuels. Keeps ignoring, downplaying & or denying the health warnings about air pollution. And keeps being spoon fed climate disinformation - it feeds into their desire based optimistic delusions.

In a fuel burning society the most common "action" to *not* deal with air pollution is the excuse (to burn fuels).

In a fuel burning society, the people, the businesses, the governments, prefer to perceive climate change with an optimistic spin (or deny it).

In a fuel burning society - the opposite of dealing with climate change. The lies support the virtue signaling and self-aggrandizing & deluded optimism.

So, what can we (the majority) actually do about our fuel burning lifestyles? What isn't greenwash, apathy & deniel?

#psychology #VirtueSignalling #disinformation #deception #apathy #FossilFuels #WoodFuels

#ecology #climate #extinction

#ClimateAction #Renewables #electrification #insulation #AgroEcology #PlantBasedDiet #EcologicalRestoration #ExtinctionRebellion

Do you live in an ecocidal culture that, regardless of what the science says - simply carries on burning fuels with no signs they have any intentions to stop anytime soon?

And, no matter what the government "blah blah blah's" - it's evident that the government isn't planning on helping the culture to stop burning fuels any time soon either.

The cumbriacoal.com website sums up the county of Cumbria, UK.

To quote the greenwash "We are a registered Coal Merchant and pride ourselves on supplying only the highest quality products"

The same greenwash marketing rhetoric that coal merchants are saying in many cultures. Victorian-aged fuels (OK, million year old fossil fuels) and victorian aged heating technologies are being sold with a modern twist of greenwash (the opposite of the truth. Coal is a poor, health-damaging, and environmentally harming - product)

You don't have to be a complete liar to work in the fossil fuel industry - but it helps.

"Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation" https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

What the UK government actually does, rather than says, sums up the UK government's true character. Rather than seriously investing in tech that would clean up the UK's air quality and mitigate climate change - they promote the opening of a "new" coal mine in Cumbria. They must think people are idiots as the government even says, to paraphrase "this coal won't affect our climate commitments blah blah blah".

There are many locations that have coal deposits - so why Cumbria? Because many Cumbrians burn coal (& wood) therefore will support the fossil fuel-promoting UK government.

FYI, the BBC News environmental reporting is often full of crap - it regularly misses out on key evidence (it's obviously politically biased). And the BBC environmental #news reporting seems to think that "local people said" is evidence to support a coal mine that will effect the global climate (every "little" coal mine doesn't help). So regular are the BBC's unbalanced environmental news reports - it's "arguably" intentional. Maybe the conservative party has a few board members on the BBC?

For example, this crap news article https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63895365

"conveniently" forgets to mention that steel can be manufactured using electricity. The BBC news article concludes that "A county with a proud mining heritage sees a proud mining future too"

Are they friggin insane? (The BBC is certainly not consistent) Are they pretending that climate change is something someone else has to deal with?

Whatever they are - they are the opposite of prudent. In fact, if we consider the evidence of what harm climate change is already causing too many cultures - those that support a coal mine are either trying to ignore that evidence - or they are immoral (But, immoral people have a habit of denying their immorality)

"The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

And what does the UK Government do upon hearing this? What do they do when they have some money to invest? Do they improve Cumbria's homes with insulation or rebuilds? Do they install low-energy heat pumps etc? No, they open a friggin coal mine.

So, are they insane or immoral? Or perhaps these fuel-burning agendas are simply being promoted by greedy business people that really don't care for the long-term health of the environment. Evidently, they don't care about reducing air pollution it's their products, that they profit from - that are causing the air pollution.

They care that they're rich now. And the local people? I'm sure they would not turn down the chance to upgrade their drafty old houses & heat them with affordable electricity. Or maybe they're so daft to want to use coal, wood, etc, and pollute their own air. It's evident that they know no better! They don't understand the dangers of burning fuels and they don't understand that the fossil fuel and wood fuels industries are using them (Greenwashing them).

Why are they so resistant to change? #corporate #greenwash #beliefs #ignorance

#ecocide #cumbria #england #uk #business #politics #AirPollution #GroupThink #NonThink #FossilFuels #WoodFuels

#science #RenewableEnergy #ClimateAction #ClimateJustice

Do you live in an ecocidal culture that, regardless of what the science says - simply carries on burning fuels with no signs they have any intentions to stop anytime soon?

And, no matter what the government "blah blah blah's" - it's evident that the government isn't planning on helping the culture to stop burning fuels any time soon either.

The cumbriacoal.com website sums up the county of Cumbria, UK.

To quote the greenwash "We are a registered Coal Merchant and pride ourselves on supplying only the highest quality products"

The same greenwash marketing rhetoric that coal merchants are saying in many cultures. Victorian-aged fuels (OK, million year old fossil fuels) and victorian aged heating technologies are being sold with a modern twist of greenwash (the opposite of the truth. Coal is a poor, health-damaging, and environmentally harming - product)

You don't have to be a complete liar to work in the fossil fuel industry - but it helps.

"Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation" https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

What the UK government actually does, rather than says, sums up the UK government's true character. Rather than seriously investing in tech that would clean up the UK's air quality and mitigate climate change - they promote the opening of a "new" coal mine in Cumbria. They must think people are idiots as the government even says, to paraphrase "this coal won't affect our climate commitments blah blah blah".

There are many locations that are coal deposits - so why Cumbria? Because many Cumbrians burn coal (& wood) therefore will support the fossil fuel-promoting UK government.

FYI, the BBC News environmental reporting is often full of crap - it regularly misses out on key evidence (it's obviously politically biased). And the BBC environmental #news reporting seems to think that "local people said" is evidence to support a coal mine that will effect the global climate (every "little" coal mine doesn't help). So regular are the BBC's unbalanced environmental news reports - it's "arguably" intentional. Maybe the conservative party has a few board members on the BBC?

For example, this crap news article https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63895365

"conveniently" forgets to mention that steel can be manufactured using electricity. The BBC news article concludes that "A county with a proud mining heritage sees a proud mining future too"

Are they friggin insane? (The BBC is certainly not consistent) Are they pretending that climate change is something someone else has to deal with?

Whatever they are - they are the opposite of prudent. In fact, if we consider the evidence of what harm climate change is already causing too many cultures - those that support a coal mine are either trying to ignore that evidence - or they are immoral (But, immoral people have a habit of denying their immorality)

"The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

And what does the UK Government do upon hearing this? What do they do when they have some money to invest? Do they improve Cumbria's homes with insulation or rebuilds? Do they install low-energy heat pumps etc? No, they open a friggin coal mine.

So, are they insane or immoral? Or perhaps these fuel-burning agendas are simply being promoted by greedy business people that really don't care for the long-term health of the environment. Evidently, they don't care about reducing air pollution it's their products, that they profit from - that are causing the air pollution.

They care that they're rich now. And the local people? I'm sure they would not turn down the chance to upgrade their drafty old houses & heat them with affordable electricity. Or maybe they're so daft to want to use coal, wood, etc, and pollute their own air. It's evident that they know no better! They don't understand the dangers of burning fuels and they don't understand that the fossil fuel and wood fuels industries are using them (Greenwashing them).

Why are they so resistant to change? #corporate #greenwash #beliefs #ignorance

#ecocide #cumbria #england #uk #business #politics #AirPollution #GroupThink #NonThink #FossilFuels #WoodFuels

#science #RenewableEnergy #ClimateAction #ClimateJustice

Do you live in an ecocidal culture that, regardless of what the science says - simply carries on burning fuels with no signs they have any intentions to stop anytime soon?

And, no matter what the government "blah blah blah's" - it's evident that the government isn't planning on helping the culture to stop burning fuels any time soon either.

The cumbriacoal.com website sums up the county of Cumbria, UK.

To quote the greenwash "We are a registered Coal Merchant and pride ourselves on supplying only the highest quality products"

The same greenwash marketing rhetoric that coal merchants are saying in many cultures. Victorian-aged fuels and victorian aged heating technologies are being sold with a modern twist of greenwash (the opposite of the truth. Coal is a poor, health-damaging, and environmentally harming - product)

You don't have to be a complete liar to work in the fossil fuel industry - but it helps.

"Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation" https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

What the UK government actually does, rather than says, sums up the UK government's true character. Rather than seriously investing in tech that would clean up the UK's air quality and mitigate climate change - they promote the opening of a "new" coal mine in Cumbria. They must think people are idiots as the government even says, to paraphrase "this coal won't affect our climate commitments blah blah blah".

There are many locations that are coal deposits - so why Cumbria? Because many Cumbrians burn coal (& wood) therefore will support the fossil fuel-promoting UK government.

FYI, the BBC News environmental reporting is often full of crap - it regularly misses out on key evidence (it's obviously politically biased). And the BBC environmental #news reporting seems to think that "local people said" is evidence to support a coal mine that will effect the global climate (every "little" coal mine doesn't help). So regular are the BBC's unbalanced environmental news reports - it's "arguably" intentional. Maybe the conservative party has a few board members on the BBC?

For example, this crap news article https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63895365

"conveniently" forgets to mention that steel can be manufactured using electricity. The BBC news article concludes that "A county with a proud mining heritage sees a proud mining future too"

Are they friggin insane? (The BBC is certainly not consistent) Are they pretending that climate change is something someone else has to deal with?

Whatever they are - they are the opposite of prudent. In fact, if we consider the evidence of what harm climate change is already causing too many cultures - those that support a coal mine are either trying to ignore that evidence - or they are immoral (But, immoral people have a habit of denying their immorality)

"The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

And what does the UK Government do upon hearing this? What do they do when they have some money to invest? Do they improve Cumbria's homes with insulation or rebuilds? Do they install low-energy heat pumps etc? No, they open a friggin coal mine.

So, are they insane or immoral? Or perhaps these fuel-burning agendas are simply being promoted by greedy business people that really don't care for the long-term health of the environment. Evidently, they don't care about reducing air pollution it's their products, that they profit from - that are causing the air pollution.

They care that they're rich now. And the local people? I'm sure they would not turn down the chance to upgrade their drafty old houses & heat them with affordable electricity. Or maybe they're so daft to want to use coal, wood, etc, and pollute their own air. It's evident that they know no better! They don't understand the dangers of burning fuels and they don't understand that the fossil fuel and wood fuels industries are using them (Greenwashing them).

Why are they so resistant to change? #corporate #greenwash #beliefs #ignorance

#ecocide #cumbria #england #uk #business #politics #AirPollution #GroupThink #NonThink #FossilFuels #WoodFuels

#science #RenewableEnergy #ClimateAction #ClimateJustice

Do you live in an ecocidal culture that, regardless of what the science says - simply carries on burning fuels with no signs they have any intentions to stop anytime soon?

And, no matter what the government "blah blah blah's" - it's evident that the government isn't planning on helping the culture to stop burning fuels any time soon either.

The cumbriacoal.com website sums up the county of Cumbria, UK.

To quote the greenwash "We are a registered Coal Merchant and pride ourselves on supplying only the highest quality products"

The same greenwash marketing rhetoric that coal merchants are saying in many cultures. Victorian-aged fuels and victorian aged heating technologies are being sold with a modern twist of greenwash (the opposite of the truth. Coal is a poor, health-damaging, and environmentally harming - product)

You don't have to be a complete liar to work in the fossil fuel industry - but it helps.

"Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation" https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

What the UK government actually does, rather than says, sums up the UK government's true character. Rather than seriously investing in tech that would clean up the UK's air quality and mitigate climate change - they promote the opening of a "new" coal mine in Cumbria. They must think people are idiots as the government even says, to paraphrase "this coal won't affect our climate commitments blah blah blah".

There are many locations that are coal deposits - so why Cumbria? Because many Cumbrians burn coal (& wood) therefore will support the fossil fuel-promoting UK government.

FYI, the BBC News environmental reporting is often full of crap - it regularly misses out on key evidence (it's obviously politically biased). And the BBC environmental #news reporting seems to think that "local people said" is evidence to support a coal mine that will effect the global climate (every "little" coal mine doesn't help). So regular are the BBC's unbalanced environmental news reports - it's "arguably" intentional. Maybe the conservative party has a few board members on the BBC?

For example, this crap news article https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63895365

"conveniently" forgets to mention that steel can be manufactured using electricity. The BBC news article concludes that "A county with a proud mining heritage sees a proud mining future too"

Are they friggin insane? (The BBC is certainly not consistent) Are they pretending that climate change is something someone else has to deal with?

Whatever they are - they are the opposite of prudent. In fact, if we consider the evidence of what harm climate change is already causing too many cultures - those that support a coal mine are either trying to ignore that evidence - or they are immoral (But, immoral people have a habit of denying their immorality)

"The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

And what does the UK Government do upon hearing this? What do they do when they have some money to invest? Do they improve Cumbria's homes with insulation or rebuilds? Do they install low-energy heat pumps etc? No, they open a friggin coal mine.

So, are they insane or immoral? Or perhaps these fuel-burning agendas are simply being promoted by greedy business people that really don't care for the long-term health of the environment. Evidently, they don't care about reducing air pollution it's their products, that they profit from - that are causing the air pollution.

They care that they're rich now. And the local people? I'm sure they would not turn down the chance to upgrade their drafty old houses & heat them with affordable electricity. Or maybe they're so daft to want to use coal, wood, etc, and their own air. It's evident that they know no better! They don't understand the dangers of burning fuels and they don't understand that the fossil fuel and wood fuels industries are using them (Greenwashing them).

Why are they so resistant to change? #corporate #greenwash #beliefs #ignorance

#ecocide #cumbria #england #uk #business #politics #AirPollution #GroupThink #NonThink #FossilFuels #WoodFuels

#science #RenewableEnergy #ClimateAction #ClimateJustice

Do you live in an ecocidal culture that, regardless of what the science says - simply carries on burning fuels with no signs they have any intentions to stop anytime soon?

And, no matter what the government "blah blah blah's" - it's evident that the government isn't planning on helping the culture to stop burning fuels any time soon either.

The cumbriacoal.com website sums up the county of Cumbria, UK.

To quote the greenwash "We are a registered Coal Merchant and pride ourselves on supplying only the highest quality products"

The same greenwash marketing rhetoric that coal merchants are saying in many cultures. Victorian-aged fuels and victorian aged heating technologies are being sold with a modern twist of greenwash (the opposite of the truth. Coal is a poor, health-damaging, and environmentally harming - product)

You don't have to be a complete liar to work in the fossil fuel industry - but it helps.

"Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation" https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

What the UK government actually does, rather than says, sums up the UK government's true character. Rather than seriously investing in tech that would clean up the UK's air quality and mitigate climate change - they promote the opening of a "new" coal mine in Cumbria. They must think people are idiots as the government even says, to paraphrase "this coal won't affect our climate commitments blah blah blah".

There are many locations that are coal deposits - so why Cumbria? Because many Cumbrians burn coal (& wood) therefore will support the fossil fuel-promoting UK government.

FYI, the BBC News environmental reporting is often full of crap - it regularly misses out on key evidence (it's obviously politically biased). And seem to think that "local people said" is to be used as a reason to pollute. So regular are the BBC's unbalanced environmental news reports - it's "arguably" intentional. Maybe the conservative party has a few board members on the BBC?

For example, this crap news article https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63895365

"conveniently" forgets to mention that steel can be manufactured using electricity. The BBC news article concludes that "A county with a proud mining heritage sees a proud mining future too"

Are they friggin insane? (The BBC is certainly not consistent) Are they pretending that climate change is something someone else has to deal with?

Whatever they are - they are the opposite of prudent. In fact, if we consider the evidence of what harm climate change is already causing too many cultures - those that support a coal mine are either trying to ignore that evidence - or they are immoral (But, immoral people have a habit of denying their immorality)

"The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

And what does the UK Government do upon hearing this? What do they do when they have some money to invest? Do they improve Cumbria's homes with insulation or rebuilds? Do they install low-energy heat pumps etc? No, they open a friggin coal mine.

So, are they insane or immoral? Or perhaps these fuel-burning agendas are simply being promoted by greedy business people that really don't care for the long-term health of the environment. Evidently, they don't care about reducing air pollution it's their products, that they profit from - that are causing the air pollution.

They care that they're rich now. And the local people? I'm sure they would not turn down the chance to upgrade their drafty old houses & heat them with affordable electricity. Or maybe they're so daft to want to use coal, wood, etc, and their own air. It's evident that they know no better! They don't understand the dangers of burning fuels and they don't understand that the fossil fuel and wood fuels industries are using them (Greenwashing them).

Why are they so resistant to change? #corporate #greenwash #beliefs #ignorance

#ecocide #cumbria #england #uk #business #politics #AirPollution #GroupThink #NonThink #FossilFuels #WoodFuels

#science #RenewableEnergy #ClimateAction #ClimateJustice

An impressive view in the Lake District National park (10/12/22), Cumbria, UK. The valley below is called St. Johns in the vale.

However, there is nothing saintly about the valley.

The valley below is in a (generally) "sheep-wrecked" condition - ecologically degraded and drained farmland. The majority of standing trees in the area are conifer tree plantations.

All the farms in the valley burn woodfuel & or coal to heat their homes. Many people in the nearby villages burn woodfuel & coal to heat their homes. Many of their homes are poorly insulated - drafty old buildings that take a lot of energy to heat during the winter.

Approximately 30 km South West (To the right & over the distant mountains) is the town of #Whitehaven. Whitehaven is where the UK's #government (The #Conservative Party) is planning to open a coal mine.

Some people have said, to paraphrase "what will they do with this coal? because many steel manufacturers are converting to electrical methods!".

The government (in partnership with their industrial associates) will sell some of the coal to the local people of Cumbria - people who heat their houses using victorian age technologies. That's not because they're forward-looking people. And that's why they vote for the outdated forms of, fossil fuel promoting, "business as usual", ecocidal politics.

However, the truth (evidence), has the potential to liberate the local communities. To clear up their local air and have affordable electricity so as to heat their (modernized) homes (e.g., using heat pumps)

#climate #UK #cumbria #ecology #LandscapeEcology #hiking #photography #CloudInversion #mountains

#Culture #traditional #politics #farming #SheepWrecked #tourism #FossilFuels #WoodFuels oil #gas #Deforested

#ClimateAction #HomeInsulation #rebuilds #renewables #HeatPumps #EcologicalRestoration #rewilding

An impressive view in the Lake District National park (10/12/22), Cumbria, UK. The valley below is called St. Johns in the vale.

However, there is nothing saintly about the valley.

The valley below is in a (generally) "sheep-wrecked" condition - ecologically degraded and drained farmland. The majority of standing trees in the area are conifer tree plantations.

All the farms in the valley burn woodfuel & or coal to heat their homes. Many people in the nearby villages burn woodfuel & coal to heat their homes. Many of their homes are poorly insulated - drafty old buildings that take a lot of energy to heat during the winter.

Approximately 30 km South West (To the right & over the distant mountains) is the town of Whitehaven. Whitehaven is where the UK's government ( The Conservative Party) is planning to open a coal mine.

Some people have said, to paraphrase "what will they do with this coal? because many steel manufacturers are converting to electrical methods!".

The government (in partnership with their industrial associates) will sell some of the coal to the local people of Cumbria - people who heat their houses using victorian age technologies. That's not because they're forward-looking people. And that's why they vote for the outdated forms of, fossil fuel promoting, "business as usual", ecocidal politics.

However, the truth (evidence), has the potential to liberate the local communities. To clear up their local air and have affordable electricity so as to heat their (modernized) homes (e.g., using heat pumps)

#climate #UK #cumbria #ecology #LandscapeEcology #hiking #photography #CloudInversion #mountains

#Culture #traditional #politics #farming #SheepWrecked #tourism #FossilFuels #WoodFuels oil #gas #Deforested

#ClimateAction #HomesInsulation #rebuilds #renewables #HeatPumps #EcologicalRestoration #rewilding

An impressive view in the Lake District National park (10/12/22), Cumbria, UK. The valley below is called St. Johns in the vale.

It valley below is in a generally "sheep-wrecked" condition - ecologically degraded and drained farmland. The majority of tree cover in the area is conifer plantations.

All the farms in the valley burn woodfuel & or coal to heat their homes. Many people in the nearby villages burn woodfuel & coal to heat their homes. Many of their homes are poorly insulated - drafty old buildings that take a lot of energy to heat during the winter.

Approximately 30 km South West (To the right & over the distant mountains) is the town of Whitehaven. Whitehaven is where the UK's government ( The Conservative Party) is planning to open a coal mine.

Some people have said, to paraphrase "what will they do with this coal? because many steel manufacturers are converting to electrical methods!".

The government (in partnership with their industrial associates) will sell some of the coal to the local people of Cumbria - people who heat their houses using victorian age technologies. That's not because they're forward-looking people. And that's why they vote for the outdated forms of, fossil fuel promoting, "business as usual", ecocidal politics.

However, the truth (evidence), has the potential to liberate the local communities. To clear up their local air and have affordable electricity so as to heat their (modernized) homes (e.g., using heat pumps)

#climate #UK #cumbria #ecology #LandscapeEcology #hiking #photography #CloudInversion #mountains

#Culture #traditional #politics #farming #SheepWrecked #tourism #FossilFuels #WoodFuels oil #gas #Deforested

#ClimateAction #HomesInsulation #rebuilds #renewables #HeatPumps #EcologicalRestoration #rewilding

Good news! Constructive guidance on how to prevent an ecological catastrophe - but only if enough humans follow the scientific guidance (which they have not been doing historically)

A parable "You can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink".

The 'key' posts that are pinned on my home profile & my blog generally use the science of psychology & ecology, and my personal experience in regard to discussing environmental topics with adults - to detail the behavioral psychological, sociopolitical, and socioeconomic issues that are preventing humans from mitigating their ecologically degrading activities.

The epistemology to success is included in the following 'key' articles. Conversely, success means that failures must be addressed (rather than ignoring them due to cognitive dissonance).

If the 'key' general plans are not followed by a sufficient quantity of key decision-makers - climate heating will decimate our societies (it's only a matter of when not if)

1. Wannabe dictators need only apply (mentions evil agents) https://qoto.org/@empiricism/109436037494876506

2. The concerning behavioral psychology of ecocide & how to stop it. https://qoto.org/@empiricism/109467480926903109

3. psychology 101 - explained in layperson's terms. https://qoto.org/@empiricism/109451868659033738

4. (May cause denial) Health damaging behaviors. Not safe for children. https://qoto.org/@empiricism/109446137039667007

5. The unpleasant psychology of the Darkside. (Age advisory rating 15+ or with adult supervision) https://empiricalperspective.home.blog/2022/12/04/the-unpleasent-psychology-of-the-darkside-age-advisory-rating-15-or-with-adult-supervision/

6. Democracy for grownups (Justice!).https://empiricalperspective.home.blog/2022/10/17/democracy-for-grownups-i-e-civilized-people/

7. The nepotism of plutocracy. https://empiricalperspective.home.blog/2022/09/30/the-nepotism-of-plutocracy/

#ClimateChange #ClimateBomb #ClimateAction #climatejustice #science #nature #ClimateProtests #sucess #CircularEconomy #tech #food #ecology #EcologicalRestoration #flora #fauna #RenewableEnergy #wildlife #habitats #health #biosphere #forests #rivers #oceans #ecology #sustainabilty #CitizensAssembly #CircularEconomy

#ClimateHeating #heatwaves #droughts #famine #inhabitable #SpeciesExtinction #corporate #ecocide #politics #business #FossilFuels #WoodFuels #mining #pollution #corporations #money #greed #apathy #coruption #Greenwash #deception #AirPollution #dementia #cancer #diseases #RespiratoryDiseases #heartAttacks #strokes #plastic #pollution

#EvolutionaryBiology #Neuroscience #CogntivePsychology #SocialPsychology #DevelopmentalPsychology #Cognitive #dissonance #psychological #VirtueSignaling #heuristics #CognitiveDissonance

#organisms #plants #animals, #fungi #bacteria #mammals #HomoSapiens #evolution #NaturalSelection #SexualSelection #GeneticMutations #biology #biotic #NervousSystem

#SocialMedia #Twitter, #Facebook, #YouTube #Mastodon #abiotic #technologies

We *can* succeed to stop the human activities that are heating up the planet's #biosphere #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange

However, success is going to take many people that are trying to succeed (obviously)

"ecocide refers to the “devastation and destruction of the environment to the detriment of life,” https://earth.org/ecocide-should-be-a-crime-in-international-law/

The term "business as usual" (ecocide) means ecological degradation ("destruction", "pollution") that is currently associated with making money. Of course, that ecocide business model is obvious within the context of the extractive & polluting industries - such as the fossil fuel, mining, plastic, and woodfuel industries (etc, etc, etc)

In the following example, each stage emits more carbon dioxide & methane ("Greenhouse gases") into the planet's atmosphere & degrades the environment.

A summary of the ecocide 'business & lifestyles as a usual' ($) model:

1. They exploit (damage) a natural environment, for example, a forest or marine habitat, to extract fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) or wood fuel, or some other material (e.g., lithium) = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

2. They transport the fuel, using transport that burns more fuel, to be processed (e.g., oil refinery). = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

3. They transport the processed fuel \ product (e.g., diesel, petrol, wood, plastic, etc) to a consumer distribution hub (e.g., "petrol station", "shops"). = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

4. People purchase fuel \ products for their machines \ lifestyles and the machines burn the fuel, etc. = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

5. Another ecocidal business model & lifestyle is the animal industry ("meat industry") = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

Because these activities (1,2,3,4 & 5) are heating up the planet's biosphere - they are causing and will cause an ecological crisis that will last for thousands of years.

Unless that is - we change the business-as-usual ecocidal model. For example, a circular economy.

Failure to act, to stop the ecocidal business model will inevitably cause billions of people to perish. For instance, due to failures in the food systems #heatwaves #droughts, and #famine, the land is becoming more inhabitable. Species extinction rates are increasing. This means there will also be billions of climate refugees. Also, sea level rise, caused by climate heating - will displace the billions of people that live in coastal regions.

We can succeed to stop the human activities that are heating up the planet's #biosphere.

However, success is going to take many people that are trying to succeed (obviously).

Therefore, the fundamental problem is that there are many people that are ignorantly and or immorally failing to take responsibility for their ecocidal behaviors - such as fuel-burning and meat-eating activities.

But, talk about stating the obvious!

Another form of greenwash is climate virtue signaling. The adults say for example, "yes! we must do something about climate change". But, evidently, they don't seem to mean themselves (how odd? How common). Though to be fair, they do gullibly vote for the governments that greenwash them (& then carry on burning fuels and eating meat, etc)

Of course, the industries (corporations) and associated politicians are part of the ecocidal problem (why we are heading into more extreme climate events).

However, the number of people that genuinely want and are willing to do something about human-caused climate change is increasing.

Without getting into the psychology of why (ask if you want more details) - how we succeed is: https://rebellion.global/

1. Tell the truth.

Governments must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.

2. Act now.

Governments must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.

3. Go beyond politics.

Governments must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.

We pressure governments to be part of the solution rather than being the fundamental problem (for a change). Governments, that genuinely aim to sustain ecology, can make industries change their ecocidal business models.

For that to happen, we have to replace the ecocidal governments (management) with ecologically sustainable management.

#ClimateAction #ClimateProtests #sucess #nature #wildlife #habitats #forests #rivers #oceans #ecology #sustainabilty #CitizensAssembly #ClimateJustice #CircularEconomy

#ecocide #politics #business #FossilFuels #WoodFuels #mining #pollution #corporations #money #greed #apathy #coruption #Greenwash #deception

We *can* succeed to stop the human activities that are heating up the planet's #biosphere #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange

However, success is going to take many people that are trying to succeed (obviously)

"ecocide refers to the “devastation and destruction of the environment to the detriment of life,” https://earth.org/ecocide-should-be-a-crime-in-international-law/

The term "business as usual" (ecocide) means ecological degradation ("destruction", "pollution") that is currently associated with making money. Of course, that ecocide business model is obvious within the context of the extractive & polluting industries - such as the fossil fuel, mining, plastic, and woodfuel industries (etc, etc, etc)

In the following example, each stage emits more carbon dioxide & methane ("Greenhouse gases") into the planet's atmosphere & degrades the environment.

A summary of the ecocide 'business & lifestyles as a usual' ($) model:

1. They exploit (damage) a natural environment, for example, a forest or marine habitat, to extract fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) or wood fuel, or some other material (e.g., lithium) = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

2. They transport the fuel, using transport that burns more fuel, to be processed (e.g., oil refinery). = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

3. They transport the processed fuel \ product (e.g., diesel, petrol, wood, plastic, etc) to a consumer distribution hub (e.g., "petrol station", "shops"). = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

4. People purchase fuel \ products for their machines \ lifestyles and the machines burn the fuel, etc. = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

5. Another ecocidal business model & lifestyle is the animal industry ("meat industry") = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

Because these activities (1,2,3,4 & 5) are heating up the planet's biosphere - they are causing and will cause an ecological crisis that will last for thousands of years.

Unless that is - we change the business-as-usual ecocidal model. For example, a circular economy.

Failure to act, to stop the ecocidal business model will inevitably cause billions of people to perish. For instance, due to failures in the food systems #heatwaves #droughts, and #famine, the land is becoming more inhabitable. Species extinction rates are increasing. This means there will also be billions of climate refugees. Also, sea level rise, caused by climate heating - will displace the billions of people that live in coastal regions.

We can succeed to stop the human activities that are heating up the planet's #biosphere.

However, success is going to take many people that are trying to succeed (obviously).

Therefore, the fundamental problem is that there are many people that are ignorantly and or immorally failing to take responsibility for their ecocidal behaviors - such as fuel-burning and meat-eating activities.

But, talk about stating the obvious!

Another form of greenwash is climate virtue signaling. The adults say for example, "yes! we must do something about climate change". But, evidently, they don't seem to mean themselves (how odd? How common). Though to be fair, they do gullibly vote for the governments that greenwash them (& then carry on burning fuels and eating meat, etc)

Of course, the industries (corporations) and associated politicians are part of the ecocidal problem (why we are heading into more extreme climate events).

However, the number of people that genuinely want and are willing to do something about human-caused climate change is increasing.

Without getting into the psychology of why (ask if you want more details) - how we succeed is: https://rebellion.global/

1. Tell the truth.

Governments must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.

2. Act now.

Governments must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.

3. Go beyond politics.

Governments must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.

We pressure governments to be part of the solution rather than being the fundamental problem (for a change). Governments, that genuinely aim to sustain ecology, can make industries change their ecocidal business models.

For that to happen, we have to replace the ecocidal governments (management) with ecologically sustainable management.

#ClimateAction #ClimateProtests #sucess #nature #wildlife #habitats #forests #rivers #oceans #ecology #sustainabilty #CitizensAssembly #ClimateJustice #Circular Economy

#ecocide #politics #business #FossilFuels #WoodFuels #mining #pollution #corporations #money #greed #apathy #coruption #Greenwash #deception

We *can* succeed to stop the human activities that are heating up the planet's #biosphere #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange

However, success is going to take many people that are trying to succeed (obviously)

"ecocide refers to the “devastation and destruction of the environment to the detriment of life,” https://earth.org/ecocide-should-be-a-crime-in-international-law/

The term "business as usual" (ecocide) means ecological degradation ("destruction", "pollution") that is currently associated with making money. Of course, that ecocide business model is obvious within the context of the extractive & polluting industries & such as the fossil fuel, mining, plastic, and woodfuel industries (etc, etc, etc)

In the following example, each stage emits more carbon dioxide & methane ("Greenhouse gases") into the planet's atmosphere & degrades the environment.

A summary of the ecocide 'business & lifestyles as a usual' ($) model:

1. They exploit (damage) a natural environment, for example, a forest or marine habitat, to extract fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) or wood fuel, or some other material (e.g., lithium) = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

2. They transport the fuel, using transport that burns more fuel, to be processed (e.g., oil refinery). = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

3. They transport the processed fuel \ product (e.g., diesel, petrol, wood, plastic, etc) to a consumer distribution hub (e.g., "petrol station", "shops"). = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

4. People purchase fuel \ products for their machines \ lifestyles and the machines burn the fuel, etc. = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

5. Another ecocidal business model & lifestyle is the animal industry ("meat industry") = More Greenhouse gases are emitted = More climate heating.

Because these activities (1,2,3,4 & 5) are heating up the planet's biosphere - they are causing and will cause an ecological crisis that will last for thousands of years.

Failure to act, to stop the ecocidal business model will inevitably cause billions of people to perish. For instance, due to failures in the food systems #heatwaves #droughts, and #famine, the land is becoming more inhabitable. This means there will also be billions of climate refugees. Also, the sea level will displace the billions of people that live in coastal regions.

We can succeed to stop the human activities that are heating up the planet's #biosphere.

However, success is going to take many people that are trying to succeed (obviously).

Therefore, the fundamental problem is that there are many people that are ignorantly and or immorally failing to take responsibility for their ecocidal behaviors - such as fuel-burning and meat-eating activities.

But, talk about stating the obvious!

Another form of greenwash is climate virtue signaling. The adults say for example, "yes! we must do something about climate change". But, evidently, they don't seem to mean themselves (how odd? How common). Though to be fair, they do gullibly vote for the governments that greenwash them (& then carry on burning fuels and eating meat)

Of course, the industries (corporations) and associated politicians are part of the ecocidal problem (why we are heading into more extreme climate events).

However, the number of people that genuinely want and are willing to do something about human-caused climate change is increasing.

Without getting into the psychology of why (ask if you want more details) - how we succeed is: https://rebellion.global/

1. Tell the truth.

Governments must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.

2. Act now.

Governments must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.

3. Go beyond politics.

Governments must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.

We pressure governments to be part of the solution rather than being the fundamental problem. Governments, that genuinely aim to sustain ecology, can make industries change their ecocidal business models.

For that to happen, we have to replace the ecocidal governments (management) with ecologically sustainable management.

#ClimateAction #ClimateProtests #sucess #nature #wildlife #habitats #forests #rivers #oceans #ecology #sustainabilty #CitizensAssembly #ClimateJustice #Circular Economy

#ecocide #politics #business #FossilFuels #WoodFuels #mining #pollution #corporations #money #greed #apathy #coruption #Greenwash #deception