Climate change propaganda

[Rockstar]

make up a problem, use slave labor to make money

Hidden bloodshed and misery because of a hoax

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

make up a problem, use slave labor to make money
Hidden bloodshed and misery because of a hoax

^ this is really a good reminder of what "the west" builds it economy on

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ this is really a good reminder of what "the west" builds it economy on

Yep. In the quest to “save the planet” they are killing it, polluting it, the people, their food sources and livelihood.

[Rockstar]

We gotta save the planet!

Mining drives extensive deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00557-w

Mining poses significant and potentially underestimated risks to tropical forests worldwide. In Brazil’s Amazon, mining drives deforestation far beyond operational lease boundaries, yet the full extent of these impacts is unknown and thus neglected in environmental licensing. Here we quantify mining-induced deforestation and investigate the aspects of mining operations, which most likely contribute. We find mining significantly increased Amazon forest loss up to 70 km beyond mining lease boundaries, causing 11,670 km2 of deforestation between 2005 and 2015. This extent represents 9% of all Amazon forest loss during this time and 12 times more deforestation than occurred within mining leases alone. Pathways leading to such impacts include mining infrastructure establishment, urban expansion to support a growing workforce, and development of mineral commodity supply chains. Mining-induced deforestation is not unique to Brazil; to mitigate adverse impacts of mining and conserve tropical forests globally, environmental assessments and licensing must considered both on- and off-lease sources of deforestation.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/22...s-rare-earths/

That this scramble for resources is centered on the Amazon lays bare an uncomfortable truth: Climate policy and environmental protection are not the same thing, and as the energy transition gathers pace, that trade-off is becoming increasingly evident. Indonesian rainforests have been cleared for palm oil plantations producing biofuels, and West African forests are felled for wood pellets to heat green homes in Europe. Open-pit mining is one of humanity’s most ruinous industries, razing everything in its path—while toxic runoff, tailings, and waste products can poison rivers and wreak havoc for miles.

[stix_09]

The greatest trick anti-climate change ppl ever pull is convincing the world it didn’t exist.

Don't think its a "if" question , more a how much question.

By time most humans work that out it will be too late.

But we will prob kill ourselves before that with technology abuse.

[em2nought]

You'll never convince me that a problem can be solved by giving our typical politicians huge sums of "our" money, and then putting those same people in charge of solving the problem.

There are things we could do to minimize the damage we do (and not all the damage is caused by man) but "those" people aren't going to come up with working solutions. Examples of the most likely solutions they'll come up with is chopping all the trees down to put up solar panels that get wiped out by hail, killing all the cows so we end up eating bugs, or reducing the number of us(which they just took a practice run at, wet market my @ss).

[em2nought]

Their hubris makes them misjudge what a tenuous foothold humans have on this planet. https://www.thelocal.de/20190613/how...nys-first-bike

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/...ithout-summer/

All it might take is one volcano erupting to threaten our food supply.

We don't even have memory of our species beyond 3000 years or so.

[Skybird]

No comment.

[stix_09]

[QUOTE=Rockstar;2875965]Yep. In the quest to “save the planet” they are killing it, polluting it, the people, their food sources and livelihood.

No thats just called greed, nothing to do with "save the planet", in this action just $, why would you make that naive assumption....

[Aktungbby]

stix_09!

[Rockstar]

One nuclear power plant could have save 15.9 million trees and would have provided consistent, affordable power for decades.

Instead they opted for expensive, high maintenance, weather reliant toys. Saving the planet 1 tree at a time.

SNP admits to felling 16 million trees to develop wind farms
Scottish Tory MSP Liam Kerr said figure would astonish the public and communities all over the country had cited concerns about the projects

By
Simon Johnson, SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR
19 July 2023 • 6:02pm

https://archive.ph/H3eEA

Almost 16 million trees have been chopped down on publicly owned land in Scotland to make way for wind farms, an SNP minister had admitted amid a major drive to erect more turbines.

Mairi Gougeon, the Rural Affairs Secretary, estimated that 15.7 million trees had been felled since 2000 in land that is currently managed by agency Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) - the equivalent of more than 1,700 per day.
She insisted there was a planning presumption in favour of protecting woodland and wind farm developers would be expected to undertake “compensatory planting elsewhere”.

But Liam Kerr, a Scottish Tory MSP, said the public would be “astonished” at the total and cited concerns about the developments that had been raised with him “by communities all over the country.”

Scotland already has turbines theoretically capable of generating 8.4GW of power, well over half the UK’s total, but SNP ministers want to add a further 8-12GW.

Protections for unspoiled wild land watered down
Their latest planning framework relaxes controls on building more turbines, with protections for unspoiled wild land watered down.

The John Muir Trust, a conservation charity, has warned the new threshold for allowing wind farm companies to build turbines on wild land is so low that it appears impossible for them not to meet it.

The SNP wind power target also includes replacing existing turbines that may be coming to the end of their working life with even taller and larger versions, a process called “repowering”.

It emerged earlier this year that some developers want to erect turbines up to 850 feet tall, the equivalent of more than 60 double decker buses.
In a letter to Mr Kerr, dated July 13, Ms Gougeon said the equivalent of around 7,858 hectares of trees had been chopped down to make way for wind farms since 2000.
With an average of 2,000 trees per hectare, she said: “This gives an estimated total of 15.7 million trees which have been felled in order to facilitate windfarm development.”

The minister added: “Removal should only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits.
‘Developers must provide compensatory planting’
“Where woodland is removed in association with development, developers will generally be expected to provide compensatory planting in order to avoid a net loss of woodland.”

She said many of the felled trees will have been “replanted on site” or replaced elsewhere, and the vast majority were part of a commercial crop that would have been chopped down anyway “at the end of their rotation”.
But Mr Kerr, a North East MSP, said: “Most people will be astonished to see the number of trees cut down to make way for wind farms.

“I’ve been contacted many times by rural communities all over the country questioning the location of these developments, sharing legitimate concerns not just about the visual impact but also damage to wildlife and business. Now we learn there’s significant damage when it comes to trees.”
He said ministers “must be alive” to the “significant costs” that could be incurred with the siting of wind farms.

FLS said it had planted more than 500 million trees since 2000 and the quantity felled for wind farms equated roughly to its annual harvesting programme.
A spokesman said: “Renewable energy generated from wind farms is a key element in Scotland’s response to the climate emergency and the shift towards net zero and the infrastructure on land that we manage generates enough power for 600,000 homes.”

Morag Watson, director of policy at trade body Scottish Renewables said: “The volatile price of imported gas has left energy consumers suffering some of the highest prices in living memory, alongside a climate emergency which means cutting the amount of carbon we emit as quickly as possible.

“Building new wind farms - the cheapest form of power generation - tackles both problems at once.”

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

One nuclear power plant could have save 15.9 million trees and would have provided consistent, affordable power for decades.

Instead they opted for expensive, high maintenance, weather reliant toys. Saving the planet 1 tree at a time.

[B] SNP admits to felling 16 million trees to develop wind farms
Scottish Tory MSP Liam Kerr said figure would astonish the public and communities all over the country had cited concerns about the projects

Oh man! I'm afraid all the sheeple fleeing their self created socialist utopias in the northern states of the USA are going to really double down on their climate change agenda when they experience their first summers in the south.