I remember many 'causes' that people stood up for, then those causes were not replaced, but should I say, they no longer made 'front-page news'.
'Save the Whales'
'Save the Sea Otters'
'Save the Elephants'
'Save the Rainforests'
Yet all these can be grouped together under the heading of a much more aggressive campaign (and I don't mean violently aggressive, but economically aggressive) ...and that campaign has had much more longevity.
It's called 'Climate Change'.
And it has been claimed that if we address the issue of 'Climate Change', that will also save the sea creatures, including the whales and sea otters.
It has also been said that 'Climate Change' is responsible for the changing habitat of elephants, causing them to move closer to where people live and making it easier for poachers.
Climate change significantly contributed to the 2019 Amazon rainforest fires by creating drier conditions through increased temperatures, leading to a more flammable environment where fires could easily ignite and spread.
It has also been said that 'Climate Change' can cause hair loss in humans, as it dries out the oils in your hair follicles. But if you stay indoors and read this, it could also lead to hair loss because of too much scratching your head can inflame your hair follicles.
But, instead of scratching my head, I am typing and my hands are away from my head, so 'Climate Change' may be responsible for keeping my full head of hair ...as I see what is going on, and not scratching my head.
S.938 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) ---National Climate Emergency Act of 2021 or the Climate Emergency Act of 2021
This bill directs the President to declare a national emergency relating to climate change. Further, the President must ensure that the federal government invests in projects to mitigate the emergency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At least 40% of such investments must be for historically disadvantaged communities.
A 'disadvantaged community' is labeled with consideration of socioeconomic conditions. A survey from GOBankingRates found that the typical cost of owning a car amounts to $762 a month or $9,144 a year. That total includes monthly car payments as well as insurance, sales taxes, gasoline costs and repairs. (If the government tries to legislate for electric cars, which has been attempted in some states, the cost would be much higher and even more unaffordable.) So, many individuals in historically disadvantaged communities cannot afford a car, and though it is good if the disadvantaged can have an equal advantage, investing at least 40% in these communities has created a shift from public transportation to allowing these individuals to own a car ...which I have no problem with, as I do not see car emissions as the sole problem.
These same companies who claim to be making environmentally friendly investments do in fact create and invest in companies that do create alternate sources of energy ...yet, they also make much money on those investments, while also investing in companies that do quite the opposite.
Open-pit lithium mining has a negative impact on the environment in several ways, including:
(Sorry, I didn't quote my source, yet I'd guess the source would want this information to be shared.)
Water use: Lithium mining requires a lot of water, which can lead to water scarcity in arid regions. Drought: Nevada is the driest state in the US, with an average annual rainfall of 9.5 inches. The state has been experiencing drought conditions, which have caused water levels in Lake Mead to decline. In 2021, the Secretary of the Interior declared a shortage for the first time, reducing the amount of water available to Nevada.
Climate pollution: Mining machinery creates climate pollution, and mining lithium emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Lithium mining, with almost 90%, is primarily concentrated in regions like Australia, Chile, Argentina, and China. These countries, including Argentina, Zimbabwe, and Brazil, were key contributors to the lithium market in 2023. The extraction process, mainly through brine mining, poses significant risks, including water pollution and depletion, biodiversity loss, and carbon emissions. Every tonne of mined lithium results in 15 tonnes of CO2 emissions in the environment.
Also, companies that say they are concerned for the environment are likewise not saving the rainforests ...they are also investing in companies that are rapidly increasing the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. And it was not so much 'Climate Change' that caused the fires in 2019 ...85% of the fires in 2019 in Brazil were in areas that had suffered deforestation the previous year. It is reported that only two people died in the fires, and we can be thankful for that it was not more people. Yet, this fact still remains: In 2019, unprecedented wildfires destroyed thousands of square miles of Amazon rainforest, roughly the size of New Jersey.
Humans are ruining the ecological balance the rainforest provides by removing tree cover and vegetation. What remains out in the open gets drier and drier. The conditions created are too ideal for combustion. A rainforest is unlikely to catch on fire. If left intact, it retains adequate moisture to prevent fires.
And why is this deforestation taking place? It should be noted that Brazil exported beef to 126 countries in 2023, with China accounting for well-over half of the beef exports. The Brazilian Beef Exporters Association (ABIEC) represents 39 companies in the beef sector and is responsible for 98% of the country's beef traded internationally. The top companies are JBS, Minerva, and Marfrig ...and who do you think are top shareholders in these companies?? Yes, the same investments companies that say they are committed to environmentally safe investments.
Why is this relevant?
A simple fact is that plants take in carbon dioxide and they produce oxygen in exchange. Several reports concur to a general estimate that forests take in about 30% of all carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels, and one fourth of that is from the Amazon rainforest alone.
U.S. international public climate finance increased 286% from 2021 to 2022, reaching $5.8 billion in 2022. In 2023, preliminary estimates suggest that U.S. climate finance will exceed $9.5 billion, on track to meet the President's pledge in 2024.
Yet, this estimate still remains: About 20% of the Amazon biome has been lost already, and it is estimated that 27% will be without trees by 2030 if the current rate of deforestation continues.
So, we seem to be turning a blind eye to the very solution that has been provided by our planet, for those living on our planet. And investors get rich by participating in the financing of things that are clearly contrary to their supposed sincere claims. They've not become rich by ignorance, so they know what is going on ---and they distract us by issues they bring to the forefront, so we don't focus one the bigger problem that is going on ---that they hope we don't see. So much is denied, censored, and dismissed by being laughed at. Others don't want to be laughed at, so they join in on the laughter. Our election in less than a month (2024) has expressed much of this laughter. They want us to embrace a person, not policy ...and they want us to laugh and celebrate with them.
Should we ...as they laugh all the way to the bank??
"Tax the rich!" ...while so many get rich by being managers of hedge funds, and they themselves avoid getting taxed, nor do they contribute to our economy.
Who questions these individuals who are obviously not on the up-and-up?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. questions the existence of these very things ...but sadly, many (if not most) people don't view much of what is real as credible. It is viewed as QAnon fodder, a conspiracy, or just plain laughable.
The fact that they don't consider it even worth looking into, makes me think that perhaps they don't want it to be looked into.
The information that I have looked up is there for everyone to see ...but if you just trust most media outlets to report it, then you may never see it. It may require you to dig a little yourself.
(And I don't do my digging with a silver spoon.)
If you say that the internet information can't be fully trusted, then I will agree. Yet, isn't that what most of us do ...we read something or hear something and decide to what degree we trust what is being communicated??
I know most news sources have an agenda, so I like to read that which is usually considered opposing views. And if someone who usually presents one agenda suddenly reports something that I usually don't see them reporting, then I think that raises the credibility level if both agree on it.
Of course, they may not be drawing the same conclusions ...but, the information may be the same. And we all have to work from some starting point.
Point-game-set-match ...
We can all volley our opinions, but just like in tennis ...you shouldn't ignore the points, you should be eager and willing to meet the challenge (to be in the meet, and be game for it), you should set all the information in front of you, and see if it will match with the true reality (not just the one we are told).
And considering how each compares ...I don't consume my thoughts so much on how I fare, I rank God #1.
