Mental Illness & the Elites' Failure to address Climate Crisis
You might think that because numerous governments and the media are ignoring the severity of our climate crisis, that people around the world would also be ignorant of the looming catastrophe for human life on this planet. However, you would be wrong about that. The realization that no one is willing to take the measures necessary to, at best. ameliorate the coming collapse of human civilization has resulted in many people suffering severe anxiety and depression, and fueling a mental health crisis that will only get worse.
The International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, for one example, recently devoted an entire issue regarding the deleterious effects on the mental health of individuals who are fully aware we very likely have already passe a tipping point in the rate of global warming that no amount of emissions reductions can eliminate.
Living in a progressively more hostile and uncertain environment where governmental leaders do not give credence to the reality of the changes afoot may be experienced as a cumulative trauma (Khan, 1963), in which large groups may feel “gaslighted” and terribly unprotected by their elected leaders. Currently, the political forces in power in the U.S. oppose conservation, show little respect for nature, and ignore the protection of our natural resources. Planning for future generations who will inhabit the planet is disregarded in favor of short‐term exploitation and gain. At the time of this writing, under the Trump regime, the U.S. has pulled out of the Paris Accords, sweeping deregulation has undone years of environmental protection, and there are precious little economic initiatives to finding alternative sources of energy. Moreover, the longest lasting government shutdown in history has led to further degradation of national parks and destruction of endangered flora and fauna. Climate change skepticism or frank dismissal of the data prevails. And lastly, record‐breaking fires in California have resulted in many deaths and untold destruction of property, leaving the land very vulnerable to mudslides during heavy rains. The destruction of our beautiful land seems inevitable, and a the U.S. remains a global leader, the example it sets has an enormous ripple effects on the rest of the world which struggles with its own major issues.
The necessity for members of our field to apply psychoanalytic thinking to address this most pressing issue facing our species is not up for debate.
We are at a point where the evidence from the research has shown that climate change is accelerating far faster than many scientific models predicted. As more individuals worldwide come to grips with the truth that we face and ever bleaker future that will arrive not in 100 years but within the next three decades, it's not surprising that they are experiencing this flood of negative information that our species faces near-term societal collapse because of the climate crisis as trauma, trauma equivalent to learning that not only they are individuals to die from a terminal disease, but that most of their loved ones and friends will as well. This trauma is intensified by the utter failure of our political leaders to face the truth that we need to be preparing for the worst today, not fifty years from now.
This trauma is felt most strongly by climate activists, who despite their best efforts, have been unable to create a sense of urgency in the face of the deeply ingrained inertia prevalent among the political and business elites who refuse to take any action that would disrupt corporate profits. Yet it's not only activists who are suffering this overwhelming sense of dread and grief, but also millions of people who have borne the brunt of the effects of extreme weather events, from droughts, wildfires, rising seas, and extreme storms. As journalist and activist Leonie Joubert recently noted, even the IPCC has concluded that the irreversible effects of climate change we are already witnessing will trigger a massive mental health crisis for which our civilization is unprepared.
The UN IPCC’s next big assessment of the state-of-climate science, due out in 2022, will give unprecedented attention to the mental health fallout from the acute stress of surviving extreme weather events, or the chronic distress of facing the existential threat of our own extinction.
Eco-psychology is a budding new movement. [...]
“Good psychotherapy is not available to many people,” [Professor Jem Bendell, a leader of the Extinction Rebellion movement] said during an address to the UK Council for Psychotherapy recently. “And even if it is, then not regularly unless you are rich. It is also something that most people don’t look for. People who do not seek emotional support may be suppressing difficult emotions of sadness and fear, in ways that lead to the secondary emotions of anger, blame and hatred, as a means of escaping from their pain. That will make matters (in climate collapse) worse.
“Consequently, to help reduce harm from disruptions to our societies, there is a need for psychotherapeutic support to be provided, without request, across the whole of society.”
Bendell is no doubt correct in his assessment, and even more reason to move beyond a healthcare delivery system in the United States that is dependent on profit and market forces. But as we are seeing in the current Democratic Primary, there is great opposition from the Democratic leadership to address both our nation's healthcare crisis, much less the adopt policies and programs necessary to adapt our society for the ever damaging effects of the world's climate catastrophe.
The great tragedy is that in many countries, but especially the United States, the amount of concern about climate change and the desire to take action is directly correlated to whether they are conservative (and I include neoliberal Democrats in this category) or leftist/progressive, and whether they receive their information from traditional media versus alternative media, including social media. This has led to a generational divide, where younger people see climate change as the most important issue facing humanity, whereas the older the generation, the less concerned people are.
“In this year when young people mobilised in huge numbers for the climate, it can be no surprise that many of those surveyed saw it as one of the most important issues facing the world,” said Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General of Amnesty International.
“For young people the climate crisis is one of the defining challenges of their age. This is a wake-up call to world leaders that they must take far more decisive action to tackle the climate emergency or risk betraying younger generations further.”
In the UK, the failure of Labour to overcome the Conservatives relentless focus on Brexit over every other issue resulted in a new government that will continue to ignore climate issues. We in the United States cannot allow that to happen here. If we do, we will lose our last, best opportunity to moderate the already "baked-in" effects of climate change. Otherwise, we will bear witness to the deaths of billions and societal collapse, a looming disaster whose effects I believe we can still limit, if not completely avoid. And one of those effects will be a mental health crisis of unprecedented proportions. We either adapt and fundamentally change our civilization, or face literal extinction with all the horrors that implies.
“This global capitalist experiment, this experiment of industrialization and burning fossil fuels rampantly is an utter, abject failure,” [Dahr} Jamail told The Intercept. He believes it is time to start adapting. We should act like the climate crisis has arrived and, most significantly, reconnect to the planet.
We have repeatedly been told over the last several decades, whenever an election cycle came around, that that the current one is the "most important election in our history." This time, I sincerely believe it is not a mere catchphrase, but a flat fact. Failure to elect the right people to office in 2020, candidates committed to the New Green Deal or programs similar to it, is not an option of we wish to avoid the worst case scenario.
Comments
Y'all so hopeless --
because you start from presuppositions that don't pan out. Of course there will be no climate change mitigation under the existing dispensation. Their ideas of climate change mitigation all involve allowing fossil fuel companies to increase production each year.
Eventually they'll have to have meetings on this stuff. And at those meetings, you can tell them that what they're proposing is not going to work, that at least 60% of it is doing stuff to make them feel good without really addressing the problem. Plant lots of fruit trees so that when the refugees come you'll have something to feed them. Shut down the oil companies. Join Extinction Rebellion.
People are becoming mentally ill because there's no future on an economic level. The investor class Hoovers up ALL economic gains today, and so all there are are crap jobs from here to eternity. Forget about savings: the next downturn will wipe them out if you were able to have any anyway. Forget about retirement: even Obama wanted chained CPI. Comfort means waiting decades for your parents to die so you can live well off of the inheritance for a little while. If you live in Moldova it means selling one of your kidneys so you can have some temporary comfort from the proceeds. And don't forget the Barackstar's role in making sure you won't be able to pull any stunt like Occupy any time soon.
Doing something about climate change involves stopping disaster a couple of decades from now -- present day climate change is a comeuppance from carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere a couple of decades ago. Organize the millennials -- they know.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
The real solution is with the new society we'll create
The question they're now asking, big and bold, is "how can we mitigate climate change while leaving everything else the same?" The real question to ask is: "what kind of society would be able to mitigate climate change, and how can we get that kind of society?"
https://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/search-in-kc/2975-climate-cha...
Password: AddletonAP2009
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
This is so important
And something we should be talking about more. There's still a lot of stigma around mental illness, and more specifically getting help for dealing with mental illness. It's another thing that divides older generations from younger ones--thinking mental illness is a sign of weakness vs. being open and candid about going to therapy.
I was lucky enough to find a good therapist that I like right in town and that is covered by our medical assistance. (I love my state; I never want to leave MN again if I can help it.) I figured that was more productive than ranting on here and possibly offending people.
A lot of older people either don't seem to think climate change is real, or they'll be dead by the time things get really bad so they don't care. Greta Thunberg is fucking right, and it makes me sick to see how people treat her and talk about her.
I still have a lot of anger and distrust of boomers, but it's something I'm working on. Getting out of my toxic work situation has helped immensely too; I quit without notice and haven't looked back and I feel so much better for it.
This shit is bananas.
Good on you Khalessi
I hope it all works out for ya!
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
The Green New Deal,
if implemented as per plan, would completely destroy life in America as we know it. Most people do not realize how much energy it requires to have the lifestyle of the average American.
Take a look at the following chart showing world energy consumption:
Does anyone really think we can replace oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy sources with renewable's in the next 10 yrs?
Personally, I think the problem is over-hyped, especially with Greta now running around screaming that the sky is falling and everyone's going to die in 10 years. I have more faith in human ingenuity.
Unfortunately, the country that consumes the most energy (and resources) on a per capita basis (2x Europe, 5X China) is also the country that spends the most on weapons of destruction and the least towards ameliorating global warming - both at the governmental AND the personal, individual level.
China has 421,000 electric buses - the US has 300. China has 30,000 km of efficient, high speed electric rail line rated 200-350 kmh. The US has ZERO!
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King, Jr. (I might now add, economic doom.)
The Chinese view global warming as an opportunity and they are embracing the challenge.
ordinary Americans' energy use
Actually, ordinary Americans' only major change is going to be the de-automobilification of our urban lifestyles. All urban areas will need to adopt rail-based public transport systems and strong incentives to insure their use. (Paris is already doing this.) All employers will have to adjust both schedules and policies to conform with a public transit based transportation paradigm.
This is hardly "complete destruction of life in America as we know it." In fact, until the onset of American deindustrialization in the mid-1960s, it was American life as we knew it.
We need to address where most of our energy waste really occurs: our regime change built military. A single American fighter plane burns more carbon fuel in one hour than the worst coal-rolling 3-car American family burns in a year. The smallest nuclear powerplant in an American nuclear submarine can power a city with a million inhabitants, much less the far larger such powerplants powering our superheavy class (Ronald Reagan et al.) aircraft carriers.
Face the fact that we really can't and shouldn't be the world's unpaid policeman and adjust the size of our military accordingly, and we'd be 90% of the way to full compliance with the Paris Climate Protocol. And we'd be able to pay for the rest of the changes we'd need to make (high-speed intercity rail, a modern high-efficiency electric power grid, carbon efficient agriculture and industries, etc.) as well.
Of course, for this to happen, we'd need to rid ourselves of our current trellocracy first......
edit: trellocracy (n.): rule by the most insane; a form of kakistocracy.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
It would be the complete destruction
of America to achieve the following:
How much energy will it take to build 30,000 km of high speed rail line plus the 5,200 high speed train sets to run on them? Do you know how much steel for rails, rebar and girders plus aluminum and copper would have to be mined, transported, smelted and rolled/formed? The thousands of tons of plastic and glass that has to be produced? What about the tens of millions of tons of cement that needs to be mined and produced using coal? With American private property rights, getting right-of-way would be close to impossible.
What China is aiming for is to have peak CO2 emissions occurring in 2030 and it appears they will hit their target. No other industrial country will match that (the US wants to do it by 2050). BTW, much of the energy China uses goes to make cheap shoes and underwear and toys and electronics for first world countries like the US so the energy they use to produce these goods really belongs to the countries that purchases the goods.
I don't see the US ever catching up.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_Sa1YHmxog]
What's required --
is the reduction of total energy diet from what we have now --
in which single-occupancy automobiles cram the roads each working day so as to take commuters performing predatory, nonessential, occupations to workplaces all though identical traffic jams --
to the energy diet of what Karl Marx, in volume 1 of Capital, called the "union of free producers," in which everyone would actually be doing something good for someone else. The resultant energy savings would boggle the mind. This is discussed in an article by Victor Wallis in the December 1997 issue of Capitalism Nature Socialism titled "Ecological Socialism and Human Needs." You'd see an across-the-board elimination of advertising, insurance, accounting, banking, a number of professions related to urban sprawl and economic globalization, industrialized agriculture, much of what counts as spectator sports, and a great number of hypertrophied military, legal, and police ‘services’ (49).
Picture the realization of the lyrics of John Lennon's "Imagine" if that helps any. Yep, that's what it would take. Now think of neoliberal politicians telling you that survival isn't "realistic."
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
What will Americans do for a paycheck?
Those are all the current high paying jobs.
America has become a post-industrial nation. Most jobs are now low level service jobs and they do not pay enough to maintain a good quality of life.
The shitte is going to hit the proverbial fan in the next decade. A tremendous number of people have bought things on debt that they will not be able to pay off - cars, education, housing. Going green means that the cost of goods and services will have to reflect the true cost.
With a union of free producers
every job is high-paying because there are no capitalist vampires sucking the life out of the system.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
How do you propose to do that
in a society as complex and global as ours is now?
I don't think it's "complexity" that's the problem.
The problem is economic control, fortified through military control.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
i'm a bit lost as to
whose GND you're quoting: aoc/markey's, bernie sanders', the UK's, likely not howie hawkins' version of the Green Party's original GND.
i may regret weighing in this late in the day (for me) but: i'd recently tried to discover what the rather empty phrase 'net-zero carbon emissions' meant, and came upon stephen boni at the ghion journal (Our Pens Are Our sWORDS) parsing net-zero carbon emissions as per cory morningstar: (and i keep not reading her series, as it's so hard on my eyes/brain, although i've learned tons fro her over the past decade:
and all sorts of new corporate start-ups are afoot, including bald ones like We Mean Business, invest in green capitalism, stocks, bonds, etc.
dunno about high speed electric rail, but the Green Capitalists like bill mcKibben:
'trade in your old gas-guzzling SUV for an electric one' make me howl: first, from what source does that electrical plug-in derive?, and how much carbon do those new e-vehicles cost to manufacture, and third, how many nations' minerals will be plundered for the minerals to produce those batteries? (i've forgotten the list already; cobalt, lithium?.)
ah, more later; chores to do. but yeah, i believe there's a hella lot of hype afoot, esp. given that it all may be totally baked in by now. more on that later as i can.
It's Howie Hawkins' version
https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal
You are correct. But, reducing world consumption is not an option unless the second/third world are to be denied the right to live like an American or a European. I see very few North Americans who are willing to change their lifestyles to that of a citizen of Botswana. Net Zero CO2 Emissions will stop the increasing rate of global warming due to CO2. The excess CO2 will have to be minimized and sequestered in the interim until methods of economically converting the CO2 to other products for recycling. Lots of work being done in this regard. We'll most likely see some major developments within the next decade.
Frankly, I am more concerned that the US war machine will blow up the world before it is destroyed by global warming.
actually, your link is to the
national green party's GND; howie's has a few differences... and here i'd gone to find more on aoc's silly putty works and obfuscating buzz words, given her: retrofit every building in the US, total appeal to identity politics, and buzzwords about funding and business. didn't find my write up, but i did find whitney webb's, although it's long.
the net-zero carbon fixes are very big ticket items, and to me...where constantly ramping up 'FEAR and anxiety' comes in is that far too may people do lose their equanimity and will
endorse anything that 'might' work, such as all the geoengineering experiments afoot.
the Fear Factor has also meant that nuclear is back on the table, as is eugenics for the global south, (david atthenborough had mentioned ethiopia) where citizens carbon footprints are about a hundredth the size of the average USian. bill and mellie gates are helping that project along in sub-saharan africa, too, with subcutaneous birth control chips.
and few will admit that the US military has the largest carbon footprint on the planet, and that large ships put out as much carbon as a gazillion cars. as to this:
maybe, but at what cost, what timeline, what measure of feasibility? and what about the methane feedback loops? as the permafrost melts, and methane is now bubbling out of the ocean floor. to my mind, that's part of what bakes the sixth extinction, or whatever people fear, seem baked in for good, added to the ocean temps and that they no longer are able to act as either heat nor carbon sinks.
but yes; with the nuclear clock now at one minute to midnight, courtesy of amerika, the likelihood of the world blowing up before humanity is destroyed by climate change is higher. and personally, i'm not concerned about the latter, as some sort of earth will remain, and may be able to heal. Gaia theory?
On edit: an example from an eco-socialist:
cord had also tweeted examples of things i'd used in 'now they're coming after eco-socialist evo morales' (gteta and XR) co-auhthor of the 'cochabamba accords' in 2010.
they knew what lay beneath the warming and degrading planet was Capitalism; but now with Climate Emergency declarations, most fixes afoot are Capitalist profiteering.
Maybe earth would be a better place
w/o humans on it? I think Gaia is pretty pissed off about what we humans have done to her. But, I'm sure she could repair the damage in 500,000 years or so after we are gone.
yes.
i've long imagined her shrugging humanity off the planet as a horse is able to rumple and shiver its hide to shrug off flies. kinda like a Reverse 'Rapture'... ; ) sadly, all would have to be jettisoned, even the ones who's played no part in consumer capitalism, but life and death aren't always fair.
dunno which life forms might be alive after nuclear conflagration, cockraches and __, but long ago R Cobb saw it this way:
p.s. i'd edited my earlier comment above w/ examples and a nuclear clock hyperlink.
Most of it wouldn't even take that long.
Read the book The World Without Us by Alan Weisman; it's pretty good. The planet itself will be fine, yes, it's just too bad that we'll take so many species out with us.
IDK, I'm still getting a lot of "Well, it won't fix the problem 100% so why bother?" vibes. This is why I'm so angry.
This shit is bananas.
99.9% of all the species to have
ever lived on the earth have already gone extinct. The world has seen far worse eons ago - major ice ages, asteroid hits, continents colliding, global warming such that the poles were jungles. More recently, 2 major world wars, hundreds of smaller wars, lethal pandemics and famines that have killed untold hundreds of millions in the past. But we survived and rebuilt.
The one thing that gives humans an edge is their intelligence - for better or worse. We are now on the cusp of designing carbon sinks and carbon neutral energy supplies.
Just too bad the rapacious war mongering US MIC is sucking much of the expertise and funds that could be applied to mankind's problems. The only solution is the demise of the US$ so it's funding can be cut off. Hopefully they won't respond by trying to take out the rest of the world with them.
Other than that, I'm still optimistic about the future. Maybe I will be leaving my grandchildren a nice waterfront property!
Something to cheer you up:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrdEMERq8MA]
the Weisman book
is really kind of like the scenes in the Margaret Atwood Maddaddam novels in which everyone has been wiped out in a plague.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
we've really got to get away --
from the "reducing carbon emissions" model of climate change mitigation. We can't just assume that everything can stay the same while we mitigate climate change. It's got to be "what kind of society would mitigate climate change, and how could we get that society?"
Once again:
Climate Change Mitigation in Fantasy and Reality
Password; AddletonAP2009
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
i do remember your
thesis on the subject, but at this late date, you might have rather explored "what kind of society would have mitigated climate change, and how could we have created that society?"
and i'd offer: an anitcapitalist, antimperialist society like bolivia under evo morales and others in the global south who'd created documents akin to the cochabamba accords in 2010.
giving mother earth herself the status of 'personhood'? zounds! ; )
Nothing to see here
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/14/final-hours-cop-25-denounce...
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Who among the assembled vampires
wanted even to be in Spain anyway? Couldn't they just go home and tell the public they're finished? With Trump the global elites edge closer to complete honesty about their real purposes every day.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
It's good that somebody is thinking about the mental health
aspects of this. I admit I'm surprised that anybody saw it as worth study, given that the general message du jour appears to be "Suck it up, you little no-name monkeys."
Unfortunately, I feel that psychotherapy is not at all prepared to deal with issues that do not arise from one's personal life issues and fixed beliefs ingrained from childhood. Therapy, in my experience, has no way to address either existential issues, like mortality, or social issues, like tyranny. Tyranny being the disease of which climate change is the symptom.
I'd like to be wrong about therapy, because it would mean I could get some help (maybe). But it seems to me that the only profession that can address this speaks not from an armchair, but a pulpit. Now is a great time to worship a sky god who promises an afterlife.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Nukes or climate change,
one way or another, it's gonna gitcha gitcha.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
'promises an afterlife';
good on ya. but what sort of afterlife is promised, lol. i dunno, mr. wd and i find this helpful, as did most of my bodywork/soulwork practice clients. it's easy to earn, feels good to do, and it's also free. (although it didn't used to be when i'd bought the full dozen tapes 20 years ago.)
The Green Deal We Really Need
The U.S., prior to WWII, had highly developed urban transit systems (virtually all major cities had trolley systems in place) and an excellent inter-city rail system as well. It was not a car-centric culture. Then, in the 1950's, the interstate highway system was built, suburban developments built around car-culture boomed, and the trolley tracks were ripped up and replaced by diesel buses. The inter-city train system was allowed to go bust and eventually consolidated in Amtrak (a pale shadow of what was), airports were expanded, and intercity transport became dominated by air travel. Add in a bloated military system that burns through oil, uranium and other toxic materials at an unprecedented rate. That is how the U.S. became the most profligate waster of energy in the world.
It is clear that we need to do two things:
1) Renounce war as our foreign policy and dismantle most of the military machine that we use to police the world for capitalism. We do not need to be fighting in Afghanistan. We do not need a dozen aircraft carrier battle groups. We could cut our military establishment in half and still be more than a match for anyone trying to threaten us. Doing this would be a big plus for the natural environment.
2) Rebuild the urban transit systems and intercity trains that would allow people to get out of their cars. Encourage redevelopment of cities, building of towns that are walkable, get away from the car-centric suburban model. This would be a major undertaking and would, indeed, change the life-style of Americans.
We need to implement this with a national jobs program that would put people to work building the necessary infrastructure. It would be rather like the New Deal of the 1930's, but on a bigger scale. (As good as the old New Deal was, it wasn't big enough--it was only the massive mobilization for World War II that really banished the depression of that time.)
It's pretty clear that our capitalist elite is not up for this kind of change. You only get this kind of societal change if the majority population is in the saddle, directing things for their own interest. For the many, not the few. Socialism.
Which is more crazy
Imagining a better world (we know the steps)
or thinking the rulers will allow change?
treasure every day
(3 min)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_csqI2ZdIfU]
Dr. Peter Carter is founder of the Climate Emergency Institute and has served as an expert reviewer for the IPCC.
I continue planting trees to improve my attitude and keep my mind clear...not that I'm deluded into thinking it will make a difference, other than helping my state of mind.
The 12 days of crisis sing along (5.3 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GZF9WdGZ3Q
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Thanks for the video
I wasn’t aware of the NO2 uptick. According to this GreenPeace summary it appears to be mostly... coal plants.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg