 |
 |
|
|
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2021
Trump fucked up everything. Biden is fixing it.
Friday, June 11, 2021
Republicans are stupid fucking assholes.
A comment I wrote at the Washington Post:
"Republicans pushed to open up remote and largely-pristine areas in Alaska to drilling, mining and logging while Trump was in office, from its southeast edge to the western Arctic and the Bering Sea."
I don't know why the Republicans want to destroy the environment. Maybe it's because they're stupid, and a few other adjectives I can't use here.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Washington Post
Biden officials move to reinstate Alaska roadless rule, overturning Trump policy
The proposal would affect 9.3 million acres of forest, including vast areas of old growth, Bill Clinton originally protected in 2001.
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
President Biden wants to protect my favorite creatures. That's a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 25, 2021
When fucktard Trump was president that asshole wanted to destroy the environment. Thank goodness Biden won the election.
|
|
|
|
Saturday, May 22, 2021
Thursday, May 6, 2021
Asshole Trump wanted to kill birds. President Biden is fixing the problem. Trump needs to be put in prison.
"Months after the Trump administration weakened the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, allowing industry and individuals to unintentionally kill any number of birds, the Biden administration proposed a new rule Thursday that would revoke that change."
Climate and Environment
Trump weakened an iconic law that protects birds. Biden just moved to restore it.
The Biden administration proposed a rule that would punish people and companies that accidentally kill birds, erasing Trump’s decision to forgive the deaths.
By Darryl Fears Reporter
May 6, 2021
Months after the Trump administration weakened the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, allowing industry and individuals to unintentionally kill any number of birds, the Biden administration proposed a new rule Thursday that would revoke that change.
The proposal announced by the Interior Department would restore protections under the 102-year-old law that governed incidental take, or accidental killings of birds by people and organizations such as oil and gas companies that fail to take proper precautions to not harm the animals.
“The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a bedrock environmental law that is critical to protecting migratory birds and restoring declining bird populations,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement. “Today’s actions will serve to better align Interior with its mission and ensure that our decisions are guided by the best-available science.”
Days before President Donald Trump left the White House, Interior finalized a rule on Jan. 7 that it had sought to enact for four years. Based on a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service solicitor’s opinion, the department said accidents resulting in bird deaths are not prohibited by the act. For example, it said, a person who destroys a structure such as a barn full of baby owls in nests is not liable for killing them. It ordered wildlife police to ignore what had been a crime.
Even catastrophic events such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana that destroyed or injured up to 1 million birds could not be punished. In the past, “the department has pursued MBTA claims against companies responsible for oil spills that incidentally killed or injured migratory birds. That avenue is no longer available,” the Trump administration said.
Tracking Biden's environmental actions
Oil companies were the greatest beneficiaries of the Trump interpretation, according to an analysis by the Audubon Society. They were responsible for 90 percent of incidental takes prosecuted under the act, resulting in fines of $6,500 per violation. Two disastrous oil spills, Deepwater Horizon in 2010 and the Exxon Valdez oil tanker wreck off Alaska in 1989, accounted for 97 percent of the fines, according to the Audubon Society.
The Independent Petroleum Association said it was disappointed in the proposal. “Repealing this provision will not have the desired outcome of additional conservation but will, in fact, financially harm businesses who have an incidental take through no fault of their own,” Mallori Miller, the group’s vice president of government relations, said in a statement.
In another statement, Amy Emmert, a senior adviser for the American Petroleum Institute, said that “the natural gas and oil industry is committed to the protection of migratory birds, and our members engage in safety and conservation actions that both protect wildlife and ensure responsible development throughout their operations.”
Emmert said the group hopes to work with Interior to craft a new rule. “As the facts show, natural gas and oil operations are not a primary threat to bird populations, and we will continue to support policies that enhance environmental protection and safe, responsible energy development,” she said.
Skyscrapers, cars, power lines and cats, among other things, are responsible for taking hundreds of millions of birds per year, according to analysis by groups such as the American Bird Conservancy. But industry kills thousands of birds yearly when it can better protect them, authorities say.
“We’re confident in the Biden administration’s commitment to both bring these protections back and to strengthen them,” said Sarah Greenberger, senior vice president of conservation for Audubon. “We hope to see the administration follow quickly with another rulemaking to establish a reasonable permitting approach for incidental take. A permitting program is a common-sense approach to clarifying these long-standing protections and providing the certainty industry wants.”
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was enacted in July 2018 after several species of common birds became extinct. The Trump administration’s action reversed decades of efforts by Republican and Democratic administrations to protect the animals as they navigate the globe. The law covers such disparate birds as eagles, red knots, Canada geese and vultures.
Eight state attorneys general and numerous conservation groups challenged the Trump administration in court after it proposed to change enforcement of the act. New York State Attorney Barbara Underwood called the administration’s reinterpretation “yet another giveaway to special interests at the expense of our states.”
In August, U.S. District Judge Valerie E. Caproni issued an opinion that invalidated the Trump administration’s interpretation of “takings” and “killings” of birds under the act as applying only if the animals are specifically targeted.
Caproni cited Harper Lee’s novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” as she struck down the solicitor’s opinion. “There is nothing in the text of the MBTA that suggests that in order to fall within its prohibition, activity must be directed specifically at birds,” Caproni wrote. “Nor does the statute prohibit only intentionally killing migratory birds. And it certainly does not say that only ‘some’ kills are prohibited.”
“Migratory bird conservation is an integral part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s mission,” said the agency’s principal deputy director, Martha Williams. “We have heard from our partners, the public, tribes, states and numerous other stakeholders from across the country that it is imperative the previous administration’s rollback of the MBTA be reviewed to ensure continued progress toward common-sense standards that protect migratory birds.”
Climate and Environment
Trump weakened an iconic law that protects birds. Biden just moved to restore it.
The Biden administration proposed a rule that would punish people and companies that accidentally kill birds, erasing Trump’s decision to forgive the deaths.
By Darryl Fears Reporter
May 6, 2021
Months after the Trump administration weakened the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, allowing industry and individuals to unintentionally kill any number of birds, the Biden administration proposed a new rule Thursday that would revoke that change.
The proposal announced by the Interior Department would restore protections under the 102-year-old law that governed incidental take, or accidental killings of birds by people and organizations such as oil and gas companies that fail to take proper precautions to not harm the animals.
“The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a bedrock environmental law that is critical to protecting migratory birds and restoring declining bird populations,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement. “Today’s actions will serve to better align Interior with its mission and ensure that our decisions are guided by the best-available science.”
Days before President Donald Trump left the White House, Interior finalized a rule on Jan. 7 that it had sought to enact for four years. Based on a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service solicitor’s opinion, the department said accidents resulting in bird deaths are not prohibited by the act. For example, it said, a person who destroys a structure such as a barn full of baby owls in nests is not liable for killing them. It ordered wildlife police to ignore what had been a crime.
Even catastrophic events such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana that destroyed or injured up to 1 million birds could not be punished. In the past, “the department has pursued MBTA claims against companies responsible for oil spills that incidentally killed or injured migratory birds. That avenue is no longer available,” the Trump administration said.
Tracking Biden's environmental actions
Oil companies were the greatest beneficiaries of the Trump interpretation, according to an analysis by the Audubon Society. They were responsible for 90 percent of incidental takes prosecuted under the act, resulting in fines of $6,500 per violation. Two disastrous oil spills, Deepwater Horizon in 2010 and the Exxon Valdez oil tanker wreck off Alaska in 1989, accounted for 97 percent of the fines, according to the Audubon Society.
The Independent Petroleum Association said it was disappointed in the proposal. “Repealing this provision will not have the desired outcome of additional conservation but will, in fact, financially harm businesses who have an incidental take through no fault of their own,” Mallori Miller, the group’s vice president of government relations, said in a statement.
In another statement, Amy Emmert, a senior adviser for the American Petroleum Institute, said that “the natural gas and oil industry is committed to the protection of migratory birds, and our members engage in safety and conservation actions that both protect wildlife and ensure responsible development throughout their operations.”
Emmert said the group hopes to work with Interior to craft a new rule. “As the facts show, natural gas and oil operations are not a primary threat to bird populations, and we will continue to support policies that enhance environmental protection and safe, responsible energy development,” she said.
Skyscrapers, cars, power lines and cats, among other things, are responsible for taking hundreds of millions of birds per year, according to analysis by groups such as the American Bird Conservancy. But industry kills thousands of birds yearly when it can better protect them, authorities say.
“We’re confident in the Biden administration’s commitment to both bring these protections back and to strengthen them,” said Sarah Greenberger, senior vice president of conservation for Audubon. “We hope to see the administration follow quickly with another rulemaking to establish a reasonable permitting approach for incidental take. A permitting program is a common-sense approach to clarifying these long-standing protections and providing the certainty industry wants.”
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was enacted in July 2018 after several species of common birds became extinct. The Trump administration’s action reversed decades of efforts by Republican and Democratic administrations to protect the animals as they navigate the globe. The law covers such disparate birds as eagles, red knots, Canada geese and vultures.
Eight state attorneys general and numerous conservation groups challenged the Trump administration in court after it proposed to change enforcement of the act. New York State Attorney Barbara Underwood called the administration’s reinterpretation “yet another giveaway to special interests at the expense of our states.”
In August, U.S. District Judge Valerie E. Caproni issued an opinion that invalidated the Trump administration’s interpretation of “takings” and “killings” of birds under the act as applying only if the animals are specifically targeted.
Caproni cited Harper Lee’s novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” as she struck down the solicitor’s opinion. “There is nothing in the text of the MBTA that suggests that in order to fall within its prohibition, activity must be directed specifically at birds,” Caproni wrote. “Nor does the statute prohibit only intentionally killing migratory birds. And it certainly does not say that only ‘some’ kills are prohibited.”
“Migratory bird conservation is an integral part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s mission,” said the agency’s principal deputy director, Martha Williams. “We have heard from our partners, the public, tribes, states and numerous other stakeholders from across the country that it is imperative the previous administration’s rollback of the MBTA be reviewed to ensure continued progress toward common-sense standards that protect migratory birds.”
President Biden is getting stuff done to save the environment. The stupid fucking asshole who used to be president was constantly trying to destroy the environment.
|
|
|
|
Thursday, April 29, 2021
President Biden is fixing Fucktard Trump's mistakes. Trump belongs in prison.
The Washington Post
April 28, 2021
The Senate voted Wednesday to restore an Obama-era regulation that imposed limits on methane leaks from oil and gas operations.
The move marks both the first major congressional rebuke of former president Donald Trump’s environmental policies, and a step forward for the Biden administration’s ambitious climate agenda.
“We have to stop lighting the matches of methane pollution,” Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said at a news conference Wednesday morning.
The vote is also the first time Democrats have used the 1996 Congressional Review Act to reverse a federal regulation.
The measure cleared the divided Senate by a 52 to 42 vote. It is expected to easily pass the House and would then head to President Biden’s desk.
Biden has called limiting emissions of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas that when released without being burned has more than 80 times the climate impact of carbon dioxide — key to his pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent by the end of the decade.
“This is a really encouraging step because methane is such an important greenhouse gas to reduce,” Drew Shindell, an earth science professor at Duke University, said of Wednesday’s vote. “It sends a signal that the administration is serious about this.”
In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a rule requiring oil and gas companies to curb methane leaks and emissions from their operations. Late last summer, the Trump administration undid it.
The Senate vote is a step toward undoing that reversal.
If enacted, the measure would restore requirements on companies to check every six months for methane leaks from pipelines, storage tanks and other equipment installed after 2015 — and plug any leak within 30 days after it is detected.
Swift action to cut methane emissions could slow Earth’s warming by 30 percent, study finds
The Congressional Review Act gives lawmakers the power to nullify any regulation within 60 days of enactment and dictates that once a regulation has been revoked, no new “substantially the same” regulation can be adopted. Requiring only a simple majority vote, it is the swiftest way to overturn an existing federal rule. Otherwise, it would take at least a year, if not longer, for an agency to rewrite it.
Before Trump took office, the CRA had been successfully used only once, to overturn a Clinton administration ergonomics rule in 2001. Republicans used the law more than a dozen times to overturn Obama administration rules in 2017, including one aimed at blocking coal-mining operations from dumping waste into nearby waterways and another requiring that oil, gas and mining companies divulge more information to the Securities and Exchange Commission about the payments they make to foreign governments.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said the vote amounts to “a repeal of a repeal,” which would effectively restore the original EPA rule.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) added, “We can undo that damage and undo it quickly.”
In recent years, methane emissions have been on a troubling upward spike. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported this month that levels showed a “significant jump” in 2020, marking “the largest annual increase recorded since systematic measurements began in 1983.”
“It’s moving really rapidly in the wrong direction,” Shindell said. He is among an international group of scientists that found as part of a forthcoming United Nations assessment that “reducing human-caused methane emissions is one of the most cost-effective strategies to rapidly reduce the rate of warming” and meet the world’s climate targets.
The good news, he added, is that “we can do a lot on methane with existing technologies.”
A full-scale push using existing technology could cut methane emissions in half by 2030, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Such reductions could have a crucial effect on the global effort to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) compared with preindustrial levels — a central aim of the Paris climate accord.
But some Republicans say that restoring the old rule is unnecessary. “The market is pushing the industry to lower its methane emissions,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said during debate on the measure Wednesday. “The resolution we have in front of us today is nothing more than a public posturing.”
Biden has targeted 100 of Trump’s energy and environmental policies since taking office, according to a Washington Post analysis, and has reversed 28 of them so far. Most of these were not regulations, however, but agency policies or executive orders. In some instances, recent federal court rulings have nullified Trump-era rules.
Tracking Biden’s environmental actions
Many in the oil and gas industry have backed the effort to restore the Obama-era rule. Major companies such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell have endorsed it, along with some of the industry’s trade associations.
“Regulating methane emissions is essential to preventing leaks throughout the industry and protecting the environment,” Mary Streett, BP’s senior vice president for U.S. advocacy, said in a statement.
Such level of industry support may not exist on other climate initiatives. Still, Schumer said he sees Wednesday’s vote as the start of a broader legislative push on climate and a move that can help achieve Biden’s climate goals.
“It is one of the first things we’ve done to fight global warming,” Schumer said. “It will certainly not be the last.”
April 28, 2021
The Senate voted Wednesday to restore an Obama-era regulation that imposed limits on methane leaks from oil and gas operations.
The move marks both the first major congressional rebuke of former president Donald Trump’s environmental policies, and a step forward for the Biden administration’s ambitious climate agenda.
“We have to stop lighting the matches of methane pollution,” Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said at a news conference Wednesday morning.
The vote is also the first time Democrats have used the 1996 Congressional Review Act to reverse a federal regulation.
The measure cleared the divided Senate by a 52 to 42 vote. It is expected to easily pass the House and would then head to President Biden’s desk.
Biden has called limiting emissions of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas that when released without being burned has more than 80 times the climate impact of carbon dioxide — key to his pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent by the end of the decade.
“This is a really encouraging step because methane is such an important greenhouse gas to reduce,” Drew Shindell, an earth science professor at Duke University, said of Wednesday’s vote. “It sends a signal that the administration is serious about this.”
In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a rule requiring oil and gas companies to curb methane leaks and emissions from their operations. Late last summer, the Trump administration undid it.
The Senate vote is a step toward undoing that reversal.
If enacted, the measure would restore requirements on companies to check every six months for methane leaks from pipelines, storage tanks and other equipment installed after 2015 — and plug any leak within 30 days after it is detected.
Swift action to cut methane emissions could slow Earth’s warming by 30 percent, study finds
The Congressional Review Act gives lawmakers the power to nullify any regulation within 60 days of enactment and dictates that once a regulation has been revoked, no new “substantially the same” regulation can be adopted. Requiring only a simple majority vote, it is the swiftest way to overturn an existing federal rule. Otherwise, it would take at least a year, if not longer, for an agency to rewrite it.
Before Trump took office, the CRA had been successfully used only once, to overturn a Clinton administration ergonomics rule in 2001. Republicans used the law more than a dozen times to overturn Obama administration rules in 2017, including one aimed at blocking coal-mining operations from dumping waste into nearby waterways and another requiring that oil, gas and mining companies divulge more information to the Securities and Exchange Commission about the payments they make to foreign governments.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said the vote amounts to “a repeal of a repeal,” which would effectively restore the original EPA rule.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) added, “We can undo that damage and undo it quickly.”
In recent years, methane emissions have been on a troubling upward spike. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported this month that levels showed a “significant jump” in 2020, marking “the largest annual increase recorded since systematic measurements began in 1983.”
“It’s moving really rapidly in the wrong direction,” Shindell said. He is among an international group of scientists that found as part of a forthcoming United Nations assessment that “reducing human-caused methane emissions is one of the most cost-effective strategies to rapidly reduce the rate of warming” and meet the world’s climate targets.
The good news, he added, is that “we can do a lot on methane with existing technologies.”
A full-scale push using existing technology could cut methane emissions in half by 2030, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Such reductions could have a crucial effect on the global effort to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) compared with preindustrial levels — a central aim of the Paris climate accord.
But some Republicans say that restoring the old rule is unnecessary. “The market is pushing the industry to lower its methane emissions,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said during debate on the measure Wednesday. “The resolution we have in front of us today is nothing more than a public posturing.”
Biden has targeted 100 of Trump’s energy and environmental policies since taking office, according to a Washington Post analysis, and has reversed 28 of them so far. Most of these were not regulations, however, but agency policies or executive orders. In some instances, recent federal court rulings have nullified Trump-era rules.
Tracking Biden’s environmental actions
Many in the oil and gas industry have backed the effort to restore the Obama-era rule. Major companies such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell have endorsed it, along with some of the industry’s trade associations.
“Regulating methane emissions is essential to preventing leaks throughout the industry and protecting the environment,” Mary Streett, BP’s senior vice president for U.S. advocacy, said in a statement.
Such level of industry support may not exist on other climate initiatives. Still, Schumer said he sees Wednesday’s vote as the start of a broader legislative push on climate and a move that can help achieve Biden’s climate goals.
“It is one of the first things we’ve done to fight global warming,” Schumer said. “It will certainly not be the last.”
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Fucktard Trump did everything he could to destroy the environment. What a stupid fucking asshole.
|
|
|
|
Monday, April 5, 2021
Wednesday, March 31, 2021
This is more evidence for the idea that Trump is a stupid fucking asshole. Thank goodness the moron was thrown out.
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 17, 2021
Stupid fucking assholes are eating bonobos and destroying their habitats. There are only 15,000 bonobos left. We need to kill the assholes.
Wild bonobos can only be found in forests south of the Congo River in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
We share an ancestor with chimpanzee apes and bonobo apes.
Bonobos and chimpanzee apes share an ancestor. They became separated by the Congo River and that's why they evolved differently. This is called speciation.
Google:
How many bonobos are left?
15,000-20,000
Bonobos battle bush meat hunting and shrinking habitats
Throughout their range, bonobos are increasingly at risk from human beings, who have killed them off to the point of endangerment. Today there are an estimated 15,000-20,000 wild bonobos remaining.
The endangered bonobo: Africa's forgotten ape
We share an ancestor with chimpanzee apes and bonobo apes.
Bonobos and chimpanzee apes share an ancestor. They became separated by the Congo River and that's why they evolved differently. This is called speciation.
Google:
How many bonobos are left?
15,000-20,000
Bonobos battle bush meat hunting and shrinking habitats
Throughout their range, bonobos are increasingly at risk from human beings, who have killed them off to the point of endangerment. Today there are an estimated 15,000-20,000 wild bonobos remaining.
The endangered bonobo: Africa's forgotten ape
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Thank goodness for President Biden.
New York Times
President Biden signed a series of executive orders that will fight climate change at every level of the federal government. |
“We’ve already waited too long to deal with this climate crisis,” Mr. Biden said. “We can’t wait any longer.” |
Looking to counteract Republican claims that his climate policies would hurt an economy already weakened by the coronavirus pandemic, the president cast many of his orders as an economic boon that would create millions of jobs. |
The orders include a pause on new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and offshore waters, and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Mr. Biden also pledged to announce specific targets detailing how the U.S. would lower its carbon dioxide emissions under the Paris accord. |
The orders also specified that climate change, for the first time, will be a core part of all foreign policy and national security decisions. That will most likely bring big changes for America’s role in the world. Here’s what to watch for in the coming months. |
President Biden is getting stuff done.
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 25, 2021
Fucktard Trump didn't care about this stuff. Fortunately we now have a president with a brain who wants to get stuff done.
New York Times
BREAKING NEWS |
As President Biden rapidly revamps climate policy, officials want to free up as much as $10 billion at FEMA to protect against natural disasters. |
Monday, January 25, 2021 2:55 PM EST |
FEMA, best known for responding to hurricanes, floods and wildfires, wants to spend the money to pre-emptively protect against damage by building seawalls, elevating or relocating flood-prone homes and taking other steps as climate change intensifies storms and other natural disasters. |
Thursday, January 21, 2021
President Biden is throwing out Trump's war against the planet. Trump was doing everything he could to destroy the environment. What a fucking asshole. Drop dead Trump.
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
Fucktard Trump did everything he could to make human-caused global warming worse. President Biden will do everything he can to fix the problem and save this planet.
New York Times
BREAKING NEWS |
A federal appeals court dismissed what it called a “tortured” bid by the Trump administration to relax emission restrictions on power plants. |
Tuesday, January 19, 2021 2:46 PM EST |
The ruling strikes down weak rules for coal-burning power plants and paves the way for President-elect Joe Biden to enact new and stronger restrictions on them. |
Friday, January 1, 2021
Today is January 1, 2021. Exactly one year ago, on January 1, 2020, I made some predictions about the future of the United States. This was before the coronavirus thing was a problem, so all my predictions were wrong.
Today is January 1, 2020.
In the United States, 2020 is a big deal because American voters have to make a very important decision. Do we let our moron president get the job for another 4 years? A president who is trying to destroy the planet instead of saving it. A president who has been trying to destroy the global economy with his never-ending moronic trade wars. A president who has repeatedly made this country a laughing stock with his breathtaking stupidity.
This should be an easy decision but there is a problem. Our economy is stronger than it has ever been before. Anyone can get a job, including people who have been in prison. Workers are getting raises. They can change jobs to make more money. This is all a good thing but it means Trump is going to get reelected because these people don't want to risk voting for a candidate who might fuck up everything.
There are numerous Democrats who want to be the president and virtually all of them would lose to Trump because their ideas are stupid.
Fortunately, Mike Bloomberg was able to figure out he had to try to get the job because he is the only person who can defeat Trump. If Mike doesn't win the Democratic nomination then Trump will win the election.
This should be an easy decision but there is a problem. Our economy is stronger than it has ever been before. Anyone can get a job, including people who have been in prison. Workers are getting raises. They can change jobs to make more money. This is all a good thing but it means Trump is going to get reelected because these people don't want to risk voting for a candidate who might fuck up everything.
There are numerous Democrats who want to be the president and virtually all of them would lose to Trump because their ideas are stupid.
Fortunately, Mike Bloomberg was able to figure out he had to try to get the job because he is the only person who can defeat Trump. If Mike doesn't win the Democratic nomination then Trump will win the election.
Unfortunately, the Democrats who vote are not too bright. They don't realize how serious the problem is. We will see what happens.
Monday, December 7, 2020
Fucktard Trump is doing everything he can to wipe out polar bears. Trump is a stupid fucking asshole. He's out of here in 43 days. Good riddance you fucking moron.
ENVIRONMENT
DECEMBER 7, 2020
Trump admin seeks to allow polar bear disturbance for oil in Alaska refuge
By Yereth Rosen
ANCHORAGE (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Monday proposed allowing companies searching for oil and gas deposits in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to disrupt polar bears living there.
The so-called “incidental harassment authorization” proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would pave the way for seismic surveys in the refuge’s coastal plain, a key part of President Donald Trump’s last-minute push for more oil development in the region.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said that no polar bears are expected to be injured or killed during seismic operations, some of which are scheduled to take place next month, and expects disturbances to impact only a few bears.
But several veteran Arctic scientists and environmentalists in Alaska have warned against seismic operations – which can involve blasting to produce sonic images of underground formations. They argue the testing will upset wildlife and that the heavy machinery and activity involved in the work will damage tundra and speed up the thaw of permafrost.
“The Trump administration seems determined to push polar bears further down the path to extinction before leaving office,” said Kristen Monsell, legal director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s oceans program.
Polar bears are considered a threatened species because of the rapid warming of the Arctic.
Drilling had been banned in ANWR for decades before Republican-led tax legislation signed by Trump in 2017 removed that ban. Trump has sought to maximize domestic oil, gas, and coal production and has downplayed environmental and climate threats from the drilling and mining industries.
President-elect Joe Biden opposes drilling in ANWR and is expected to try to reverse Trump’s efforts.
The U.S. Interior Department will hold a Jan. 6 lease sale in the refuge. Meanwhile, Alaska Native-owned company, Kaktovik Inupiat Corp is seeking to use seismic tests next month to search for oil deposits within 550,000 acres (223,000 hectares)in the refuge’s 1.6 million-acre refuge coastal plain.
The incidental harassment authorization will be finalized after 30 days of public. That would allow for seismic surveys to be approved just before Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20.
Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Marguerita Choy
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Tuesday, November 24, 2020
I have been a big fan of Jane Goodall for a very long time. She is 86 years old.
NEW YORK TIMES
Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher Jane Goodall Kara Swisher
Jane Goodall is an expert on alpha males — for decades, she’s been studying them in chimpanzee communities. She’s also inspired leaders in business, politics and culture to change their approach to animals and the environment.
It’s been 60 years since Dr. Goodall’s first excursion to observe primates in Africa. Her discoveries there, which transformed our understanding of animals, continue to inspire generations of scientists and environmental activists.
Now, at the age of 86, she reflects on her legacy. On this episode of “Sway,” she reveals how she rose to celebrity status, how she uses her platform to persuade world leaders and which politicians (like President Trump) she wouldn’t even bother trying to persuade.
So how would you like to be addressed? Professor, or doctor, or how? Dr. Goodall?
You can either call me just Jane. Or you can call me Dr. Jane, if you wish for the first time.
All right.
Anything but Dame Jane.
If there’s one person who can wrangle an alpha male, it’s Jane Goodall. She’s been studying them and other chimpanzees since the 1960s. Her early research with famed archaeologist Louis Leakey made Goodall a star. That resulted in a decades long career, which has focused the world on environmental activism and has inspired generations.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Prince Harry are fans. Greta Thunberg calls her a “true hero.” Goodall normally travels about 300 days a year. But when I spoke to her, it was from her home in England. She was in lockdown and had some time to tell me about how it all began.
Well, the reason I got to Kenya was because I’d always wanted to go and live with wild animals and write books about them, ever since I was 10 reading Tarzan. So I saved up money when I was invited by a school friend to Kenya. And when I was staying with her, somebody said, if you want to learn about animals, you should meet Luis Leakey. So although I was very shy, that’s what I’d come for. So I called him up. And this is kind of weird, but two days before I met him, his secretary had suddenly quit. He needed a secretary, and there I was. And he gave me a job. And I think he was impressed because I’d read everything I could about African animals. I think it was then that Leakey decided, well, she hasn’t been to college, she’s new from England, but she’s the person I’ve been looking for to go and study chimpanzees.
So when you went there, you went in as his secretary. Did sexism persist then at the time, where women couldn’t be doing these jobs, or did you perceive it at all? Or were you just, this is the skill you had and you went in?
Well, you know, back then, it was so different. I mean, the times were different. And the feminist movement hadn’t really started or impacted us. And so, yeah, I was his secretary. Almost all, but not quite, of the staff were men. But it was fine. And luckily, Leakey had decided that women might be more patient in the field and make better observers. So, you see, the fact that I was a woman helped.
So let’s talk a little bit about the observational skills that you had, because your whole job was to be present with the chimpanzees. Go back to then.
Well, I mean, I came out with my mother because the authorities wouldn’t allow me to go alone. That’s why she came. But I went into the field with a pencil, often a pencil because it was raining, and a little notebook that fitted in my pocket, and a little piece of polythene that I put over my head if it rained, and a pair of binoculars, which weren’t very good. They weren’t good enough because we had so little money. I mean, we had one secondhand army tent. We had a few pots and pans and tins of food. And that was it. I started just climbing up and down the hills and looking for the chimps and writing everything with my pen, writing it up at night. And you know, at first, the chimps took one look at this peculiar white ape and ran away. It was really awful. I was really glad of my mother, because she helped to boost my morale, because the chimps just went on running away. And I knew if I didn’t see something exciting before that money ran out, it was only for six months.
When you look back at that, you’ve talked about it as the best times of your life. How would it have been different if you were doing it today?
Well, the trouble is that we’ve now learned that animals can catch diseases from us and we can catch diseases from them and that our presence can interfere with behavior. So to do things with camera traps and so on is the way to go. But the reason I say they’re the best days of my life, today, we wouldn’t do a study like that. We wouldn’t hand out bananas. It’s not the thing to do. But back then, it was the accepted thing to have a feeding station. That’s what people did. And because we’d started the banana feeding, it meant that I could follow their development almost daily. And I don’t think today anybody can learn them exactly the way I did.
Can you talk about that connection? How do you remember it now, 60 years later?
Well, I remember that when I was out there in Gombe, and I spent, of course, a lot of time out in the forest with the chimpanzees. But they accepted me. So I could sit there. I never considered myself part of a group, but I was just somebody who was there observing them, and they weren’t afraid. And because they accepted me so totally, I had the freedom of seeing how they really interacted with each other. And so the criticism has been, well, maybe the banana feeding affected their behavior. And I’m sure it did to some extent. But it affected them all equally. And right from the beginning, my emphasis was on differences between individuals, which wasn’t accepted back then. And it’s the same today. People don’t like to think of animals as individuals, but as species.
And you gave them names, which was resisted by people at the time. When Leakey wrote we must redefine man because of the observations you made and brought back. What do you think was the most important about redefining?
Well, I know how this began. One chimp, I named him David Graybeard. He had a beautiful white beard, and he was very handsome. And on this one day, when he’s begun to lose his fear before the others — I wasn’t that close to him. And I still had to use my binoculars. But he didn’t run away. And I saw him breaking off and using grass stems to fish for termites. I saw him picking up leafy twigs, carefully removing the leaves to make a tool. And that brought in The National Geographic Society to give money when the first six months ran out. That brought in my husband, Hugo van Lawick to film. Geographic sent him. And that was the turning point of the entire — you know, but for that, maybe after six months, everything would have ended.
Explain to people who don’t understand why that’s a big deal. People have seen chimpanzees manipulate various things. Why is that so important?
Well, because of how science defined us. Up to that time, we had been defined by Western science — and I repeat Western science, because other parts of the world were so different in their relationship to animals, but anyway — as man, the toolmaker. It was when Leakey heard about this tool using and tool making, he wrote to me and said now we must redefine man, redefine tool, or accept chimpanzees as humans. And actually, if you want to know now what I believe is the biggest difference between us and chimps — I mean, we know so much about animal intelligence now — but, you know, the main difference, I believe, is that at some point in our evolution, we developed language, spoken language.
Chimps communicate. They have gestures. They have calls. Whales communicate. Birds do, too. Chimps can learn a human language. So can parrots. But chimps and parrots haven’t learned a spoken language, not that we know of. And so once we developed this spoken language, we were, for the first time, able to bring people together to discuss a problem. We could teach about things that weren’t present with language. And I think that triggered this explosive development about intellect that’s taken us to the moon, to Mars. That’s helped people understand the place of planet in the galaxy, in the solar system.
If you had to go back, what is the thing that stayed with you? And perhaps, what is the sound you remember and the sight, if you had to remember all this many years later, decades later?
Oh, my goodness. Well, the sight? Climbing up onto my peak, which I discovered, and looking out over the valleys to Lake Tanganyika, looking behind me to the peaks of the Rift Valley. So beautiful, so untouched in those days. The sound would be the calling of chimpanzees on the other side of the valley. Those chimpanzees you’d been searching for and hoping to hear and hoping to find. And you hear them on the other side of the Valley. And you think, yes, there they are! So the pant-hoot, the distance call, which is something like [IMITATES PANT-HOOT].
And that, to me, it does something to me. It comes deep into me.
When you were there, there were two million chimps, I think and then it went down to 150,000. Where are we today?
Oh, the whole of Africa, you mean?
Yeah.
Well, nobody knows exactly how many chimpanzees there are. But they are in danger. And they’re more endangered in some areas than others. And it’s that sort of picture across Africa.
So you’ve been a leader, trying to keep things from getting worse. And your main approach has been to fight for land conservation. When did that start?
Well, I went to a conference, which I helped to start, in America in 1986. And one of the sessions was on conservation. It was shocking. I mean, I guess we all knew there was deforestation and so on. But the extent of it hadn’t penetrated — well, it certainly hadn’t penetrated me. And there was also a session on conditions in places like medical research labs, which I won’t go into. But it was horrible, horrible, horrible. And learning about the bushmeat trade.
I left the conference as an activist. I went as a scientist, planning to carry on with this wonderful life, out in the rainforest, learning about the chimps, having students. And I left knowing I had to do something, but I didn’t know what to do.
So talk about that, sort of the brass tacks of that moment. What pushed you so hard? You were at this conference, which was where? It was —
Chicago.
Chicago. What was the thing that struck you that you were like, no?
Well, remember that to start off with, I wasn’t a scientist. I never dreamt of being a scientist. I wanted to be a naturalist. I wanted to live with animals and write books about them. And then Leakey pushed me into getting a PhD which, actually, I’m really glad I did, because It taught me to think objectively, which I love. But I refused to believe that scientists had to be cold and shouldn’t have empathy with their subjects. I rebelled against that. So the shock was seeing what was happening to the environment in Africa, and the shock of seeing how chimpanzees, our closest relatives, who can have feelings and emotions like ours, who have very astute intelligence, the way that they were treated in medical research, circus entertainment, and so on. I think it was seeing secretly filmed footage of chimpanzees in 5 foot by 5 foot cages, maybe for 20 years, just bare cages alone, these very social beings alone with nothing to do, boredom, it was horrible. And I knew that they’d done so much for me, I had to try and do something for them. So I didn’t make the decision. People say was it hard? I didn’t make it. I always say it was a bit like St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Something happened, and he started one person and ended up another. And that’s what happened to me. [MUSIC PLAYING]
We’ll be back in a minute. If you like this interview and want to hear others, hit subscribe. You’ll be able to catch up on Sway episodes you may have missed, like my conversation with couples therapist, Esther Perel, and you’ll get new ones delivered directly to you. More with Jane Goodall after the break.
When you have this much fame, because since the National Geographic stuff came out and all the movies, you were a well-known person. You obviously had moral authority. You had a sense of power. How did you use that power?
Well, you know, when I began, I didn’t have those feelings. I didn’t really understand what had happened to me. I mean, I didn’t have power. I didn’t have any of that. To me, I was and I still am just me. I’m just Jane. I’m here where I grew up. And then, this kind of iconic status was thrust upon me. And I was at first very — I hated it. I wanted to hide from it.
Why?
Because I didn’t like — I mean, I didn’t feel I deserved it. But then, at a certain point, I realized that this could help the cause that I was so passionate about, which basically, from the beginning, was to help people understand that animals are not just things. That they’re sentient beings, they have feelings. And that, you know, that is a passionate ruling of my life. But equally, protecting the environment. We’re poisoning the land with our conventional agriculture. We’re putting chemical poisons down. We are polluting the ocean. We’re destroying the forest, which along with the ocean are the great lungs of the world, absorbing CO2 and giving us oxygen.
One of the things you talked about years ago was the increasing incursions from China, taking forests, taking minerals, all kinds of things. Has that improved at all, or do you feel it’s still a threat?
Well, you know, China is a large country with a growing economy. And yes, they are causing havoc in many developing countries, taking their resources. They’ve learned about conservation within China. It’s a huge change from when I first went back in the mid-‘90s, and animal protection, all these things. But they are taking resources from other countries for their own development. But, is that any different from European colonialism? Is it any different from the big multinational corporations today? No, it’s not. And so it’s a whole area that we need to address, not pointing fingers, but working out ways ahead.
So a lot of these things are about education, about, again, moral authority. There is more — a different confrontational style of activism growing here in this country and around the world, like Greta Thunberg and others. Is it possible these days to be Jane Goodall? Do you really still believe in that?
I totally believe in it because, really because of the young people. I mean, everywhere I go — well, I’m not going now, but I see it on these kind of Zoom things — I see young people with shining eyes, wanting to tell Dr. Jane what they are doing to make the world a better place. I want to help all animals. I can’t. You know, I can’t do it. But out there, in this huge group of young people, hundreds of thousands of them, there’s always somebody who wants to help a turtle. There’s another group that wants to help moon bears. You know, all of it, it’s out there.
When passion moves to anger, because you’re seeing that with a lot of groups, that they’ve had enough. They want the system to change completely and not cooperatively.
Well, I don’t blame them if they have had enough. But I will never, ever believe that the way for change is confrontation and aggression, because people change when you reach the heart. And so, you know, when people ask me, what do you do when you meet somebody who’s behaving in a way that you really dislike or something? Try and find a connection. Maybe they have a dog or a cat or a horse or a child or something. Just for one minute, if you have a short time to talk to them. And then, stories. Tell stories. So when I went into the labs that I accused of treating the chimps badly, which they were, I showed pictures of Gombe and how the chimps are and how they’re lying around and grooming each other and playing. It got to the people’s hearts. And I got this lesson early on, don’t make high up people lose face, because it doesn’t work.
Mhm. When you look at the protests, though, especially environment, do you think that helps, too, or not at all?
Oh, I think it helps. It raises awareness, no question about it. I mean, Greta’s raised awareness in many, many people, without any question about it.
So let me put that to you. If you were standing in front of President Trump, how would you tell him a story? He is one of the more partisan figures, creates a lot of thumping, like chest thumping. What would you say? You have five minutes, or two minutes, or one minute.
Yeah, apparently, the attention span is less than that. But anyway, I would actually refuse this opportunity, because I don’t think he’d listen. I truly don’t. And it’s a waste of time when people won’t listen. But one of the very few people I would talk to President Xi. I definitely would. It probably wouldn’t do any good. But I would be fascinated to talk to him. I mean —
What would you say?
What would I say? Well, I would congratulate him on all the amazing improvements he’s made for people’s livelihood. I would not talk about his treatment of the Muslim community, because you want people to be on your side and change. And I would talk about the amazing things like banning ivory trade, and now putting pangolins up at top level protection, and all the things he’s done for the environment. And you know, hopefully, if you approach people like that, then they want to do more. That’s the case. That maybe stupid. It may be naive. But with many, many people in high positions, it’s worked.
It works for them. But Trump is a chimpanzee too far, I guess. [LAUGHS] How do you look at it?
Well, don’t compare Trump with a chimpanzee, because it’s terribly rude to the chimpanzee.
So you’re not put off by this partisan time we’re in? You feel like it’s overcomeable?
You know, the Trump administration has repealed so many environmental protections, and this is my main passion. I am shocked, horrified. Opening up the oil reservoirs in Alaska, shocking. Drilling in various parts of the ocean. It’s shocking. And if this goes on, I don’t know what’s going to happen. I mean, it’s not just America that’s going to suffer. The whole flipping world — and then there’s Bolsonaro. And so many, you know, the swing to the far right, and it’s got to be the bottom line, and it’s unlimited economic development. And how do we move from this pandemic into this new green economy, which everybody is saying we need to do? We do need to do it. I don’t know how to do it. But we do need to do it.
So who are your environmental heroes?
Well, I mean, it started off with Rachel Carson, actually, when she wrote “Silent Spring.” And then I went and stayed with Margaret Owings, who helped to save the sea otters from extinction. And then I wrote this book, “Hope For Animals And Their World,” and I met so many amazing, incredible people. My last reason for hope: the indomitable human spirit, the people who tackle what seems impossible, won’t give up, and succeed. And it’s so inspiring to see that an animal, or an environment on the brink of extinction or destruction can be saved. And has been. There’s many examples. And my big problem with the media today is this concentration on the bad. There’s so much bad, yes. But there’s so much good that doesn’t get reported. And I think, today, I would say that more people are aware of what we’re doing to the planet than ever before, and the reason they’re not taking action is they feel helpless, don’t know what to do. My job is to give people hope by telling them that every one of us makes a difference every single day.
So talk about your legacy. You’re 86 years old. You look like you’re going to last well beyond me. What do you want to do with the rest of your life?
I want to go on doing what I’m doing. I want to get to this tipping point. I also want to create an endowment. Because people are relying on me. I go to a different country and help them raise money for their programs, et cetera, et cetera. So a big concentration now on raising an endowment. It’s all set up. We’re ready to go. Of course, the pandemic comes, maybe, at a very bad time for that. But it’s still there, and I will do it, because I’m determined that I want some money to make sure that these programs that I’m so passionate about — that work. I’m passionate about them because they’ve been proven to work. And I want them not to disappear, slowly fade away when I’m gone.
So when you look back on your life, where would you like to be if there wasn’t COVID? Where would you like to be sitting, on Lake Tanganyika, drinking a whiskey? I’ve heard you like to drink whiskey by the lake.
Well, one reason I have to have whiskey, it actually does help your voice when you’ve overused your voice.
I heard apples work the same. But whiskey is fun.
I know four opera singers who swear by it. And one pop singer, so it’s not just me. Where would I like to be?
Right now, close your eyes, where would you like to be?
Close my eyes. I would love to be sitting on the beach at Gombe without tourists, with the people who are working there now, throughout the COVID experience, looking out over Lake Tanganyika, looking at the mountains on the other side, and knowing that up behind me, the chimps are making their nests, and the baboons are climbing up into their trees. It’s a beautiful place to be. [MUSIC PLAYING]
Dr. Goodall, thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking time to do this.
Well, I loved talking to you.
“Sway” is a production of New York Times Opinion. It’s produced by Nayeema Raza, Heba Elorbany, Matt Kwong, and Vishakha Darbha. Edited by Paula Szuchman. With music and sound design by Isaac Jones. Fact checking by Kate Sinclair. Special thanks to Renan Borelli, Liriel Higa, and Kathy Tu. If you’re in a podcast app already, you know how to subscribe to a podcast. So subscribe to this one. If you’re listening on The Times website and want to get each new episode of “Sway” delivered to you, with a glass of whiskey, download a podcast app like Stitcher or Google Podcasts, then search for Sway and hit subscribe. You’ll get episodes every Monday and Thursday. Thanks for listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)