|
Art Lightstone, November 24, 2022 Some folks have asked me about Graham Conway's TED talk, entitled "The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles," wherein Conway shed's doubt about the efficacy of electric vehicles with respect to their ability to combat climate change. I've posted a video of this TED talk below. I remember being absolutely shocked by this TED talk when I first saw it because it was such obvious and flagrant disinformation. I would never have believed that the TED foundation would allow itself to be used as a platform for any kind of obvious propaganda or disinformation... let alone oil propaganda that poses such an obvious threat to our planet. Clearly, however, TED is willing to allow itself to be used as such a platform. Fair enough. A quick analysis of Conway's numbers and thinking reveal four critical flaws in his argument. Let me go over each one in turn. 1. He Uses Erroneous Data for his Foundational Graph In order to draw the graphs wherein he compares lifetime emissions of electric vehicles to gas cars - the mainstay of his argument - Conway would either have to fabricate the data that he presented or he would need to have found the absolute best case scenario for gas cars, and then compare that to the absolute worst case scenario for electric cars. Yet, Conway implies his model represents a general comparison between the two types of vehicles. This graph, which serves as the foundation of his argument, is wildly incorrect. 2. He Overstates the Percentage of Energy Generated from Emitting Sources Conway clearly overestimates the amount of energy that comes from emitting sources, such as coal, oil, and gas-fired power plants. At best, he uses data that was not only ten years old at the time of his presentation, but also data that represents the entire world, including China, India, and Africa: places that produce a lot of coal-fired power. At worst, Conway simply fabricates his data. We can't know for sure because Conway does not reveal any of the sources of the so-called data that he presents. In either case, Conway's argument has absolutely nothing to do with the reality in which I live. My family exclusively drives electric cars, and we charge those cars at night when our grid is usually being powered exclusively by non-emitting sources - primarily nuclear and hydroelectric. 3. He Fails to Acknowledge the Importance of EV Efficiency Conway momentarily pays lip service to the fact that EVs are far more efficient than gas cars, but he doesn't acknowledge the implications of this efficiency. Conway points out that EVs need to be charged from some power source, and he reveals this as if it is a shocking revelation that nobody had ever before considered. However, he fails to point out that an electric vehicle would still produce lower emissions than a comparable ICE car EVEN if it were charged exclusively from coal-fired power plants. This is because approximately 75% to 80% of the energy consumed by an ICE car goes to producing heat and noise, and only 20% to 25% is actually directed toward moving the vehicle. This ratio is approximately the reverse for electric vehicles, which tend to utilize 80% of the energy from their batteries to move the vehicle. 4. He Ignores the Cradle-to-Grave Emissions of the Gas that Powers Gas Cars Conway focuses a great deal on the cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of electric cars as well as the energy sources that power them, yet he conspicuously fails to do the same thing for gas cars. Internal combustion cars actually have horrendous cradle-to-grave footprints if you take into account the extraction, transportation, refining, and distribution of the hydrocarbons that power them. What could possibly be the motive for such a presentation? You may wonder why Graham Conway would be motivated to assemble and present such a wildly inaccurate portrayal of electric cars. Obviously, we can't know for sure; however, we can see that Conway works for the Southwest Research Institute. This institute is registered as a "not-for-profit" entity, with a glorious mission to, "push the boundaries of science and technology to develop innovative solutions that advance the state of the art and improve human health and safety." If we dig a little deeper, we find that the Southwest Research Institute was founded by Thomas Baker Slick Jr. on a South Texas ranch back in 1947. Mr Slick Jr. was an adventurer, a philanthropist... and an oilman. Today, if you look at the patents filed by the Southwest Research Institute, you will find that much of their work is related to the utilization of hydrocarbons. Yes, my friends, this is how the oil industry works... this is the world we live in. Conway would certainly have understood the degree to which he was taking liberties with data, and with his failure to present a truly equitable comparison between electric vehicles and gas vehicles. Moreover, Conway would also known that his presentation would be quickly debunked. As he said in his own presentation, "I can already imagine the comments that will be posted under this video. It's not pretty." Nonetheless, that wouldn't matter to Conway because truth, and the inevitable exposure as a disingenuous commentator, is really not the point of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (affectionately known in the climate community as FUD). As Winston Churchill famously pointed out, "A lie will get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its pants on." The purveyors of fear, uncertainty, and doubt know this fact very well. I dare say, they base their livelihoods on it. The point of the exercise of FUD is all about creating doubt... doubt that will cause delay and buy valuable time: time for an oil industry that knows its days are numbered. I've linked a video above that more thoroughly debunks Graham Conway's TED talk.
0 Comments
Art Lightstone Is it too Late to Stop Climate Change? In an article published in the New Yorker on September 8, 2019, Jonathan Franzen posed the question, "Why don't we stop pretending?" His subtitle added clarity to his hypothesis, suggesting that, "The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit that we can’t prevent it." Given that title, one might assume that Franzen was saying it's time to give up on fighting climate change, and focus instead on preparing for it. However, that's not what Franzen ends up saying in the article at all. The article seems to explore the tension between two interrelated ideas: the notion that we are already beyond the point of no return and the notion that, even if we are beyond a tipping point, well.... we shouldn't give up fighting climate change. Based on the title, I do wonder if Franzen struggled with the overall message he wanted to convey to the public about climate change. In either case, his article raises an important question that is invariably on the minds of most people who are aware of and concerned about climate change. Namely: Are we too late? Is it time to give up on fighting climate change, and, instead, turn our attention to adapting to the challenges that will be presented by our new climate reality? Some say it is. Renowned naturalist and climate champion, David Attenborough, told the UN Security Council in February of 2021, "There is no going back - no matter what we do now, it's too late to avoid climate change... and the poorest, the most vulnerable, those with the least security, are now certain to suffer." Speaking of the various threats posed by climate change, Attenborough went on to say, "Some of these threats will assuredly become reality within a few short years." Attenborough is saying, in no uncertain terms, that certain dire impacts of climate change are now a certainty, However, that's not quite the same thing as saying that we've passed any particular tipping points. Tipping points, in the context of climate change, refer to a point where there is so much CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases trapped in our atmosphere that climate change will keep progressing - at either a linear or an exponential rate - regardless of anything that human civilization could possibly do. There are now a number of climate scientists who question whether we may have already passed this climate tipping point. Dr. Timothy Lenton and Dr. Thomas Lovejoy are two such climate scientists. Dr. Thomas Lovejoy has studied the Amazon rainforest for more than five decades, and, based on his observations, he believes, "We are really right at that tipping point." A forest is classified as a "rainforest" if it generates something around 50% of its own rainfall. Such a phenomenon is made possible if the canopy of trees within a given forest exhale moisture upward through a process known as evapotranspiration, wherein moisture rising from the forest condenses in the cooler air above it, forming what is sometimes referred to as "rivers in the sky" that rain the precious moisture back down onto the forest. Sadly, this process is impeded as a forest becomes hotter, dries out, and no longer retains its moisture. Dr. Lovejoy points out that, "We see the signs in longer dry seasons, hotter dry seasons, tree species that prefer drier conditions gaining dominance over those that prefer wet conditions." Dr. Lovejoy is now of the belief that the Amazon rainforest, perhaps the most critical carbon sink for the planet's climate system, could transform from rainforest to savannah in a period of just ten to thirty years. If we lose the Amazon, then it's essentially game over for maintenance of the planet's current climate system, and, by association, for human civilization. The Tipping Point: Understanding the Difference between Climate Change and Runaway Climate Change I have often observed people conflating the notions of "climate change" with "runaway climate change," and this usually happens when folks are discussing the theoretical climate "tipping point." It's a simple-enough point to confuse. When people are discussing timelines regarding climate change, some people will have in mind a notion of avoiding climate change altogether, while others might have in mind a notion of avoiding the more serious issue of self-reinforcing, aka runaway, climate change... and people do not always take the time to clarify which notion they have in mind when they are discussing these ideas. So let's take a moment to really clarify the notion that we're exploring when we are discussing tipping points. As I mentioned above, the tipping point is a theoretical point in time, or, more to the point, a theoretical level of greenhouse gas concentration, or a theoretical level of warming, after which progressive climate change is essentially guaranteed - regardless of what human beings were to do after that point in time. In other words, it's a point wherein we would still see global warming progress, even if human civilization no longer produced a single gram of CO2, or any other greenhouse gas for that matter. In essence, it is in fact topping points that underpin the entire concern over climate change. This is because, if it were not for tipping points, then global average temperature would simply rise with increased greenhouse gases, but then diminish with decreased greenhouse gases. In other words, we could do wreck the climate today, but then fix the climate tomorrow by simply reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases. Sadly, this is not the case... and the reason is because of tipping points. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) first introduced the idea of tipping points a little more than two decades ago. "At that time, these ‘large-scale discontinuities’ in the climate system were considered likely only if global warming exceeded 5 °C above pre-industrial levels." (Lenton et. al, 2019). However, current IPCC reports now say that global tipping points could be reached at average global temperature increases as low as something in a range between 1 and 2 °C of warming (Lenton et. al, 2019). In their 2018 interim report on the state of the climate, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggested that a global tipping point is fast approaching, and is likely to arrive around the year 2030 if we were to maintain a business-as-usual approach to carbon emissions. That report suggested that we would need to reduce global emissions of CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by the year 2030 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change (p. 12). However, even this statement does not clarify whether 2030 merely represents a time frame to avoid severe climate change, or whether it represents a time frame to avoid runaway climate change. To make maters worse, even the ambitious targets outlined in the 2018 IPCC report are dependent on drawing down hundreds of gigatonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year. "All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5C with limited or no overshoot project the use of CDR on the order of 100-1,000GtCO2 [billion tonnes] over the 21st century" (SPECIAL REPORT: GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 ºC: Summary for Policymakers, 2018; C3). In that 2018 report, the notion of a tipping point was defined as, "A level of change in system properties beyond which a system reorganizes, often abruptly, and does not return to the initial state even if the drivers of the change are abated. For the climate system, it refers to a critical threshold when global or regional climate changes from one stable state to another stable state" (p. 559). A critical point to note is how the term "tipping point" is used throughout the 2018 IPCC report. In reading the report, one quickly observes that we rarely see the term "tipping point" used in its singular form. Rather, it is almost always used in its plural form - tipping points - thus conveying the notion that there are numerous theoretical tipping points at play within the climate system, as opposed to one omnipotent tipping point impacting the overall climate of the planet. What are Some Examples of Tipping Points? Examples of tipping points discussed in the 2018 IPCC report include mechanisms such as the albedo values of particular land masses, ice sheet melt, thawing of permafrost, as well as droughts and their associated forest dieback. Albedo Value Albedo value is a measure of a surface area's ability to reflect solar radiation. Albedo is essentially synonymous with reflectivity, so a high albedo value is associated with high reflectivity of solar radiation. Light colours, such as snow and ice, have higher albedo values and reflect more of the sun's energy than dark colours, such as forest and water. If you've ever walked from a white sidewalk onto a black asphalt driveway, then you know what I mean. We also experience this mechanism in action whenever we wear black T-shirts or white T-shirts on a sunny day. Sadly, if a regional albedo value falls below a certain point, that could permanently disrupt regional climate systems. Typically, but not always, heat leads to a loss of higher albedo surfaces and a gain of lower albedo values. The most critical example of this is melting glaciers and ice sheets. Snow and ice have the highest natural albedo values available, but they will reveal much lower albedo value surfaces, such as rock, earth, or water, when they melt. Ice Sheet Melt In a similar vein, polar ice sheet melt represents another tipping point. In this case, however, the melting of the ice itself actually begets further melting of ice. This is because ice sheets melt primarily from underneath, where an ice shelf floats on warmer water instead of resting on colder bedrock. The accelerating flow of ice melt and the ever-retreating grounding lines (where the ice sheet makes contact with land) together create a positive feedback loop. As an ice sheet melts, the ice shelf stretches out and become thin, which reduces its weight and allows the ice sheet to float further off its bedrock foundation. As the grounding line retreats and more of the glacier becomes waterborne, there is even less resistance underneath the ice shelf, and so the melting accelerates. As of 2014, studies by NASA and the University of California at Irvine suggested that the melting of the Antarctic was already past its tipping point. These studies suggest that the Antarctic will Thawing of Permafrost and Release of Methane The thawing of permafrost releases methane gas from what had been previously frozen ground. Sadly, methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Thus, as more permafrost melts, it releases more methane, which warms the planet further, thereby melting more permafrost and releasing more methane. This may sound like no big deal, but it is. Studies estimate that the annual increase in atmospheric methane resulting from the melting of permafrost could be roughly equivalent to all the methane released into the atmosphere by the United States of America on an annual basis. The Water Cycle: Droughts, Forest Die Back, and Desertification Droughts, and the associated forest dieback, represents another theoretical tipping point. Droughts, sadly, lead to forest die-back, which leads to soil erosion and a reduced ability for land to support plant life or to retain moisture. As the world heats up, more land area converts from forest to savannah and then, eventually, to desert. As less moisture is retained in plant life and soil, the less land is able to hold onto rainfall when it occurs. Thus, rain simply runs off the land and back into rivers, lakes, and oceans. Worse still is the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds onto more moisture where it, as bad luck would have, acts as yet another greenhouse gas... and a powerful one at that. The 2018 IPCC Interim Report presents a table (Table 3.7 on page 264) which outlines a number of tipping points and what we might expect to see from these tipping points under three different global warming scenarios. Having said all that, the 2018 IPCC report also discusses a few "large-scale singular events" (p. 257) that have the ability to "result in or be associated with major shifts in the climate system." Four large-scales events identified in the 2018 IPCC report include:
Why we Should Keep Fighting While the data looks grim, I personally, whole-heartedly support the position that we are far from any point where we should even consider giving up on actively fighting climate change. In fact, I tend to take a rather simple approach to the notion that we might already be past any particular large-scale tipping point. Simply put, I downplay it. That's right... I downplay the notion that we might already be beyond a climate tipping point. I have decided to do this for three reasons:
I suspect that people's attitudes regarding emissions are possibly not unlike popular attitudes regarding personal debt. Think of the number of people you know who respond to their anxiety about their mounting personal debt by simply taking on more debt. They do this because they really don't believe that they can ever be debt free... so they end up giving up, taking on more debt, and settling for a life of momentary pleasures and brief distractions from their debt worries. In my opinion, the way to avoid this self-reinforcing cycle is to never accept the notion that you are helpless... to never accept the idea that you can, if you choose to, climb your way out of debt. Interestingly enough, the concept of debt is often used to discuss climate change. Scientists, researchers, and modellers regularly use terms such as carbon budgets, investments, and withdrawals when discussing our climate predicament, and for good reason: the two ideas are indeed similar on many levels. Having said all that, I know that there are number of climate scientists, such as Kaz Higuchi, who advocate for the need to prepare for our new climate reality... and he's right, of course. Nobody can argue with that position. Climate change is already here, it's going to get worse, and the probability of significant climate change in our future - even runaway climate change - is probably in the majority. However, at this critical juncture, we still have so much opportunity to have a far greater impact on climate change through emission reductions than we will possibly be able to have in the future, and so I believe we must seize this opportunity.  Why wouldn't we do everything we can in the here and now to reduce our carbon emissions? That's why I'm pulling out all the stops in terms of emissions reductions. Whether it comes to lobbying the government to take climate action, directing my funds towards renewable energy and sustainable transportation, living a vegan lifestyle, or using electricity in the place of fossil fuels, I don't see myself as just one person who merely does or doesn't consume fossil fuels. Rather, I see myself as one experimenter... and one example. I've decided that, when it comes to climate change, if we have to go down, then I'd rather go down fighting. With that logic in mind, my family and I agreed long ago that we would be willing to take risks, experiment, try new approaches... all in an effort to see if it's possible to live a markedly carbon-reduced lifestyle. In most - but not all - cases, a number of these decisions wouldn't make economic sense if we were to perform a cost analysis based solely on our own economic outcomes. However, if we view climate change as a larger socio-economic issue that not only must be addressed for human civilization is to endure, but also implicates a number of hidden financial costs for all of us (such as increased costs for food, clothing, medical care, and even insurance premiums) then it starts to make a lot of sense. Beyond that, I also consider the impact that my example, as well as my insights, might have on others. Just like every individual on this planet, I can choose to be a person who will either have a positive or a negative influence on the dozens, or even hundreds, of people who know me. In turn, all of those people have the same choice to make, and, hopefully, they will amplify more of the positive examples they see for the dozens, even hundreds, of people who know them.
Each and every one of our actions do count. But, beyond that, each and every one of our actions can, and invariably will, set an example for others to follow... and that's where the real power of personal climate action lies. By Art Lightstone  RBC is the biggest funder of fossil fuels in Canada, and the 5th biggest funder of fossil fuels in the world. In fact, since the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement was signed, the Royal Bank of Canada has poured over $200 billion into fossil fuels. The Newmarket demonstration starts at 4:30 pm, and goes until 6:00 PM. We are asking the Royal Bank of Canada to stop funding climate destruction and the violation of Indigenous rights. With your participation, and with your creative fossil fuel divestment signs, Newmarket will send a loud message to RBC and to any other other banks that seek profit from the destruction of our planet. You can sign up to participate in the Newmarket RBC Day of Action at the following link or the QR Code below: https://act.leadnow.ca/21_rbc_doa/newmarket/ The October 29th Day of Action Against Fossil Fuels is an initiative of the Leadnow organization.
To learn more about how banks fund climate catastrophe, please see: www.banktrack.org/campaign/banks_climate_and_energy Promotional Material: 1. A downloadable PDF flyer that can be used to promote this event is available below. Please feel free to share this flyer in person or electronically. 
2. You can find the following articles published about the Newmarket RBC demonstration:
3. You can also listen to an episode of the Green Neighbour Podcast dedicated to the divestment movement as well as the October 29th divestment demonstrations. 4. You can download and print some of the RBC logos presented below for the demonstration on October 29th, or for any other demonstration designed to persuade RBC to divest fro the fossil fuel industry. Will this be your first time demonstrating on behalf of the climate? Wondering what to do?
No problem! Take a look at the Green Neighbour Climate Demonstration Preparation Kit. Art Lightstone Getting Ready to Demonstrate for Climate Step 1: Make your sign The first step in any demonstration is making your sign. It's always a good idea to use something that you might have around the house already, like an old cardboard box. Otherwise, dollar stores sell foam core material that is light, yet sturdy enough to hold their shape in the wind. If you take good care of your sign, it should be able to last for years and be used in dozens of demonstrations.  Greta Thunberg's iconic demonstration sign has been used in hundreds of demonstrations throughout dozens of countries. It even traveled with her across the Atlantic ocean! Step 2: Tell your friends!
It's always a little safer - and a lot more fun - to demonstrate with friends. So go ahead and spread the word, and see if you can get a group of friends to join you for this climate demonstration. You can even share or post the Newmarket Day of Action e-flyer and poster. (See the promotional file attached below.) Steps 3: Share details of the upcoming action on social media. Social media is a powerful way to inform other interested individuals about climate actions. The more people who get involved in a climate action, the louder and clearer the message becomes. Sadly, if only a few people show up to an action, then we essentially communicate the opposite message from the one we intended. Effectively, we say, well... it looks like nobody really cares about the climate, or the future of life on Earth... so just keep doing whatever you've been doing. However, if hundreds or thousands of demonstrators raise the alarm, then that helps to inform others about the seriousness of climate change, and it helps to pressure government to take meaningful action on climate. Step 4: Learn about climate change. Climate change is real. It's here. It's bad, and it's only going to get worse... but we can still make an incredible difference to the future of this planet, and all the things that live on it, if we take immediate and bold action. There's a lot at stake, and your effectiveness as a climate activist is greatly amplified if you learn about what's happening to the Earth's climate, why it's happening, and what can be done about it. 350.org has a plethora of climate resources to help people learn about climate change, so that individuals can not only come to understand the seriousness of the situation, but also help to convey the urgency of the climate crisis to others. There are of course countless sources of information, but another resource that makes climate change easier to understand is Dr. Katharine Hayhoe's Global Weirding video series. Steps 5: Capture and share the action on social media. On the day of the strike, be sure to capture images and video of the strike, and use these images and video as you share your thoughts about the importance of climate action with your followers. Be sure to tag politicians, as well as anyone who hopes to become an elected official - in any political party and at any level of government - within your social media posts. Also, be sure to learn and use any hashtags ssociated with your event, such as #RiseForClimate, #FridaysForFuture, #FossilBanksNoThanks, etc. 
 A Vanishing Point Demonstration The vision for this climate action is to have regional activists, local residents, and students from the immediate area demonstrating - with climate signs in hand - from the sidewalks along Yonge Street... from one city limit to the other. If all goes as planned, this could be the longest demonstration in Canada on the September 8th Day of Action.  The demonstration route would span 5.3 km from the northern town limit to the southern town limit. The route is divided into ten sections, with five sections on each side of Yonge Street.  Newmarket northern town limit, at Yonge Street and Aspenwood Drive.  Newmarket southern town limit on Yonge Street, just north of St. John's Sideroad. (We ask that participants demonstrate only from the sidewalks, and avoid demonstrating from the shoulder of the road.) While it would be wonderful to have thousands of demonstrators out, we can realistically hope for perhaps a few hundred people. Ergo, we won't likely have demonstrators standing shoulder to shoulder, so to speak. Rather, we hope to have demonstrators standing just close enough so that each demonstrator would be in plain view of the demonstrators on each side of them. The route is just over 5 km long. Thus, if we have 25 demonstrators, then we would have a demonstrator positioned on the sidewalk along Yonge Street approximately every 200 metres. 50 demonstrators would give us a demonstrator every 100 metres, and 100 demonstrators would give us a demonstrator on each side of the street, every 100 metres, and so on. Of course, if we stagger our placements along each side of the road, then 100 demonstrators could provide a demonstrator every 50 metres. If you would like to participate in this climate action, feel free to sign up using the Newmarket Day of Action Sign-up form. Where to go? You are welcome to just take your position at your designated spot on Yonge Street as of 12:00 PM. However, if you would like to touch base with the organizers and other participants before the demonstration, we will be available at the Quaker Meeting House property before the event (around 11:00 AM) and after the event (just after 2:00 PM). The Quaker Meeting House is located at a lovely but inconspicuous spot right in the centre of town. The address is 17030 Yonge Street. There is parking available here for anyone who might be driving from out of town. Concluding the Demonstration For those who are demonstrating within walking distance of these grounds, we will form a climate march after the demonstration as we walk back to the Quaker Meeting Hall at 2:00 PM. We will then meet there to share some thoughts on how the action went, and to discuss next steps for future climate action. Got questions? We've got answers! Email the organizers with any questions, concerns, or suggestions. Getting Ready to Demonstrate for Climate Step 1: Make your sign The first step in any demonstration is making your sign. It's always a good idea to use something that you might have around the house already, like an old cardboard box. Otherwise, dollar stores sell foam core material that is light, yet sturdy enough to hold their shape in the wind. If you take good care of your sign, it should be able to last for years and be used in dozens of demonstrations.  You can choose to attach your sign to a handle, or not. Greta Thunberg's iconic demonstration sign has been used in hundreds of demonstrations throughout dozens of countries. It even traveled with her across the Atlantic ocean! Where will your sign go? Step 2: Tell your friends! It's always a little safer - and a lot more fun - to demonstrate with friends. So go ahead and spread the word, and see if you can get a group of friends to join you for this climate demonstration. You can even share or post the Newmarket Day of Action e-flyer and poster. (See the promotional file attached below.) Steps 3: Share details of the upcoming action on social media. Social media is a powerful way to inform other interested individuals about climate actions. The more people who get involved in a climate action, the louder and clearer the message becomes. Sadly, if only a few people show up to an action, then we essentially communicate the opposite message from the one we intended. Effectively, we say, well... it looks like nobody really cares about the climate, or the future of life on Earth... so just keep doing whatever you've been doing. However, if hundreds or thousands of demonstrators raise the alarm, then that helps to inform others about the seriousness of climate change, and it helps to pressure government to take meaningful action on climate. Step 4: Learn about climate change. Climate change is real. It's here. It's bad, and it's only going to get worse... but we can still make an incredible difference to the future of this planet, and all the things that live on it, if we take immediate and bold action. There's a lot at stake, and your effectiveness as a climate activist is greatly amplified if you learn about what's happening to the Earth's climate, why it's happening, and what can be done about it. 350.org has a plethora of climate resources to help people learn about climate change, so that individuals can not only come to understand the seriousness of the situation, but also help to convey the urgency of the climate crisis to others. There are of course countless sources of information, but another resource that makes climate change easier to understand is Dr. Katharine Hayhoe's Global Weirding video series. Steps 5: Capture and share the action on social media. On the day of the strike, be sure to capture images and video of the strike, and use these images and video as you share your thoughts about the importance of climate action with your followers. Be sure to tag politicians, as well as anyone who hopes to become an elected official - in any political party and at any level of government - within your social media posts. Promotional Material Below you will find two downloadable PDF files. If you live in the northern part of the GTA, and you’re looking for a quick way to take action on #ClimateChange, you could make a huge impact by just sharing, printing, and posting these promotional materials. Poster / e-flyer: This is a full-colour, 11" x 17" document that can serve as both an e-flyer and a printed poster. The hyperlinks on the PDF flyer are live and clickable, and the QR code works in both digital and printed formats. Our hope is that this document will serve both as an e-flyer that can be shared by email, and as a poster that can be printed and displayed in public spaces. Door / Windshield Flyer: This is a full-colour, 8.5" x 11" document that contains three smaller flyers that are perfect for placing into the doors of apartments or homes, or under the windshield wipers of cars. Please feel free to download and use these document to spread the word about this important climate action. Press Release: The press release below can be distributed to any reporters or media outlets. Current Media Coverage:
Newmarket Day of Action in the Media
The Newmarket Day of Action is wrapped. It was quite successful: the weather was great, we had a fine turnout of residents, students, activists, and event a few politicians. Thanks so much to everyone who came out to support this tremendously important action. Here are a number of news stories covering the Newmarket Day of Action:
Finally, here's a fun little video capturing some of the action from the day.
 The "What I Do (Vegan Edition)" eBook is now available as a free download. I've been vegan now for well over a year, and I've recently been inspired to start revising my old "What I Do" meal plan document in order to create a vegan edition. This document, an eBook of sorts, is a work in progress. Nonetheless, it can be found below as a downloadable PDF. I don't claim to be an expert on diet or health, so I hesitate to dispense advice. However, I certainly don't mind sharing what I do with people who might be curious. In my opinion, every vegan is a walking ambassador and billboard for the vegan lifestyle, so I think it's really important for vegans to embrace a goal of becoming stronger, healthier, and more vital than they ever were when they were consuming animal products. I hope my brief "What I Do" eBook might help to give new or aspiring vegans some ideas about what to eat, what to look for at the grocery store, and how to plan out some snacks and meals. The transition to a vegan lifestyle can be challenging at first. People will fear being hungry all the time, losing weight, losing muscle mass, and losing energy. Not to worry: once you know what to look for at the grocery store, and after you pick up a few simple tricks, such as how to make cashew creams, bean dips, chiles, stews, curries, sauces, snacks, etc., then anyone can be full - and full of energy - all day long as a vegan. If you should decide to adopt a vegan lifestyle, feel free to drop me a line and let me know how it's going,
An examination of Tesla's Q3 2020 production numbers, spin doctors, and screaming buffoons10/19/2020
On October 2nd, 2020, Jim Collins, a so-called "analyst" and contributor to Forbes magazine, somehow managed to slip an article entitled "Analyzing Tesla’s Disappointing 3Q20 Unit Sales Data" past the Forbes editorial desk.
Now, we're all pretty used to the fact that Tesla short-sellers, competitors, and oil and gas enthusiasts engage in a relentless campaign of misinformation against Tesla. This barrage of deceptive spin and out-and-out lies is affectionately known in the industry as "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). While it's one thing to see FUD flowing over social media from strange, anonymous Twitter accounts, it's quite another to see a mainstream media outlet, such as Forbes, willing to print material that can easily be debunked within just a few minutes of fact checking. It's a higher level still when the author of such an article essentially asserts a new point of spin and misinformation within virtually every second paragraph of the article. That kind of pattern shows not only a wanton disregard for journalistic integrity, but also reveals an underlying objective. What exactly that underlying objective is will have to remain the subject of speculation for the time being, but the truth - as they say - tends to come out sooner or later. Beyond all that, Collins repeats a strange mantra throughout his article wherein he derides Tesla supporters as "screaming buffoons." Not kidding. He refers to the "screaming buffoons" who "pump Tesla stock" a total of five times throughout his article. Enough said. Let's start fact-checking Mr. Collin's numerous... ahem, claims. In his article, entitled "Analyzing Tesla's Disappointing 3Q20 Sales Data," Collins chooses to present the following as his very first sentence: "First and foremost, it was a miss." Collins then embarks upon what can only be described as a weird, disjointed ramble wherein he attempts to suggest that, apparently, some people on the Internet were suggesting numbers that were marginally greater than Tesla's actual production numbers. No. I'm not kidding. Collins literally writes, "The Internet was full yesterday of buffoons screaming about a deliveries number 'in the 140s'" Okay. Meanwhile, back in the "real" world, we see that the actual survey of analysts by FactSet expected Tesla deliveries for Q3 of 2020 to be around 137,000. The estimates of these various analysts ranged from 123,000 to 147,000 deliveries for the third quarter of 2020. Tesla actually delivered 139,300 vehicles in the third quarter of 2020. 139,300 is a bigger number than 137,000. Collins says this was a miss. That's what this so-called analyst wrote... in his very first sentence. By the way, I suppose it's worth pointing out that none of the estimated or projected numbers were ever presented by Tesla. This was simply a case of a manufacturer's actual numbers beating a FactSet consensus. Anyway... let's move on. Collins then goes on to present all kinds of numbers about Tesla's stated production capacity. Attempting, presumably, to put some sort of negative spin on the fact that Tesla's production numbers actually grew by 43% year-over-year in the third quarter of 2020... during a pandemic. Collins decides to suggest that this was still shy of what Tesla could have produced. He states, "Tesla sold 43% more units but added 57% more capacity. The corporate utilization rate continues to decline." Gee whiz. Tesla is expanding both production and production capacity... at the same time. Goodness! What a failure. And while I probably don't need to explain the basics of manufacturing to most of my readers, perhaps someone close to Jim Collins might explain what "capacity" actually means. That term refers to what a production line has the physical ability to produce if all aspects of its supply chain feed the line at 100% over a sustained period of time. Back in the "real" world, people understand that capacity is a theoretical benchmark: essentially, it's what could be produced by a production line operating at full speed over a period of time. Such a feat is, of course, impossible in the real world, but it serves nonetheless as a benchmark against which to judge actual production. This is kind of like comparing a runner's average long-distance speed to that runner's best time for the 100 metre dash. The issue, however, is that a three-month period of time is much more like a marathon than a sprint. You're probably wondering, well... what would be considered a realistic sustained production rate? Good question. In fact, the Federal Reserve publishes data on capacity utilization in the U.S. economy every year, and it has done so since the 1960s. In the time period between 1972 and 2019, the US economy averaged a capacity utilization rate of 80.1%. All-time highs of capacity utilization of around 90% were achieved in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. "No system can operate at full capacity for a prolonged period." At the factory level, a typical manufacturing plant runs at about 60% OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness). 85% OEE is considered best in class. Ergo, any sustained production capacity - at the national or plant level - in the neighbourhood of 90% is considered miraculous. I know, I know... this is all boring businessy stuff, but it's important. You see, according to Jim Collins' own numbers, Tesla produced 139,300 units out of a stated capacity of 172,500 units. That works out to 80.8% - almost precisely the average capacity utilization rate for the US economy. Perhaps more importantly, this is a number that approaches a best in class OEE for a manufacturing plant. And did I already mention that this was during a pandemic... and the worst economic downturn the US economy has ever witnessed. Ah yes... I believe I did mention that. My apologies. Let's see... what's next? Oh yeah... then Collins explores a weird train of thought wherein he suggests the pandemic should have been a good thing for Tesla's third quarter because the shutdown of their Fremont and Shanghai plants would have created a "pent-up demand effect." Alright. Pent-up demand. Of course, Collins never explores the fact that the worst economic downturn in US history might possibly impact demand. No. Apparently, the pandemic should just spell good news for Tesla. And, thus, in a bizarre display of mental acrobatics that one could only describe as heroic, Collins essentially suggests that even though Tesla did quite well in a quarter that took place during the first business-shuttering pandemic the modern world has ever witnessed, well... they should have done better... so it's a fail. Okay... Let's see what Collins has to say next. In the paragraph that follows the bizarre pent-up demand theory, Collins explores his strangest train of thought yet: channel stuffing. No... I'm serious... he actually makes this claim. Collins states, "Tesla employees go on a mad rush every quarter-end to maximize the reported deliveries figure. Channel stuffing is fine, (emphasis added) but it leads to 'hangover' periods in the first month of any quarter." Gosh... more boring businessy stuff. Well, okay then... I'll explain what channel stuffing is, and then I'll explain why Tesla does not - indeed, cannot - engage in channel stuffing. Channel stuffing is a rather unscrupulous business tactic used to boost a given quarter's sales by delivering unsold, unordered product to distributors before those distributors actually order the inventory. If the unscrupulous business can sweet talk the distributors into accepting the inventory early and agreeing to pay for it later, then, under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) rules, the business can actually record the early delivery as a sale... in this quarter. Of course, as Collins points out, such a tactic isn't really sustainable because it just eats into the next quarter's sales. But here's the problem... there's one thing missing in Tesla's business model that actually completely prohibits them from engaging in channel stuffing. Yeah... you guessed it: distributors. A little thing that most people already know and love about Tesla is the fact that consumers buy their cars directly from Tesla. Tesla does not have a "middle man" network of dealerships. Those slick-looking Tesla stores you see in malls are just that: they're stores... owned by Tesla. These stores exist only to educate the public about Tesla vehicles and to help facilitate the online ordering process. A process, I should mention, that a customer can simply do by themselves over the Tesla website. I know... I've done it. Tesla stores have no capacity to take possession of newly manufactured, unsold inventory. Every car recorded as a sale on Tesla's financial statements has not only been sold to an anxiously awaiting customer... it has been delivered. That's right. Tesla cannot count a sale until the vehicle has been delivered to the customer. Channel stuffing is impossible under the Tesla business model. Nice try, Mr. Collins. Weird... but nice try. Let's see what other dimensions of weirdness Mr. Collins explores in his train wreck of an article. Well, next we have a unique set of paragraphs wherein Collins attempts to say that it's unfair for Tesla to claim that their days of inventory figure is lower because - get this - they provide this metric during a record-setting sales quarter. Again... I'm not kidding. In analyzing Tesla's assertion that "new vehicle inventory declined further in Q3 as we continue to improve our delivery efficiency," Collins literally states, "That statement is misleading since Tesla produced a record sales volume this quarter." Right. The quarter was record-setting, so... really, Tesla shouldn't provide any metrics to illustrate just how good the quarter was because, well... it's just unfair. Okay... let's move on. As we near the end of the article, Collins takes his biggest risk, and make his boldest claim. He states, "Tesla’s originally stated dreams of 'comfortably exceeding' 500,000 units delivered in 2020 are dashed" as "Tesla would have to deliver over 181,000 units in the fourth quarter to exceed 500,000 units for the year. They won’t." Gee whiz, Mr. Collins... if you say so. Of course, Collins never points out that this target for 500,000 units delivered in 2020 was actually forecast back in January of 2020, long before the pandemic took hold, and long before Tesla's main production plant in Fremont, California was shuttered for seven weeks, from March 23rd until May 11th, owing to the state legislated COVID-19 shutdown. Tesla's Shanghai plant was also ordered closed by the Chinese government for two weeks, starting at the end of January, in a similar effort to stem the spread of coronavirus. Given the impact that COVID-19 has had on the world economy over the course of 2020, and given the fact that the pandemic actually shut down Tesla's factories for a combined nine weeks during the year, some analysts might cut Tesla some slack on their original forecast of 500,000 cars in 2020. Not Jim Collins. I've got to say, it takes balls to make bold claims about a company not meeting a forecast it made before its plants were shut down for nine weeks owing to a pandemic. But that's alright... ...because one guy whose got even bigger balls than Jim Collins is Elon Musk. Even after his factories were shut down for a combined nine weeks, Elon Musk has not backed down from his original goal of delivering half a million cars in 2020. He has not let up... not for one minute. We've got two and a half months to go. Let's just wait to see the numbers. Then we'll see who's the screaming buffoon... Mr. Collins.
So you may have heard about Tesla’s new Full-Self Driving hardware, sometimes referred to as Hardware Version 3. The new hardware is a direct replacement for the Nvidia full self-driving computer that Tesla used in its HW2 and HW2.5 equipped vehicles.
The FSD chip integrates two custom-designed neural processing units. Operating at 2 GHz, each NPU has a peak performance of 36.86 trillion operations per second (TOPS), and with two NPUs on each chip, the FSD chip is capable of up to 73.7 trillion operations per second of combined peak performance. Now, I’m no computer engineer, but that sounds pretty amazing. Today, all new Teslas come with the new full self-driving computer, and, as of September 2019, Tesla started to retrofit some of their newer Tesla’s that had paid for Full-Self Driving with their new Hardware 3 computer. Apparently, my 2019 Model 3 just missed getting the new FSD Hardware installed during production, but I recently got the call to come in for the retrofit, and I got my new Full Self-Driving computer upgrade today.
You see, our Highway 404 north of Toronto is often under construction, and it quite often has those concrete barriers running right alongside the most leftward lane. I’ve always noticed that the Tesla AutoPilot isn’t the least bit shy of driving alongside these barriers at full speed, but that’s not what I took note of today.
What I noticed today was that my car was actually detecting and displaying traffic pylons that were on the other side of those concrete barriers. Not only that, but these pylons were practically on the other side of the highway median strip. Let’s take a good close look at what my car saw. (See video below.)
You may not notice it at first, but there’s a group of four pylons lined up on the other side of the concrete barriers, almost on the other side of the median strip dividing the opposing lanes of traffic.
If you don't catch it in the video, take a close look at the slow motion view of the four pylons... and then compare the slow motion view of the four pylons displayed in the car’s road visualization
That means my car’s front cameras spotted these pylons, and then Tesla’s neural network recognized these objects as pylons... at 115 km an hour, across a highway median strip, on the other side of a concrete barrier.
That’s pretty impressive.
Bear in mind that Tesla's neural net recognizes a lot more than just cars, trucks, buses, and pylons. However, for the time being, Tesla is holding back on displaying everything that Tesla vehicles can actually recognize... lest Tesla drivers get the idea that Teslas are permitted to respond to everything that we humans can see displayed in the car's visualization. In other words, if Tesla drivers knew that their cars were actually recognizing red traffic lights, then the fear, naturally, would be that drivers would abdicate responsibility for stopping to the car's FSD computer. However, at this point in time, Tesla is not allowing their cars to perform at this level of autonomy.
The age of climate denial is dead. Not everybody knows it yet, but, at this point in time, the days of climate denial are clearly numbered. Of this, there is no doubt.
I say this because no matter what silly things you might read from the mysterious, self-proclaimed experts on Twitter, the very companies that stand to profit the most from climate denial have now openly conceded that burning fossil fuels contributes to anthropogenic climate change. Once they were taken to court for their wanton destruction of our planet's biosphere, the world's largest and wealthiest oil companies were forced to make these concessions. Essentially, as soon as they had to come before a judge, the jig was up. All Lies are not the Same You see, it's one thing to lie and misdirect the public through privately funded intermediaries, but doing these same things in court is a whole other ballgame, In 2018, when brought to court to examine "the best available knowledge that we have today on the issue of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how that affects global temperature" (P. 80, LL. 20-22. State of California vs. BP, Chevron, Conocophillips, Exxon Mobil, & Royal Dutch Shell, US District Court, Northern District Of California, March 21, 2018), lawyers for the oil companies immediately conceded that the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are indeed correct. Moreover, they wasted no time on climate denial or alternative theories regarding global warming, and they took absolutely no issue with the fact that burning fossil fuels contributes to anthropogenic global warming. On March 21, 2018, in his submissions to the US District Court, Northern District Of California, Theodore Boutrous, the attorney for Chevron Corporation, stated, "Chevron accepts the consensus of the scientific community on climate change. The scientific consensus is embodied in the results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC." Boutrous was even bold enough to say, "And that has been Chevron's position for over a decade." (P. 80, LL. 20-22, 2018). 
This public concession telegraphed a significant and marked departure from the silent, "no comment" position that oil companies have historically taken on the connection between fossil fuels and climate change. Moreover, it effectively pulled the carpet out from under the climate denial lobby. After all, if the oil industry itself is now officially accepting anthropogenic climate change, then the freshly disavowed climate denial lobby immediately becomes relegated to the status of disenfranchised crackpots.
Traditionally, oil companies relied heavily on a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship between themselves and third-party climate deniers, including trade associations and think tanks, to confuse and misdirect the public about the impact that fossil fuels were having on the planet. In fact, some studies have suggested that oil companies spend $200,000,000.00 on climate denial efforts every year. In 2013, Robert Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, published the first peer-reviewed study of who was actually funding what he called the "climate change counter-movement" (CCCM) that had so effectively delayed action on the climate crisis. Brulle found that between the years of 2003 and 2010, more than $500,000,000.00 had been donated by "private conservative philanthropic foundations to organizations whose output included material disputing the consensus" (Brulle, 2013). Brulle concluded that "Thinktanks, trade associations and front groups" were a key part of the effort, with their major funders being foundations affiliated to the fossil fuel magnates, such as the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, and the ultra-conservative Scaife and Bradley foundations. A few years before the Brulle study was published, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explored the history of climate denial in their 2010 book, The Merchants of Doubt. Oreskes and Conway argue that "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion about the scientific consensus on climate change was the basic strategy of those opposing climate action. In 2014, their book was made into a film, Merchants of Doubt, directed by Robert Kenner. Today, oil companies are hastily pivoting from their traditional position of climate denial to one of climate acceptance - at times even attempting to present themselves as climate champions. As opposed to suppressing their scientific studies, they now acknowledge - even take pride in - the science that they have conducted for decades. Today, Exxon Mobil's web site includes a page entitled "Climate Change," with a tagline that states, "We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us — business, governments and consumers — to make meaningful progress." The page goes on to say, "ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in the forefront of climate research for four decades, understanding and working with the world’s leading experts on climate." It is as if they are now saying, "Of course we know about climate change... we're the ones who discovered it!" How the Courts Are Responding Neither the science, nor the brazen measures that oil companies have undertaken to confuse the public on the issue of climate change, have been overlooked by the courts. On July 22nd, 2019, Republican-appointed Judge William Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that the state of Rhode Island would be permitted to pursue their public nuisance case against 21 different oil companies in state court. In this case, the State of Rhode Island is pursuing compensation from these oil companies damages for the damage that their products have had, and will continue to have, on the state by way of climate change. After hearing the evidence brought forward, Judge Smith sharply derided oil companies for their wilful destruction of the planet: “…Defendants in this case, who together have extracted, advertised, and sold a substantial percentage of the fossil fuels burned globally since the 1960s. This activity has released an immense amount of greenhouse gas into the Earth’s atmosphere, changing its climate and leading to all kinds of displacement, death (extinctions, even), and destruction. What is more, Defendants understood the consequences of their activity decades ago, when transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy would have saved a world of trouble. But instead of sounding the alarm, Defendants went out of their way to becloud the emerging scientific consensus and further delay changes – however existentially necessary – that would in any way interfere with their multi-billion-dollar profits. All while quietly readying their capital for the coming fallout.”
At this point in time, the prospects for big oil are not particularly good. It would be an understatement to say that neither the oil industry nor their shareholders are happy about the potential of paying out billions of dollars in damages to states, countries, or jurisdictions now suffering the effects of climate change. However, the bad news gets even worse for the oil industry.
There are those who now say that civil lawsuits do not go far enough: that, to big oil, civil payouts could just be seen as a new cost of doing business. Jojo Mehta, is currently calling on the International Criminal Court to include ecocide as a crime against humanity. Mehta suggests that, "In a weird kind of way, suing is almost a way to legitimize this. You're saying you can do this, but you have to pay for it. Actually, what we want is for them to stop, and for that to be done requires a crime."
Facing a growing number of civil suits around the world, and more recently facing the daunting prospect of becoming criminally liable for their actions, oil companies are scrambling to reinvent themselves in the post-denial era. As the decades-old, oil-funded web of deceit quickly unravels, we are witnessing companies such as Shell distancing themselves from the climate-denying oil lobby groups they previously funded, and proactively reframing their position on climate change. Shell is even producing its own Podcast, entitled The Energy Podcast, wherein the company comes clean about the role that fossil fuels play in climate change.
However, it should be noted that there is a subtle but critical difference between accepting the role that fossil fuels play in climate change, and accepting responsibility for the climate change caused by fossil fuels. The distinction requires a certain amount of skillful mental acrobatics... but Shell does an admirable job of it. According to Big Oil, We are All to Blame Essentially, Shell now takes the position that we are all responsible for climate change. In this regard, Shell and Exxon Mobil are united in their positions. Episode #5 of Shell's Podcast features an interview with Maarten Wetselaar, the Integrated Gas & New Energies Director at Shell. Wetselaar responds brilliantly to a question asking him if Shell is responsible for climate change. He responds by saying, "Society as a whole has built itself around hydrocarbons, and much of our prosperity and current health and wealth comes from it, so that problem is a problem that we share with all our consumers and regulators and governments." Wetselaar also makes no bones about his view that climate action has to start with the consumer. When asked, "Why don't you just stop producing oil altogether?" Wetselaar states, "From a system perspective... the answer is not in producing less oil and gas. The answer is in consuming less oil and gas. If I produce no oil tomorrow, someone else will. If I consume less oil tomorrow, the production can go down accordingly." (Emphasis added.) So there you have it. Big oil no longer denies climate change, nor will they openly, and I stress "openly," attempt to obfuscate the role that hydrocarbons play in anthropogenic global warming. On that issue, they now side with the scientific consensus. Big oil does, however, stop short of accepting responsibility for the climate change caused by their products. That dubious honour, as it would turn out, they place squarely on you and me. In a manner of speaking, I suppose they are right. With the age of climate denial clearly coming to an end, we consumers of energy can no longer feign a position of ignorance or wilful blindness. It is now incumbent on us all - each and every one of us - to take immediate, bold, and decisive steps to confront the existential crisis that lies before us. While the momentum is certainly going in the right direction, we cannot wait for governments, courts, or corporations to do the right thing. We know what the right thing to do is... and we must do it. If you're interested in transitioning to a vegan lifestyle, then you may have encountered a certain amount of frustration when trying to source a good veggie burger that you can enjoy at home. Not only are most of these burgers quite processed, but they can also be very expensive. The new Beyond Meat product line has certainly done a lot to promote plant-based eating, but I have found this product to be extraordinarily expensive. A quick scan of the numerous unpronounceable ingredients sealed the deal: I decided I would try to make my own veggie burgers, and then just see what happens. As luck would have it, I pretty much nailed it on my first attempt. Here's what I did: Ingredients:
Instructions:
Notes: The ground chia and flax seeds make this mixture quite sticky, but that's what holds the patties together (instead of eggs). Watch the video below to see how to make the patties... and then get them off your hands! Why you Should Consider Transitioning to a Vegan Lifestyle
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, raising animals for human consumption is the single largest source of human methane emissions. While methane does not stay in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas. Thus, over a 100 year period, pound for pound, methane is approximately 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Raising animals, especially ruminant animals such as cattle, sheep, goats, are destructive to our environment in four main ways. First, these animals essentially burp methane. Through a process known as enteric fermentation, ruminant animals produce methane when microbes in their digestive tracts (known as rumen), decompose and ferment their food, Second, the manure produced by these animals also produces methane. Together, the manure and the enteric fermentation comprise the single largest source of methane emissions related to human activity. Third, the land cleared to raise these animals destroys millions of acres of natural carbon sinks (often forest) that would have sequestered some of the carbon that humans are producing. Fourth, the energy and water used to grow food for livestock, and then transport and process these animals, accounts for approximately half (3.5 gigatonnes annually) of the more than 7 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalents associated with livestock production. Beyond all that, from a humanitarian standpoint, raising animals in modern corporate farms creates a hell-on-Earth nightmare for billions of animals, from chickens, to pigs, to cattle. If you are brave enough to watch the movie Dominion, then you can get a thorough, inside view of the pain and suffering endured by millions of animals every year just so humans can consume animal protein. If you're not quite brave enough to watch Dominion, then the animated video entitled The Meatrix also does a fine job of conveying some basic facts about raising livestock. Given that raising livestock is estimated to account for between 10% and 12% of human GHG emissions, eating less meat, or even transitioning to a vegan lifestyle, is definitely one of the quickest, easiest, and cheapest actions that people can take in order to combat climate change. If you're interested in exploring a vegan diet, just click on the "Vegan Lifestyle" filter in the right-hand menu of this blog to see more plant-based recipes and ideas. |
Green NeighbourWhen it comes to the environment, we are all neighbours. Archives
November 2021
Categories
All
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed