Excerpt from this story from DeSmog Blog:
United Nations chief António Guterres has called on nations to arrive at September 20’s high-level climate summit in New York City with firm commitments for ending fossil fuel production.
So far, however, the world’s top 20 oil and gas extractors have enough production planned to generate 173 billion tons of carbon pollution by 2050 — more than enough to blow past their Paris Agreement commitments and heat the world well beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius above historical temperatures. The greatest polluter among them will be the United States.
Those are some of the findings in a new report from the group Oil Change International, which has found that these 20 countries — dubbed the “planet wreckers” — are going to be responsible for almost 90 percent of the expected carbon emissions from planned oil and gas projects between 2023 and 2050.
“A handful of the world’s richest nations are gambling our global future by failing to act and ignoring the scientific calls and evidence that we need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels,” said Kelly Trout, co-director of research at Oil Change International, who co-authored the report with colleague Romain Ioualalen.
“Most countries are unfortunately still moving in the wrong direction,” she said.
Oil and gas projects already planned by these nations will generate climate-heating CO2 emissions equivalent to 1,082 new coal plants, according to the report.
Based on their current plans, just five countries — the U.S. Canada, Norway, Australia, and the UK — will account for 51 percent of all new oil and gas projects through 2050, Trout found in her research.
“Among all of the countries that we call out in the report, these are the five that have the greatest economic means and capacity to actually be phasing out their oil and gas production the fastest,” Trout said.
The U.S. is both the largest historical carbon emitter and the world’s top oil and gas producer. Dubbed “planet wrecker in chief” in the report, it is on course to drive the most carbon pollution from planned oil and gas expansion by far. New oil and gas extraction in the U.S. will account for more than one-third of all planned projects over the next 25 years, creating 72.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions through 2050.
AS THEY SHOULD.
Full story. Landlords threw a party celebrating that they're allowed to evict tenants again after COVID restrictions were lifted.
A bunch of people came out to protest the party.
After an hour of protests the protestors went in and started fighting them.
Look; if you don’t support LandBack, you probably don’t understand what is actually being proposed. Everything I have read and heard has been very reasonable and fair. The only folks talking about revenge campaigns are White Supremacists trying to drum up fears. The movement is co-axial with a lot of the ideas in the Ecological and Green movements. It’s a decolonizing measure. It has the potential to benefit lots of people, including non-Natives, given that many of the proposals would dramatically improve air and water quality and increase access to food across economic class lines. These folks have good ideas. I am asking you, politely, to just, take a look
Alice Te Punga Somerville, Always Italicise: How to Write While Colonised - Kupu rere kē
Have you Appreciated Zhenyuanlong Today?
Now you have!
Look at those feather impressions!
Raptors (Dromaeosaurs) had huge wings!
men get sex addiction, women get 'personality disorders' that make them lie compulsively about sexual violence apparently. funny that 🤷😂
“ao3 should have an algorithm” ao3 should continue only giving me exactly what I ask for which happens because I know how to use the search, sort, and filter functions
this russell brand stuff is an important reminder that addiction and drug and alcohol use is not an explanation or excuse for any kind of abuse or violence. ever ever ever ever. EVERRRRR. full stop. I wish him the absolute worst, kill yourself nonce.
What about "people deserve to have their needs met regardless of labour and intellectual stimulation and entertainment are part of those needs, so the writer should be looked after and everyone should get access to their books".
The system is to blame, but intellectual property is theft, and at the end of the day a writer losing our on royalties is not as bad as someone dying because of price gouging on drugs people need to live.
As a former librarian, the whole "don't pirate books, you are taking money authors need to feed their starving children, just borrow from the library instead :) " makes me angry.
Because e-book prices for libraries are insanely high. Like I've heard the jokey meme about how "if libraries were proposed today, they would be condemned as some socialist infringing on intellectual property rights."
Well, the rights for libraries to lend out paper books were negotiated almost a century ago in most western countries, while the rights for libraries to lend out e-books and digital audiobooks were negotiated during the present neoliberal era where corporations are very powerful. And It fucking shows.
The prices for libraries to buy e-books are insane, and that's not even counting the circulation fees. And the books are frequently restricted by licensing to a certain small number of loans per book, after which the e-book is destroyed and the library has to buy a new one to the exorbitant prices the publishers give.
Like the advice about how piracy is some great evil cutting into author's profits and how you should just borrow from libraries instead is so infuriating in that context. Like listen to actual librarians talk about e-book pricing for libraries. It's a major drain on library funds, and in the era of neoliberalism and austerity those budgets are strained as it is. And libraries inability in the face of these costs to provide digital content is used as justification for further cuts.
Librarians have boycotted major publishers over their ridiculous e-book policies and have talked about how ridiculous prices are for years, and for good reason.
This is fucking corporate robbery of library funding, of tax payers money to further their own private profits. Any moralistic bullshit about the evils of book piracy should be put in that context. If the ordinary person is stealing the publishers precious book sales profits, those publishers are already robbing that person's tax dollars.
It's a fucking hypocrisy to justify the present system of copyright and intellectual property with "well, if you are poor it's still wrong to pirate because you can get books for free legally from libraries". Because book publishers are already using their strong intellectual property rights to bleed libraries dry of funds, killing them in the process like the fucking vampires they are.
You apply for 20 jobs on Indeed. The silence is deafening.
You apply for 20 jobs on Indeed. Half of them require you to create an account on the company website. You leave a trail of ghost accounts that will be used once and never again. You never receive a response.
You apply for 20 jobs on Indeed. One employer offers an interview, but it's so rare for you to receive any response that you forget to check the website and you miss the time.
You apply for 20 jobs on Indeed. One employer offers an interview, but you don't know the magic words that signal to the esoteric mind of an interviewer that you're fit for the job.
You apply for 20 jobs on Indeed. One employer e-mails you saying that 'unfortunately, you do not have the qualifications we are looking for'. You check the job again and see you applied to be a menial labourer.
You apply for 20 jobs on Indeed. Half of them require a car. No one stops to ask how you're supposed to afford one with no job.
You apply for 20 jobs on Indeed. One employer offers a job. The commute makes you want to die in your sleep.
You call the HR manager for the workplace in hopes of arranging an interview more directly. They don't even have an answering machine.
Employers complain that no one wants to work anymore.
Capitalists love market economics until workers use it in their favour.
Oh, I have a shortage skill? Well, you're going to have to pay me more then...
jot that down
Apparently people don't like the new university challenge presenter because he says haitch instead of aitch. Classism alive and well in Britain, then.
(It's probably also relevant that he's brown, but they can't say they don't like him because of that, so they're finding classist things to pick on instead!).
im the prettiest canary in this mine
Can you give more of your thoughts on Anne’s book? Did you read it? I’d love to hear about it, your takes are usually the most interesting ones!🤍
Okay I had at least three anons on this but I’m having issues with my inbox so sorry I haven’t posted anyone else’s! (Also if you sent me an ask trying to find a fic and see this, can you send me the ask again? I’ve lost it! Fic had something to do with Lottie getting married and I think I know the one.)
So I’ve just posted separately pics of Anne’s book, if you’re interested in it you can read it here.
I think I said in tags somewhere that I thought Anne had written a pretty tory book and there are three broad reasons I think that. Before I get into them I will say that I don’t think any of this is surprising, Anne’s always come across pretty middle class and what we do see of her politics aren’t leftist (even if I’m to be be generous with that definition). Now I’m going to talk about the book as a whole, that is the story and the illustrations. While Anne obviously wasn’t the illustrator (that’s the work of Emily Sutton), the book is hers and everything I’ve seen suggests she feels the illustrations are an accurate interpretation of her story.
1. Class signifiers
The story centres around Betty and her Grandma. Grandma lives in a thatched cottage, ‘Glebe End’, in a village called ‘Wobbly Bottom’ where Betty visits every summer. While the cottages are terraced (I want to be clear these really aren’t ‘terraced houses’), Grandma lives in the gable end, in the visibly largest of the cottages.They all have wonderfully colourful façades and blooming gardens. The inside of Grandma’s house has a lovely large, well equipped kitchen and an Aga (or at least something that deliberately resembles an Aga) and is overflowing with fresh produce. The cottages all have their own gardens and then beyond that a large shared green space known as ‘Acorn Hollows’. The Hollows are where Grandma grows her fruit which she uses to make jam that she sells at the market.
The market itself is bustling with children and adults and stalls selling fresh fruit and vegetables, baked goods, flowers, and of course Grandma’s jams.
From the story there’s no reason to believe Grandma doesn’t live alone, nor is there any reason to believe she works (other than selling her jams at the market). She is able to live in this lovely house and potter around with Betty, gardening and growing and cooking. They have access to both a garden and this massive green space where Grandma’s fruit grows. The story doesn’t specify where Wobbly Bottom is but it’s all very Middle England (in fact the illustrations of the market bear quite a bit of resemblance to Pantiles in Turnbridge Wells).
Grandma is obviously financially comfortable (there’s no suggestion she is selling jam out of financial need) and lives in a comfortable, spacious cottage, which is referred to as ‘a little house’ (I’m not sure if either author or illustrator have actually been in a ‘little house’), but it’s clearly implied that Betty is used to something larger.
Everything is illustrated to be well kept, in good condition and described quite healthily.
All of this is signifies wealth and combined is identifiably middle class.
2. Race and whiteness
I won’t spend a lot of time on this, because I think it’s pretty self explanatory. There are a lot of people in the market scene - they’re all white, they’re all dressed similarly (they are also all drawn able-bodied). I suspect that wasn’t so much a deliberate choice as it never occurred to anyone that the people shouldn’t be white, and I think that that is very indicative of Anne’s worldview. It definitely contributes to the Middle England vibe, and I think tells us a bit about who Anne probably imagined her audience to be.
3. Environmental/wildlife themes
(Now full disclosure I work in an environmental profession, so I’m probably overly interested in this.)
So the whole story is centred around something digging up Grandma’s garden. At the start of the story, the garden and the hollow is described as being full of nature, trees and wildflowers, having ‘the greenest grass you’ve ever seen’ and how Betty loves to watch all the creatures that lived there. The illustrations are full of birds, (grey) squirrels, butterflies, bees, snails, caterpillars, lady bugs, dragonflies and domestic pets including cats and dogs. This is wildlife that’s to be celebrated (despite said grey squirrels being an invasive species).
Betty discovers its a badger digging up the garden and sets about scaring it off. Now you might be wondering ‘what’s this got to do with anything political?’.
Badgers are a pretty controversial species in England, and annual badger culls are a pretty fundamental Conservative Party policy in terms of nature and the environment. (There was a lot of research in early 2000s around TB that concluded badger culls were ineffective, Hilary Benn refused to authorise any more in 2008 under Labour govt and Labour have since committed to end badger culls).
Now I may very well be giving this a bit too much weight, and of course the badger is scared off by a scarecrow, but I think it’s an interesting choice in a book that makes quite a big deal of nature and wild animals that the author chose to centre the story around the pesky badger as the creature that needs gotten rid of.
Other thoughts, not tory related
- it’s odd to me that Betty never interacts with another child in this book
- it’s also a bit odd that Betty thinks of, and builds, this scarecrow with no input from Grandma or anyone else
"voting for socialism is not socialism any more than a menu is a meal"
Just a quick reminder that living things aren't there for your entertainment, and also that prey animals get scared, and we should respect that.
Animals that graze on common land in the UK tend to be very lightly handled, they're effectively feral, even though they legally belong to someone.
Grazing on common land is an important tradition and often important for the wider ecosystem, so it would be a shame if this was lost.
If you want to interact closely and take photos with horses, common land isn't really the right place to do it.
(also please remember horses can't be sick, so be careful what you feed them if at all).