what climate change

i’m tryna be chill around you but i’m so uncool i think i’m causing climate change. what i mean is that it’s 3:12 in the morning on a wednesday and i’m googling “how do i make her happy”. i’m reading cosmo and shit, chewing on my nails and taking notes about picnics. i just want to be the person you come home to, whatever that looks like, whatever we do. i mean i’m reading lists of interesting conversation topics because my words dry up around you. i mean i close my eyes and i see you. i mean you’re the kind of girl i can sing along badly to music to and sit in silence with and count the stars next to. i mean. i don’t know. i’m caught up in you.


Powerful words from Neil, on the denial of science in America.

anonymous asked:

vegans have to stop acting like someone eating meat is whats really causing climate change. most fossil fuels come from corporations, rarely this is due to individual households themselves. the myth that climate change can be reduced if every individual cuts back is false. even if every house turned off their lights more, reduced fires in their backyards, etc you still have corporations committing over 70% of the cause of climate change.

First, I would like to know where you got your information because typically our changing planet is not measured in climate change, but rather deforestation, rising temperatures, shifting snow and rainfall patterns, number of ocean dead zones, extreme climate events, and specie extension. Climate change is the term for the whole shabang. 

More and more studies are showing that the consumption of animal products is the largest contributor to serious environmental issues that we are facing. 

  •     91% of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest is due to animal agriculture. (https://www.pachamama.org/blog/how-animal-agriculture-affects-our-planet)
  •     51% of global greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestock production. (This number takes into account the gasses livestock produce on their own, like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride.) http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
  •    According to the same World Watch Institute, animal agriculture is       responsible for 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year.
  •  According to the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA), Factory farms produce 500 million tons of untreated manure annually. (3 times the amount of sewage produced by humans in the United States.)
  •  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has blamed current factory farming practices for 70% of the pollution in the nation’s rivers and streams.
  • The water pollution affects marine wildlife as well and there are now 500 reported “dead zones” around the world that have collapsed due to animal agricultural chemical runoff and waste.

Sadly, this list goes on.

Yes, in today’s world it seems unlikely that we, as individuals can ever even hope to make an impact. But actually, it’s more imperative then ever. WE are the consumers which means WE have the power to change an industry.

All movements that demand change start with individuals.

“The world’s first app-controlled, self-making bed.”

Look, I don’t want to be mean, but this is exactly why we’re doomed as a species. Like - we’re currently facing such a long list of dire or urgent challenges - first and foremost, the extinction of most life forms on Earth - and we’re in desperate need of scientific innovation so we can keep up with our expanding population - and we should work 24/7 to find a way to deliver those innovations to the most vulnerable, because it’s not normal that so many people are still living in such harsh conditions, not to mention everything else - violence, terrorism, fake news, the refugees and the displaced, those who’re forced to fight wars and those who’re enslaved by our inhuman economic system - and instead of doing all that, we’re focusing our energy on a bloody duvet? Jesus, this is exactly what we don’t need - something else that consumes energy we already don’t know how to produce, and yet another gadget that’ll make our phones and wireless connections and all that evil wizardry even more crucial in our lives than it already is. And, worst of all - this duvet is completely useless. It’s a dumb idea born out of a sickness of the soul. So you’re lucky enough to have a person who wants you in their bed at night - good for you, enjoy that and stfu. And if you guys want to sleep at different temperatures, Jesus - stick a leg out, or wear a thicker pajamas and fuzzy socks, or even - gasp - have two single duvets - that’s a genius solution that still allows you to cuddle and acts against the sleepkickers and the blanket-stealers. So, whatever - kudos to these guys for being inventive and proactive and whatever else, for for fuck’s sake, enough. Our lives are comfy enough and wasteful enough without this nonsense - we’re all adults here, we can make our own bloody beds, we can wear more or fewer clothes, and the last thing we (or the planet) needs right now are those idiotic life hacks - duvets connected to our phones, fridges that keep track of our milk consumption, Buzzfeed listicles on how to avoid washing the dishes (no, eating cereal out of a plastic bag is not smart - it’s pathetic) - capitalism needs us to be children, so we won’t look behind the curtain and we’ll buy impulsively and we’ll believe yet another toy will cure our sadness and anxiety and the occasional bad day - honestly, the best thing we can do is to fight back and grow the fuck up. And that means, among other things, to bloody stop buying useless things. Just - bloody - stop

anonymous asked:

Hey there, I've been really enjoying reading your blog and have been learning a lot. I'd like to ask about some claims I see being made online about that everyone needs to stop eating meat/animal products imminently to lessen climate change. Is that the full picture? Most articles I see online promote a "plant based" (read: vegan) diet, but is it feasible for everyone to even do that? Would it even help? Thanks :)

This is a very complex question, and a lot has been written on it from different perspectives, but I have to say that it definitely is not the full picture.  To be honest, the question you asked could become an entire paper and/or thesis, but here are some reasons why everyone stopping eating animals immediately is neither feasible nor sustainable for people or the climate. 

The fact of the matter is, we have to feed -everyone- with the land and resources we have.  Climate change aside, that is the problem ag seeks to solve. So a solution is not truly sustainable unless it is capable of feeding everyone and is better for the climate than alternatives. Ok? Here we go!

So, does going animal-free work to feed everyone?

  • Many people (myself included) cannot safely exist on a diet devoid of animal products. Whether it be due to celiac, soy allergies, corn allergies, other gut disorders, many people need at least some animal products to survive. I have celiac. I also cannot eat soy more than occasionally without getting very sick and risking permanent health consequences. The majority of the items on the list of foods I cannot eat without getting sick and/or putting my health at risk are plant-derived. I am far from the only one like this. 
  • Allergies to plant-derived foods are far more common than to animal-derived ones.  Of the top 8 allergens estimated to cause >90% of allergic reactions by the Mayo Clinic, half of them are plant sources, and of the plant sources listed (peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat) those are common sources of protein for vegetarian/vegan diets. If we cut out animal-based protein, where are people with these allergies going to get protein?
  • Saying “everyone can eat vegan” is ableist, and denies the reality of many people, myself and many of my family members included.

Going totally vegan may actually be bad for some ecosystems

  • Grasslands and rangelands need grazing to survive. These lands evolved under pressure from native herbivores, which in turn were kept in check by predators. Humans have largely eliminated those predators from a good chunk of the world, or severely reduced them (see the issue with deer overpopulation in the US due to human elimination of predators). 
  • Even if all the land currently grazed by herbivores was returned to wild populations, we risk herbivore overpopulation issues and long-term environmental degradation. If we just remove all grazing herbivores, we wind up with habitat degradation and in many places, increased fuel for forest fires, which causes its own problems. Removing herbivores also changes ecosystem balance for many other species that rely on herbivores to clear out excess brush, provide manure, or alter habitats.
  • A totally vegan diet for humanity wastes land.  (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/) Most grazing land is unsuitable for row crops without massive inputs of fertilizer and tilling/irrigation, which themselves can have a fairly high carbon footprint, and repeated tilling can be very bad for certain kinds of soil. (http://cropwatch.unl.edu/tillage/structure
  • Have you ever seen the rangelands of California or Montana? It would be extremely difficult to grow row crops there, but we are really good at growing cattle and sheep there!  Since grassland is 26% of the world’s land area, and 70% of the world’s agricultural area, any diet that doesn’t use pasture-produced animal products will be wasting a lot of land that could be feeding people. (http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/grass_stats/grass-stats.htm)
  • As the world population increases, pressure on existing land usage is going to increase, and so agriculture needs to rise to meet this challenge.

So I think we can make the case that a), a vegan diet will not feed everyone, and b) wastes land that could be used to feed people. So by default it’s not sustainable.

But what about livestock and climate change?

  • Livestock production of all types sum up to 15% of total greenhouse gas emissions worldwide (http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/),and 24% of global greenhouse gases come from agriculture, forestry, and other land use, according to the FAO. That includes plant and animal agriculture. (source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data)
  •  Of this, livestock are a major contributor, but so is soil management, which is needed for growing both human food and feed for livestock.
  • By contrast, electricity/heat, industry, and transport account for 25, 21, and 14% of greenhouse gases, respectively. 
  • In the US, livestock account for just 4.2% of total greenhouse gas emissions. To contrast, transportation and energy production account for 27% and 31% of total US greenhouse gas emissions, respectively. 
  • The contribution of livestock to greenhouse gases is higher in developing countries, partially due to a lot of livestock eating poorer quality feed or needing longer to reach market, and the fact that grass-fed livestock do produce more methane than livestock fed on lower-fiber feeds. 
  • But as discussed above, those grass-eating livestock are necessary for producing food where other crops can’t grow, and keeping ecosystems healthy.
  • So for the US and other developed countries, focusing on livestock seems a bit shortsighted compared to developing cleaner energy and transport, right? (source: http://www.afia.org/rc_files/801/livestocks_contribution_to_climate_change_facts_and_fiction.pdf Disclaimer: the author of this piece is one of my advisors) 
  • The US EPA here lists a lot of good ways we can improve agriculture to reduce climate change https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#land-use-and-forestry but the fact of the matter is, while ag and livestock ag in particular contribute a good amount to climate change, it’s got a big job to do - feeding everyone!
  • Herbivores like cows and sheep and goats are needed to preserve native forage-based ecosystems and provide food, but at the cost of producing methane that contributes to climate change. However, if we got rid of every cow and sheep and replaced their contribution to human diets with chicken and pigs, we’d have to grow extra food for them, which means more greenhouse gases to grow those foods, and we’re back at square one
  • To me, the real benefit of livestock, especially on range situations, is that they turn human-inedible plant protein into human-edible protein. That’s a significant reason why they’re so important to the human food supply.
  • Livestock also eat a lot of byproducts (brewer’s mash, hulls, tomato pulp, etc) that would otherwise go to waste.  This reduces the impact of their feed production and of waste disposal in other industries. We’d have a lot of reject feed/byproducts sitting around if we got rid of livestock, and those would have greenhouse gas production from their waste disposal.

For me, it amounts to priorities - we know a vegan diet won’t feed everyone and it wastes land. We don’t have enough arable land to feed everyone on a vegan diet, even if everyone could go vegan. 

We have researchers like myself and my colleagues working to help farmers reduce greenhouse gas emissions no matter what they farm (greenhouse gas emissions are a waste, remember, and cost farmers money). Livestock, especially in range situations and developing countries, eat a lot of stuff that would otherwise go to waste, and help keep ecosystems healthy. 

So it’s not just the analytical life cycle of the animal and it’s impacts, it’s what would the effect on climate change be by a) removing livestock and b) dealing with the human food needs met by doing so? 

To me, livestock earn their keep, and while it is our job to keep improving livestock systems to be more efficient and help  prevent worse climate change, we also need to remember that livestock are an important part of the sustainability of existing systems. 

So hope that answered your question, anon! For more info, check out this video presentation that you might find neat, as well: http://articles.extension.org/pages/28311/clearing-the-air-on-animal-ag-and-greenhouse-gases

What to Do When the World is Slowly Losing Its Mind

 You can tell me




Are you


Are you


a virus,

an infectious case

of blind



Brought on





           I’m here

                for you.

Just you.

Not myself.

Tell me what troubles

your waters, your breath;

your hair that grows

from the sick roots

receiving no


Are you under

a lot of stress?


and I’m only

             Hypothesizing here,

you need a long Vacation.

By Vacation I mean

to leave,

to vacate

except you stay

and we all go

till you can feel clear again.

Till you can love yourself again.

Brush your trees,

Cry rivers

and allow the built up

rage to vent into deep seas.

Hurricanes and typhoons

will clean away the debris

and garbage,

and you will grow

new hair,

feel fish swim in your




Gazelles and lions

                      leaping across your loins

frogs and orchids

 in your humid places

Birds migrating from your breasts

to your inner thighs.

The sun will have your back, always.

The moon too.

You won’t withhold your tears

from landing on your lap

and you will be able

to find the cycles

in your latitudes

and longitudes


Here I am.

Rain on me.

anonymous asked:

is it too late to start trying to stop the effects of climate change? what can i do to help? what is the biggest issue that is leading to global warming? would using renewable energy make a difference? and what are countries around the world doing to help?? i'm sorry to ask so much, but climate change and the earth are important issues for me!! thank you for this opportunity!

Published scientific research shows that carbon pollution from cars, power plants, deforestation, and other human activities cause climate change. Research and practice also shows that existing behaviors and technology can reduce climate change and limit the damage to nature and human well-being. The countries of the world agreed in 1997 to reduce the carbon pollution from cars, power plants, deforestation, and other human activities that causes climate change. Solar, wind, and other types of renewable energy use the natural energy of the sun and wind and produce almost no pollution. In California, USA, renewable energy now provides one-fifth of all electricity. In 2016, the amount of renewable energy capacity added around the world could replace the equivalent of 640 coal-fired power plants. You can do your part by walking, biking, taking public transit, recycling, and anything else that can reduce waste and improve energy efficiency.



(with “we’re all doomed, aren’t we?” thanks to timpestuous over on Twitter for this one)

DeVos praises this voucher-like program. Here’s what it means for school reform.
Trump administration touts Florida’s tax-credit scholarships, despite little evidence of benefits.

The voucherlike program, the largest of its kind in the country, helps pay tuition for nearly 100,000 students from low-income families.

But there is scant evidence that these students fare better academically than their peers in public schools. And there is a perennial debate about whether the state should support private schools that are mostly religious, do not require teachers to hold credentials and are not required to meet minimal performance standards. Florida private schools must administer one of several standardized tests to scholarship recipients, but there are no consequences for consistently poor results.

“After the students leave us, the public loses any sense of accountability or scrutiny of the outcomes,” said Alberto Carvalho, the superintendent of Miami-Dade County public schools. He wonders what happens to the 25,000 students from the county who receive the scholarships. “It’s very difficult to gauge whether they’re hitting the mark.”

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, a longtime advocate for school choice, does not seem to be bothered by that complaint.

Using tax credits to fund the scholarships, instead of direct payments from public treasuries, enabled lawmakers to work around state bans on the use of public funds to support religious institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that tax-credit programs are constitutional.