what we know about climate change

why a sana season will be AMAZING

sana bakkoush was my first favourite character on the show, as it was the iconic first bus meeting in ep3 of s1 that really sold me on this show! this post is really just all my positive thoughts and feels about my girl sana possibly getting a season and it is waaay too long, but it turns out i love sana a lot ok?? ok:

  • probably most important: a muslim hijabi girl as a main character. 
    • amazing representation that young hijabi girls deserve. 
    • also in the current political climate in europe and the us, this is so important
    • the show is and should be targeted at norwegian teens, and muslim girls are a group of norwegian teens that are rarely represented in our media
    • i want to know more about sanas relationship with islam, what does it mean to her? we know a bit and i would love to know more
    • also related to that, how does islam fit into norwegian cultures and traditions and how sana interacts with that?
    • im a culture nerd, literally that is what i study atm, so: culture in our global multicultural society is ever-changing and closely related to our identities and how chose to take part in different communities. sana is a perfect character to explore this: 
      • obviously, she choses to wear the hijab which right away signals to others her faith
      • she doesnt want to drink or hook up, her faith is more important
      • but she actively wants to take part in a russebuss, a tradition very closely related to some of those things she isnt interested in
      • she also wears the traditional costume of norway, either bunad or festdrakt
      • basically, sana is representative of so many people in our society today, who challenge the outdated way many people think about culture as something static and clearly defined (looking directly at some right wing politicians in norway, who talk like they only know the 1960s definitions of culture)
    • the show smacking down on islamophobia - i am READY to see that on my screen and on the most popular show in norway atm
    • the lovely @imansmeskinis​ wrote a very good post about things she wants to see explored wrt sana and islam, if you haven’t: read it!!
  • and obviously: more sana - who is undeniably a Badass character who has had some of the best moments of this show tbh
    • when she took over that first bus meeting, with a “well-functioning plan”, leaving all the girls shook and very ????? and sana goes: “i think this well good..” with that knowing look. ICONIC SCENE imo
    • that time she apparently asked one of the penetrator guys if his nose was bigger than his dick!!???”!?
    • actually got at least vilde and eva to believe that her hijab was magical, that she was psychic and that she could see the ghost of kasper lol
    • getting the guys’ weed out of evas house while the police was there, then use it to blackmail isak into going to kosegruppa while still keeping 10% of the drugs, because it’s “good to have”
    • wrapping said 10% as a christmas gift for isak
    • what a legend!!
    • imagine a season where every clip has the potential for this level of greatness!

Keep reading

Enviro rant//Hoof disease in Sitka elk is a result of disgusting industrial cow farm practices, fyi

It’s so fucking awesome how our shitty large farming practices that developed with cow farmers in europe and the usa started the bacteria that now causes hoof disease in Sitka elk in the PNW. Washington’s elk herds especially are suffering so much, and wildlife officials are doing nothing to treat them or develop a vaccine, of course. And, in spite of herds being sick and needing help, hunting permits for them are being sold like cheap candy. We barely develop any vaccines for humans, why would we make any for species that actually contribute to this earth and its valuable ecosystems?

Fuck lazy corporate farms and farmers, and fuck -all- government environment regulatory programs. The Forest Service and other government wildlife sectors have small bands of individuals who care and do good, but don’t be fooled overall. The upper management uses the name “Forest Service” as a guise for continued environmental destruction for corporate capitalist interests that is hurting every species. They can get away with this because few people truly understand ecology and the impacts of the Forest Service’s/EPA’s/DOFW’s less than desirable methods and lax standards overall. I’m sure the lack of science education in public schools (and the almost unidirectional focus on computer/mechanical engineering jobs for merchandise production in our society as opposed to earth sciences and medicine)is entirely intentional by the the government – understanding the truth about how the earth works and can thrive if we changed makes everything our government does seem nonsensical and careless. If people don’t understand the science, corrupt leaders can do what they want, and use rhetoric exclusive to the scientific community to confuse the public. These government regulators are still the arms of logging lobbyists and politicians who give no shits about the environment other than draining it dry to benefit them short term.

((I know this personally as well – not only did I study conservation biology, ecology, climate science, and botany while working in a lab with one of the best botanical ecologists in the country for five years – we did several studies for free for the Forest Service regarding invasive species managment. It was our job to show them the best ways to kill invasive species and the best ways to recover native assemblages post destruction. The Forest Service’s methods always involved deadly sprays, some were glyphosate which has been strongly linked to cancer in livestock and humans, while my methods involved hand picked weeding and planting of strong native plants/primary succession species post destruction. Guess which method allows the forest to grow back!!! Mine. The forest grew back with healthy native assemblages and no invasives, as long as all invasive material was removed from the site and humans were not allowed to trample the site. Destruction by humans simply walking around with invasive seeds and spores on their shoes, or dogs, is the number one cause of invasive plants overtaking native ones. My results were the same regardless of the forest area or original plant assemblage, or regardless of the invasive. The Forest Service’s lazy spray method had NOTHING other than weeds growing back on the site. Gross. Also, their standard practice in my state is to leave invasive material on site in huge piles even when they did hand pick some specimen along with spraying various chemicals. This is really dumb, because many of the worst invasives are clonal/can spread by rhizomes and can reproduce from a tiny slice of living material leftover. In the forests my lab and I studied, they had to employ our methods and three Oregon forests are now safely recovering from Brachypodium sylvaticum, Himalayan blackberry, and English ivy, as far as I know. They could have reverted back to old methods with Trump in charge, though.))

They will take and destroy in the name of capitalism until we get to a point where certain ecosystem types, and thus huge arrays of species, will disappear completely without recovering. It’s already happening. If enough remaining forest is destroyed, especially the Amazon, our climate systems will lose their drive (most importantly a huge part of the water cycle will effectively be stopped due to deforestation) and the jet stream will shut down, triggering another ice age. But it’s no big deal, don’t worry about the trees or the animals who live among them~

If you’re struggling like I am - Ch. 9

Summary: You are hired as a makeup artist for BigHit working with BTS. You are older than all of them, yet, despite your best efforts, you find yourself slowing falling in love with the youngest member.

Pairing: Jungkook X Reader, Jungkook X Noona

Genre: Angst, Fluff and Smut

Chapters: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27(final)

Chapter 9 - Heartbreak

Everything is a mess…

Word Count: 2275 (of 72622)

Keep reading

The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has already put himself at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists. In a TV interview today, Pruitt said he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to climate change. As NPR’s Nathan Rott reports, his own agency has said otherwise.

NATHAN ROTT, BYLINE: The question asked of Mr. Pruitt on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” was whether or not he believed it’s been proven that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the, quote, “primary control knob for climate.” Here’s the EPA administrator’s response.

SCOTT PRUITT: No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do. And there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. That - so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.

DAVID TITLEY: I don’t know what Mr. Pruitt does or does not believe in. And honestly it doesn’t really matter what he believes in.

ROTT: This is David Titley, the director of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate at Pennsylvania State University and a former rear admiral in the U.S. Navy.

TITLEY: The atmosphere doesn’t care what any single person believes. It’s just going to keep getting warmer, and the climate’s going to change as long as we keep increasing the amount of greenhouse gases.

ROTT: The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees with Titley’s point. A report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just earlier this year said that changes in the planet’s surface temperature are largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions. The EPA’s own website says, quote, “it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.” Jennifer Francis is a research professor at Rutgers University.

JENNIFER FRANCIS: It would be hard to find a scientist that disagreed with that. The evidence is overwhelming.

ROTT: Pruitt’s comments to the contrary, though, aren’t out of the ordinary for him. During his confirmation hearing, he said that the degree to which humans impact climate change is in question. He’s written on the topic, and as Oklahoma’s attorney general, he sued to stop the Obama administration’s biggest regulation to combat climate change, the clean power plan, with the backing of the oil and gas industry.

Donald Trump has promised to get rid of that plan, as well as another major regulation that aims to limit carbon emissions from cars and trucks. An executive order that would set those changes in motion is expected just next week. Francis thinks all of that is concerning.

FRANCIS: The longer it takes us to get a grip and start reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases, the worse problem it’s going to get and the harder it’s going to be to fix it.

ROTT: The EPA actually has a legal mandate to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide because of a Supreme Court decision in 2007. But Pruitt in his interview today said he’d like to see Congress weigh in on that, as well. Nathan Rott, NPR News.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/2017/03/09/519499975/epa-head-scott-pruitt-doubts-basic-consensus-on-climate-change


“The question is can we change our course in time. Now if this were a movie we could write the end of this script and figure a way out of this mess. But real life doesn’t work like that and we can’t pretend that we know how this is going to end. The only thing we can do is control what we do next. How we live our lives. What we consume. How we get involved. And we can use our vote to tell our leaders that we know the truth about climate change.”

Before the Flood (2016) dir. Fisher Stevens

On my way to the airport yesterday, I was picked up by a cabbie named Chuck.

Chuck served in the Navy for 22 years. He worked, lived, and partied across the Pacific Islands until deciding to collect his retirement. When he saw my poster tube, we naturally got on the subject of why I was in Vegas, how I studied sea turtles and was presenting my research here, etc.

He thinks turtles in general are the coolest (“I mean, nothing else ‘cept maybe the armadillo has a shell! Think about that! That’s why they’ve been around so long!”), and one of the first things he said was, “I wish they’d start doing better and we’d bring ‘em back from the brink of extinction because man, they are such good eating

I didn’t bat an eye. I’ve heard this before; I also know that some very successful conservation efforts are borne out of a regular person’s desire to eat a species sustainably; that locals get involved with conservation efforts for this very reason. We chatted about this and I got to tell him about turtle excluder devices (TEDs) used in the shrimp trawling industry. We agreed how we would both much rather pay taxes that go to funding TEDs on every trawl boat in the Gulf than to our corrupt governor or legislator’s next mansion. That it’s hard for a seasonal fisherman to fund a $700 TED on a boat, or that scientists and government officials don’t get that he and his daddy and his granddaddy have been doing this their whole lives, and have a bad taste in their mouth from people telling them what to do and telling them that they know better.

Chuck may be “just” a cab driver, he may be a retiree, but he reads Science magazine. He may want TEDs so that he can sustainably eat shrimp, whereas I want them to save sea turtles and couldn’t care less about eating shrimp anymore. He’s plugged in, and he isn’t stupid; his background is just slightly different than mine, and we want the same things.

We naturally got onto the topic of climate change. Chuck acknowledges that something is going on, that the Earth’s climate is heating and changing. He’s not sure whether it’s entirely anthropogenic, and a 15 minute cab ride to the airport was neither the time nor the place for me to throw facts at him.

Instead, I focused on the fact that Chuck, regardless of the cause of climate change, wants to see humans try to make it better. He said, “We have got to do something or this (gesturing to the surrounding sprawl of civilization on either side of the highway) will all fall apart.”
So that’s what I said to him. I said, “Chuck you know, that’s it exactly. The science is pretty sound, our models are getting better and better every day, but at the end of the day, shouldn’t it just be enough that you want to make the earth a better place for everyone? That the sooner that we get past this rhetorical pitfall of ‘who dun it’, we can start to make actual, appreciable changes?”

Chuck must have been about 82 years old. I’m nearly 25. He’s been around, seen a lot. And he remarked to me at the end of the cab ride how much he enjoyed talking to me, how it made his day, and how this was a new, great way of thinking about climate change and activism. That we have nothing to lose by switching to sustainable resources, eating less meat, telling our politicians to get their acts together and make good on their climate summit promises.

I reflect on this on Earth Day, and because March for Science isn’t far from my mind today. I’m reflecting on how the newly published video narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson revs me up in certain ways, but how problematic I find some of its rhetoric, and some of the rhetoric on the March for Science official facebook page.

For whom is this video made? I’ll tell you, from the time I spent with him, Chuck wouldn’t have been compelled by this video. He’d have been indifferent at best, and angry at the worst. This video isn’t made for him. But isn’t it important that he, and people like him, be reached, encouraged to make a difference, feel like they’re not considered ‘less than’ just because they’re not scientists?

What did work was having a conversation with him. Being kind, talking about things person to person– no lecturing, no fact regurgitation. I think that my conversation with Chuck will have more of a lasting impact on him than seeing that video ever would. And talking with Chuck has had an impact on me too. It reminds me that I’m a citizen of the Earth just like him. And that outsider perspective is absolutely key to my work and how I relate to the science I do. What does it all even matter if it’s not positively impacting people like Chuck? What does it even matter if I can’t sympathize with the shrimp boat drivers that have to rely on a transient resource to put dinner on the table for themselves and their families?

It occurs to me that this conversation could have gone much more differently for Chuck if it had been a different person in his cab. If it had been a different sea turtle conference attendee, or a different scientist. That someone could have jumped down his throat for his ‘good eating’ comment, or his thoughts on climate change. And he wouldn’t have walked away from that conversation telling the person how he was going to go out and buy a book on sea turtles now.

We march for science, but let us also march for the people who stand to benefit from it, whose lives are made better from its advances. Let us march for them even when we don’t see quite eye to eye on certain issues, for certainly the issue of saving our planet is more important. I think far more often than not, we can all agree that something needs to be done. I think we’ll find that people are more willing than we realize to join in and help. And we need them if we’re going to win this fight.

anonymous asked:

What do you think is an effective way to convince people we should do something about climate change? A nuanced opinion seems to lean more on the side of "eh why do anything about it?", but fear mongering obviously isn't effective either, for exactly the reasons you've talked about in your other posts.

Its hard because we’d literally need to convince the biggest industries in the world to give up fossil fuels, which in turn would upset another big industry.  Money is the problem, as there is a vested interest in the continuation of fossil fuels.

The best way to shift popular opinion is not to scare people, nor punish them.  We incentivize them.  If people can save a boat load of money by being green, they will.

If switching to solar, nuclear or wind will cause people’s electricity bills to go down, they’ll switch.  If hybrids were cheaper than standard cars, people would buy them.  If they made a lightbulb that lasted 5 years and was better on energy, for the same price, people would buy them.

At the same time, coming up with the actual, hard science and publishing it widespread will help.  We need to know the hard numbers of how much carbon we, as a species, are contributing.  We need to know our impact, what its changing and then put it into terms people will understand.

Make the argument about how fishing industries will suffer in areas where fishing is a primary earner.  In California, determine if the lack of water is due to climate change and then TELL them that.

Literally, if you incentivize people with money and show them the negative impact if they choose not to, they will naturally move over. 



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

Truth and Opinions

We are not entitled to our own truth. We aren’t entitled to our own opinion either. Before talking about truth, it’s necessary to talk about opinions. If one isn’t informed and hasn’t considered as much as they possibly could have, their opinion is invalid, untenable, and they have no right to hold it. A racist’s opinion about African Americans isn’t on equal footing with my opinion about them.

I refer to no human being as a “savage” or as some other derogatory name. A person who would call a non-White person a “savage” or a “nigger” or a “spick” has an uninformed opinion about a large group of people. This is not only a generalization but also an utter disregard for each individual belonging in that group. It’s the height of disrespect and betrays a lack of empathy in the racist. The racist’s opinion about any minority group isn’t equal to a non-racist opinion.

Their opinion on minority groups isn’t equivalent to truth. This is where I strongly disagree with the article I posted earlier. Truth and opinion aren’t interchangeable. In the mind of the racist, the extremist, the neo-Nazi conservative, or even the right wing conservative, this may be the case. Those individuals may believe that their opinions are synonymous with truth, but this is simply not the case. This is to say that their belief is not the truth. The truth is what is the case

One can be of the opinion that climate change is a hoax. One can be of the opinion that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago or even yesterday. One can be of the opinion that all of history is an illusion. One can believe that existence itself is an illusion. Objective evidence will prove such people wrong on every front. Climate change is simply not a hoax. The Earth didn’t form a few thousand years ago and given what we know about planet formation, it’s conclusively clear that it wasn’t created. If history is an illusion, your parents and their memories are an illusion. You may very well be a radical skeptic, but if one’s personal philosophy cannot be practically implemented, it is a failed philosophy. That is to say that if you doubt all of history, you must doubt your parent’s memories, your grandparent’s memories, and yes, even your own memories. No one lives that way. No one can. Radical skepticism with regards to history is impractical and therefore, untenable. The same applies to the latter position with regards to existence.

Opinions are not sacred. Entitlement to an opinion is what led non-college Whites to subject the country to the Presidency of the most incompetent, inexperienced President elect in all of history. This would be a President that can’t spell unprecedented without the aid of autocorrect. People may deny the truth in order to hold on to comforting beliefs and opinions. People may deny all evidence to protect their prized opinions. This does not imply that opinions are equivalent to truth. Truth belongs to a distinct domain.

Truth, as stated earlier, is what is the case. This is a philosophically robust definition; it is also a practical definition. It is the case that the Empire State Building is in New York City. More specifically, it is the case that the Empire State Building is located at 350 5th Avenue New York, NY 10118. One can hold the opinion that it’s located elsewhere or that it’s location as shown on Google or on any map is an illusion. One would, however, be hard pressed to defend their opinion. This opinion simply isn’t equivalent to the fact of the matter, to the truth in this particular case.

You can believe that you are several years younger than you are. The fact remains that your medical history and birth certificate will tell us what is the case. There are records that will tell us the truth of when you were born. In like manner, we can tell all sorts of lies to ourselves. We can tell lies about our health, level of education, work history, and so on. Try as we may, we can distort the truth, but if someone were to inquire about these items, your lie will be discovered. You can, in other words, choose to hold certain opinions for sake of personal benefit or to stave off embarrassment, but the truth will remain the truth despite these convenient opinions.

If opinions are of this sort, based on lies and fabrications, inadequate information, or outright ignorance, they are indefensible. If one’s opinion cannot compete with alternative opinions with regards to a given case or subject matter, one is not entitled to that opinion. It’s curious that we learn this so early on in middle school. We write persuasive essays in where we have to convince our teachers and other readers of some point(s). We are asked to use quotes or even citations to back up or support our claims. Yet some of us become adults who can’t write a persuasive essay even if their life depended on it. We make one claim after another with no support or evidence whatsoever. Some of us hold opinions despite the lack of evidence for said opinion; some even go as far as holding an opinion regardless of the evidence. In the latter, one has blatantly denied the truth.

As Mark Twain said: “A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.” Some opinions are actually equivalent to lies. Some of these lies are intentional. Some are not. Some people actually mean well and aren’t trying to be deceptive. Perhaps they have concerns that are over and above their concern for the truth, at least for the moment. Some anti-vaxxers, for instance, aren’t intentionally lying or trying to get other people sick or even killed. Their ignorance stems from a very real concern that there’s some connection between vaccination and autism. Many of them have been fooled by blatant lies published by people claiming to be scientists or medical professionals. These people, unfortunately, don’t understand that a degree, even a Ph.D., in a given field does not a professional make. In science and medicine, fields that advance so quickly, it is incumbent on the would be scientist or medical professional to practice continuously. For the scientist, this means publishing frequently in a highly competitive environment; this is a dog fight to maintain relevance and to try one’s best to make a name for oneself. For the medical professional, this is to maintain stable tenure or residency at a hospital or university. Science and medicine are not for armchair practitioners–unless of course one’s practice requires an armchair, e.g., therapist.

Anti-vaxxers have been fooled by what amounts to medical malpractice in written form. Some of them simply do not know any better. Many of these well-meaning individuals aren’t like Donald Trump and the vast majority of his supporters. They’ve intentionally distorted the truth for sake of furthering an agenda. Most anti-vaxxers aren’t like that. It is always important to consider someone’s intention, especially if one is intent on helping them see their error. It is important to recognize when someone might mean well and isn’t blatantly ignorant and holding an opinion despite the evidence against it. Some people are, unfortunately, beyond one’s reach. They will remain beyond reach if we equate opinion and truth. It’s a dangerous false equivalence that must be addressed every time it pops up. Opinions are either tenable or indefensible. If the latter, you’re certainly not entitled to it. That may upset you or make you sad or make you hate me or lead you to persist in your anti-intellectual crusade, but the truth remains: the less tenable opinion, the less entitled you are to it.

Today was a shit day in the world. Climate change issues via emperor cheeto, bombings, and everything else that just makes me wonder if it’s a sick joke or if this is who we are now.
What future will my daughter have?
Will she be safe traveling? Will she have any basic rights? Will there be a park with real trees that she can happily take her kids to when she’s a mom?
I really don’t know right now…

All I know is this: I can teach her to be kind. I can show her how to have her wits about her in the world. I can be her model of a fierce and loving woman who has a fucking voice and encourages others to use theirs.

Little darling, love that crown you were born with. Make others see theirs too. Keep your word and be honest, even when others get scared by the truth. I will always protect you but I will make sure you can protect yourself. X

“I’m just exploring all my options”

You have no options. Voting for a third party candidate is effectively throwing your vote away. It’s a BINARY CHOICE

You are going to get us all killed.
You are going to get us all killed.

You might not remember what happened last time, but I do. Leftists swore up and down an Al Gore Presidency would be “just as bad” as a Bush Presidency. That was the EXACT phrase they used.

“Al Gore is a corpratist,” they said.

“I want to vote for something instead of against something,” they said.

Now, over a decade later, the entire GLOBE is still trying to correct what was done during the Bush administration–global financial collapse, SCOTUS nominees, TWO endless wars, drone strikes, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Isis, DICK CHEYNEY.

Open your eyes and see how the tide is turning. For the past 10 years, there’s been a steady rise of right-wing ideology and politics. There’s UKIP and the Brexit, France and their damn neo Nazi Marine Le Pen, whatever is happening in Brazil right now. Canada only just ousted a leader who muzzled scientists who spoke about climate change!

And now we have the possibility of Trump. Trump who, as of this moment, has a 38% chance of winning according to Five Thirty Eight. Not 38% of the vote. 38% chance of winning. Those aren’t terrible odds. They’re better odds than rolling a specific number on a die, 16.68%. 

Do you understand that we have a chance to flip the Supreme Court for the first time since the 60’s? 

Remember all that Civil Rights shit from the 60’s? Do you know what happened to it, why it didn’t usher in a new age of equality like MLK’s Dreamers hoped? The Burger Court happened to it. The Burger Court is the conservative-majority Supreme Court that came into power in the backlash following the 60′s. With that Court came a conservative jurisprudence that would last for generations. It was the Burger Court that stymied de-segregation efforts, and created ‘white flight’ by ruling that de-segregation orders couldn’t be extended past district lines. It was the Burger Court that laid the groundwork for Citizens United, when they ruled that corporations could spend money in politics. Everyone was so shocked when SCOTUS ruled corporations are people and money=speech. Well, thank the Burger Court!

Now, for the first time in SEVERAL DECADES there is an opportunity to flip the Supreme Court. We haven’t had a liberal jurisprudence since the 60′s. And look at what’s coming down the pipe–anti trans laws like HB2, Affirmative Action, housing rights, repealing Citizen United, immigration, abortion, gun control, police brutality, climate change, etc. 

I am begging you to vote Hillary. And tell others to vote Hillary. I won’t quibble over whether her policies are better than Trump’s (they objectively are) or whether or not she is a better person than Trump (that’s…more subjective). The SCOTUS nominations should be reason enough. PLEASE don’t make me live through a Trump administration. Please don’t do this again.

nhaneh  asked:

but what is climate change next to covfefe change anyway

Apparently, not much

Climate Change (EARTH where EVERYONE lives) < covfefe (stupid typo from an orange man-baby)

It’s like watching a live example of the Art of Misdirection Class by Professor Donald J. Trump, and people eat it all up.

“You know, when we first set up WWF, our objective was to save endangered species from extinction. But we have failed completely; we haven’t managed to save a single one. If only we had put all that money into condoms, we might have done some good.” - Sir Peter Scott, founder of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

I see Save the Children Commercials and think, “How about we save the children before they become children, thus saving the world?” Queue condoms and birth control raining from the airplanes. (I know it’s not that simple, but you get what I’m saying?)

Honestly I never met harry but I feel so comfortable just thinking about meeting him like maybe this is a fantasy but I don’t know like we would definitely hit it off like I go up to him and say “hey bitch” and he’s just be like “oh what up” and then we’d start talking to each other about climate change and art

What if the Hebitians had made it?

I wonder how Cardassian culture would have developed if the damned planet had had enough resources to sustain all the people, if climate change hadn’t happened. In canon, the culture that came about 10.000 years before what we know as the Cardassians were called Hebitians, an advanced, sophisticated and even spiritual people who tried to live in harmony with nature. All of what is known about them (which isn’t a lot) indicates to me that they were a rather egalitarian, peaceful, kinda artsy-fartsy society - a stark contrast to the culture of the Cardassian Union. So what if the Hebitian culture hadn’t been devastated by hunger and disease? I believe the militarization of society wouldn’t have taken place. I believe there wouldn’t have been a “need” to annex Bajor in order to strip it of its resources. And I like to imagine that if Bajorans had made contact with the peaceful, more open-minded Hebitians when they first explored the Cardassian system with their solar gliders, they might have gotten along. Shared their views on spirituality and religion. Maybe the two species had even cooperated. Grown together. Helped each other. So in my head canon, there exists this happy little hippy-esque parallel universe of Bajorans and Cardassians/Hebitians entertaining strong, stable, supportive relations and private relationships, where Bajor is whole, Kira Nerys was never put through the hell of the resistance and Gul Dukat is probably a chaste monk or something.

Also, I realize that when I escape one horrible fictitious universe because bad stuff happens in it by creating another fictitious universe full of fluff, I am taking my escapism to a whole new level. Don’t care, I’m loving it :3!

age of change

When I moved to the Bay Area, I found its rolling hills to be boring. My mom would point them out through the car window while driving on the freeway and say, “Isn’t that nice?” and I would mumble, “It’s just green. Everything’s green.” I’d duck my head back down to stare at whatever sort of screen I had in my hands.

I managed to ignore the green for ten years. One day, I looked up. Really looked. And I realized the hills weren’t so green anymore, and instead green was replaced by brown, yellow, and tan. And while green bored me before, seeing brown-yellow-tan produced a dull ache in my chest.

I really miss green.

Sometimes I wonder, what if I never looked up? What if I kept my eyes on the screen in my hands? What if I kept my mind on myself? On my work, friends, and family… but never gave a second’s notice to the home that hosted all of these things?

And I think we all do this, but instead on lingering on the what-if’s we should focus on the what-now’s. What’s important is that we look up. We seek out the green. We notice the brown-yellow-tans. We keep our eyes wide open and educate those who insist on keeping theirs wide shut. We educate ourselves. We ask questions: why does the lake in the city park look smaller? Why is the local farm selling less for more? Why are these hills no longer green?

“If you aren’t pissed off, you aren’t paying attention,” my statistics professor said the other day.

So let’s get pissed off. This is our Earth. We only get one Earth: let’s not take it for granted. Climate change is our reality, but it does not have to be our destiny. It is not the key that will take us to the future, it is the lock with which we will seal away this harmful practice of burning fossil fuels. Climate change is our opportunity to change, and that starts with us.

Millennials already know about climate change and global warming. We know it’s a problem, but most of us don’t know how to solve it, and I think it has a lot to do with there not being enough education on this subject, as well as not enough awareness on the actionable steps that we can take. A lot of terms, facts, and science is thrown around, and personally, when I started reading up about it, I was afraid to ask questions or speak out about the issue because I was afraid of looking dumb. I didn’t want to sound like I didn’t know I what I was talking about, and I can’t be the only one.

Trump’s presidency will only aggravate this situation, will further muddle the difficulties those who aren’t so informed about climate change will face when seeking answers and actionable steps. It makes me scared, but mostly it makes me frustrated, and I am grateful at least that it has pushed me to join this platform and conversation, where our peers can feel like they can ask questions, discuss what we know, and get pissed off.

Our message to the Trump administration (to all climate skeptics) is clear: The age of change has arrived, and it’s time to keep up.

This is one of those moments when you realize maybe we aren’t the heroes of the story. We often look back on past generations and wonder about their cruelty, their blithe dismissal of actions that seems to us, now, to be obviously moral, obviously right.

But imagine how future generations will look back on us. We knew all we needed to know about how climate change would likely affect our descendants, and we decided to let it happen anyway. And what will our excuse be? We were distracted? Doing enough would’ve been inconvenient? We decided to elect a president who thought climate change was a Chinese hoax because he seemed ready to “shake things up”?

“But what about her emails?” is a funny joke on Twitter, but it’s not going to be so funny as future generations realize it’s literally what happened. Our grandchildren will not judge us kindly.

What to know about newly appointed UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s position on climate change

  • In 2013, Haley became embroiled in controversy when a report on climate change’s devastating effect on South Carolina was found to have been buried.
  • Haley has never publicly stated her position on climate change or whether she believes it’s a real problem.
  • However, she has supported Atlantic offshore drilling for oil and gas and lambasted the Environmental Protection Agency for trying to limit carbon emissions of power plants.
  • “This is exactly what we don’t need,” Haley told an electric cooperative in 2014 after the EPA’s proposed plans, according to the Post and Courier.
  • “This is exactly what hurts us. You can’t mandate utility companies which, in turn, raises the cost of power. That’s what’s going to keep jobs away. That’s what’s going to keep companies away.”
  •  She added that the federal government should “stay out of the way.”
  • Incidentally, as governor, she accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from the oil and gas and electric utility industries. Read more

follow @the-future-now