Greta Thunberg As Time Magazine’s Person of the Year: A New Hope For Environmentalism?

Despite of Donald trump and scores of climate change denying heads-of-state, is the choosing of a 16 year old Swedish environmental activist as Time magazine’s Person of the Year represent a new hope for environmentalism?

By: Ringo Bones

I’m always reminded of that quote by Robert Frost on when I was young my teachers were old but the older I get, the younger my teachers had become. And while the 16 year old Swedish environmental activist named Greta Thunberg has been telling us this year t start panicking, sadly, I’ve been panicking for the last 30 years – from the murdering of Amazon rain forest anti deforestation activists with impunity since the late 1980s to Operation Desert Storm, the original blood for oil incident and in recent years the election of Donald Trump and scores of climate change denying heads of state around the world, it seems that environmental activism had became a lost cause since 2016, but does the choosing of Greta Thunberg as Time magazine’s Person of the Year represent a new hope of environmentalism especially when it comes to tackling climate change?

Given the recent political deadlock of COP 25 in Madrid where the now AWOL Australian PM Scott Morrison apparently managed to make the ongoing brush fires in Australia a non-issue, it seems that panicking when it comes to environmental issues is not an irrational move. But let us not forget that Greta Thunberg’s environmental activism for the year 2019 alone had managed to shake the world’s climate change denying heads of state – especially Donald Trump who had managed to go out of his way to pick a Twitter fight with 16-year-old Greta Thunberg while embracing wholeheartedly every elected mass murderer on the planet. Has America just elected history’s greatest shame?

Sulfur Hexafluoride: Clean Power Generation’s Dirty Little Secret?

Often used in science shows to lower the pitch of the human voice, is sulfur hexafluoride the clean power industry’s “dirty little secret” because it is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide?

By: Ringo Bones

Ever seen those science shows on TV – now mostly on You Tube – where the presenter uses a gas called sulfur hexafluoride to lower the pitch of their voices like the opposite of what helium does? Well, unfortunately, sulfur hexafluoride unbeknown to many of us, is a very dangerous greenhouse gas – as in it possesses 23,500 times the atmospheric warming power of carbon dioxide and could exacerbate the effects of global warming. Atmospheric scientists had found out that concentrations of sulfur hexafluoride in our atmosphere had been increasing during the past five years. But given it is a very potent greenhouse gas, why is sulfur hexafluoride relatively widely available that science show presenters can casually use it in a demonstration to lower the pitch of their voices?

Due to the recent rush to wean our reliance on fossil fuels in industrial electrical power generation – namely wind turbines, sulfur hexafluoride is a necessity when it comes as fire suppressant in large-scale electrical distribution systems – i.e. high capacity circuit breakers and relays. Given that the alternatives are more damaging to the ozone layer – like the chlorofluorocarbon based Halon –or prohibitively expensive when use in the scale we currently use – i.e. the inert gas argon, it seems that the electrical power industry must now find ways to minimize the leaking of large amounts of sulfur hexafluoride into the atmosphere. Worst still, like most petrochemical derived plastics, sulfur hexafluoride doesn’t break down easily in nature.

Given that the electrical power industry now has notice on the potential problems posed by unnecessary leaking into the atmosphere of sulfur hexafluoride, the due diligence doesn’t solely fall on them. Back in the 1990s, sulfur hexafluoride was used to fill the cushioning bubbles of running shoes and who knows what other consumer products, making a renewed regulation of sulfur hexafluoride throughout the various industries somewhat of an uphill battle. Maybe science show presenters must now find other more earth-friendly alternative gas to be used in demonstrations to lower the pitch of their voices. Maybe the argon gas production industry could pitch in?

Trump Rolls Back Endangered Species Act: One Giant Step Back For Environmentalism?

If his prison for migrant children wasn’t already reprehensible enough, does President Trump rolling back the Endangered Species Act in the name of economic concerns a death-knell for American biodiversity?

By: Ringo Bones

Back in Monday, August 12, 2019, the Trump Administration announced it has finalized a controversial rollback of protections for endangered species, including allowing economic factors to be weighed before adding an animal to the list. Putting money before the environment – what could be more morally reprehensible – Donald J. Trump Prison For Migrant Children perhaps or declaring Mexican Americans as “invasive species”?

The Interior Department regulations would dramatically scale back America’s landmark conservation law , limiting protections for threatened species, how factors like climate change can be considered in listing decisions and the review process are approved on their habitat. This is tantamount to the Trump Administration letting GOP Rep. Steve King rape Mother Nature in front of John Muir.

The Endangered Species Act was first passed in 1973 and is considered a success globally, surpassing protections for flora and fauna in many other countries. Environmentalists see it as one of America’s premier environmental laws. Looks like this is another decent legislation from the Nixon era that would be gutted by the Trump Administration’s so called Hitlerian policies.

Air Travel Carbon Offsetting: Making Civil Aviation More Environmentally Friendly?

Even though less than half of the world’s airlines offer carbon offsetting, does the practice really offer genuine environmental benefits?

By: Ringo Bones

With our global climate about to reach the point of no return when it comes to the ongoing climate change issue, it seems that every possible scheme has been on offer by every commercial and industrial sector to save us from climate catastrophe. Even though the airline industry forms just 2-percent of overall man-made green house gas emissions, it has become one of the most criticized for not doing enough to clean up its act. So clean up it did. One of these schemes is called carbon offsetting, but does it really work? But first, here’s a brief primer on carbon offsetting.

Carbon offsetting is the process of compensating for greenhouse gas emissions through schemes that are designed to make corresponding reductions in emissions from other parts of the economy. From donating to wind farms to replanting or protecting parcels of forest in at-risk areas, these offset programs offer a diverse amount of options for air travelers. Whilst it seems a fairly straightforward system that ensures you are making the sustainable decision transport-wise, it has drawn a fair share of condemnation from environmentalists.

On delving deeper into the definition of carbon offsets, it becomes clear why airline offset schemes have become controversial. Balancing the carbon dioxide emitted by your air travel through the planting of several trees in South America does not involve the solitary act of placing a tree in the soil. In order to plant the trees, there are several steps. Firstly, the trees must be bought from a supplier, transported to a warehouse before being driven out to the tree planting site that also needs to be prepared prior to the tree seedlings being planted – all of these actions produce their own share of carbon dioxide emissions, which are not always taken into account. If your tree planting offset scheme produces more carbon dioxide emissions than your flight – or by not buying any emissions offset at all – then it is really not an offset. Would spending the carbon offset funds by paying off persons who own large track of forested land to not allow their property to be developed into a residential neighborhood or an industrial farmland be a more low-carbon solution?

Beyond Meat’s Recent IPO Surge: Monetizing Environmental Concerns?

With both environmental and health concerns may be driving its recent IPO surge, will Beyond Meat eventually make the Wolves of Wall Street go vegan for the sake of our environment? 

By: Ringo Bones

During the company’s first day of trading at Wall Street back in Thursday, May 2, 2019, the share price of Beyond Meat surged 163 percent, thus signaling surprising interest in a new generation of companies that are creating plant-based alternative to meat. Beyond Meat, which makes vegetarian burgers and sausages, began trading at $25 a share on the Nasdaq stock exchange and ended the day at $65.75. The stock’s first-day pop is one of the biggest in recent IPO history. In the last decade, only two other companies – both of them biotech start-ups – had bigger increases on their first days of trading on major American stock markets, according to the data from the University of Florida professor Jay Ritter.

Beyond Meat is the first ever plant-based meat-alternative company to go public, but it is part of a growing industry of start-ups looking to replace animal agriculture. And in recent weeks have provided several indications that the business is gaining traction largely because of growing environmental and health concerns in both the raising and the consumption of meat. A study conducted back in 2005 have shown that if all Americans reduced their overall meat consumption by just 10-percent, the resulting reduction in overall carbon footprint is akin to taking 20 million cars off the road. Does this mean that the recent IPO surge of Beyond Meat is a sign that the so-called Wolves of Wall Street are now monetizing their own and everyone else's environmental concerns? 

Beyond Meat’s biggest competitor, Impossible Foods, teamed up with Burger King to roll out a meatless-version of the Whopper sandwich last month. Burger King announced this week that it would offer the sandwich at all of its restaurants in the United States, after a trial in the company’s St. Louis restaurants exceeded expectations. A day after Burger King’s announcement, McDonald’s chief executive, Steve Easterbrook, told analysts that his company was “paying close attention” to the trend and considering whether it will develop a meatless alternative to its hamburgers. In the lead-up to the Beyond Meat IPO, the poultry company Tyson Foods said it sold its early stake at Beyond Meat, in part because the food conglomerate is developing its own plant-based protein.

Like many high-tech companies that are debuting on Wall Street this year, Beyond Meat is losing money - $30 million last year – but revenue grew faster than last year’s losses, increasing 170 percent to $88 million. And like its competitors, Beyond Meat pitched investors on the idea that its plant-based burgers and sausages can appeal to traditional meat eaters and break out a niche market that vegetarian alternatives have traditionally occupied.

The start-up, based in the Los Angeles area, has tried to mimic the texture and taste of meat with ingredients like pea protein and beet juice. But it has also argued for the environmental and health benefits of moving away from meat. “I see it as a movement,” Beyond Meat’s chief executive, Ethan Brown, said in an interview back in Thursday, May 2, 2019. “We’re tapping into something within customers – within the human race – that is important.” Beyond Meat’s products are available in 15,000 supermarkets and several fast-food chains.

Leading up to the IPO, Beyond Meat steadily increased the number of shares it planned to sell and the price where it projected the shares to begin trading. The company ended up raising around $240 million in the public offering, which is more than it had raise from private markets. When it last raised money from its investors last fall, the company was valued at $1.35 billion, according to Pitchbook. Beyond Meat manage to finish the Thursday May 2, 2019 trading day to be worth $3.8 billion. The holdings of Beyond Meat’s founder Ethan Brown, are now worth more than $200 million.

Extinction Rebellion: Civil Rights Movement For Our Environment?

Made famous by their more recent mid April 2019 occupation movement in the UK, is Extinction Rebellion a “civil rights movement” for our environment?

By: Ringo Bones

Established in the UK back in May 2018, Extinction Rebellion got its start after one hundred academics signed a call to action involving nonviolent resistance to protest against climate breakdown, biodiversity loss and the risk of human extinction and ecological collapse. Named after the Anthropocene Extinction – our current epoch where most mass extinctions and environmental destruction are primarily caused by our collective human industrial activity. Even though they organized protests last year, it was in 2019 that the movement gained prominence back in April 1, 2019 after a so-called “nude protest” in the House of Commons – though a lot of people had mistaken it as a “Brexit protest” instead of an environmentalism one. It was around the middle of April 2019 when Extinction Rebellion occupied four prominent sites in central London – i.e. Oxford Circus, Marble Arch, Waterloo Bridge and the area around Parliament Square. The April’s protests more or less ended after a lot of activists were arrested but not before world famous Swedish student climate activist Greta Thunberg talked to the press about her support of Extinction Rebellion.

Extinction Rebellion attracted a legion of followers since their establishment back in 2018 largely due to their demands – something that needed to be reiterated to the powers-that-be. It goes that “the government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens. The government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels. A national Citizens’ assembly to oversee the changes to create a democracy fit for purpose.”

Despite of recent successes, Extinction Rebellion has been criticized by some for making unrealistic demands. The Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, which supports the movement’s course of strong action and demands, said that the timeframe being urged by Extinction Rebellion was “an ambitious that technically, economically and politically has absolutely no chance of being fulfilled.” The Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit calculated that to go net zero by 2025, flying would need to be scrapped (only viable in my opinion if all ongoing armed conflict is stopped and stay stopped for the duration) and 38 million cars – both petrol and diesel – would need to be removed from the roads. In addition 26 million gas boilers would need to be disconnected in six years. American philosopher and animal rights advocate Gary L. Francione criticized the movement for refusing to promote veganism as a solution to climate change and for adopting the “personal / political” dichotomy which he says “every progressive movement from the past 50 years has rejected because common sense tells us that you cannot ignore the role of the individual in creating and perpetuating social problems”.  

Solar Geoengineering: The Most Effective Way To Fight Climate Change?

Given that humans are pumping 60-times more carbon dioxide gas into the Earth’s atmosphere than all of the planet’s volcanoes combined, would solar geoengineering be a viable method to limit global warming rise to 2-degrees Celsius?

By: Ringo Bones

Even if we manage to halt all of our production of carbon dioxide tomorrow, it would take quite awhile for overall carbon dioxide gas concentrations in our atmosphere to return to pre-industrial levels. In an interview back in July 9, 2012, the 1984 Nobel Physics Prize laureate Carlo Rubbia stated that based on what we currently know on the behavior of gaseous carbon dioxide currently circulating in the Earth’s atmosphere, the average lifetime that the carbon dioxide generated by human activity – as in biomass and fossil fuel burning – stays in the atmosphere before being sequestered back into wood and dissolved into the world’s oceans and lithosphere, is 30,000 years. Therefore most of the carbon dioxide produced when Emperor Nero burned a section of Rome as he fiddled around 2,000 years ago is still in our atmosphere. Given the relatively long delay time of removing excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere, are there other more effective ways to halt the average global temperature rise to within 2-degrees Celsius by the year 2100?

Professor of Physics and Public Policy at Harvard David Keith suggests a method which he calls solar geoengineering. Despite of the risks, due to our still limited understanding of the planet Earth’s overall climate system, there are aspects of solar geoengineering that is directly modeled after recent climatic events and how it can be implemented for our overall benefit. Professor Keith suggests mimicking how volcanic eruptions trigger a global cooling effect for a number of years after the event. We could manage to keep the inevitable temperature rise to within 2-degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

Remember when Mt. Pinatubo erupted back in June 1991? It manage to lower overall global temperature by 2-degrees Celsius and another unforeseen consequence of the volcanic eruption was the resulting increased farm and ecosystem productivity that happened two years after the event. And according to Professor Keith, solar geoengineering could mimic such natural phenomena by flying jet planes to the stratosphere at the near equatorial region and spraying sulfur dioxide gas to produce sulfuric acid ice crystal clouds in order to increase planet Earth’s albedo – i.e. the reflectivity – of the Earth’s atmosphere reflecting excess infrared energy our planet receives from the Sun back into space. The planet Venus’ naturally occurring sulfuric acid ice crystal clouds is the reason why it has a higher albedo in comparison to planet Earth and this its “brighter” appearance in comparison to its sister planet. Although there are unforeseen risks involved due to our still limited understanding on how our planet’s climate system works and the formidable logistics involved of using a fleet of our current jet aircraft to produce sulfuric acid crystal clouds of similar density of that created by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption around the Earth’s equator, it seems that it is the only scheme that could produce a plausibly desirable result when it comes to keeping overall global temperature rise to within 2-degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

Skipping School For Climate Change Action?

Given that most of our supposedly “grown-up elected officials” are not telling it like it is and dragging their heels when it comes to climate change action, will skipping school finally spark meaningful change?

By: Ringo Bones

I might be getting old when the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to thousands of high-school students skipping schools is going to an Iron Maiden or Metallica concert, but as of late, thousands of mostly high-school students are now skipping school on a weekly basis in order to protest over their elected officials inaction over climate change. The most recent of which happened in Berlin, Germany and is lead by the very high-school girl that started it all, Sweden’s very own Greta Thunberg.

Greta Thunberg is a 16-year-old Swedish political activist seeking to stop climate change and global warming. In August 2018, she quickly rose to prominence for starting the first “school strike for climate” outside the Swedish parliament building. In November 2018, she spoke at TEDxStockholm, in December 2018, she addressed the United Nations Climate Change Conference and in January 2019, she was invited to talk to the World Economic Forum at Davos.

Greta has been walking out of Swedish schools due to the grown-ups inaction when it comes to climate change and according to her: “the grown-ups are not telling it like it is”. And what makes her cause face an uphill struggle is that people like US President Donald J. Trump and prominent people of America’s so-called Christian Right are actively denying the existence of climate change and global warming because they are so beholden to the so-called Big Oil and the rest of the multi-national fossil fuel industry. The School Strike For Climate may be facing an uphill struggle, but the movement has been swiftly spreading across the globe.

United States National Butterfly Center to be Bulldozed For Trump’s Wall?

If putting migrant children in cages is not cruel enough, would President Trump give the green light to bulldoze the US National Butterfly Center?

By: Ringo Bones

The center’s director Marianna Wright compares the site to Disney’s Fantasia and more than 200 wildlife species, not just butterflies, make their homes at America’s most diverse sanctuary. But if President Trump had his way, all of it could be bulldozed to oblivion. On any given day at the National Butterfly Center in Mission, Texas, visitors can see more than 60 varieties of butterflies. In the spring and fall, monarch butterflies and other species can blanket the center’s 100 acres of subtropical bushlands that extend from the visitor center to the banks of the Rio Grande river, where the wildlife center and US sovereignty ends.

The Trump administration could now bulldoze the National Butterfly Center to oblivion in order to build Trump’s so-called border wall because back in December 2018, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing the Trump administration to waive 28 federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act and begin construction on 33 new miles of border wall in the heart of the valley – and right through the National Butterfly Center.

According to the National Butterfly Center’s director Marianna Wright “Environmental tourism contributes more than $450-million to Hidalgo and Starr counties.” referring to the adjacent counties in the valley. “Many of the properties people choose to visit to see birds, butterflies and threatened and endangered species are all going to be behind the border wall. For us, the economic impact is potentially catastrophic.”

More than 200 species of resident or migrating butterflies make homes at the butterfly center over the course of the year, including the vibrant Mexican bluewing, the tiny vicroy’s ministreak and the black swallowtail which carpets the wild dill at the property with its eggs each spring. The center opened in 2003 and is the flagship project of the North American Butterfly Association. Sadly, Trump has expansive powers to construct the border wall on both public and private land because since 2005, the Department of Homeland Security has had the power to waive numerous environmental laws in the name of national security.