Slog AM: Orcas Are Touchy-Feely, New Footage Shows; Trump Wants to "Modernize" National Parks; Man Stabbed Over Popeyes Chicken Sandwich



11000 scientists issue a warning to humanity:

"We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,”[...]. “To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems.”

"“The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity.”

The statement is published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference, which was held in Geneva in 1979. The statement was a collaboration of dozens of scientists and endorsed by further 11,000 from 153 nations. The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating."


She threw a terrific pass- in great position for the receiver, one step beyond the defender!


@3 -- She threw it, like a Girl!
Who says women can't?

A. Oppressors, mostly.


Thanks for the Killer Whale vids, Nathalie!

The underwater footage was AWESOME.
Wonder where they got the whale-belly strap for the GoPro...
Wonder who installled it?
(prolly some Womans)


"The [loser trumpfy] administration would also like to cut funding to the National Park Service by 15 percent, a service that is already underfunded and experiencing a maintenance backlog of $11 billion."

Well, obviously, we just need a Billionaire to buy it, for a buck, and Modernize it, so's only the Wealthy can get up close enough to touch it. Oh, and the workerbees can touch it, too, but only whilst strip-mining it (and ALL of Amerikkka!) for the Good of the Populace.

ONE Percent of the Populace, silly!
(You thought YOU might get yet another Freebee?
Think again, commie).


@2 That is our best advice from the scientific community. But their recommendations would result in a massive worldwide economic depression that would impoverish billions (with a "b"). Poverty kills, and it kills in quantity. "The people" absolutely will not tolerate the cultural and economic changes required to dramatically reduce humanity's carbon footprint. At least not over a time period that would make a significant difference. The carbon infrastructure is thoroughly baked into the global economy.

Of course we should do what we can to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate the probable climate catastrophe on the horizon. But significant resources also should be devoted to possible technological solutions, planting as many trees as we can and gradually moving people out of harms way.


"Trump wants to modernize national parks: "
Maybe someone should "modernize" Twumpet. I mean, he -is- living in the 1700s... in his mind...

The National Park "privatisation" 'proposal' is precisely the very neoliberalism that the US/WorldBank/IMF have been imposing on every client economy they can get their sweaty meathooks into (eg. Chile, Argentina, etc. etc.) They've finally brought the economic war back home! We'll get a taste of our own medicine, apparently. "IMF riots" here we come. :>(

Orca pod squeeee!


@8: " 'The people' absolutely will not tolerate the cultural and economic changes required to dramatically reduce humanity's carbon footprint."

Let's see. Presenting potential political opposition as the basis of your own political opposition. Very meta of you. Or very "meta" of you. ;-)

Now if we can just apply the same irrefutable logic to health-care reform.


@8 - "their recommendations would result in a massive worldwide economic depression that would impoverish billions"
Only if we continued to use the same types of money that have made the current inequality crisis so critical. Fuck that. Use "mutual-credit" currencies. Don't rely on the very money that directly benefits the rich and is artificially scarce, like Dollars, or Euros, or Yen. Fear mongering doesn't really help either.

Hell, if we ^don't^ follow their recommendations, we'll have a massive worldwide economic depression ANYway. So really, let's address & develop a post-capitalist economy at the same time we take massive climate action.


@8 You made a good argument for the socio-economic justice aspect of the green new deal so that those currently left out also care about the future beyond tomorrow. Until people become better educated about the risks involved, which corporate media largely refuses to do until now, it's hard to know what people will do. The longer we wait however, the faster we''ll need to adapt and more people will be left behind.

Big oil and gas want to lock us into fossil fuel infrastructures (pipelines, power plants, bus fleet, exploding plastic production, etc..) for the next several decades by which time it will likely be entirely too late to do anything. Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most cases and all will be cheaper within the next decade. There is no justification, beside profit for a few, to continue prioritizing fossil fuel usage.


@2, 12

Nice weather today though.


@10 Personally, I'm not opposed to the recommendations cited by anon above. My life style is quite simple and I could adapt to using less. I'd miss travel and cheeseburgers the most, I guess. I can brew my own beer!

But I speak from a position of privilege. I don't have to worry about running out of food or housing at the end of the month. Many aren't as fortunate and would respond violently to a significantly reduced standard of living. I'm not normally a gloom & doom gal but I really don't see any way out of what we've done to ourselves.


A year from today, Donald will lose the presidency.


@15 There's a wonderful thought, I need to get party hats.


@15 there will be dancing in the streets


@18 " the ones who would be least effected by climate change"

at the moment perhaps, but current climate policies (business as usual) will likely lead to civilization collapse so being least affected is a rather dubious distinction


@17 "Just 1% of English residents are responsible for nearly a fifth of all flights abroad, according to previously unpublished statistics [...] 10% most frequent flyers in England took more than half of all international flights in 2018. However, 48% of the population did not take a single flight abroad in the last year."

Assuming the picture is somewhat similar here, it looks like flying airplanes like there is no tomorrow might be, to a great extent, a problem for the wealthy.


@20 Ah, there's the rub. Both paths appear to lead to the same result. On the bright side, both paths will dramatically reduce humanity's carbon emissions and thus plant the seeds of eventual rebirth. The earth has a perfectly good natural process for removing all the excess CO2 (subduction) but it will take a while...


@14: If what they say about new plant-based meat substitutes is true, you might not even have to miss cheeseburgers.


So we all just going to pretend those "Americans" killed in Mexico weren't trafficking kids for sex or no?


@17 - Au contraire, mon frère

Not to mentioned that blimps and zeppelins are making a comeback. Easy to power those with solar.

Also, what anon1256 @22 said.



Airspeed: From 19 to 27 mph cruise at low altitudes, up to 170 mph ground speed at extreme altitude.
Altitude: Designed to operate at up to 100,000 ft., typical endurance mission at 50,000 to 70,000 ft.
Payload: Up to 726 lb


@28 - How many tons of CO2 does a Boeing 747 create again?
Per average flight I mean.

You said "you can't fly airplanes w/o fossil fuels".
I showed that indeed you can.

If you want to change the terms of debate to some sort of "cruising speed" dick-measuring contest and ask if I can "see the difference", well I don't at all care how slow the 1% have to fly to their G20 hobnobbery corpo-govt orgy-fests. Slower is better, imho.

I hope jet fuel becomes prohibitively expensive tomorrow, in fact.