Octopus Overlords

Telegraph

Armed miners have reportedly invaded a village in a remote part of Brazil and killed a tribal leader.

Villagers fled but were planning to return, sparking fears of a "bloodbath," according to local reports.
...
Jawaruwa Waiapi, a Wajãpi leader, said the government should send soldiers because the miners were armed with rifles. He said: "We're in danger."
...
Brazil's tribal peoples have long faced pressure from miners, ranchers and loggers.

Activists say the threats have intensified since Jair Bolsonaro, the pro-business president, took power in January vowing to increase development in the Amazon rainforest.

The Waiapi live deep inside the Amazon in an area rich in gold, manganese, iron and copper.

Their territory is one of hundreds Brazil's government demarcated in the 1980s for the exclusive use of indigenous inhabitants, and access by outsiders is strictly regulated.

Reports of the attack emerged as Mr Bolsonaro once again defended mining in the Amazon, highlighting the "absurd quantity of minerals" there. Mr Bolsonaro said he was looking for the "first world" to help Brazil exploit the areas.

What next, Rollin' Coal kits that spell out Trump MAGA in black smoke?

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:33 pm What next, Rollin' Coal kits that spell out Trump MAGA in black smoke?

I would pay for one of those. Stick it on a rusty Dodge Ram. That's every redneck's wet dream.

How are you going to combat global warming when you can't even keep feces off the streets?

We've always had feces on the street. It goes through natural cycles.

I remember when the term shitposting was metaphorical. I miss those days.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:14 pm I remember when the term shitposting was metaphorical. I miss those days.

I remember when a blatant non-sequitur was embarrassing for its stupidity rather than just SOP.

em2nought wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:54 pm How are you going to combat global warming when you can't even keep feces off the streets?

Do you know who would clean shit off the streets? Undocumented workers. that's who. Shut your pie hole until you're willing to go out there shovel in hand.

donated to Inslee's campaign - he might as well be the Green Party candidate (and with the same shot at winning...)

i believe it is vital to keep the climate change issue front and center.

USA Today

The Trump administration is finalizing major changes Monday to the way it enforces the landmark Endangered Species Act, in a move that it says will reduce regulatory burdens but critics charge will drive more creatures to extinction.

The administration was making public a final version of a rule overhauling the way the federal government handles protections for plants and animals at risk of extinction. Information about the rule was obtained by The Associated Press beforehand.
...
The Trump administration says the changes will make regulation more efficient and less burdensome while preserving protections for wildlife.

At least 10 attorneys general joined conservation groups in protesting an early draft of the changes, saying they put more wildlife at greater risk of extinction.

A draft version of the rule released last year would end blanket protections for animals newly deemed threatened, allow federal authorities for the first time to consider the economic cost of protecting a particular species, and could let authorities disregard impacts from climate change, one of the largest threats to habitat.

EVs are super-important, a vital piece of any realistically-viable AGW mitigation plan.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... ble-energy

Srsly. Stop buying gas-fueled vehicles.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:27 pm EVs are super-important, a vital piece of any realistically-viable AGW mitigation plan.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... ble-energy

Srsly. Stop buying gas-fueled vehicles.

Make them either the only cars available or affordable enough for everyone to buy them. The only reason I don't have a Tesla right now is because at the time when I had to buy a new car, the option available to me would have cost as much as the monthly mortgage on my home.

Paingod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:14 am

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:27 pm EVs are super-important, a vital piece of any realistically-viable AGW mitigation plan.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... ble-energy

Srsly. Stop buying gas-fueled vehicles.

Make them either the only cars available or affordable enough for everyone to buy them. The only reason I don't have a Tesla right now is because at the time when I had to buy a new car, the option available to me would have cost as much as the monthly mortgage on my home.

Agreed. Here in CO, our air quality board is debating adding CO to the list of states that follow California's ZEV mandate. We would be one of the most stringent states in terms of requiring battery-electric vehicles, and yet even this would require only around 6% of light-duty vehicles sold in CO in 2030 to be a combo of BEVs and PHEVs.

It's laughably far from the mark for where we need to be, and yet it's considered controversial. *sigh*

But it would at least ensure that manufacturers who are making BEVs would market them in CO, which is one of the big issues right now--even where non-Tesla battery electric cars are available, manufacturers don't typically put them on dealership lots outside of ZEV states.

So my comment is rather split--on the one hand, it stands: every new vehicle sold today that includes gasoline in its fuel source sends a signal to manufacturers that we're fine with the status quo. That's unacceptable. But it's also the case that there is a huge block of folks out there for whom a BEV remains unrealistic (we're just now hitting the point where reasonable BEVs like the base Model 3, the Bolt, the Leaf e-Plus are at or below the median new-vehicle sales price). And that's also unacceptable.

So we end up fighting for woefully-inadequate things like adding states to the ZEV mandate, forcing manufacturers to try just a teensy bit harder, but still not nearly hard enough.

*double sigh*

This is the main reason that we really need Tesla to continue growing volume and dropping costs.

Paingod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:14 am Make them either the only cars available or affordable enough for everyone to buy them. The only reason I don't have a Tesla right now is because at the time when I had to buy a new car, the option available to me would have cost as much as the monthly mortgage on my home.

I think about it but the cost over the lifetime of my next car should still be cheaper to own an ICE vehicle and service for EVs here is non existent and charging stations are exist but remain shrouded in secrecy. I can only assume owning an EV will show reveal these underground railroad stations on a HUD.

The biggest consideration for me right now though when I make the move is the fact that I am in a 1950s house with poor power and old fuses. I'll have to pay an electrician to bring my house up to code to make changes to have what it takes to consider charging an EV from my garage, which already blows fuses too often. At that point the additional daily draw at my house, I'd want to dip into the cost of also adding solar to the house and probably adding a low maintenance battery as well, as DTE are not solar storage and retrieval friendly (or weren't two years ago when last I did the research, they paid very little for what the run off they take and charge full price for what you draw). There will be a point where doing the right the right thing will warrant the price difference. I'm not there yet by the time I am, tax incentives/subsidies will probably change and it will still be put off... But things can and often do change rapidly. So vigilance is key.

RIP Okjokull, age ~700. The glacier was officially declared dead in 2014 when it was no longer thick enough to move. The plaque was dedicated last week.



"You think in a different time scale when you're writing in copper rather than in paper," Mr Magnason told the BBC. "You start to think that someone actually is coming there in 300 years reading it."

“Only you know we didn’t.”

As previously noted, Ford and other automakers decided to comply with California's slightly stricter emissions standards for the whole US rather than deal with two standards nationally. Makes sense and it's not uncommon (i.e. all those prop-whatever cancer warnings on products nation-wide). Even if you don't ascribe altruistic motives it just makes sense.

No skin off anyone's back and the environment gets a little boost.


But noooo, Trump and his infantile ego can't handle it. He wants them all to follow the less stringent federal standards.

U.S. President Donald Trump stepped up a series of attacks on automakers on Wednesday for not backing his administration's plan to roll back Obama-era fuel efficiency rules, singling out Ford Motor in particular for backing a deal with California for stricter fuel economy standards.

Ford is one of four automakers, along with Honda Motor, BMW AG and Volkswagen AG , that reached a voluntary agreement with California on fuel efficiency rules, defying Trump and his administration's effort to strip the state of the right to fight climate change by setting its own standards.

The rules under the California plan are looser than the Obama-era regulations but stricter than what the Trump has proposed.

If he survives his presidency, I hope he lives to a ripe old age and suffers all the ridicule and hatred he so richly deserves.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:10 amIf he survives his presidency, I hope he lives to a ripe old age and suffers all the ridicule and hatred he so richly deserves.

He's already pretty ripe. People turn orange when ripe, right?

Even so, Trump tweeted that the founders of Ford and GM "are 'rolling over' at the weakness of current car company executives" over the fuel rules, adding: "Crazy!"

He then added. "Let me tell you, I, pe... Nobody knows crazy like I do. I am the best at crazy. People are saying if you want to know about crazy look at the President. The US have never had crazy like we have now."

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:10 am As previously noted, Ford and other automakers decided to comply with California's slightly stricter emissions standards for the whole US rather than deal with two standards nationally. Makes sense and it's not uncommon (i.e. all those prop-whatever cancer warnings on products nation-wide). Even if you don't ascribe altruistic motives it just makes sense.

Isn't California, by itself, the third largest economy in the world? Ford would be shooting themselves if they refused to sell autos there.

I'm glad the market can easily override President Babyman.

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:08 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:10 am As previously noted, Ford and other automakers decided to comply with California's slightly stricter emissions standards for the whole US rather than deal with two standards nationally. Makes sense and it's not uncommon (i.e. all those prop-whatever cancer warnings on products nation-wide). Even if you don't ascribe altruistic motives it just makes sense.

Isn't California, by itself, the third largest economy in the world? Ford would be shooting themselves if they refused to sell autos there.

I'm glad the market can easily override President Babyman.

Refusing to sell in Cali isn't an option. The option is to manufacture to one standard for California and one to the rest of the country OR just manufacture to the higher California standard and not have to deal with 2 standards. They are choosing the latter. Trump would prefer more emissions for the rest the nation.

Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit. Maybe you're right and he wants them to just not sell to California.

So this caused me to look up what his full rants were. President "I need a pacifier" said this in at the end of March, less than five months ago.



This investment he's praising himself over?

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/busin ... 3221693002

Ford Motor Co. on Wednesday said it would again change plans for where it would build its future electric and autonomous vehicles.

The Dearborn-based automaker plans to build upcoming vehicles on its battery-electric architecture at its Flat Rock Assembly Plant starting in 2023, where it will also build the next-generation Mustang. Ford's first purpose-built production autonomous vehicles will be finished at an undisclosed manufacturing center in southeast Michigan, Joe Hinrichs, Ford president of global operations, said Wednesday.

"This is a different battery-electric vehicle than the one announced in 2017," Hinrichs told The Detroit News. "This is a different plan. We have a more ambitious plan for battery-electric vehicles around the world."

So now the plan for something in the works since before the diaper shitter in chief took office, a plan the elected sociopath of the land took credit for, is now CRAZY, unsafe, weak, and a modern day disappointment to Henry Ford (who always wanted an EV and saw that as the future of the automobile but also really didn't like other trying to tell him how to run his business. I would think that would apply to California laws but even more so to a public call to his business model)

The plan isn't changing. Only the desire by Fucko to be falllated by executives in the private sector.

If Trump was given a choice do you think he would take the credit for....

1. Causing something like AIDS if he was 'given' $100

or

2. The cure for cancer if he had to 'pay' $100?

He'd take credit for the cure for cancer. But he'd siphon the money to pay for it from his "charitable" foundation, or now that it's been shut down maybe from his campaign coffers.

Daehawk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:53 am If Trump was given a choice do you think he would take the credit for....

1. Causing something like AIDS if he was 'given' $100

or

2. The cure for cancer if he had to 'pay' $100?

#1, then use the money to pay for #2 (although he'd never send the check), then claim #1 was fake news and only #2 was true. Oh, and that the Crooked Libs were the cause of the cancer to begin with, and he saved us all. Obama never saved us from cancer!

The Amazon is burning. You know that place that soaks up all the carbon and makes all the oxygen and houses 3 million species? The rainforest? The one that gets so much rain? Yeah...that one. It's not even the dry season yet.

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:19 pm The Amazon is burning. You know that place that soaks up all the carbon and makes all the oxygen and houses 3 million species? The rainforest? The one that gets so much rain? Yeah...that one. It's not even the dry season yet.

I feel like this is a thoughts and prayers thing, right?

I have absolutely no idea how I can help.

Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:36 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:19 pm The Amazon is burning. You know that place that soaks up all the carbon and makes all the oxygen and houses 3 million species? The rainforest? The one that gets so much rain? Yeah...that one. It's not even the dry season yet.

I feel like this is a thoughts and prayers thing, right?

I have absolutely no idea how I can help.

Cut funding environmental services until Brazil learns to keep their forests clean?

Internet says

https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/07/09/pr ... est-fires/

“I spoke to certain countries, and they said, “Sir, we’re a forest nation.” I never thought of a country — well-known countries: “We’re a forest nation.” I never heard of the term “forest nation.” They live in forests and they don’t have problems. One was telling me that his trees are much more susceptible to fire than what they have in California, but they don’t have fires because they manage, they clean, they do what you have to do. There’s not so much to burn. And we’re going to start doing that. And it’s called, remember, “management.” It’s called “forest management.” So it’s a very important term.”

Certain countries know that if you do a better job of raking, you don't have these fires. Countries are saying that. Forest countries.

Brazil's president, who is as far right and loony as Trump, claims that people are setting these fires on purpose to make him look bad.

Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:36 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:19 pm The Amazon is burning. You know that place that soaks up all the carbon and makes all the oxygen and houses 3 million species? The rainforest? The one that gets so much rain? Yeah...that one. It's not even the dry season yet.

I feel like this is a thoughts and prayers thing, right?

I have absolutely no idea how I can help.

Plant a tree? A study made ripples a few weeks ago by finding that planting 1 trillion new trees would reduce atmospheric carbon by 25%.

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:18 am

Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:36 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:19 pm The Amazon is burning. You know that place that soaks up all the carbon and makes all the oxygen and houses 3 million species? The rainforest? The one that gets so much rain? Yeah...that one. It's not even the dry season yet.

I feel like this is a thoughts and prayers thing, right?

I have absolutely no idea how I can help.

Plant a tree? A study made ripples a few weeks ago by finding that planting 1 trillion new trees would reduce atmospheric carbon by 25%.

I live in the middle of a forest!

I get the point, though, and could donate to an org that plants trees where they're needed.

While it is a concern, I do think the media is sensationalizing it to some degree. Since 2013 Brazil has been using satellites to keep tabs on fires in the Amazon basin. They have 1000's of fires there every year, with a large majority in the july/august time frame. That being said, there is a substantial increase this year (80% increase for August I think I read so far). Is it cause for concern? Yes, for sure. Is the sky falling? Not at this point anyway. All that being said, I have not seen any solid numbers on these fires in terms of naturally occurring ones vs man-made ones. Just based on previous years, I think its safe to say a lot of the fires are naturally occurring. If global warming/climate change is the root cause of the increase this year, then really there is little that can be done, in my opinion.

It's a vicious cycle. Not only does the loss of trees mean less carbon sequestration in the future, when they burn, all that existing sequestered carbon is released. Which means more climate issues which meant more fires...

It's give Brazil more room to grow soy to sell to China to fill the gap in need, won't it?

I don't know how much is burning but last I remember Brazil was deforesting over 10 million acres a year for agricultural purposes.

https://www.brazilintl.com/uploads/1/0/ ... g_2018.pdf

Two crop years ago, we started the season with soy crop size estimate of 102-105 mmt. The final result was 114 mmt. Last year, we started out with a 110-112 mmt estimate and final result was 119 mmt. Each year was a one million ha increase in area. If average production is 3 tons/ha, then we should move up the baseline by about 3 mmt per year. The final production tally has been increasing by 8 to 10 mmt per year. Therefore, all production beyond the initial 3 million ton “Spot” has been a direct function of productivity per hectare due to genetics, climate, and precision ag applications. The 2019 crop size range will start out at 115 mmt to 125 mmt. Lower than 115 is not likely as is above 125 mmt.

According to Rodolfo, Mato Grosso is an important partner of China. Last year, the state's GDP grew by 5%, driven mainly by agribusiness, which accounts for 50% of the regional economy, 33% of jobs and 99% of exports. In Brazil, Mato Grosso produces 28% of soybeans, and in the world this number is 10%. The state is the first in the Brazilian ranking in the production of cattle, cotton, corn and other grains, such as sunflower seeds, as well as soybeans.

This was from August 2018 aka before Trump started declaring fatwas on US agriculture.

Edit

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... -bolsonaro

Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon surged last month to the highest May level since the current monitoring method began, prompting concerns that president Jair Bolsonaro is giving a free pass to illegal logging, farming and mining.

The world’s greatest rainforest – which is a vital provider of oxygen and carbon sequestration – lost 739sq km during the 31 days, equivalent to two football pitches every minute, according to data from the government’s satellite monitoring agency.

Although a single month is too short to confirm long-term trends, May is considered an important guide because it marks the start of the dry season, which is when most burning and other forms of forest clearance are carried out.

China was already taking 79% of their soybeans.

Fire in the Amazon? An Amazon Fire? Did it start as an Amazon Kindle? A Fire Stick?


But seriously, how many species has this fire alone made extinct?

Brazil and the US, "we're taking you all with us. Everyone!"

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:09 pm It's a vicious cycle. Not only does the loss of trees mean less carbon sequestration in the future, when they burn, all that existing sequestered carbon is released. Which means more climate issues which meant more fires...

Not only that, but it may be approaching a tipping point that prevents it from creating it's own rainfall and ceases to be a rain forest.