Crab crisis in Bering Sea a sign of ‘borealization’

This tech is also used on buildings to keep from frost heaving. https://canada.constructconnect.com/joc/news/technology/2016...

It's not that big of a deal, consider the thermal difference between the ground and air. Also, consider it is not using any input energy to do it, simply the evaporation of ammonia!

Sure. I am amazed at the hard work of the men who cut timber and cut road and railway track through mountains and mined and hunted whales and trapped animals hundreds of years ago despite that they irrevocably destroyed ecosystems.

> Chances are they will have a lot of really mean things to say instead about our reticence, and how little intact ecology we left them to work with.

I'd say the chances are the situation would be quite recognizable, with most people wishing things were better but unwilling to sacrifice much of their own, and the most comfortable and well off who benefit most from and have the largest environmental footprints denouncing others and shifting blame, so some thought will be spared for the whalers of today, but not a great deal.

The U.S. can’t control what China and India’s energy policies are (although it certainly can greatly influence world energy markets), but it can control its own energy policy and should do that. That the U.S. is not is just making things worse.

You can attack emissions by limiting supply (stopping new oil drilling projects) or by limiting demand (flying less / driving less etc.). Both should work, since supply and demand are generally balanced. Reducing supply without reducing demand (what you seem to be proposing) will lead to massive price increases and energy poverty. This is confirmed by the energy crisis in Europe this winter, which was the result of a sudden decrease in supply. Reducing demand without reducing supply will lead to massive price decreases, which should increase demand from those that are less worried about climate change.

The transition to renewables can only be done by reducing both supply (less oil drilling) and demand (consumers and industry). I don't see how advocating for flying less, eating less meat, buying heat pumps etc. constitutes greenwashing, even if it oil companies co-opt it to deflect attention from themselves.

The industry is looking into alternatives like insects, and typically 30-40% of the feed now comes from vegetable proteins and oils.

On the other hand, farmed Faroese salmon (just next door) has a much higher % of wild-caught fish in its feed, which contributes to the high omega 3 content of Faroese salmon.

All I'm saying is if you stop eating cheap sea food we won't have to send underpaid humans to risk their lives to catch them. Put you money where your mouth is

JFK was last in Congress in 63 years ago, and last alive 60 years ago; the longest serving member of Congress served for 59 years and retired in 2019.

Chuck Schumer was first elected to Congress in 1980, Mitch McConnell in 1984, Kevin McCarthy in 2006, and Hakeem Jeffries in 2012. Only one of them was even in Congress within 20 years of Kennedy’s assassination, much less all of them being in Congress with him.

what i was curious though was in the u.s context (where there is spoiler effect) has it been known historically to work?

For example, when fuel costs rise sufficiently that people would actually have to reduce driving instead of just paying more (to a MUCH smaller extent that would be required to make a dent in climate change, i.e. where MUCH larger price increases would be needed to reduce consumption) people will literally riot to get tax adjustments or subsidies to keep consuming fuel in the previous rates - e.g. last year's protests in Argentina, Peru, Haiti; earlier Gilets Jaunes riots; and in places where the politicians can afford it, they just concede that without a fight because that gets them votes - e.g. California gas tax rebate.

Sure, people will say anything while its just talk, and they will agree (grumpily!) to meaningless changes like paper straws, however, when the push comes to shove and it would actually result in some significant reduction of consumption by the masses, those people will not only vote against that but actually fight tooth and nail to prevent any such measures from being enacted.

Do a survey on whether people are willing to have a carbon tax that's high enough to actually reduce their consumption, where they would sometimes not drive somewhere or not buy something because it's too expensive due to its effect on the climate - you won't get many positive answers. People would be willing to take "some action" like this survey https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans... which determined that ~$15/month would be the limit for most, i.e. a token amount that "takes some action" but does not actually require to change behavior and reduce consumption.