A stark reversal of China's former politics, isn't it? So what drives it? The game of course, GDP and profits. No different from your own policies. Between the choice of waiting it out and the GDP the GDP won.
It made me wonder. " The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), has made clear that the reasons cited by drivers not wanting to go back "are a lack of fuel to return, as well as drivers fearing for their security." "
" “I heard thunder, saw lightning up in the sky – no rain – but then incredible winds … when you get a pyro-convective storm, the winds can come from every direction. It just changes.”
Pyro-convective storms, or firestorms, used to be rare events. Just 60 were recorded between 1978 and 2018. In the summer of 2019-20, meteorologists recorded 35 in just six months. "
And " The inquiry was explicitly told not to examine climate change but found the worsening fires and the worsening climate to be inextricably linked. It made 80 recommendations – some of which have been accepted by the federal government, but a number of which – including the recommendation for a sovereign national aerial firefighting fleet, and the recommendation for national climate principles – have only been noted or accepted in principle. "
Think i metioned that principle earlier? Yes, I did. " The studies are only as important as the interpretation of them. And that one is not made by climate scientists. "
There are authors that stay highly original, Stanislaw Lem comes to mind there as well as Olaf Stapeldon. If you want something thoughtful then both are worth a visit. And then we have more modern Sci Fi, " Children of Ruin ' by Adrian Tchaikovsky being one I enjoy. So now you have three authors worth looking up.
What was it? " We cannot look at the climate through this narrow focus on national interest as that leads to disaster, as we have seen. We need to break out, into a new 21st-century diplomacy where we recognise that we all have an interest in the planet. So far, I do not see that happening at these talks. "
" For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic began early last year, more than two dozen world leaders appeared in person at the U.N. General Assembly on the opening day of their annual high-level meeting Tuesday. In speech after speech, the atmosphere was somber, angry and dire.
Chinese President Xi Jinping warned that “the world has entered a period of new turbulence and transformation.” Finland President Sauli Niinistö said: “We are indeed at a critical juncture.” And Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado Quesada declared: “The future is raising its voice at us: Less military weaponry, more investment in peace!”
Speaker after speaker at Tuesday’s opening of the nearly week-long meeting decried the inequalities and deep divisions that have prevented united global action to end the COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed nearly 4.6 million lives and is still raging, and the failure to sufficiently tackle the climate crisis threatening the planet. "
It's severely unrealistic, cop26. although it will lean on studies made by scientists, each one by its own narrow field of expertise. It doesn't matter, those studies. In a way like statistics where you can manipulate it, and that is exactly what those cop26 'winners' will do. And you will keep quiet, nobody wants to rock the boat, except those without one.
" According to Tomas Lundmark, a professor of forestry ecology management at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, harvesting forests by clear-cutting and then growing trees of the same age absorbs on average as much as 30% more carbon than if you use continuous cover forestry techniques, perhaps even more.
Trees of 30 to 50 years old, like those in Levin’s plantation, absorb the most carbon, while forests untouched for hundreds of years tend to be small net emitters. This is the industry’s big claim to sustainability. "
" We are still living in the diplomacy of 200 or 300 years ago. Everyone still appears to be bound by their national interest in these talks. They have a narrow focus on their own country, and they see diplomacy as a zero sum game: if one wins, another must lose. But it is not like that any more. With climate change, we all lose. We cannot look at the climate through this narrow focus on national interest as that leads to disaster, as we have seen.
We need to break out, into a new 21st-century diplomacy where we recognise that we all have an interest in the planet. So far, I do not see that happening at these talks. "