We won't mine our own rare earth minerals but are fine mandating EV use, causing the mining of those minerals to explode in countries where there are no environmental protections whatsoever.
Stuff is spreading. My daughter was having a visitor from the Netherlands, where the farmers are fighting the mandates. Her flight was cancelled because European airline pilots and machinists are on strike. Seems, they fired pilots who would not get the vaccine and the shorted pilots are sick of carrying the load. I think I am getting hopeful. People might start paying attention about mandates and the real causes of pollution.
just a blurb, for comparison or ? "As the World Turns" , uncaring about pollution, environment, death. In 2011, reportedly, world wide restrictions on pollution /air?/ were relaxed greatly or just done away, and immediately death from pollution went up, and kept going up since then, making it necessary for the corporations to find a scapegoat so to speak, which maybe they did by calling the death from pollution covid deaths, taking the pressure off reducing pollution. With possibly over 40000 deaths DAILY from pollution, every day for years now, and where's the news about that ? Where's the death-by-pollution reports ? Well, instead death by covid makes more money... so there it is. Profitable deception.
I didn't carry on concerning changes in sea level. Rather, I was talking about insurers increasing premiums because of that. I'm an investor, not a scientist, so I don't think I can study about plate tectonics. The best I can do is look at reports on climate change from the National Academy of Sciences, and given that, reports from the Department of Defense, HSBC, and Lloyds of London to personnel, if not to clients like me.
My understanding is that air pollution and deforestation don't cause global warming. Rather, an increase in CO2 ppm is leading to a forcing factor on water vapor, which in turn is the main driver. At least that's what I gather from the NAS reports. I leave studies on plate tectonics and others to experts. Second, air pollution and deforestation are problems by themselves because they are obviously connected to environmental damage. That, in turn, has an impact on health, conditions of arable soil, resource availability, etc. Third, if the NAS and others are right, deforestation might also be part of positive feedbacks. You can find more details in the NAS final report. Finally, my understanding is that air pollution not only in China but in other countries are caused by the drive to keep costs low. That is, with high labor costs and more educated masses wanting to move to the service industry, companies in industrialized countries moved to China and elsewhere to avail of cheaper labor costs. But to keep costs low, environmental protection has to be lapse. The same can also be seen on the consumer side. For example, one reason why air pollution is minimized in countries like Japan is because vehicles are relatively new. It's too expensive to register vehicles that are around 5 to 10 years old, so they are written off and new ones purchased. In poor countries, that's a bonanza. In fact, the same applies to many products that are discarded in richer countries but that are still used in poorer ones. My understanding is that most people aren't generally interested in anything that happens elsewhere unless it affects them directly. That's why in every climate agreement countries will only promise to make slight cuts in not emissions overall but emission increases, and want to promote policies like carbon trading because businessmen can profit from that, too. In business, this is part of an opportunity cost. Right, and prices go up when protection is put in place. Also, it's not just environmental but even human protection, as extraction of such takes place in poor countries where children also labor. Thus, what's seen as "green" and "cheap" isn't so. In addition to that, it has low energy returns as well. That's why if Lloyds of London and the U.S. military are right, then what we face are combinations of predicaments: increasing pollution and environmental damage, more positive feedback loops stemming from climate change, and diminishing returns. Throw in black swans like pandemics and wars, and you have those coupled with supply chain disruptions.
When the subject is GLOBAL warming or GLOBAL climate change, then wouldn't the idea be that things that are done anywhere on the GLOBE have the same potential to affect them directly? Yet, US global warmists aren't interested in anything that doesn't lower the standard of living for Americans who are not members of the elite, while they carry on with their own lives as always.
In addition to that, I read that water pollution in the Netherlands is significant because of mechanized agriculture, and the same is also taking place even in developing countries due to lack of food. But because of the pandemic and war, food supplies are also being disrupted. Thus, we're looking at multiple predicaments at play and amplifying each other. The gist is that these predicaments include the following: increasing pollution, climate change stemming from that, diminishing returns in oil and mineral extraction, and from these increased vectors for the spread of diseases leading to increased mutations and combinations of antibiotic resistance and medicine no longer working, more conflict given a thirtyfold increase in armaments production and deployment worldwide, and constant financial crashes given increasing debts and bailouts coupled with supply chain disruption.