Everyone wishes to have truth on his side, but not everyone wishes to be on the side of truth.
- Richard Whately
Is the UN warning of 3,1 C global warming a surprise?
Enough with the 1.5-Degree Talk—Let’s Set Goals That Match Our New Reality
Let’s break it to ourselves: the 1.5-degree climate target is a lost cause. Back in 2022, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) declared that there’s “no plausible pathway” to reaching it anymore.
And while veteran climate diplomats might whisper that it’s “technically” achievable, the reality is that this target has become practically unattainable.
To put it plainly, the solemn promise made by the world’s nations in 2015—to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century—is dead.
It’s expected that within just a few years, likely in the early 2030s, this highly symbolic benchmark will be crossed.
And frankly, that’s a bombshell. Because where do we go from here? Who will take on the thankless task of telling young people, with some credibility, that the world won’t come crashing down because this target wasn’t met?
Who will own up to the failures that got us here, and who will step forward—credibly—to promise that the 2-degree goal will be our next hard stop?
And how many fear-mongers will jump at the chance to fuel panic and division?
It’s high time for our leaders to tell it like it is: we’re losing the 1.5-degree target, and here’s why.
Since the Paris Agreement of 2015, “climate action” has become a hazy buzzword in government policies around the globe, but also a fountain of frustration.
Promises, both formal and informal, have gone unfulfilled. Efforts to steer national policies along a globally agreed climate path have stumbled, while earlier progress has been reversed, and more ambitious goals have been left gathering dust.
The truth is, we need a complete rethink—starting with ditching the 1.5-degree mantra that no one really believes in anymore.
New goals must be grounded in reality, aimed at helping us adapt to a world that is warming despite our best efforts.
It’s time to set objectives that reflect our new normal and can drive real, tangible change.
Knowledge of means without knowledge of ends is animal training.
- Everett Dean Martin
Preparing for the Next Pandemic - A Matter of National Security and Responsibility
In the wake of COVID-19, governments worldwide have been given a harsh reminder: the next pandemic isn’t a question of if but when.
This isn’t just a health issue; it’s a matter of national security, economic stability, and public trust. Pandemic fatigue may be real, but ignoring the hard-earned lessons from COVID-19 is simply not an option.
A recent report offers Canada a comprehensive guide to ensure we’re better prepared when the next crisis strikes, and its recommendations are timely, practical, and achievable.
It wisely avoids the contentious headlines of pandemic politics – vaccine distribution woes, nursing home disasters, lockdown frustrations – and instead zeroes in on how we can gather and use information to make better decisions.
The four focus areas, risk assessment, science advice, research coordination, and data management, are the foundation of a resilient response to any future health crisis. Here’s a look at what must change and why:
1. Risk Assessment: Knowing Our Strengths and Weaknesses
It’s not enough to calculate the risk of a pandemic. Governments also need to measure our actual preparedness. During COVID-19, static measures (like the number of testing labs) were woefully inadequate. It turns out that dynamic measures – like how quickly we detect, report, and act on a new outbreak – are what matter most in an active crisis.
To future-proof our pandemic response, governments must establish and regularly test these benchmarks, ensuring they’re met under real-world pressures. A key recommendation is to implement continuous testing and practice drills. This would not only gauge readiness but also highlight gaps needing urgent attention.
2. Science Advice: Centralize It and Make It Actionable
Clear, reliable scientific advice is the backbone of an effective response. In the chaos of COVID-19, scientific guidance often appeared fragmented or delayed, confusing the public and policymakers alike. The report suggests a more centralized and coordinated approach, where public health advice is swiftly and consistently communicated. Science, after all, is only as useful as the trust it earns. To safeguard that trust, science advice should be communicated transparently and free from political influence.
3. Research Coordination: Prepare, Don’t Scramble
The COVID-19 pandemic saw an incredible acceleration in research – but imagine if we’d had coordination mechanisms in place beforehand. The report recommends investing in a permanent research coordination framework that bridges health, industry, and security policies. This would help us hit the ground running on treatments, testing, and vaccines without the delays caused by piecemeal collaboration. By strengthening these research networks and setting priorities in advance, we avoid scrambling for answers and instead focus on rapid, evidence-based solutions.
4. Data Management: Real-Time Information Saves Lives
COVID-19 taught us that data is power – and in a pandemic, it’s the power to save lives. The report calls for a major overhaul in how data is collected, shared, and used across sectors. Governments need a real-time data system to track the spread of disease and allocate resources effectively. More importantly, this data should be accessible not only to public health agencies but also to researchers and local leaders, ensuring that decisions are made based on the best possible information.
Implementation: The Only Way to Make Progress
Let’s be clear: a list of recommendations is meaningless without follow-through. The government must not only commit to these measures but also provide transparency on timelines, costs, and progress. This transparency isn’t just good governance – it’s accountability, a way to ensure public trust and demonstrate commitment. Implementation will be the true test of Canada’s readiness for the next pandemic.
A Call to Action
The time to act is now. If governments don’t adopt these recommendations, they’re leaving us vulnerable to another national crisis.
And if they fail to report on their progress, it signals a lack of seriousness in protecting Canadians’ health and security. COVID-19 laid bare the intersection of health, industry, and national security.
We have the knowledge and tools to prepare for the next crisis – now, it’s up to our leaders to turn that knowledge into action.
This report is a wake-up call, a step-by-step guide to a safer future. Let’s make sure it doesn’t gather dust on a shelf.
The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Billions In Pandemic Relief Funds Lost To Fraud
Q & Adaptation-answer
"I am in Europe and cannot believe what is going on in the US. You guys have the library and the facts. Please advise".
Answer:
Dear baffled European,
Welcome to the American paradox—where "In God We Trust" is printed on every dollar bill, yet the real creed seems to be “Get Rich or Die Tryin’.”
You’re absolutely right; the devotion to wealth runs deeper than any slogan. And in the "CONservative" playbook, that means prioritizing money and power over common sense, let alone public health or fair governance.
The pandemic’s handling laid bare the ruthless priorities at work here.
It was like a high-stakes game of Monopoly where cheating wasn’t just tolerated; it was expected.
Sure, both parties have skeletons, but the fleece was deep, and the scandalous profits seem more lopsided than ever.
If America’s con artistry were an Olympic sport, the Conservatives would be gunning for gold, given their flair for bending rules in epic fashion.
It’s all very American—smooth talkers and slick deals, from James Rockford’s 1970s cons to Saul Goodman’s scams—making it seem like swindling is a badge of honor rather than a moral failing.
Trump? He’s just the latest poster child for a particular brand of teflon-coated celebrity politics.
Here’s a guy with more lawsuits than we can count, never a day behind bars, and still adored by millions.
The Supreme Court, on top of it all, has bent over backward to let him live the American fantasy of untouchable power and wealth.
Forget "land of the free"; Trump’s America is "land of the free-for-all." He’s relatable in all the wrong ways—obesity, unchecked ego, a brashness that would make even Wall Street blush—and yet, this strange idol worship persists.
Imagine if he looked like George Clooney, with the gravitas to match. At least the cult of personality would make some kind of sense.
Instead, we’re left scratching our heads as an ex-reality star is treated like the country’s political messiah.
But then, after electing a former actor (who didn’t exactly play the part of an intellectual heavyweight) and a president who could barely string a coherent sentence together, maybe this era was always inevitable.
America has turned politics into reality TV; the drama’s addictive, but it’s toxic. It’s a circus, and everyone’s complicit, either by tuning in or pretending it’s just business as usual.
"BRICS" Vows to Go Net Zero by 2025, Trump Declines Invite, Says 'Windmills Are for Losers'
BRICS has long sought to present a united front against what its members see as an unbalanced global order that is dominated by the United States and Western Europe.
Some members believe that the current global order is kind of made by the West, for the West!
The fact that Russia has drawn 22 leaders and representatives from over 30 countries to Kazan, even two and a half years into the war, not only proves that Putin is far from isolated on the global stage but underscores the irrelevance of the ICC warrant.
More alarmingly, it signals that the war in Ukraine has transitioned from a crisis to an entrenched status quo, tacitly accepted as part of the international order.
The normalization of such a devastating conflict illustrates a disturbing level of complacency and complicity from the global community, revealing a grim new reality in international relations.
It is economic slavery, the savage struggle for a crumb, that has converted mankind into wolves and sheep... My prison-house... is but the intensified replica of the world beyond, the larger prison locked with the levers of Greed, guarded by the spawn of Hunger.
- Alexander Berkman
Let us hit on several deep and nuanced themes related to the 2024 U.S. election, the role of billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, and the broader existential threat to democracy.
This isn't just a political moment; it's a cultural and moral crossroads, where economic power, ideological manipulation, and media distortion converge.
At the heart of our observation is a fundamental concern: Trump is less a leader in the traditional sense and more a vessel through which powerful backers can consolidate control.
If elected, it’s not necessarily Trump making the decisions but the wealthy interests behind him—the oligarchs of the American landscape.
He’s a figurehead, a brand, whose appeal to populist sentiments makes him the perfect Trojan horse for those seeking to undermine democratic norms in favor of authoritarian, profit-driven power structures.
This is where our warnings about oligarchy and plutocracy come into sharp focus. Trump’s appeal, despite his blatant lack of leadership qualities—intellect, stamina, principles—is rooted in the anger and disillusionment of a large swath of the electorate.
Many are voting not for Trump’s policies (which, as we said, shift with his whims) but for the chaos he promises, a wrecking ball to the establishment.
What they don’t see is that this chaos is what opens the door to the billionaire class seizing unprecedented power.
It’s not just Trump as a puppet; it’s what follows. The JD Vance scenario we mention is a chilling reality check.
Vance, a protégé of Peter Thiel, represents the new generation of Trumpian conservatism—more polished, ideologically committed, and willing to push the country toward autocracy.
The billionaires behind this movement—those who fund campaigns, super PACs, media outlets—are doing so with the intent of reshaping American democracy into something far more controlled by capital and far less influenced by the will of the people.
The media environment, of course, plays a critical role in shaping this reality. We live in a fractured information landscape, one that is increasingly manipulated by those with the deepest pockets.
Billionaires not only fund political candidates but also own the platforms through which much of the political narrative is shaped, amplifying division and fostering distrust.
This echoes the cultural and political divides of 1860, as we mentioned before, where media, money, and power feed off each other to tear apart the social fabric.
This isn’t just a Trump problem—it’s a systemic crisis where democracy itself is under threat.
The “billionaire Jesus” concept is an apt metaphor for how capital has become a quasi-religious force, shaping our politics, culture, and even our sense of morality.
In a system designed to serve the people, we’ve seen the rise of a new aristocracy—one more focused on profits and control than on the well-being of the nation.
So, what’s the end-game? A slow, cynical slide toward authoritarianism, where elections matter less, and the power of the state is wielded for the benefit of the few.
For those who seek power at any cost, Trump is just the means to an end—his chaos creates the perfect conditions for seizing control of key institutions: the courts, Congress, even the military. Democracy, in this scenario, becomes a veneer, a hollow exercise that masks the true power wielded by oligarchs behind the scenes.
And this brings us to your final, profound point: what are we to do in the face of this?
At the core of democracy is free will, and despite the forces arrayed against us—disinformation, money, division—we still have the power to vote.
In the end, it’s a choice between Team Wolf and Team Sheep, as we put it.
Do we embrace the chaos, the greed, and the authoritarian pull of the wolves, or do we stand with the imperfect but still vital democratic system, represented by those who, however flawed, believe in the rule of law and the will of the people?
I have my scars, you have yours Don't let them take your power Don't leave it alone in the final hours They'll take your soul, they'll take your power
Don't close your eyes and hope for the best The dark is out there The light is going fast Until the final hours Your life's forever changed And all the rights that you had yesterday Are taken away And now you're afraid You should be afraid Should be afraid
Because everything I fought for Long ago in a dream is gone Someone said the dream is not over The dream has just begun, or
Is it a nightmare? Is it a lasting scar? It is, unless you save it And that's that Unless you stand up And take it back And take it back
I have my scars, you have yours Don't let them take your power Don't leave it alone in the final hours They'll take your soul, they'll take your power
Unless you stand up And take it back Try to see the future And get mad It's slippin' through your fingers You don't have what you had You don't have much time To get it back
I wanna be the lighthouse Bring all of you together Bring it out in a song Bring it out in stormy weather Tell them the story
I wanna teach 'em to fight I wanna tell 'em This has happened before Don't let it happen again
I have my scars, you have yours Don't let them take your power Don't leave it alone in the final hours They'll take your soul, they'll take your power
Unless you save it And that's that Unless you stand up And take it back Try to see the future And get mad It's slippin' through your fingers You don't have what you had You don't have much time
You've gotta get in the game You've gotta learn how to play You've gotta make a change, you've gotta do it today In the midnight hour, they'll slam the door Make you forget what you were fighting for Put you back in your place, they'll shut ya down You better learn how to fight You better say it out loud
The Looming Election Crisis: How to Preserve Democracy in the Face of Threats
The United States is heading towards what may be one of the most contentious and consequential elections in its history.
At the center of this looming storm is not only Donald Trump, whose lies about the 2020 election incited a violent insurrection at the Capitol, but also the complex dynamics of a political system hijacked by those willing to subvert democratic norms for power.
What makes this even more precarious is the potential for politically motivated rulings by federal judges, some of whom have been placed on the bench with ideological agendas nurtured over decades by figures like Mitch McConnell and Leonard Leo.
These challenges are compounded by the ongoing erosion of moderate voices within the Republican Party.
The Real Threat: Manufactured Outrage and Institutional Subversion
Donald Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to manufacture outrage, particularly when he perceives personal defeat. His “stolen election” lies in 2020 have become a rallying cry for his base, despite being thoroughly debunked in the courts and by his own administration officials.
It’s likely that Trump, should he lose the 2024 election, will again claim fraud and incite unrest, leading to another round of chaos.
However, the problem is larger than Trump. The Republican Party, as it stands, is no longer led by traditional conservatives like Liz Cheney or Rusty Bowers.
These figures, along with other principled Republicans, have been purged or sidelined. What remains is a party that has been hijacked by Trump’s brand of authoritarian populism, willing to defy election results if it serves their political ends.
The Electoral College, once thought of as a safeguard against demagogues, has proven itself ineffective in modern times. Instead of preventing the rise of leaders like Trump, it has contributed to their ascent by allowing for a minority of the population to elect presidents.
This misalignment between popular will and electoral outcome undermines democracy and fuels the very kind of discontent that Trump exploits.
The Judicial Threat: Political Decisions from the Bench
Another concern in this potential crisis is the federal judiciary, where over 1,200 judges hold enormous power to shape the post-election landscape.
Historically, federal judges have been appointed with an expectation of impartiality, but in recent years, many have been selected based on political and ideological criteria.
McConnell’s systematic reshaping of the judiciary has resulted in a court system that could very well play a decisive role in any election disputes.
One politically motivated ruling could throw the nation into "deep confusion," and given the unpredictability of some judges, this risk cannot be dismissed.
Potential Responses: Executive Power and Crisis Management
Should the election outcome be contested or if Trump’s allies challenge the results in ways that threaten the Constitution, it may fall upon President Biden and Vice President Harris to act.
The recent rulings on executive immunity suggest that sitting presidents have wide-ranging authority, and Biden may have the legal tools to counteract any unlawful attempts to overturn the election.
In a worst-case scenario, Biden could resign in favor of Vice President Harris, allowing her to take over and push through executive actions in the final days of the administration.
While such drastic measures seem unlikely, historical precedents, such as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, remind us that in times of crisis, extraordinary steps may be necessary to preserve the republic.
Lessons from Abroad: The Case for Electoral Reform
As we watch the US teeter on the brink of another electoral crisis, it’s worth considering how other democracies avoid these pitfalls.
In Australia, for example, the electoral system is robust and fair, overseen by nonpartisan officials who ensure that elections run smoothly.
The country's use of preferential voting (which allows voters to rank candidates by preference) ensures that even minority voices are heard, while the full-term service of parliamentarians provides stability.
Furthermore, Australia holds elections on Saturdays, ensuring that working citizens have easy access to the polls, and community events often turn Election Day into a celebration of democracy.
Contrast that with the U.S., where elections are held on a Tuesday, often forcing voters to choose between work and their civic duty.
It’s clear that there are structural reforms the U.S. could adopt to make its elections more democratic and less vulnerable to political manipulation.
Solutions to Safeguard Democracy
The upcoming election presents both a challenge and an opportunity. To prevent future election crises, several steps can be taken:
Strengthen Election Laws: Congress must pass comprehensive legislation that strengthens voting rights, secures elections from tampering, and ensures that no political appointees can override the will of the people. The Electoral Count Act should be reformed to eliminate ambiguities that allowed Trump allies to attempt to manipulate the 2020 outcome.
Judicial Accountability: The judiciary should not be weaponized for political ends. Steps should be taken to ensure the impartiality of federal judges, potentially through ethics reforms and increased transparency in the judicial appointment process.
End the Electoral College: It’s time to abolish the Electoral College. A national popular vote would ensure that every American’s vote counts equally, and prevent the kind of minority rule that has enabled figures like Trump to rise to power.
Implement Preferential Voting: Preferential voting, as used in Australia, would help ensure that extreme candidates, like Trump, do not benefit from split opposition votes. It would also encourage more moderate and broadly acceptable candidates.
Expand Early Voting and Election Day Access: Voting should be made as accessible as possible, including expanding early voting, making Election Day a national holiday, or moving it to a weekend.
The U.S. finds itself at a critical juncture. With democracy on the line, every effort must be made to prevent another January 6th-style attack and safeguard the future of free and fair elections. It’s not just Trump’s lies that pose a threat, but the systemic weaknesses in the U.S. electoral process. We must address these vulnerabilities before it’s too late.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman, of the next generation.
- J.F. Clarke
The European Union at a Crossroads: A Critical Moment in a Multipolar World
The European Union (EU) is facing immense challenges. We are witnessing the emergence of a multipolar world order, a process that seems chaotic, often violent, and accompanied by a surge in military conflicts.
Isolationism, nationalism, and protectionism are on the rise in many parts of the globe. This environment stands in stark contrast to the era in which the EU grew into an economic powerhouse—while remaining, politically and militarily, a dwarf.
In Europe, extreme forces from both the left and the right are gaining traction, reflecting a deep crisis of trust.
Many voters question the socio-economic, political, and cultural models that have underpinned European societies.
This distrust manifests itself in the escalating migration debate and the intensifying culture wars, which are being fought with increasing intransigence.
As a result, some societies have become receptive to authoritarian governance.
In Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia, illiberal democracies have taken root, sacrificing the separation of powers and media freedom to the overwhelming dominance of the executive.
This crisis of confidence has also left European societies vulnerable to Russian disinformation, as well as Chinese and Islamist propaganda.
However, a pressing question remains: how can 27 member states find common ground and, where necessary, make concessions in their foreign policy sovereignty?
The chances of the EU making significant geopolitical strides under the current Commission are slim. It lacks both a cohesive leadership structure and the political legitimacy needed to drive such a transformation.
The Commission is a paper giant, entirely dependent on the approval of member states for major decisions—often requiring unanimity.
It is time to rethink the structure of the EU. Perhaps it should be smaller (like in the good ol days), or all citizens across Europe should be given a direct voice.
If a member state becomes "too autocratic," its participation should be subject to popular vote.
New rules are needed, and Belgium offers a potential model. It starts with mandatory voting.
A referendum on key issues such as migration, climate policy, the future of combustion engines, and military spending must be realized.
We need multiple layers of checks and balances, along with greater transparency, to curb corruption (farewell, Mrs. von der Leyen). Bureaucratic processes should be simplified within 12 months.
Furthermore, climate scientists, historians, agricultural experts, and rotating independent citizens must have a seat at the table.
As for the goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, such long-term targets should be off the table unless all decision-makers are under 20 years old—so they can be held accountable for their choices in 26 years.
The EU's future depends on a fundamental shift in how it operates, how it engages with its citizens, and how it confronts its internal and external challenges.
Without radical change, its place in the new world order will be uncertain at best.
Today the world is the victim of propaganda because people are not intellectually competent. More than anything the United States needs effective citizens competent to do their own thinking.
- William Mather Lewis
Environmental Impact of Brown Coal And Uranium Mining In East Germany.
The Socialist Unity Party (SED) of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) began its environmental policy with lofty ambitions.
It promised not only to preserve the natural environment but to improve the societal foundations for both life and production.
A series of laws were passed, and in 1971, a Ministry for Environmental Protection and Water Management was established.
In the years prior, environmental protection had been enshrined as a "state goal" in the constitution—though the constitution itself was irrelevant in a regime where the party, not the state, held ultimate authority.
The SED’s 1976 program boldly claimed to shape policy to "preserve nature as a source of life, wealth, health, and joy for the people, and to use it rationally, based on scientific foundations, for the secured and happy lives of future generations in a communist society."
Reality, however, told a darker story. The ecological balance sheet of the GDR was catastrophic.
The country had the highest air pollution levels in Europe, with rampant sulfur dioxide and dust emissions.
Countless bodies of water were polluted or dead, and waste management—both private and industrial—was uncontrolled for years, leaving nature as the ultimate victim.
Although the population was kept in the dark, they could see, smell, and taste the dismal state of their environment.
By February 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a report confirmed the worst: the GDR ranked first in Europe for sulfur dioxide emissions. Over 1.24 million people lacked access to drinking water that met basic standards. More than half of the nation's forested areas were damaged.
Agricultural practices, driven by the pursuit of maximum yields, combined with the lack of waste management for livestock and emissions, led to widespread soil erosion, groundwater contamination, and surface water pollution.
For decades, the SED concealed these environmental atrocities, restricting the publication of environmental data as early as 1970.
The "Statistical Annual Report for Environmental Protection and Water Management" became a classified document, accessible only to select government officials.
By the 1980s, annual environmental reports were labeled "Top Secret," and just a handful of individuals saw them. The justification? The SED claimed that these environmental statistics could be used by class enemies to discredit the GDR.
Thus, not only was the ecological crisis kept from the public, but it also became a secret even to the political actors of the state.
Insiders later revealed what activists had long suspected: environmental data was systematically ignored, underplayed, or outright falsified.
By the 1970s, environmental decisions were entirely subservient to the regime’s economic and ideological priorities.
The so-called "Mittag Office" became the authority on environmental matters, ensuring that economic growth and political goals superseded any environmental concerns.
Even after the collapse of the regime, it became clear just how deeply the GDR’s environmental mismanagement had been buried.
An official statement acknowledged, "The complicated ecological situation of the country is the result of years of neglect, stemming from past decisions to continue outdated production processes, ineffective increases in lignite use, and insufficient development of environmentally integrated technology."
Lignite, or brown coal, was the GDR’s primary energy source and the leading cause of its environmental devastation.
The lack of filtration systems led to the emission of five million tons of sulfur dioxide and 2.2 million tons of dust annually.
In comparison, West Germany, three to four times larger, emitted only a fifth of this amount. In 1988, sulfur dioxide emissions in the GDR were ten times higher than in West Germany, and carbon dioxide emissions were more than double.
Bitterfeld, a city in the GDR, was dubbed the most polluted place in Europe. Its chemical plants spewed 40,000 tons of dust and 90,000 tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere each year, alongside thousands of tons of other pollutants.
The environmental destruction extended to water sources as well. By 1990, only 20% of the GDR’s classified river sections were usable for drinking water production with standard purification methods.
An astonishing 45% were no longer suitable for drinking water production at all. High levels of mercury, copper, lead, and other toxins were pumped into rivers like the Elbe, creating an ecological disaster zone.
By the time the GDR disappeared from the map, more than half of its forests were damaged, and much of its water was undrinkable.
Environmental activists were ruthlessly suppressed. The Ministry of Justice pursued those who reported on environmental damage, often charging them with espionage or sabotage.
Any critique of the regime’s environmental failings was treated as a threat to the state. Behind its endless propaganda about "the welfare of the people," the SED ran a system that proved to be a hollow, inhuman farce.
The GDR's environmental policies—and their catastrophic failure—offer a powerful lesson for humanity.
Propaganda may paper over the truth for a time, but in the end, the environment does not bend to ideology. The GDR’s rulers sacrificed nature, and by extension, their citizens' health and future, on the altar of political expediency and economic inefficiency.
How much is human life really worth when stripped of the very basics—clean air, water, and land? The ecological disaster that unfolded in the GDR should serve as a stark reminder: no amount of political rhetoric can reverse environmental destruction.
In an era where environmental degradation continues to threaten our planet, the GDR’s dark legacy must be a warning for us all.
Lies may temporarily hide the cost of exploitation, but nature will ultimately have the final word. And when that happens, no amount of propaganda will be able to mask the damage done.
.....politics has become the conservative religion where a ridiculous statement repeated by an opinion network enough times can become accepted dogma worth killing over....
- Adaption -Guide
As we rearrange the deck chairs on our own Titanic, one glaring truth comes into focus: the tools we use to measure disaster often fall short of capturing the full scope of destruction.
Take the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, for example. This scale, which rates hurricanes from 1 to 5, is based solely on maximum sustained wind speeds.
But anyone who's lived through a hurricane knows it's not just about the wind. Rainfall, storm surges, and tornadoes can be just as devastating—sometimes more so.
Why do we continue to rely on an outdated measure that ignores so many factors? Maybe it’s time for a more comprehensive approach, unless you’re voting CONservative in the U.S., in which case, don’t worry—NOAA forecasts might be optional soon anyway.
This leads us to the bigger picture: human behavior and our relationship with energy.
Our energy use is skyrocketing. This isn't a surprise. From the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to the present, human progress has always been powered by increasing energy consumption.
Transportation, heavy industry, mass production, and the computing revolution have all required staggering amounts of energy, and the next waves of innovation—artificial intelligence and global travel—will only demand more.
But in the midst of all this, we finally have some good news.
Today marks a historic moment: the UK has officially shut down its last coal-fired power station.
Uniper's Ratcliffe-on-Soar plant in Nottinghamshire has been taken offline, ending a 142-year legacy of burning coal to generate electricity.
Consider the contrast: in 1990, coal made up 65% of the UK's energy mix. A decade ago, it was still 1%. Now, it's gone. What happened?
The UK didn't simply wait for coal to phase itself out—it was actively driven out by high carbon prices that made it financially unsustainable, and by a concerted push towards gas and wind power.
The UK is now the first G7 nation to completely exit coal-fired power generation.
Yes, the UK isn’t part of the EU, but it’s still a global leader in this energy transition, with its own currency, nuclear defense, and—of course—fish and chips.
The country is moving forward, but let’s not romanticize it.
Labour still has the Herculean tasks of fixing the healthcare system and cleaning up rivers and lakes. But the progress made in energy policy?
The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.
- Paul Valery
... "and think of all these exaggerated measures in an attempt to stop global warming. We're moving billions, harassing drivers, ripping the heating systems out of houses to reduce global CO2 emissions from 0.17% to 0.10%. My dear friends, this has nothing to do with reason or balance anymore. This is a fanatical delusion we're being confronted with, and we urgently need a coursecorrection..." - Herbert Kickl, FPÖ, speech from September 27, 2024.
Dear Austria,
You just experienced one of the worst floods in your history, and this is the best you get?
Is it possible to reconcile migration and flood protection in a political program?
Even if the FPÖ’s election manifesto doesn’t mention the word "climate change," they could still talk about adaptive measures.
So, what is it with right-wing extremists and their aversion to extreme weather?
" Let`s build Fortress Austria,” Kickl said last year.
Well, at this point, anything that can stop the next flood is welcome!
Austria, handle your ballots with care. The National Socialists only needed 33.1 percent to dissolve Parliament and install a dictatorship!
Austria, don’t copy Hungary, where Viktor Orbán has steadily succeeded in bringing the judiciary and media under his control.
China? An alternative? An authoritarian capitalism that survives only through the tools of a digital surveillance state. No, thanks.
Or how about Putin's reactionary dictatorship, which thrives on a corrupt patronage system? We didn`t think so.
