Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Mar.22 2025

 

"Ohhh, now I get it—Republicans weren’t just gutting environmental protections for profit. They were running a secret audition for who can survive without oxygen… you know, for Mars! Natural selection, but make it dystopian."

- Adaptation-Guide

What's the environmental damage of the war in Ukraine? | DW News

The Filthy Aftermath of War: A Legacy of Poison and Neglect

War doesn’t end when the last bullet is fired. It lingers, seeping into the soil, poisoning the water, and staining the earth with chemicals, heavy metals, and the forgotten corpses of both men and nature. 

The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine is just the latest example of war’s toxic footprint—an ecological catastrophe that nobody is rushing to clean up, much like the environmental wastelands left behind in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and beyond.

On June 6, 2023, the mighty Dnipro River turned into a weapon of mass destruction when the Kakhovka Dam exploded, releasing cubic kilometers of water across southern Ukraine. 

Entire villages drowned, people and animals alike were swept away, and the city of Kherson was temporarily submerged. But the real horror wasn’t the flood—it was what the water carried with it.

From the bottom of the now-drained reservoir, a toxic payload of heavy metals was unleashed. Arsenic, lead, cadmium, nickel, and other industrial byproducts—sediments accumulated over 70 years from factories, mines, and chemical plants—were stirred up and carried downstream. 

The floodwaters transported 450 tons of oil, pesticides, and agricultural runoff into the Black Sea. While the world obsessed over military strategies and shifting front lines, an invisible war against life itself had begun.

The consequences? 

Lead poisoning, cancer risks from cadmium exposure, and the irreversible contamination of drinking water. The people of Ukraine, already shattered by war, are now left with poisoned wells and barren fields. 

And what is being done to fix it?

The War Machine Never Cleans Up After Itself

History has seen this play out time and time again. The United States, Russia, and every other major power wage war without considering what happens to the land and the people left behind. 

Vietnam is still haunted by Agent Orange, with forests stripped bare and generations suffering from birth defects. 

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan left radioactive waste, toxic debris, and unexploded ordnance scattered across the landscape. 

The U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan filled the air with burn pits and depleted uranium, poisoning both soldiers and civilians alike. 

And now, Ukraine faces a slow, silent death at the hands of heavy metals, all while the war rages on.

Environmental warfare is not new, but it is almost always ignored. Governments prioritize bombs over cleanup. International aid focuses on refugees, not on rebuilding ecosystems. 

The toxic legacy of war is conveniently buried under geopolitical narratives, left to fester long after the soldiers have gone home.

In Ukraine, scientists like Oleksandra Shumilova are desperately trying to sound the alarm. They propose barriers to stop the spread of contaminated sediment and suggest phytoremediation—using plants to absorb toxins—to slowly rehabilitate the land. 

But nature takes time. It could take a decade, or more, for the land to heal, assuming no further destruction occurs. And the brutal reality? 

War does not pause for nature’s slow recovery.

Who Takes Responsibility?

Nobody. The countries responsible for this mess—whether directly by bombing infrastructure or indirectly by enabling endless conflict—wash their hands clean. 

The world watches, sighs, and moves on. 

Governments will spend billions to rebuild military stockpiles but won’t spare a dime for ecological rehabilitation. 

The Ukrainian people, much like the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam before them, are left to fend for themselves in a poisoned landscape.

What happened in Ukraine isn’t an isolated disaster. It is part of the larger, unchecked crime of war against the environment. 

Until we start holding warmongers accountable—not just for their human victims but for the land, air, and water they destroy—the world will continue to be littered with unburied toxic legacies. 

And in the end, nature will keep the score.

The Adaptation-Guide Addendum:

1. Immediate Humanitarian and Water Crisis Response

U.N. Involvement: The U.N. has provided emergency aid, including water purification tablets, food, and medical supplies.

Reality Check: This is just a band-aid. Millions still lack access to clean water, and long-term infrastructure repairs are being ignored.

2. Containing Toxic Contamination

Scientific Recommendations: Experts, including those cited in Science and Nature, suggest sediment barriers and bioremediation (using plants to absorb heavy metals).

Reality Check: With ongoing war, there’s no way to implement these measures effectively. No teams are on the ground.

3. Holding Russia Accountable

U.N. Resolutions: Multiple resolutions condemning Russia’s actions have been passed.

Reality Check: Zero enforcement. Russia has a veto in the Security Council. Just like the U.S. after Iraq or Afghanistan, no
real consequences.

4. Rebuilding the Dam & Infrastructure

• Long-Term Fix: Rebuilding the dam and water infrastructure would take years, cost billions, and require peace.

• Reality Check: Who pays for it? Ukraine is already reliant on Western funds, and the world moves on quickly from disasters when the news cycle shifts.

5. Environmental Clean-Up

• Theoretical Approach: The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) could lead clean-up efforts with specialized teams.

• Reality Check: The region is still an active war zone, making any large-scale effort impossible. Compare this to Afghanistan or Iraq—how much of those war-torn regions were ever restored?

Conclusion: Will Anything Really Happen?

Historically, wars leave environmental destruction, and no one cleans up after them.

• Iraq’s oil spills? Still there.
• Afghanistan’s depleted uranium? Still affecting civilians.
• Agent Orange in Vietnam? Took decades to address.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

ADAPT OR DIE!

WE ARE READY! ARE YOU?

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Mar. 21 2025

 

Happiness is not a reward - it is a consequence. 

Suffering is not a punishment - it is a result.

- Robert Green Ingersoll

Winona LaDuke: DAPL Pipeline Lawsuit Against Greenpeace Aims to Silence Indigenous Protests, Too

Greenpeace, The Sioux, and the World Happiness Sham: Where Would Native Americans Rank?

Once again, the World Happiness Report has declared Finland the happiest nation on Earth. Congratulations to the Finns—your lakes are clean, your social services are top-notch, and your people trust each other enough to leave their wallets on café tables without fear. 

Meanwhile, in the United States, the Sioux of Standing Rock are still fighting the same battle they lost in 2017 when the Dakota Access Pipeline cut through their ancestral land. 

And Greenpeace? 

Well, they're on the brink of bankruptcy, sued for their support in those very protests. But let's ask an uncomfortable question: If the Standing Rock Sioux were their own country, where would they rank on this so-called Happiness Report?

Not 1st, that's for sure. Not even 81st, where Greece sits, lamenting its economic woes. 

No, the Sioux—and Native Americans as a whole—would be battling Afghanistan for last place. And why? 

Because when the West talks about "happiness," it conveniently ignores the foundations of its prosperity: land stolen, treaties broken, and indigenous cultures bulldozed for pipelines and profits.

The Price of Protest: Greenpeace’s Financial Death Sentence

Greenpeace, ever the rebel of the environmental movement, now faces financial ruin after a North Dakota jury ordered it to pay $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the corporation behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. Their crime? 

Supporting the Sioux and daring to challenge the oil juggernaut.

It’s a textbook example of corporate retaliation. Energy Transfer, armed with legal teams and political connections, claims Greenpeace orchestrated the protests, spread false information, and caused $340 million in losses. 

A compliant jury in a state reliant on fossil fuel revenues agreed. 

Never mind that Greenpeace was just one of many voices in the resistance. 

Never mind that the Sioux themselves were the ones whose land and water were at stake. 

The real message here is clear: challenge Big Oil, and you’ll be crushed—legally, financially, and systematically.

The Real Happiness Report: A Rigged System of Metrics

While Greenpeace fights for survival, Western nations are busy patting themselves on the back for being "the happiest." 

The World Happiness Report, released every year, ranks countries based on metrics like GDP per capita, social support, life expectancy, and perceived freedom. And surprise, surprise—the top spots are always filled with Scandinavian nations, the very same ones that have built strong democracies, invested in high-quality education, implemented progressive taxation, and developed world-class healthcare systems.

Meanwhile, indigenous peoples don’t even appear as a footnote in this report. 

The Sioux, the Navajo, the Cree—where do they rank? 

What about the entire indigenous population of the United States, many of whom still live in conditions resembling third-world poverty, their water poisoned, their lands fracked, their youth in crisis? 

What good is "freedom" when your sovereignty is trampled every time oil money enters the conversation?

What Happiness Looks Like When Your Land is Stolen

Let’s imagine an honest Happiness Report—one that includes not just prosperous nations but also those whose happiness was stolen to fuel the wealth of others. 

Where would the Sioux rank? 

Where would the Palestinians rank? 

Where would any displaced, exploited, or colonized people sit on this list?

Would the indigenous of North America score high on "freedom" when their lands are taken at will? 

Would they score high on "trust in government" when every treaty signed with them has been violated? 

Would they score high on "social support" when they are often left to fend for themselves, their crises ignored by mainstream media until an oil pipeline threatens their water?

The Final Question: Who Really Deserves to be Called "Happy"?

Happiness is a privilege. And like all privileges, it is unequally distributed. The West celebrates its high-ranking nations while ignoring the systemic oppression that allowed them to achieve such prosperity in the first place.

Meanwhile, the Sioux are still fighting a battle that should have been won centuries ago. 

Greenpeace, despite all its missteps and controversies, is paying the ultimate price for daring to stand beside them. And the World Happiness Report? 

It will continue to churn out its rankings, blissfully ignorant of the blood and tears that never make it into its statistics.

If there is any justice, happiness should be measured not just by how much a country has, but by how much it has taken. 

Until then, the Sioux and all indigenous peoples will remain at the bottom of a list that was never meant to include them in the first place.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

ADAPT OR DIE!

WE ARE READY! ARE YOU?

WHERE IS OUR GREEN BILLIONAIRE HERO??

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Mar.20 2025

"I woke up in a cold sweat, haunted by a vision where artificial intelligence was shaped and sustained by the forces of conservatism and the far right. A nightmare where reality itself was rewritten. Is adaptation even possible?"

- ADAPTATION-GUIDE

As Trump exits the Paris Accords, what’s at stake for the climate? | 

The Take

The Inconvenient Truth: How U.S. Politics Kills Every Climate Goal Before It Even Begins

The world’s climate ambitions are dead on arrival, and the corpse isn’t even cold yet. 

The idea that we’ll be carbon-neutral by 2050 is a delusional fantasy, and the only thing more absurd than the goal itself is the notion that policy alone can make it happen. Why? 

Because it all comes down to one thing: who sits in the Oval Office. One election in the United States is enough to erase decades of progress, making global climate efforts a pointless exercise in wishful thinking.

The Brutal Reality: Fossil Fuels Rule, No Matter What

The truth is simple: global energy demand is skyrocketing, and despite all the green talk, fossil fuels still power the world. 

Switzerland, for instance, still gets 59% of its energy from fossil fuels, while the global figure is a staggering 77%. 

And let’s be honest—India, Africa, and developing nations have every right to demand cheap, reliable energy, which means coal, oil, and gas aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Meanwhile, the U.S. swings between climate action and reckless rollback depending on whether a Democrat or a Republican occupies the White House. 

Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement; 

Trump pulled out. 

Obama pushed for clean energy; 

Bush and Trump favored fossil fuels. 

A single regime change and the entire global climate trajectory is derailed.

America: The Climate Destroyer-in-Chief

Let's be clear: without the U.S. on board, every global climate goal is a joke. 

The U.S. is one of the largest carbon emitters in the world, yet its policies flip-flop every four years.

Biden can throw billions at solar and wind projects, but if Trump (or any fossil-fuel-backed Republican) gets elected in 2024 or 2028, everything is off the table. 

The U.S. will gut regulations, ramp up drilling, and laugh in the face of international climate agreements.

The whole world is essentially held hostage by American politics, and pretending otherwise is naïve. 

No matter what Switzerland, Germany, or even the EU does, if the U.S. government decides that oil is king again, the global effort to reduce emissions is nothing more than a farce.

The Pipe Dream of Renewable Energy

Renewables? Sure, they sound great—until you actually do the math. 

Even if Switzerland installs 36 gigawatts of solar power, it will still face massive winter energy shortages. 

The same is true for every country trying to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar alone. Energy storage? 

The numbers don’t add up. Hydrogen? 

Good luck storing 750 million high-pressure gas bottles just to cover seasonal shortages. Nuclear? 

That’s the only viable option left, but green activists have spent decades demonizing it.

And what happens when a climate-friendly U.S. president is replaced by one who doesn't give a damn? 

Just like that, coal plants roar back to life, oil drilling expands, and climate targets become worthless overnight.

The Ugly Truth: There Is No "Pain-Free" Transition

People want a green future but refuse to sacrifice comfort. 

The reality is that moving away from fossil fuels requires massive economic restructuring, reduced consumption, and—brace yourself—higher costs for everything. 

But in a democracy where politicians must win votes, no leader has the guts to tell the public that their quality of life will take a hit.

Instead, we get magical thinking: infinite clean energy, no economic downturns, and a seamless transition. The problem? 

As soon as voters feel the pain—rising energy bills, economic slowdowns, restrictions on cars and air travel—they revolt. 

And in the U.S., that means electing the next fossil-fuel-friendly president who promises cheap gas and “energy independence.”

Conclusion: The World’s Climate Plan is a Joke

If we’re serious about tackling climate change, we need to stop pretending that policies built on shaky political systems will ever work. 

The real solution? 

Either a complete overhaul of how global decisions are made—meaning no more four-year flip-flops in the U.S.—or we accept that fossil fuels will dominate for the foreseeable future.

As it stands now, the world’s climate future is being decided not by science, not by sustainability, but by the electoral map of the United States. 

And that’s the most inconvenient truth of them all.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

ADAPT OR DIE!

WE ARE READY! ARE YOU?

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Mar.19 2025

 Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.

- Thomas Huxley

Why the world is not prepared for the next pandemic after Covid | 

The Take

Five Years After COVID-19: Are We Any Better Prepared for the Next Disaster?

The global response to COVID-19 will be remembered as a case study in institutional failure, political cowardice, and scientific suppression. 

Five years later, with millions of lives lost, economies shattered, and public trust in science and government at historic lows, one question looms larger than ever: 

are we ready for the next pandemic—or will we repeat the same mistakes?

The Lab Leak Debate: Science or Censorship?

At the heart of this catastrophe lies an inconvenient truth: we still don’t know where SARS-CoV-2 came from. 

Was it a zoonotic spillover from a wet market in Wuhan? 

Or was it an escaped lab-modified virus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)? 

The answer remains elusive, not because the evidence doesn’t exist, but because the pursuit of truth was stifled from the very beginning.

Early in the pandemic, an elite group of scientists and public health officials, including prominent figures like virologist Christian Drosten and researcher Peter Daszak, aggressively pushed the natural-origin narrative. 

Their statements, published in influential journals such as The Lancet and Nature Medicine, dismissed alternative theories as "conspiracy theories," silencing legitimate scientific inquiry. Why? 

Some sought to protect the reputation of China, others feared jeopardizing global scientific collaboration, and still others—like Daszak—had direct conflicts of interest due to their involvement in "gain-of-function" research at the WIV.

This wasn't science. This was dogma. And when dogma replaces debate, the consequences are disastrous. The result? 

Years of missed opportunities to uncover the origins of COVID-19 and mitigate the risk of future lab-driven outbreaks.

Governments Knew, But Chose Silence

If scientific censorship wasn’t bad enough, political leadership across democratic nations also played a role in suppressing debate. 

Investigative reports from Die Zeit and the Süddeutsche Zeitung reveal that, behind closed doors, the German government seriously considered the lab-leak hypothesis while publicly endorsing the zoonotic origin. 

This pattern repeated across multiple Western nations: private skepticism, public conformity.

Why? 

Because acknowledging the possibility of a lab accident would have required world leaders to demand accountability from China—a politically and economically dangerous move. 

It would have also sparked scrutiny of virology research practices worldwide, forcing a reckoning with the reckless scientific ambition that led us here in the first place.

The WHO’s Role in Covering Tracks

Enter the World Health Organization (WHO), an institution supposedly dedicated to transparency and global health. 

Instead, the WHO participated in shaping a predetermined narrative. Its first "investigation" into the virus’s origins, conducted with minimal access to Wuhan laboratories and guided by individuals like Daszak, unsurprisingly concluded that a zoonotic origin was the most likely scenario. 

This was not an impartial inquiry; it was a diplomatic charade.

Despite mounting evidence that the pandemic’s origins may have been far more complex, it took years for the lab-leak theory to be considered a legitimate hypothesis. 

By then, the damage was done. 

Trust in scientific institutions had eroded, skepticism toward public health authorities skyrocketed, and misinformation flourished in the void left by a censored debate.

Five Years Later: Are We Ready for the Next Disaster?

If another pandemic were to emerge tomorrow, would we be better equipped to handle it? 

The answer, disturbingly, is no.

1. Scientific Integrity Remains Compromised – Research funding is still controlled by the same institutions that buried inconvenient truths about COVID-19. If a new virus were to emerge from a lab today, would scientists feel safe speaking out? Or would they fear professional exile?

2. Political Leaders Still Prioritize Diplomacy Over Public Safety – Governments remain reluctant to confront China or any powerful nation involved in high-risk research. The same political calculations that kept COVID-19’s origins in the dark will likely play out again.

3. Regulation of Dangerous Research Is Inadequate – Gain-of-function experiments continue with limited oversight. The US and other nations have restarted funding for such work, despite the glaring risks. Have we learned nothing?

4. Global Health Organizations Lack Accountability – The WHO has yet to undergo the reforms necessary to make it a truly independent body capable of investigating future pandemics without geopolitical interference.

The Path Forward: Demand Truth, Not Narratives

Op-ed: How to Prepare for the Next Pandemic | Mike Bloomberg

The next pandemic is not a question of "if" but "when." 

We cannot afford another round of suppression, half-truths, and politically motivated science. We need:

• Full transparency in virology research – Every high-risk experiment should be subject to global oversight, with real consequences for non-compliance.

• Unbiased scientific inquiry – No theory should be off-limits. If a new outbreak emerges, all possible origins must be investigated with equal rigor.

• Independent global health leadership – The WHO needs fundamental restructuring to prevent political influence from corrupting its mission.

• Public accountability – The scientists and officials who misled the world in the early days of COVID-19 must be held responsible for their role in obstructing the truth.

Had we conducted an open, unfiltered inquiry into SARS-CoV-2’s origins from the start, we might not have definitive answers—but we would have trust. 

And trust, in the next pandemic, could be the difference between life and death.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

ADAPT OR DIE!

WE ARE READY! ARE YOU?

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Mar.18 2025

 

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

- Karl Marx

          More NOAA cuts, 1,000 layoffs expected, sources say

Playing with Fire or Terrorism? The Systematic Dismantling of Public Safety and Environmental Monitoring

We are witnessing an unprecedented assault on the very infrastructure that protects the American people. 

The Trump administration’s reckless slashing of critical environmental and safety programs—under the guise of cost-cutting—is nothing short of sabotage. 

When you dismantle the mechanisms that track hurricanes, air pollution, droughts, and wildfires, the result is clear: increased chaos, suffering, and death. 

So, is this merely reckless governance, or does it cross the line into deliberate terrorism against the American people?

The Systematic Blindfolding of a Nation

Federal agencies responsible for tracking and mitigating environmental hazards are being gutted. Layoffs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have decimated the workforce monitoring weather patterns, air quality, and disaster risks. 

Essential tools—weather balloons, radar stations, tsunami warning centers, and air pollution monitors—are being defunded, abandoned, or outright shut down. 

The administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is canceling leases for facilities that serve as the backbone of climate data collection.

The most staggering cuts include NOAA’s National Weather Service, whose forecasting models are used by farmers, emergency responders, and insurers. 

It is no coincidence that these cuts come as climate disasters intensify. The very satellites and sensors that track climate shifts and storm patterns are under attack, leaving citizens defenseless against natural catastrophes.

A Calculated Assault on Public Safety

The question must be asked: Who benefits from this devastation? 

The deliberate gutting of public environmental monitoring opens the door to private weather services, ready to sell access to life-saving information that was once public. 

Trump’s attempt to install Barry Lee Myers in 2017—a man with direct financial ties to AccuWeather—as the head of NOAA made the motive crystal clear. 

A privatized weather service would force Americans to pay for basic forecasting, making vital information accessible only to those who can afford it.

At the same time, the administration’s actions conveniently allow the fossil fuel industry to continue polluting without accountability. 

Without public access to air and water quality data, communities cannot prove that they are being poisoned. 

Lawsuits against polluters will be nearly impossible to win, and the Supreme Court—packed with a GOP majority—will ensure that corporations are shielded from legal consequences.

Dismantling Science to Deny Reality

The elimination of government weather and environmental services serves another purpose: erasing evidence of climate change. 

The increasing frequency of wildfires, hurricanes, and extreme weather events is undeniable, but without the scientific data to prove their causes and trends, climate denialism can thrive. 

This is not just about ignorance—it is a strategic move to suppress reality itself. By severing access to information, the administration makes it easier to push its fossil fuel agenda while diverting public attention to manufactured crises like border security and foreign conflicts.

The Path to Disaster: A Dystopian Future

The implications of this strategy are dire. Without NOAA, USGS, and other agencies, Americans will face greater threats from hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and wildfires with little to no warning. 

Insurance premiums will skyrocket as risk assessment becomes more difficult. Air pollution will worsen, leading to higher rates of respiratory diseases. Public health will suffer as environmental monitoring disappears.

More alarmingly, this sets the stage for a tiered system where only the wealthy can afford to protect themselves. 

If private companies control weather forecasting and disaster warnings, those who cannot pay will be left in the dark—literally. 

Emergency services, once a public good, could soon be available only to those with the means to purchase them. 

This is not just an attack on science; it is an attack on the fundamental principle that public safety should be accessible to all.

Is This Negligence or Deliberate Harm?

At what point does reckless governance become something more sinister? 

If a foreign adversary were to systematically dismantle a nation’s ability to predict and respond to natural disasters, it would be labeled an act of war. 

Yet, when this destruction comes from within, it is dismissed as policy. 

The administration’s actions align disturbingly well with the interests of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China, both of which benefit from a weaker, more chaotic United States. 

Trump’s deference to Putin and Xi raises serious questions about where his allegiances truly lie.

The Choice Before Us

The destruction of America’s environmental monitoring systems is not just bad policy; it is an existential threat. 

It is an engineered disaster, a slow-moving catastrophe that will disproportionately harm the most vulnerable while enriching the powerful. 

We are being led into an era where knowledge is controlled by private corporations and survival is a privilege, not a right.

The choice before us is stark: Do we allow this reckless dismantling to continue, or do we recognize it for what it is—an act of deliberate harm against the American people? 

This is not just playing with fire; it is an act of war against truth, science, and public safety. 

The time to act is now, before the flames consume us all.

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Mar. 17 2025

 

We must make the best of those ills which cannot be avoided.

- Alexander Hamilton

US Secretary for Energy: It's time for reality in our Energy Policy | Chris Wright at ARC 2025

Puffins vs. Politics: How Climate Change and Corporate Greed Are Cooking Our Tuxedoed Friends

Move over, polar bears—there’s a new canary in the climate coal mine, and it’s wearing a tiny tuxedo.

On Machias Seal Island, puffins—those charming, fish-juggling, clown-beaked icons of the North Atlantic—are undergoing disturbing changes. 

They’re shrinking, their beaks are mutating, and their reproductive rates are in free fall. 

Scientists, ever the cautious bunch, are still piecing together why. But let’s be real: climate change, driven by relentless fossil fuel consumption, is serving up a steaming plate of environmental catastrophe, and the puffins are on the menu.

For the past three decades, researchers have tracked the puffins’ health, noting that today’s fledglings are noticeably smaller than their predecessors. What does this mean? 

Maybe they’re adapting to a hotter world by shedding mass like a businessman ditching his tie in a heatwave. Or maybe they’re just too malnourished to reach their full size. Either way, the outlook isn’t great.

A key culprit? 

The warming Gulf of Maine, where water temperatures have spiked by 1.6°C since the 1980s, ushering in marine heat waves that have scrambled entire ecosystems. 

Puffins rely on high-fat Atlantic herring to feed their chicks. But lately, their diet has been downgraded to sad, less nutritious alternatives like sand eels and squid. 

It’s the avian equivalent of swapping out steak for celery sticks and wondering why you’re still hungry.

And what is the grand response from the U.S. government? 

A full-throttle embrace of fossil fuels. Enter Chris Wright, the newly anointed Energy Secretary and former fracking executive, who waltzed onto the stage at the annual CERAWeek oil and gas conference like a villain in a Bond film. 

With all the charm of a man gleefully tossing a lit match into a dry forest, he promised a “180-degree pivot” from policies that even vaguely resembled an attempt to curb climate change.

“The previous administration’s policy was focused myopically on climate change, with people as simply collateral damage,” he declared, drawing enthusiastic applause from a room full of executives who probably consider rising sea levels a fun opportunity to invest in luxury waterfront property.

Translation: We’re burning it all down, baby. And if the puffins can’t hack it, tough luck.

Wright, the fossil fuel industry’s human embodiment of ‘let them eat coal,’ has little patience for renewable energy, dismissing wind and solar as expensive and inefficient. 

He’s also got a fascinating take on fossil fuels, calling their contribution to global warming a mere “side effect” of progress—like an inconvenient gas leak in an otherwise lovely house. 

Sure, we’ve jacked up the planet’s CO2 levels by 50%, but hey, at least we’ve got modern medicine! (Spoiler: Rising global temperatures are also super great for spreading diseases, but let’s not let facts get in the way of a good oil industry-funded monologue.)

Meanwhile, puffins, blissfully unaware of the political circus, are just trying to survive. Their beaks are mysteriously growing larger, potentially as a way to dissipate heat—because nothing says ‘thriving’ like evolving a biological radiator.

The biggest kicker? Even their ability to breed is now rolling the dice. Scientists are seeing wild fluctuations in chick survival rates, with “really, really good years” followed by “really, really bad years.” 

One year, puffin chicks flourish. The next, they’re barely making it out to sea. If this erratic pattern continues, the population could crash.

And yet, in Houston, amid the cigar smoke and corporate back-patting, Wright and his cronies pitched oil and gas as the saviors of humanity. Their argument? 

That fossil fuels are a moral necessity to lift people out of poverty. Because nothing says ‘helping the world’ like melting glaciers, supercharged hurricanes, and a few billion displaced climate refugees.

So, where does that leave the puffins? 

Clinging to a boiling rock, while oil execs toast to their next quarter’s profits. It’s a tragicomic farce of cosmic proportions—one where tuxedoed seabirds pay the ultimate price for human arrogance.

But hey, at least the beaks are getting bigger. 

Maybe someday, they’ll be large enough to peck some sense into the people running the show.

Maine’s puffins are “doing ok," but climate change is threatening their food supply

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

ADAPT OR DIE

WE ARE READY! ARE YOU?

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Mar.16 2025

 

Security is the priceless product of freedom. Only the strong can be secure, and only in freedom can men produce those material resources which can secure them from want at home and against aggression from abroad.

- B.E. Hutchinson

US stops Cyber-Operations against Russia: Free Pass for Putin?

THE UNITED STATES SURRENDERS TO RUSSIAN HACKERS
АМЕРИКА СДАЕТСЯ РУССКИМ ХАКЕРАМ

The United States, once the global leader in cybersecurity, has just committed an act of self-sabotage so staggering that it defies logic. 

In a move that reeks of appeasement, the Trump administration has effectively neutered its own cybersecurity agencies, ordering them to ease off Russian cyber threats. 

This isn’t just a strategic shift—it’s a full-blown surrender.

For years, Russian cyber operatives have launched relentless attacks against American infrastructure, businesses, and even our democracy itself. 

They’ve hacked elections, infiltrated power grids, and brought essential supply chains to their knees. 

And now? The U.S. government is telling its top cyber defenders to stand down.

A GIFT TO PUTIN—COURTESY OF WASHINGTON
ПОДАРОК ПУТИНУ ОТ ВАШИНГТОНА

This decision is nothing short of a geopolitical love letter to Vladimir Putin. 

Coming hot on the heels of a phone call between Trump and the Russian dictator, it signals to the world that America is no longer serious about defending itself in the digital age. 

The fact that the White House has stopped publicly naming Russia as a top cyber threat is alarming enough, but ordering agencies like CISA to stop tracking Russian hackers? 

That’s an act of sheer recklessness.

The implications of this are catastrophic. The “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance—our strongest cyber defense network—relies on the U.S. for crucial intelligence sharing. 

By muzzling its own experts, Washington is weakening not just itself but also its closest allies. Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are now left wondering if America can be trusted to have their backs.

THE ERA OF AMERICAN WEAKNESS
ЭПОХА АМЕРИКАНСКОЙ СЛАБОСТИ

This isn’t just about cybersecurity. 

It’s about global power. 

America’s retreat from the cyber battlefield is a neon-lit sign of weakness that will be noticed in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and beyond. 

This is the same nation that, just last year, labeled Russia a “permanent cyber threat.” What changed? 

Have Russian hackers suddenly abandoned their efforts to cripple U.S. infrastructure? 

Hardly.

This move also hamstrings America’s ability to retaliate. Cyberwarfare isn’t just about defense—it’s about deterrence. 

The ability to launch counterstrikes and impose real consequences on adversaries has been an essential tool in modern conflict. 

But with this shift, the U.S. is essentially disarming itself in cyberspace. If the Colonial Pipeline attack of 2021 taught us anything, it’s that cyberattacks aren’t just nuisances—they can paralyze entire sectors of the economy.

AMERICA IS NOW A SITTING DUCK
АМЕРИКА ТЕПЕРЬ ЛЁГКАЯ ДОБЫЧА

The most infuriating part? This isn’t a strategic recalibration. 

It’s a surrender masquerading as diplomacy. The American people are being gaslit into believing that this is some kind of diplomatic masterstroke when in reality, it’s a display of profound cowardice. 

The Trump administration would rather cozy up to Russia than protect its own citizens from cyber warfare.

And make no mistake—Russia will exploit this. Every cybercriminal syndicate and Kremlin-backed hacker group just got a free pass. 

The next major cyberattack on U.S. infrastructure is no longer a question of if, but when. And when it happens, Washington will have only itself to blame.

America is at war in cyberspace. 

The problem is, only one side is still fighting.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

ADAPT OR DIE!

WE ARE READY! ARE YOU?

Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory March 14th - 427.77 ppm