My Life on this planet.

Friday, June 17, 2022 . A number of the Guardian articles about the state of our planet, not only about climate change but also about people who kill other humans who only want to report on the state of our planet so we understand the destruction. I published the articles on my Facebook in June 2022 while added more recent articles in this post. This bring us to the conclusion that activism as usual such as meeting important people is no longer sufficient. But, what is the best way forward as any actions such as those by Extinction Rebellion (ER) are condemned by many people while a war by Russia draws even more money to fossil fuel and more general to energy companies? Two men murdered There is a war on nature that took the lives of two men  in Brazil: Dom Phillips, a journalist who travelled together with indigenous Bruno Pereira to show the destruction of the rainforest whereby plants, animals and even humans who live in the forests and depend on it, are killed.  Mr Philli...

Bill Gates Bill Gates . Such an authority. He discusses e.g. climate change as I do and he is interviewed while I am losing friends. But, as my mind goes on and on, turning round in circles, I too must write this down so my brain concentrate on something and to avoid I become mad. And yes, it is also important that people show that they agree with investments away from fossil fuels to prevent those who are opposed have the loudest voice and win the argument. Thus, I recognise Mr Gates has major opposition from among others: those who oppose vaccination (in which he plays an important role) and deny climate change is real as for many the consequences are too big to accept while they often don't want to pay for it and think that reinvesting in old solutions is cheaper and more profitable while building a new nuclear plant costs billions of euros  although smaller local units may be possible and for space travel on condition we re-use space shuttles; those who don't mind climate ...

A plan as a result of fear for rising sea levels Some engineers consider that two dams should be built to protect millions of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, Scotland and England at a cost of 250 to 500 billion £. The proposal comes from the Netherlands because after having sold their gas, now the country fears part of it may disappear below the sea due to climate change. I think that taking climate change actions to prevent or at least slowdown climate change happens are probably much cheaper although less spectacular but at least the result will be clean air, ground and water. Further, huge pumps will be needed to remove the large volumes of water that rivers empty in what will eventually become a freshwater lake. Thus, the result will be a rising sea level of the ocean and a low freshwater sea so we only need to wait for the moment one or both dams break so a huge tsunami destroys the whole area. Not to mention the closing of what is now the busiest sea for transport over sea...

Everywhere in the worlds animals are on the brink of extinction. Indeed, animals in the wild killed for ivory while lions and giraffes are not even safe in zoos. And when animal numbers recover, humans complain and say we need to kill them. I've warned before against blaming animals for the destruction of the environment and climate change or we start to reduce their numbers - now your own species. And thus now there is a discussion about whether deer  need to be killed and more specifically about the numbers of animals that should be killed. But did they study other ways? Here some suggestions: Deer in Richmond Park, located in the middle of London, UK Maybe relocate them to other parts of Europe where they went (almost) extinct? Maybe reintroduce wolfs. Of course, not large numbers but sufficient so they can hunt the deer without being a treat to humans. Maybe castrate a number of male deer so they can live without multiplying. Maybe replant trees in enclo...

New international rules are signed to prevent that countries dump their waste in other countries , unless those countries agree . These rules will force countries to produce less waste and to develop better recyclable products or to develop methods to be able to recycle difficult recyclable products. Good. Exporting (plastic) waste from developed to developing countries will become more difficult as developing countries now have to agree to accept waste. China  already refused to accept more foreign waste, now also Malaysia will refuse more foreign waste and even intends to send back the waste we already dumped there. Indeed, ones countries develop beyond a certain level they refuse waste from others and instead may even start to export their own waste. And the hypocrisy of certain Western countries: we condemn other often much less developed countries when they dump or burn waste but when recyclables can no longer be exported to poor countries we destroy much of our own recyc...

Waste, often dangerous, from many rich and thus developed parts of the world, is dumped in Africa and other places. A few years ago there was a major scandal in Belgium when dioxins where found in chicken (eggs), leading to another government after the election. Now, people in Ghana are eating also dangerous eggs that contain the same toxins because the developed world dumps their electronic waste in that country. It was to be expected that this practice whereby developed countries dumb their (dangerous) waste in other still developing countries can no longer continue. For instance, the Philippine  President Duterte is warning Canada to retake its waste that it exported to   the Philippines or face its anger. I think we should not take this light. And he's right, as a president, he should protect his own people. Undeveloped countries are developing and no longer accept waste from others so their own people become ill, just as people in developed countries don't accept ...

Humanity ‘at a crossroads’ as damage to planet poses growing risk to health, UN environment agency warns https://news.un.org/feed/view/en/story/2019/03/1034611 People call the youngsters who demand action against climate change but also against destruction of the environment stupid. Still, here another UN report that promises that, when humans don't change their behaviour, our health will be at risk. Therefore, as I continue to say: we need a cleaner industry. There is nothing against some CO2 production as this is needed to balance the O2 levels (and thus bio energy production such as burning wood should be possible) but more fossil fuel levels of CO2 harm us (now) while also the levels of plastics and other products in the environment harm, including our fertility (although fewer children may not be a bad thing) and that of animals and maybe even plants. Therefore, new and cleaner production of products is needed

Although we're not yet there, I think society and scientists will more and more cooperate whereby most ordinary people are genuinely interested in sciences and proud to contribute to it by collecting data that later can be analysed by scientists who communicate the findings to the public, not only in specialist magazines although this is important so other scientists can judge whether the science was done properly but also communicate via popular scientific magazines for the interested non-scientists and even via "women" and "men" magazines as interesting subjects on for instance health while scientists should also edit publications such as Wikipedia without necessarily rewriting the article that "amateurs" wrote. Certainly when climate change predictions were accurate and medical progress continues as it will do will the numbers of people interested in science continue to grow. This Guardian article describes examples how scientists and field wor...