Here’s a link to today’s IPCC special report on climate change “Summary for Policymakers”
Thanks @Kateg for the summary. It covers everything we need to know about changes that need to be made and why. (and very helpful for my Environmental Chemistry class!)…and as mentioned in this report…
The changes should have been implemented much sooner than 2030…
Carbon Capture Project
Across the globe…
Water has always been one of our best resources, now we will need to protect it
For the past 30+ years, major corporations were quietly obtaining decades-long contracts to water rights right under the noses of local and regional residents. (Read: soda companies, water bottling companies, water treatment companies, etc.) They take our water, sell it back to us, and then charge us to treat the waste water. For decades, water was called “the other gold” or “liquid gold.” I fear for too many, it may be too late.
As for those wanting to drag an iceberg to hot arid countries, hasn’t any of them given any thought to what ancient microbes are trapped in the ice that will be released once melted?
Yes, we could be exposed to many things from the sediment trapped in the ice. We have been discussing the possibilities in my environmental chemistry class…but more from the sediment trapped at the bottom of the ocean after the ice shelf has melted, the permafrost has melted, and the ancient sediment from the ocean floor starts to break down. Methane etc will be released. There is currently several studies going on in Alaska about the methane and how you can start a frozen lake on fire because of the methane bubbles trapped below the ice.
We do have bottling plants, however, they may work on a different system. They pay for the water they use like the rest of us. They also pay for any waste water they produce. Water and water treatment is all owned by the municipality, the city, the town. There is no direct selling.
Years ago a company came to our town with a proposal to “privatize” our waste water treatment plant with the promise of “lower rates” for the residents. I laughed when I read their proposed contract… the plant was to be run with one person (where currently there are three), rates for the sewer districts would be lowered, the town wouldn’t have to “bother” itself with billing and all that tedious paperwork and reports to the state environmental department. etc… There were so many great “benefits” it seemed too good to be true. It was. Their closest employee to answer emergency calls “after hours” lived almost 30 miles away - not good especially during the winter months. If anything wore down or broke down (machinery at the plant and/or sewer lines) the town (sewer district residents) would be billed for replacement/installation costs (at a slightly higher cost to maintain the company’s profit). Of course the contract would run for a minimum of 5 years. There was an “escape clause” buried in the contract proposal where the company could bail out if it wasn’t profitable for them. Of course there was one for the town - with restrictions like having to pay a “contract termination fee” close to what it would have cost us for them to run the plant for a year. It must really be expensive to empty one person’s locker of personal belongings. The town (sewer district residents) would also be on the hook for new vehicles, etc… Being a union rep, I researched other municipalities across the nation where this company talked them into privatizing their water systems. The company had a 93-95% disapproved rating. But some of these municipalities were locked into 10-, 20, and even 30-year contracts. In many of those municipalities, those officials who voted to privatize were voted out of office. When the union brought our research results before the town board, they unanimously voted against the proposal, save one council member who lost his re-election bid that year.
Remember… “Direct selling” in this case comes in the form of water rates for potable water and what is billed to residents for waste water treatment. It comes in the form of taxes and/or “utility bills.”
Some debate over climate change in the Arctic