Scientists couldn’t be more clear. For humanity to avoid climate
disaster and remain below the 1.5°C threshold set out in the 2015 Paris
Climate Agreement, society must radically transform. We need to change
our energy, transport, and food systems fundamentally and quickly.
Why
food? According to scientists from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), land use for farming is responsible for
one-quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Corporate
food giants like JBS, Tysons, AMD, Cargill and CP and others operate a
runaway industrial food system that gobbles up more and more land to
raise cows, pigs, and chickens and grow the maize and soya that feeds
them.
Livestock alone already accounts for 14.5 % of all global GHG
emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). Also, industrial farming produces about half of global methane, 28 times more warming than CO2. Bottom line: If we don’t fix food, we don’t fix the climate, equity and justice.
This year, the UN convened the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS).
Announced in 2019, the UNFSS was billed as an ambitious attempt to
address food’s role in the climate crisis and reach the UN’s Sustainable
Development Goals to “feed the world.” Though launched with good
intentions, the organisers together with member states have made
critical errors.
First, organizers paid little attention to an
established “multilateral” approach where member states and civil
society organizations, like the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM), equally set the agenda on big summits. Instead, corporate food players like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (which includes Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo.), Google Food Services and the Consumer Goods Forum featured more prominently.
Second, crucial issues like the rights of local communities,
Indigeneous Peoples, and smallholder farmers weren’t prioritized. The
dominance of corporate players was so obvious that thousands of CSM
members and affiliates boycotted the pre-summit and organized a counter-summit in protest, with the hashtag #FoodSystems4People.
After this week, UNFSS organizers will pass the various
recommendations to UN food agencies and national governments to
implement. But there are already signs that the summit outcomes won’t
take the food-climate crisis as seriously as science requires.
The initial recommendations emerging from the UNFSS’ so-called “sustainable livestock cluster”
advocates for industry-promoted technical fixes like genetically
modified ‘ethiochicken’ to produce more eggs or ‘precision livestock
farming’ to use big data to track herds in pastures and feedlots.
Moreover, the recommendations skirt away from corporate accountability
and the need for corporate transformation. None of the
recommendations address the scientific imperative: we must drastically
reduce our meat and dairy production and consumption and radically shift
our food systems toward ecologically produced plant-rich diets.
According to Greenpeace’s definitive 2018 scientific report
on livestock’s role in the climate crisis, we need a global reduction
of 50% in production and consumption of meat and dairy products by 2050
to stay under 1.5°C. Why? Livestock is responsible for the majority of
food’s GHG emissions. If left unchecked, agriculture is projected to
produce 52% of global greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades,
70% of which will come from meat and dairy, most of which produced
unsustainably by corporate players.
But business as usual expansion is exactly what the livestock industry wants. Agribusiness industry groups like the Global Dairy Platform, International Meat Secretariat, International Poultry Council,
and others are already lobbying the UN to form a ‘Coalition of Action
on Sustainable Livestock’, dominated entirely by pro-livestock
researchers and lobbyists. Greenpeace UK’s investigative arm, Unearthed, just published an expose showing how far the meat and dairy lobby is willing to go.
If successful, these livestock industry groups will continue setting
the agenda and endlessly expand, pushing us toward a climate and public
health disaster. More forests will be cleared for cattle and feed. Meat
heavy diets will drive continued high rates of cancer, heart disease and
obesity. Smallholder farmers, landowners, fisherfolk, Indigenous
Peoples and the world’s impoverished will be left on the sidelines with
no input.
The science is clear. To survive the climate crisis, we’ll need less
land devoted to animal grazing and feed, not more. We need plant-rich
diets, not meat-heavy diets that damage our health and planet. The UNFSS
is creating the illusion of real action without addressing these
inconvenient truths.
If governments want real solutions, they must amplify the voices of
the small-scale producers and communities they claim to support. In
pandemic times, they must support smallholder farmers, landowners, and
Indigenous Peoples and push back on neocolonial food expansion. They
must reverse the endless expansion of corporations into natural
ecosystems and embrace ecological food systems that put food sovereignty
and people’s wellbeing at the core.
The UN, national governments and corporations must listen to
scientists and local communities and stand up to the industrial
livestock lobby’s lie that only they can feed the world. They must
decide if their legacy will be to fiddle while the planet burns.
So after reading this article and realising that a lot of us are already aware of this and trying to do something about it, as always it is about reaching others and hoping that they make at least one small change to their lifetsyle. This really is the time to do something, at the end of the day it is not for us, but for our children, grandchildren and those who follow.
We must get our act together so we don´t leave a huge pile of crap for future generations.
The blog song for today is: " Don´t look back in anger" by Oasis
Hello. COP26,
the most important climate change summit in six years, is almost upon
us. Here’s a news digest, followed by an interview with one of the
architects of the
2015 Paris Agreement.
A
UN analysis today revealed a bleak upward trajectory for global CO2
emissions, despite new CO2-curbing plans by scores of countries,
including major emitters such as the US and the European Union’s 27
member states.
Global
emissions will rise 16 per cent by 2030 on 2010 levels under
governments’ plans put forward since the start of 2020, according to the
synthesis report from UN Climate Change. That puts the world ruinously
off track for the 45 per cent cut that climate scientists say is needed to meet the Paris deal’s goal of holding global warming to 1.5°C.
“This
report is really showing us sobering numbers,” says Patricia Espinosa
at UN Climate Change. “But it is also still showing the progress to the
1.5°C goal is possible. The latest IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report says there is still this window open. It’s a very, very small window, that is true. The 1.5°C goal is, in my view, alive.”
There
are some reasons to be hopeful. One is that the report does not count
political announcements that have not yet been translated into official
plans submitted to the UN, such as China’s promise to peak emissions before 2030. A second is that the 16 per cent increase ignores pledges in developing countries’ plans that are conditional on greater finance or support from developed countries.Thirdly, looking at the 113 parties to the Paris Agreement that
did put forward new plans, their emissions will decrease 12 per cent by
2030, compared with 2010 levels.
The COP26 summit, due to begin on 1 November, will be key to keeping on track for 1.5°C, but some green groups have called
for the meeting to be delayed, because not all delegates will have had
access to covid-19 vaccines in their home country. In response, a group
of nations vulnerable to climate change insisted
that it must go ahead. There remains no sign or hint from COP26’s
hosts, the UK and Italian governments, that the summit won’t go ahead.
Meanwhile,
US climate envoy John Kerry and the COP26 president Alok Sharma have
both recently been in China, meeting in-person with the country’s chief
climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, and with other officials via video
link. It’s not clear the visits have yielded the results the US and UK
hoped for. Instead of issuing a new emissions reductions plan, China
warned the US that cooperation on climate change could not be separated
from differences on other issues. The Chinese government also
argued it is cutting emissions
faster than countries have in the past, while conveniently ignoring the
fact that the technologies to do so are now much more mature.
Next
Monday will be an important stepping stone towards COP26. UN
secretary-general António Guterres is gathering a select group of heads
of state, including Boris Johnson of the UK and Joe Biden of the US, to
elicit greater ambition on emissions reductions plans from countries, in
particular the G20 group of nations.
Espinosa,
referring to today’s UN synthesis analysis, says: “I certainly hope
this report is going to be one element for reflection for leaders when
they meet on Monday. It shows everyone needs to increase ambition in all
areas.” The challenge facing Guterres was also laid bare two days ago by an analysis – separate to the UN one – released by the non-profit Climate Action Tracker.
It found that three G20 countries – India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey –
have yet to even publish a new plan. Many other G20 members – including
Australia and Indonesia – have put forward new plans with the same old
targets.
All
this adds up to what might seem like a tough backdrop for COP26. To
inject a dose of optimism into this month’s newsletter, I talked with
Christiana Figueres, Espinosa’s predecessor. As the former executory
secretary of UN Climate Change and one of the key players who drove home
the Paris deal, she has a great insight into the summit’s prospects.
You can watch the full video interview by signing up for New Scientist’s Sustainable Future event on 25 September
. In the meantime, here are some highlights.
Adam Vaughan:What message did you take away from last month’s IPCC report? Christiana
Figueres: I was surprised by the categorical language that was used by
scientists and then approved by governments for this first section of
the sixth assessment report. Previous reports have been couched in much
more cautionary and conditional language, this just gives it to us
square, right through to the bare truth.
What strikes you about the extreme weather we’ve seen lately? Do we risk treating this as normal now? The
sad fact is climate change and extreme weather have become the norm.
That is actually alarming that we now see that as the norm. We are never
going to completely “solve” climate change. We are now in a state of
the planet and human history in which we will have to deal with a
permanently changed atmosphere and global environment.But at the same
time, I’ve never seen as much press coverage and concern, on the part of
institutions, civil society, organisations, of financial institutions,
as with this IPCC report – so that is a good thing.
Do these sort of impacts at 1°C of warming highlight the limit of adapting to climate change? People
dying in their basements because of flooding, in New York City, that
was a huge wake-up call. Yes, we are struggling to adapt. What that
reminds us is there is an inverted relationship between mitigation and
adaptation. The longer we wait to reduce our emissions to responsible
levels, the more we will be forced to adapt – or the more we will be
unable to adapt.
How well-prepared are we ahead of COP26 compared to the same time two months ahead of the Paris summit in 2015? My
memory, but human memory in general, is pathetically short. We look
back at Paris in 2015 and assume everything was already ironed out and
it was a very smooth walk into the Paris Agreement. Not the case. It was
a very, very difficult negotiation all the way to the last minute.
Secondly, we are in a very, very, difficult situation this year. The
fact no one has really been able to travel to get together, the fact
delegates have not been able to get into a room to reach common ground
for basically the good of two years. That’s very hard on a negotiation.
Fortunately, the US has come forward with a doubling up of its effort,
the EU is at a 55 per cent cut [by 2030]. Fortunately, we do have some
critical countries coming forward, but not all. And that’s the concern.
Should COP26 be delayed, as some groups have called for? If we didn’t have a deadline looming over, then we could say “oh let’s delay”. But let’s remember we’ve already delayed [COP26] one year.
No one has informed me we are delaying when 2030 is going to hit. And
that is our deadline. At 2030, we have to be at one half of emissions of
where we are now. So I very much applaud and respect the efforts of the
COP presidency to hold this COP with as normal conditions as possible.
What are the big issues going to be at COP26, in the run-up and at the summit? This
meeting is the deadline for all countries, I underline all countries,
to come forward with their new higher goals and much more ambitious
nationally determined contributions [emissions reduction plans]. In
addition to that, we have to have the promise fulfilled of the funding
for developing countries, the famous $100bn [a year] that has been on
the table forever, and should have been fulfilled by 2020. [Thirdly] we have to make more commitments to adaptation, because we have delayed so much.
And
then, perhaps most difficult of all, the price on carbon pollution.
That is the famous Article 6 that was not agreed to at Paris in 2015,
and has been straggling along ever since then without agreement among
all countries.
Can
the differences between countries be overcome on Article 6, about how
countries and companies can trade their emissions reductions? Absolutely.
It’s not simple but it’s also not rocket science. Furthermore, we don’t
start from zero. We had a thriving carbon market operating in the
global north and south, called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),
under the Kyoto Protocol [the climate treaty before the Paris
Agreement]. It had its rules, regulations, methodologies, it was
actually a very mature system. We need an upgrade of the CDM, and
inserted into the Paris Agreement. Let no one say we don’t know how to
do it, because we do.
What would your definition of a good outcome be for COP26? We
are expecting every country, every head of state in fact, to come to
the COP and announce what she or he are actually going to commit to in
terms of emissions reductions in the next five or 10 years. For me, the
expected outcome is that the sum total of that cannot guarantee that
we’re going to be at [on track for] 1.5°C by 2030. That is unrealistic.
But it should put us on the path towards [having] one half emissions by
2030. That for me would be successful."
Let´s hope that this is in fact the case at this very scary time for everyone on the planet. this was a most interesting read, given what is happening at this very moment. I think we can all agree mother earth is very unhappy with what we are doing to our one and only world. Here in Menorca yesterday we had never seen before flooding and breaking of canal banks. Ferreries was under water as was Es Mercadal. We must listen, stop flapping about and actually do something. As I have said all along, it is up to everybody to do their part. The blog song for today is "a thousand trees" by Stereophonics . TTFN
The Great Global Cleanup® is
EARTHDAY.ORG’S flagship volunteer program to remove litter from our
lands and waterways. Together with partners around the world, the
campaign mobilizes millions of volunteers and coordinates tens of
thousands of cleanups.
Checklist for Individual and Small Group Cleanups:
Individual and Small Group Cleanups can be done anywhere that litter is found. Just grab a bag and go!
Plogging and TrashTag are ways of doing individual cleanups. #Plogging entails jogging and quickly stopping to pick up trash while you go.
#Trashtag is a social media trend — take “before and after” pictures of the area you cleaned up and post them!
1. Ensure that it is safe and permissible by local authorities.
During the COVID-19 pandemic or local health emergencies: Always
follow health and safety ordinances before heading outside. If you live
in an area where masks and social distancing are required, be sure to
follow those rules
2. Select a safe time and route for your cleanup.
Select a route where traffic does not present a danger. Your
cleanup route can be done anywhere. Our favorite spots include beaches,
parks, our neighborhoods, and along streams or waterways
Go with a buddy — including one or more pals in your cleanup adds to safety and fun
Check
the weather: Always do your cleanup in daylight and when weather
conditions are suitable. Don’t clean up in high wind, rain, snow, fog or
when extreme weather is predicted
Dress for the occasion: Wear sturdy shoes or boots, apply sunblock, consider wearing a hat, and use non-toxic insect repellant
3. During the cleanup
Mask up: Ensure that you wear a mask and some form of gloves for
protection. Additionally, BBQ tongs, salad tongs, or other pickup
device can help create further separation between you and the litter
Stay
clean: Never touch the litter directly or and don’t touch your face
during your cleanup. Bring hand sanitizer, especially if you are
somewhere where you are unable to wash your hands
Safety
first: Only pick up litter that is safe to handle and can be easily
disposed of or recycled. Don’t pick up batteries or fireworks. Be
careful picking up glass. If you’re unsure an item is safe, leave it alone!
Follow
guidelines: Ensure that you are following guidelines set out by the CDC
and EPA on how to dispose of personal protective equipment
Watch your kids: Children of all ages make great cleanup helpers. Always keep them in sight and off roads with traffic
Bring a cell phone: Stay in touch and take photos!
4. After the cleanup
Make sure to wash your hands as soon as possible
Disinfect all the reusable equipment that was used during your cleanup
Publicize the success of your cleanup on social media. Tag us at
@EarthDay (or @EarthDayNetwork on Facebook) with the hashtag
#GreatGlobalCleanup, #TrashTag, or #Plogging. We love to feature our
volunteers!
Join the World’s Largest Environmental Movement!
This is taken from their website, however if you are like me and just want to do something on that day, then have a go!
If we can continue doing this type of stuff then maybe more people will feel guilty about throwing their litter in the street instead of putting it in the bin, which is usually just feet away!
This day starts a week of a global clean up campaign, hopefully people will continue to do world cleanup day every day and we may see a glorious change! It´s all about attitude!
So let´s keep on keeping on and make changes!
The saying of ¨ït´s not my job, just does´nt wash anymore" it´s all of our jobs!
The blog song for today is: "Changes" by David Bowie
The
so-called Fulfilment by Amazon programs, announced in a blog post on
Wednesday, will help to build a circular economy, the company said.
They
come less than two months after British broadcaster ITV reported that
Amazon is destroying millions of items of unsold stock at one of its 24
U.K. warehouses every year, including smart TVs, laptops, drones and
hairdryers.
One of the programs will allow third-party
businesses on Amazon to resell returned items as “used” products, Amazon
said. The other will allow sellers to use Amazon’s “wholesale resale
channel and technology” to recover a portion of their inventory cost
from returned items and excess stock.
In this article
Electronic waste is sorted and prepared for further processing reusing.LONDON — Amazon
has launched two programs as part of an effort to give products a
second life when they get returned to businesses that sell items on its
platform or fail to get sold in the first place.The so-called Fulfilment by Amazon programs, announced in a blog post on Wednesday, will help to build a circular economy, the company said.It comes less than two months after British broadcaster ITV reported
that Amazon is destroying millions of items of unsold stock at one of
its 24 U.K. warehouses every year, including smart TVs, laptops, drones
and hairdryers.
The online giant was sharply criticized by U.K.
lawmakers and environmental campaigners at the time and Prime Minister
Boris Johnson pledged to look into the allegations. In a blog post
on June 28, Greenpeace said ITV’s investigation showed it was clear
Amazon “works with within a business model built on greed and speed.”
The group also described the environmental and human cost of Amazon’s
wastefulness as “staggering.”
In response, Amazon had said it is
working toward a goal of zero product disposal and that no items are
currently sent to landfill in the U.K.The
first of Amazon’s new programs, known as “FBA Grade and Resell,” will
allow third-party businesses on Amazon to resell returned items as
“used” products, Amazon said.Under the program, returns are
automatically routed to Amazon for evaluation.
Once the product is
received, Amazon decides if it is: “Used - Like New, Used - Very Good,
Used - Good, or Used – Acceptable.” Sellers then set the price for the
item based on its condition.Amazon
said the program has been launched in the U.K., but it will be expanded
to the U.S. by the end of the year. FBA Grade and Resell will be rolled
out in Germany, France, Italy and Spain by early 2022.
The
company said a separate “FBA Liquidations” program will allow sellers to
use Amazon’s “wholesale resale channel and technology” to recover a
portion of their inventory cost from returned items and excess stock.
The program is live in the U.S., Germany, France, Italy and Spain, and is set to go live in the U.K. in August.“Customer
returns are a fact of life for all retailers, and what to do with those
products is an industry-wide challenge,”
Libby Johnson McKee, a
director at Amazon, said in a statement. “These new programs are
examples of the steps we’re taking to ensure that products sold on
Amazon — whether by us or our small business partners — go to good use
and don’t become waste.”McKee added: “We hope these help build a
circular economy and reduce our impact on the planet. And we’re excited
that these program will also help the businesses selling on Amazon
reduce costs and grow their businesses.”
The whole thing is absolutely daft, what a waste of resources! Why don´t they donate these items to local schools or give to charities?
Its such a shame that they only did this when it was exposed to the world! But it doesn´t matter, it´s the end result that matters and they are doing something positive about the situation.
Good on you Amazon.
The blog song for today is " It´s a hard life¨by Queen
I’d
like to take a moment to introduce myself to you. Ko James tōku ingoa
and I’m the new Seabed Mining Campaigner for Greenpeace Aotearoa.
Ko Māhuhu-ki-te-rangi te waka
Ko Taurere te maunga
Ko Tāmaki te awa
Ko Ngāti Whātua te iwi
Ko Te Uri O Hau te hapū
Ko James Hita ahau ,
I’d
like to take a moment to introduce myself to you. Ko James tōku ingoa
and I’m the new Seabed Mining Campaigner for Greenpeace Aotearoa.
I began life as a young Māori boy growing up in urban Auckland. Living
in the suburbs of Tāmaki Makaurau I saw diversity, care, and compassion
amongst the community I grew to call family. Being raised in a community
with a large Pacific population, I developed a strong sense of home
with my Pacific brothers & sisters.
Whilst I saw happiness in the world, I also saw it being taken advantage
of. Our planet has been subjected to huge pressures from extractive
industries worldwide, being ripped apart for oil, gas, metals, and
minerals. I knew then that I needed to join my elders in fighting for
what is right: Protecting our natural environment.
The oceans are a direct lifeline to the people of the Pacific. A place
to harvest kaimoana, connect with one another, and to share knowledge.
Ko te wai te ora ngā mea katoa – water is the life giver of all things.
I’m humbled and privileged to be the Seabed Mining Campaigner at
Greenpeace Aotearoa, working to protect the ocean that is such a huge
part of my identity and culture.
There is a huge threat on the horizon. Seabed mining companies
are eyeing up the Pacific to yet again take advantage of its resources.
Dredging up soil from the bottom of the ocean, taking what is of “value”
to the industry, then pumping back the rest in a sediment plume,
leaving a trail of darkness and destruction behind.
The seabed mining industry PR spin promises untold riches and a
seemingly magical ability to do no harm, but their promises are empty
and their words are hollow. We’ve just recently seen a glaring example
of how untrustworthy the seabed mining industry is right here in
Aotearoa. The Media Council upheld a complaint by our allies Kiwis
Against Seabed Mining, and found two statements in an industry opinion
piece defending seabed mining in the South Taranaki Bight, contained
lies. A decision by the Supreme Court around Trans Tasman Resources’
(TTR) bid to carry out seabed mining in the South Taranaki Bight is
looming.
The good news is that it hasn’t started at full scale yet and we can stop it together!
I’ll be working to amplify the voices of indigenous people fighting
this industry, sharing their stories of resistance against this
dangerous new form of extraction. You can take a stand right now, by
learning more about the issue, sharing conversations about the risk of
seabed mining, and adding your name to the ever growing list of people
who want to see a ban on seabed mining both in NZ and around the world.
We’re calling for New Zealand to become the first country in the world to ban seabed mining - closing the doors to this nascent industry.
Many
communities in the Pacific are already mobilising to keep the mining
machines out, and as their neighbour it’s essential we join this call.
I look forward to sharing with you; the stories of the Pacific, and the
actions we can all take to stop seabed mining in its tracks. In the
meantime whanau, stay safe, warm, and healthy.
Ngā mihi nui koutou,
This sounds absolutely fantastic, if anyone has the time to sign the petition that would be really great.
If one country starts then the rest are sure to follow. As individuals we can all try to do our bit, but we need governments on board too, after all they are individuals too.
It is too late to stop some things but from now on we can slow down others. It is the responsibility of our generation now to do something.
The blog song for today is "Moonshadow" by Cat Stevens
In June, a heat dome descended over the Pacific Northwest, sending temperatures soaring 30 to 40 degrees above normal. It was so hot that plants scorched in the soil, roads cracked, and streetcar cables melted in temperatures that reached over 115 degrees Fahrenheit.
Then, in July, extreme floods ripped through northwest Europe, leaving at least 199 dead. The same happened in China’s Henan province, where subways flooded, roads collapsed, and at least 99 people died. And last week, yet another heat dome swept the US, putting 17 states under some form of heat advisory.
Scientists and activists have been warning about climate
change for decades — and plenty of people around the world have
experienced its effects long before now. John Paul Mejia, for example,
became a climate organizer as a Miami high school student, after seeing
what Hurricane Irma did to “people who both looked like me, and came
from the same background as I did.” (Climate change didn’t cause
Hurricane Irma, but it did worsen its impacts.)
“These are the harbingers of climate change that
have now arrived in Germany,” said German Minister of the Environment
Svenja Schulze in response to the flooding in northwest Europe earlier
this year.
Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images
“I understood the climate fight through the justice lens
from experience, not from an article,” Mejia, now a spokesperson for the
Sunrise Movement, which mobilizes youth to fight climate change, told
Vox.
But through the events of this summer, many Americans —
including those from more affluent communities that have been insulated
so far — have seen more direct and devastating impacts of climate change
on their own lives. For a lot of people, that can come with a sense of
despair: What can one person possibly do to save a world literally on fire?
“What happens is, when people first realize how bad it is, they feel powerless,” Mary Annaïse Heglar, a climate writer and co-creator of the podcast Hot Take, told Vox. With the extreme weather this year, “there’s a new wave of new people realizing how bad it is.”
Indeed, 40 percent of Americans feel helpless about climate change, and 29 percent feel hopeless, according to a December 2020 survey.
It’s also no surprise that these emotions are coming up during a
devastating pandemic — yet another global disaster over which individual
humans have seemingly little control.
To help stop climate change, we’ve sometimes been told to
change our personal habits: recycle, reuse, take shorter showers, etc.
But these individual choices are dwarfed by the actions of corporations
and countries.Just 100 companies are responsible for 70 percent of the world’s carbon emissions since 1988, according to one study,
and sweeping changes aren’t possible without government intervention.
Not to mention the fact that poverty and other factors constrain the
choices many people can make in the first place.
That’s why it will take government action, not just
individual sacrifice, to meaningfully rein in emissions. For example,
Congress could pass a nationwide clean electricity standard,
requiring utilities to get their electricity from renewable sources
like solar, rather than fossil fuels. Without that, even supposedly
environmentally-friendly individual decisions like driving an electric
car may not mean much, since that electricity could still come from
burning coal. And only governments have the money and authority for the improvements to public transit and other infrastructure that are needed to dramatically reduce emissions over the long term.
In recent years, there’s been growing awareness
of the outsize role that big companies and government entities play in
climate change. “We’ve really changed the conversation around climate
change away from individual action, which I think we really needed to
do,” Heglar said. However, now we’re “in danger of the pendulum swinging
too far,” she said, with people thinking “they can’t do anything at
all.”
Here are some ways Americans can think about — and act on — climate change
Giving upon our climate is not an
option, experts and advocates say. As Mejia puts it, “cynicism serves no
purpose but to uphold the status quo.”
Instead, people who’ve been steeped in climate action for
years or decades have some advice for those who might feeling powerless
today in the face of the problem.
Don’t try to do everything. Do what you can.
Individual “green” behaviors aren’t enough to stop
climate change on their own. And not all people have the same ability to
reduce their carbon footprints. Many Americans can’t afford solar
panels or insulation for their hot water heaters
— many others don’t live in places where they can control such things.
Time is also a factor — reducing waste in a society designed to produce a
lot of it is labor-intensive, and that labour often falls
disproportionately on women, as Alden Wicker reported at Vox.
So rather than beating ourselves up when we fall short of
environmental perfection — or criticizing others when they do — we can
choose the most meaningful actions that are doable for us. Things like
reducing consumption of animal products, driving less, and taking fewer
airplane flights likely have the biggest impact on our personal carbon use.
Everyone’s capabilities are different. Overall, “it’s
important to find the ways that you can reduce your consumption, that
work for your lifestyle and within your means,” Heglar said.
And it’s important to remember that those consumption
decisions are just the beginning. “It’s a good starting point, but it’s a
really dangerous stopping point,” Heglar said. People need to exercise
their power as consumers, but remember that they have power as citizens
and community members, too.
Think communally
The most important step, many say, is collective action.
In America, “we have such a myth of individualism,” said Humboldt
State’s Ray, also the author of A Field Guide to Climate Change: How to Keep Your Cool on a Warming Planet.
That myth can make people feel “that they have no power, because they
can’t do anything against such as something so big as climate change.”
For many in climate movements, the antidote to that feeling — and the
way to build real power — is to band together.
At the Sunrise Movement, for example, that means advocating for a Green New Deal, alongside other priorities like climate investment in the infrastructure deal currently before Congress. The movement has hosted marches across the country in recent months to bring the Biden administration’s attention to the problem, as well as reaching out to more than 6.5 million voters in the 2020 election.
“Since the winds of change are blowing,” Mejia says, “why don’t we make them sail in our direction
The Sunrise Movement is just one of many groups working
on climate advocacy today, and for some, getting involved with
collective action can seem as daunting as reducing your individual
carbon footprint: Where do you even start? For Heglar, the answer is
simple: “You do what you’re good at, and you do your best.”
“If you’re good at organizing, organize. If you’re good
at taking care of people, take care of people who do other things,”
Heglar said. And “no matter who you are, build community.”
Around the world, people are already working on communal
solutions to environmental degradation, and have been for generations,
whether that’s Indigenous firefighting practices or the fight to protect the rainforest in Colombia. And for Americans looking for ways to join together to help one another and the planet, there are many options, like local mutual aid groups that help communities cope with the impact of climate change, such as by providing water and sunscreen during heat waves. Local Buy Nothing groups can help people reduce waste by giving away and sharing used items.
Putting pressure on elected officials is one of the most important collective actions people can take. People can urge their representatives in governments, state legislatures, and city governmentsto
support climate investments, public transit, and clean energy
standards, for example.
Getting involved in communities doesn’t just multiply
your impact — it can also stave off despair. Ray has seen this in her
classes at Humboldt State, in which she encourages students to build
trust, express their feelings about climate change, and essentially
practice for going out into the wider world. “The alleviation of anxiety
that happens when you’re working towards a common goal, even if it’s a
really depressing one, in community is actually very joyful and very
fulfilling,” she said.
Think long-term
Just as no one person can fix climate change, the crisis
isn’t going to be solved overnight — and it may not be “solved” in a
conventional way at all. In order to confront this fact, people need to
think of fighting climate change as a long-term process they engage with
over time, Heglar said.
We should see the problem “in the same realm that you
would see reproductive justice or racial justice or any other justice
issue,” she explained. “You would never say, what’s the one thing I can
do about racism?”
Especially since the uprisings last summer following the murder of George Floyd, more people — especially white people — arebeginning
to internalise the idea that the fight against racism will be a
long-term struggle, one that probably won’t ever be “over,” but that
they have a responsibility to keep committing to, again and again. And
racial justice activists have experience working for a cause that can
seem hopeless, and confronting an existential risk to themselves and
their families — but they keep doing the work anyway.
It’s also important to remember that for many communities
the world over, facing a major threat to the present and future is
nothing new. Anti-colonial and abolitionist movements “have had long
traditions of movement resilience that have a lot to teach the climate
movement,” Ray noted, including the message that climate change is not
“the first and only existential threat we’ve ever faced.”
Indeed, social movements from the opposition to apartheid
in South Africa to Indigenous rights activism here in the US have “seen
a lot of reason for despair, and no evidence for hope, and have still
figured out how to fight the fight,” Ray said.
Seek joy, but allow for grief
The fight against climate change can be slow, difficult,
and painful. But in order to stay committed for the long haul, people
need to think about the positive too, Ray said, to “actively discipline
into your life the cultivation of joy.”
That could mean something as simple as reading news about environmental success stories or successful activism in your local community. Ray is involved in a local group with the Just Transition movement,
which works toward an equitable shift away from fossil fuels, and says
“the newsletter that they send me is enough to keep me going.”
“The world is awful,” Ray said. “And there’s so much beauty, joy, and delight to be had too.”
Cliff divers spend time at High Rocks Park in Portland during the heat dome that descended over the Pacific Northwest in June.
Nathan Howard/Getty Images
It’s also okay to feel the awfulness of the world. After
all, climate change for many people today means risk to themselves or
their loved ones, or destruction of their homes or places they’ve come
to love. And part of acknowledging climate anxiety and grief, for people
not yet personally affected by disasters, can be asking yourself, “If I
am hurting so much, what is happening to people who are less
privileged?” Kritee, a senior climate scientist at the Environmental
Defense Fund, recently told the New York Times.
People who have been involved in climate science or
activism for years still feel sorrow, despair, or rage, Heglar said. In
fact, “I feel comforted by the fact I can still feel that way, because
it means I’m not desensitised,” she said. “I never want to be that
person who can look at the world burn and feel fine.”
But when climate grief or despair become overwhelming,
the key is to reach out to others in your community. “You are not the
only one feeling this way,” Heglar said, adding that “it benefits the
fossil fuel industry when you think you are. So find the other people
who are feeling it too.”
Given all this, it’s no surprise that “all of a sudden, everybody’s going into nihilism,” as Heglar puts it.
But experts say we’re notcompletely
powerless, and there’s a way to live in an age of climate change
without giving up or sticking your head in the sand. It’s not
necessarily about going vegan or making your home zero-waste, either.
The idea of reducing your personal carbon footprint,
while not inherently wrong, has often been used as a distraction,
“pitting working people against each other with morality choices about
how sustainable you are,” rather than “realizing how much you actually
have in common,” Mejia said.
Instead, many say the key to fighting despair is to think
beyond the individual and seek community support and solutions —
especially those that put pressure on governments and companiesto
make the large-scale changes that are necessary to truly curtail
emissions. As Heglar put it, “the most detrimental thing to climate
action is this feeling that we’re all in it alone.”
Many Americans are recognizing the reality of climate change
Climate anxiety and despair are far from new phenomena. But thisdisastrous summer has drivenhome
the message that the changing climate “is not something we can avoid,”
Sarah Jaquette Ray, leader of the Environmental Studies Program at
Humboldt State University, told Vox. “I’m literally talking to you from
the smoke right now.”
That message is showing up in polling. About a third of Americans
(and two-thirds of Republicans) still don’t believe that humans are
causing climate change, but a lot of people have been growing more
concerned in recent years. This year, for example, 50 percent of
participants in a Morning Consult poll
said the changing climate poses a “critical threat” to American
interests, up 6 percentage points from 2019 and 10 points from 2017.
American attitudes about what to do about climate change
are evolving too. Carbon emissions have often been treated as a problem
to be solved by changing our personal consumption habits, with an
explosion of green products
aimed at capitalizing on people’s desire to be environmentally
friendly. Aside from the irony of getting people to buy more stuff as a
way of reducing their environmental impact, this approach also obscured
the real culprits, many say: companies that produce or use large amounts
of fossil fuels, and governments that have been far too slow to curb
emissions.
Indeed, oil companies like ExxonMobil have used
sophisticated PR campaigns to make climate change seem like an issue of
personal responsibility, and deflect blame away from their own actions, as Rebecca Leber reported for Vox.
“A lot of the individualist solutions that have propagated across
society and across our discourse, such as the carbon footprint and the
idea of self-sacrifice in order to save the planet, really have the
fingerprints of a few oil companies,” Mejia said.
In truth, the biggest contributors to carbon emissions in the United States, transportation, electricity, and industry,
are only partly under individuals’ control. People can choose to use
less energy in their homes, but household electricity use only accounts
for about 10 percent of CO2 emissions in the US — even getting rid of it
entirely wouldn’t be enough to stop climate change. And while some
people can choose to drive an electric car or go car-free, they can’t
individually shut down coal plants or redesign America’s public transit
systems to make that an option for everyone.
It is something to think about and take heart over. We can do our bit as normal people but we need to put pressure on those big companies who surely must have children and grandchildren in the families of the owners. Is it a case of we´re all okay, we aren´t going to think of anyone else or the planet, well I hate to break it to you but the awful stuff will filter it´s way to you somehow. I am sure that one way or another they have been affected by the severe climate changes, fires, floods and tornadoes!
Onward we all must go, thinking positive and knowing that if each of us makes a small change the ripple effect will be awesome.
The blog song for today is "Chelsea Dagger" the Fratellis
The government’s landmark Environment Bill is nearing the end of a
complex and fraught journey. When Parliament returns on 6 September,
Peers will debate and vote on a series of key amendments.
The bill is expected to pass in the autumn ahead of the COP26 summit,
where we hope that it will help spur successful negotiations.
The bill is also destined to kickstart domestic action to address
environmental challenges ranging from toxic air in cities to worsening
river pollution to species decline and habitat loss to our throwaway
society.
The main question likely to exercise Peers is whether the bill – and
the new environmental governance system at its heart – is fit for
purpose and equipped to stand the test of time. While the environmental
credentials of current Defra ministers are well established, their
enthusiasm will not necessarily be shared by their successors, so legal frameworks must be durable, and clarity and ambition embedded rather than assumed.
The environmental NGO community has been working tirelessly on the bill ever since it was a glint in the eye
of ministers. The final throes of a bill’s passage are when amendments
not initially proposed by the government can be progressed. But this
process is far from trivial as changes must be agreed by all government
departments.
At this stage in the parliamentary process, a degree of pragmatism
must therefore set in. While there are of course many other areas where
the bill could potentially be strengthened, these improvements are
essential ‘must have’ changes that we hope to see come to pass. They are
also necessary to justify the world leading badge that the government
craves to pin to this bill.
Environmental governance to stand the test of time At
the heart of the new governance system lie a set of five environmental
principles and the new oversight body, the Office for Environmental
Protection (OEP). While ministers will have to respect these principles
in their policy making, policy relating to two key areas – defence and
spending – will largely be carved out. These loopholes must be closed.
The OEP’s independence and powers have been a standout issue in every
parliamentary debate. The appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey as the
first Chair has been universally welcomed, but her high calibre is no
guarantee that future appointments will be made to similar high
standards. A greater role for Parliament in the hiring and firing of
board members would be a welcome additional safeguard. This would mirror
existing arrangements
for several other oversight bodies and would not interfere with
ministers’ commitment to ensuring prudent use of public resources.
The power of the Secretary of State to instruct the OEP on how to
develop and implement its enforcement policy has unsurprisingly come
under considerable attack as a slight to the body’s independence. Rethinking this will be essential if the bill is to proceed with the Lords’ blessing.
Concerns that developers and private interests have been given
priority over the environment in the new enforcement system have been
highlighted in Parliament and by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law.
Peers have proposed a middle way in which unlawful decisions can be
effectively remedied and the interests of third parties considered.
An ambitious targets framework will help drive nature’s recovery Comparison
with the Climate Change Act reveals some key differences in how the
government is planning to set and meet environmental targets. Businesses
have called for
greater certainty to support investment and to drive ambition through
binding rather than optional milestones and requiring environmental
improvement plans to set out policies and proposals for how the targets
will be achieved.
Our wildlife and green spaces are under threat, in some cases
existentially. But the glitch in the government’s otherwise welcome
target on species abundance risks missing an opportunity to drive and
sustain a better future for our wildlife. This could be addressed
through the simplest of amendments.
Adding a requirement for habitats created through biodiversity net
gain to be maintained for 125 years, not 30 years, would add an
intergenerational dimension to this welcome policy. Boosting the role
that local nature recovery strategies will play in local planning and
spending decisions and guiding the new powers for ministers to revise
the habitats regulations towards enhancing site and species protections
would complete an ambitious nature package.
On resources and waste, the measures in the bill are designed to move
us toward a more circular economy that keeps materials in use for
longer. This is very welcome but one of the powers in the bill jars with
this holistic approach. Broadening the power to charge for single use
plastic items to cover all single use items would better fit with the
tenor of government policy and help avoid the risk of unintended and
harmful material substitution.
Seizing the opportunity to reduce our global footprint Ministers
have clarified that the powers in the bill can be used to set a target
to reduce our global environmental footprint. But such a target is
absent from the first tranche and there is no clarity on when it would be brought forward. As research from WWF shows, a 2030 target is necessary but is not possible under the current bill framework.
The government has pledged to tackle global deforestation through a
new measure in the bill to require businesses to undertake due diligence
on their supply chains and through a prohibition on certain high risk
forest commodities. As the new system is based on the eradication of
illegal deforestation, there is an inherent risk
that producer countries may seek to change or fudge their laws to
accommodate the new provisions. The inbuilt review within the bill
assumes a greater importance in this context and should be more
expansive to enable the due diligence system to keep pace with global
change.
I should imagine that most of the governments of Europe are facing the same issues. It is the time to tackle this problem head on. We cannot waste any more time and energy wringing our hands and doing nothing. Everyone has to do their bit, no matter how small they think it is, something is better than nothing.
Small steps lead to big changes. The small changes I have made for me and my family have now started to be noticed. I make all my own cleaning products along with soap, shampoo, shower gel and even mosquito repellant. I try to buy products not packaged in plastic as much as I can, but this is not always possible, especially with water. Unfortunately the water where we live is not drinkable and we have to buy bottled. I normally buy as large as possible, I cannot remember the last time I bought a small bottle of water, so that is a change. When I recycle now, I have noticed that it is only once or twice a week, which is fantastic, because before it was every other day. I buy tinned cat food because the pouches are not recyclable for our kitties and that makes a huge difference.
The blog song for today is: " Happy Hour" by the Housemartins
If you’ve painted your house, refinished your floors, or switched
your lightbulbs from CFLs to LEDs, chances are you had some leftover
products containing dangerous ingredients. Paints, cleaners, batteries,
and pesticides are among the common household materials that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies as household hazardous waste (HHW):
EPA considers some leftover household products that can
catch fire, react, or explode under certain circumstances, or that are
corrosive or toxic as household hazardous waste.”
Many types of HHW aren’t recyclable; for those products, the focus is
on keeping hazardous materials out of the landfills and water supply.
Let’s take a closer look at why proper storage and disposal of these
common household products is so important.
1. Why should I care about HHW?
First, it’s the law. The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) put rules in place for the storage, handling, and disposal of
HHW. If you dispose of it improperly (for example, pour it down the
drain), you are likely breaking the law.
Second, HHW often contains toxic chemicals like cadmium, lead, and mercury. There’s a reason you can no longer find paint containing lead or alkaline batteries containing mercury. They present a health hazard to people, animals, and the environment.
2. How do I identify HHW?
Unfortunately, household hazardous waste is rarely labeled explicitly. Some words to look for on the container include:
Signals
Characteristics
Caution
Corrosive
Danger
Flammable
Poison
Reactive
Warning
Toxic
If you see any of these words on the label, you’re dealing with a
hazardous material. Store the product away from children and pets.
Dispose of any remaining product through the proper channel.
3. Where do I find HHW?
You’ll most often find hazardous household products in the garage, in
the form of automotive fluids, paint, or pesticides. They are also
common in the kitchen (aerosol cans, cleaning supplies, fire extinguishers), bathroom (medications, nail polish, hypodermic needles), and living areas (batteries, electronics, thermostats).
4. Who accepts HHW for disposal?
Because household hazardous waste comes in two forms, liquid and solid, they have different disposal options.
Most solid HHW, including batteries and fluorescent bulbs, has been classified as universal waste.
This means relaxed collection and storage requirements that allow
retailers to collect these items for safe disposal. For example, Home
Depot and Lowe’s accept used compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), Best Buy
and Staples collect electronics, and most electronic retailers accept
rechargeable batteries and cell phones.
Liquid HHW is one of the most frequently banned materials
from landfills in America, so you should find a safe disposal option.
Unfortunately, only local municipalities will offer free collection. If
your community doesn’t offer HHW collection you can take it along to the waste disposal site in town. If you are a business and dispose of a lot of this material you will have to pay. However, some object to this because they say they already pay for rubbish collection and why should they pay more. If they are a business surely they can include the cost for disposal in their quotation and following invoice for this disposal, so in effect they are not really paying at all.
Check with your local waste management program for instructions for the proper disposal of HHW.
5. When can I get rid of HHW?
Some communities operate permanent HHW facilities where you can take it year-round. These facilities are often residency restricted,
which means you can’t use the community’s facility unless you reside
there.
If you have unused medications, every chemist here in Menorca and probably in most places have a drop box where you can leave everything.
6. What happens to HHW?
Some forms of household hazardous waste can be recycled. You may be familiar with the acronym ABOP,
which stands for “antifreeze, batteries, oil, and paint.” All of these
products are recyclable, as well as aerosol cans, CFLs, mercury
thermostats, and oil filters.
HHW that isn’t recycled or reused is typically incinerated
through a process that significantly limits the release of pollutants
into the air. Scrubbers collect emissions at the incinerator smokestack,
according to EPA rules.
Take the time to dispose of household hazardous waste properly. It
will protect your family and property from contamination and improve the
local environment.
This is just a small thing that is quite easy to do, and it does make a difference.
The blog song for today is: "Rat trap", by the Boom Town Rats
Below is a really good report from : https://only.one
It is an organisation totally dedicated to all matters concerning the sea.
A report by Tyler Dunning, an environmental writer.
Deep Dive
The planet is being ravaged by plastics and stopping it requires more than recycling. Prevention starts with mitigating production.
Plastics have visibly contaminated our ocean and afflicted countless marine species. Because they’re derived from fossil fuels, they have contributed heavily to the heating of our planet and have spread petrochemicals ubiquitously through our water and soil and air. They’ve also had disturbing consequences for public health.
The statistics are so dire that they are difficult to conceptualize: that by 2050 there could be more plastic in the ocean than fish; that a garbage truck’s worth of plastic enters the ocean every minute; that microplastics are now being detected in utero and that petrochemicals are diminishing the ability of current and future generations to reproduce—all while a mighty few profit from plastic production.
But here’s the better news: we don’t live alone in this world of accumulating hazards. Collectively, our voices can bring global accountability to the goliath interests that have gone unchecked for far too long. By treating pollution as a symptom and not the disease, we can finally address this plastics crisis at the source.
Plastic has a young yet complex story. This “material of a thousand uses,” though still revolutionary and advantageous in many aspects, has resulted in an even greater number of misuses and dire consequences. The most obvious is marine pollution.
Damage from pollution is escalating—it’s estimated that by 2040 there will be 110 pounds of plastic for every three feet of coastline on the planet · Shawn Heinrichs
About half of all plastics float. Other types, such as vinyl, sink like stones. Because of this, plastic products bob on the water’s surface while simultaneously littering the deepest reaches of the seafloor · Cristina Mittermeier
Beach surveys consistently report that 60 to 80 percent of coastal pollution is plastic · Shawn Heinrichs
Plastic debris was initially observed in the ocean in the late 1960s, and a mere thirty years later, the first of five major “garbage patches” was discovered. Think of these as massive aquatic areas of trash soup—regions formed by circulating currents, called gyres, that navigate debris to central stagnant locations. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, situated between California and Japan, was initially thought to have the same surface area as France, but is now more accurately estimated at three times that size. The five main gyres that form garbage patches collectively cover 40 percent of the ocean’s surface—and plastic production, as no surprise, correlates directly to the accumulating debris.
We’ve unfortunately become too familiar with—and desensitized to—viral videos and images of sea turtles with plastic straws lodged in their nasal cavities, or the decayed remains of albatross with exposed stomachs full of bottle caps and cigarette lighters, or tiny seahorses latched to floating cotton swabs as if courting a friend. Lost and discarded fishing nets, also made of plastic, have become a major ocean pollutant and indiscriminate killer. The toll taken on marine species is incalculable, agonizing, and simply unacceptable.
It’s very common for marine life to get tangled in discarded fishing gear, like plastic nets or line, and drown. This green sea turtle is one such casualty · Shane Gross
If you trace the petrochemical thread from pollution back to production, one theme repeats: unnecessary suffering. Because of this, marine species must increasingly navigate the plastic minefield overtaking their seascape · Sam Hobson
Single-use plastics are made from fossil fuels that can take hundreds of millions of years to formulate. Yet, these items—like bottle caps, fast food packaging, and grocery bags—may only get used for seconds or minutes. Once in the ocean, they may never biodegrade · Cristina Mittermeier
The first plastic was invented in 1869, a substance called celluloid that could be made to replicate the aesthetics of wildlife: tortoiseshell, linen, ivory. Many applauded it as a savior of animals. Nearly a century and a half later, a darker truth has been revealed · Caroline Power Most nets are now made of nylon, a strong and cheap form of plastic that doesn't easily breakdown. When lost or discarded, these nets can tumble across shallow reefs, snagging and destroying the live coral along their path · Richard Whitcombe
To a less visible degree, nature can’t completely decompose plastic molecules—debris degrades into smaller and smaller pieces, but almost never biodegrades—allowing these “forever” micro- and nanoplastics to contaminate ecosystems across the globe. They’ve been detected from the top of Mount Everest to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Microplastics get ingested by a whole suite of organisms, from plankton to krill to larger vertebrates, which then get eaten by even larger predators.
This bioaccumulation of plastic makes its way to the top of any food web—including our own dinner plates.
Many of us have been literally screaming about this gigantic, out of control problem for years, and yet even with the latest report from the IPCC, when I look around this beautiful planet that is, after all the only home we have, the destruction that WE HUMANS are doing baffles me.
I will give you an example, close to home, here on Menorca, this month of August, we have had hundreds of thousands of visitors who come to this island for the peace and quiet. What a joke, when I do get the brave up and go into town, I don´t see happy smiling "we are on holiday" faces, I see angry ones instead. The town is completely packed, there are cars everywhere, even though there is a limit in place on the amount of hire cars on the island, this is because people have brought their own cars with them, clever heh! Thanks a bunch, now the roads are constantly jammed, especially to the ferry port, which they all came from and go to, there are reports in the local papers of cars parked at local beaches for 2 km, along the small lanes around these places.
The amount of accidents on the roads have increased (naturally) which puts a tremendous strain on the heatlh service already under pressure. The whole situation is laughable. The government here are saying that it is bringing money to the island, I would love to know how that is, a lot are staying in hotels owned by chains, based out of Menorca, and some out of Spain. The people who come from the mainland go to Mercadona, which is not based here, but on the mainland, also Lidl (A german company) so all the money goes off the island.
There is also the problem of when people go the the virgin beaches (so clean and unspoilt) they are not so when they leave. They buy all their picnics and drinks etc to take to the beach, but for some reason feel that they don´t have to take the empty bottles, containers back with them, it´s as if they imagine that we have a huge army of cleaners here who work at night to clean up after them!
I and many others will be so pleased when we reach September, this month has been absolutely awful! There are many people who live here who have been wondering what happened and how come the balearic government allowed the quantity of visitors to come here, I have read somewhere that other Islands have limited the amount of visitors they let on. I do believe that something like that needs to happen here.
Fingers crossed that those public officials realise that money is not everything and quality of life means so much more than a few more euros in the bank, sitting there, doing nothing.
The blog song for today is "Give a little bit" by Supertramp
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22764607/GettyImages_1332385126_copy.jpg)
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22764771/GettyImages_1233694107_copy.jpg)
