Drama Mama Climate Change Signs

[AhMeng]

30 Clever Signs Spotted At The 2019 Global Climate Strike

Millions of people around the world marched for the Global Climate Strike on September 20, asking the world leaders to take action against climate change. Carried out in different parts of the world, the protest was participated in by young people and adults as they take their demands and climate strike signs to the streets.

The series of protests was conducted three days before the Climate Action Summit at the UN Headquarter in New York.

It’s an obvious fact that climate change is killing our planet. But why are our leaders so mum about this environmental issue? As climate change worsens, global warming and dangerous weather conditions become more frequent and severe. The entire world became a witness when a massive, unstoppable wildfire engulfed the Amazon rainforest. Dubbed as ‘the lungs of the Earth’, the Amazon rainforest produces 20 percent of the world’s oxygen. Now, imagine it being wiped out from the surface of the Earth. We can only think of the worse. Climate change, among others, is one of the factors that could’ve contributed to the wildfire.

The tragic fate of the Amazon rainforest is only the beginning. If we don’t take action now, expect the worse events to happen in the near future. Aiming to persuade the world leaders to prioritize the environment over global economic growth, people stormed the streets with climate strike signs to get the message across. While the objective remains unified, protesters have their own unique ways of creating their own climate strike signs. Besides, creative protest signs are more likely to draw more attention. And that’s the idea behind it all.

These protesters, young and old, really have something to say about the issue. And you know what they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, a sign is worth a million words. We’ve picked out the most interesting (and most comical) climate strike signs from different parts of the world. It’s true indeed, artistic and creative skills naturally comes out when the situation calls for it.

awlilnatty

birgit_maass

DunneBreen

JoshButler

PWDAustralia

cruticus

karagiannis_c
Scroll down to check out more examples of clever and funny climate strike signs

MW_Unrest

cruticus

cruticus

Ganjm001

mrbenjaminlaw

ALeighMP

FairAusPol

ALeighMP

MW_Unrest

JuaniTheEmpath

thejoshmaxwell

FairAusPol

alexanasta_

MsKateLyons

itsjamesherring

itsjamesherring

courtwhip

zentouro

SalesyNewy

lukehgomes

itsjamesherring

naamanzhou

 

[nayr69sg]

All look like stupid people wouldn't you agree?

 

[Leongsam]

By Scott Walker - - Thursday, September 26, 2019

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The “climate change” movement is full of hypocrites:

• Politicians who fly in private jets but tell the rest of us to consider a world without planes.
• Movie stars advocating that we ditch our vehicles when their idea of mass transit is a stretch limo.
• Activists preaching that America has to cripple our economy while posting on their iPhones made in China.
• Candidates telling us we have to give up meat while helping grill 10,500 steaks in Iowa.
There is plenty of hypocrisy to go with all of their hype. But what about the hype?

As Aaron Rodgers would say, “R-E-L-A-X.” The world is not going to end in 12 years.

Remember all of the times former Vice President Al Gore predicted doom and gloom? “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslaw] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years,” said Mr. Gore on Dec. 14, 2009. But it did not happen. In 2014 and 2015, there was more arctic sea ice than in the previous years. Mr. Gore was as wrong as he is a hypocrite.

Around the time Mr. Gore won an Oscar for the best documentary feature, the Associated Press reported that Mr. Gore’s mansion in Nashville used more than 12 times the average amount of energy for a home in that area. That was his own inconvenient truth.

A decade later and Mr. Gore was still a hypocrite. He told Jake Tapper on CNN, “I live a carbon-free lifestyle, to the maximum extent possible.”

An analysis by the National Center for Public Policy Research at the time found that Mr. Gore’s mansion used more electricity in one month than the average family uses in 34 months. It noted that just the electricity used to heat the pool could power six homes for a year.

All of this after he installed new “green” updates. Ironically, the report says that Mr. Gore’s home used more electricity in 2016 than it did in 2007.

Mr. Gore claims to “live a carbon-free lifestyle, to the maximum extent possible,” really come from purchasing “carbon offsets” for the carbon dioxide related to the home. The report says that he pays $432 a month into a Green Power Switch program that helps fund renewable energy projects.

Carbon offsets are really a way for rich liberals to claim that they are helping fight climate change without changing their lifestyle. It is the modern-day selling of indulgences. The elites can pay the “high church of climate change activism” for the benefit of being forgiven for their sins of having a large carbon footprint while the masses have to change their lifestyles — all while still getting stuck with the bill.

Worst of all, there are many politicians who want to do things that will cripple our economy when the biggest threat actually comes from countries like China. A report in Power Engineering claims that China would add “290 GW of new coal-fired capacity this year — that is more than 10 percent higher than the entire U.S. existing coal-fired generation fleet of about 261 GW.”

There are many better solutions to preserving our natural resources that do not put America at a competitive disadvantage for little or no global impact:

Plant more trees. A 25 percent increase in the forested areas throughout the world has the potential to cut the atmospheric carbon pool by about 25 percent, according to a study released earlier this year.

Use more nuclear energy. Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide while operating. Plus, nuclear power plants already generate nearly 20 percent of the electricity in the United States and they operate over 90 percent of the time versus hydroelectric systems (under 40 percent), wind turbines (less than 35 percent) or solar (about 25 percent).

Conserve energy. One of the best ways to be green is to make green or save green. In other words, if you can make money or save money, it is truly sustainable - both economically as well as environmentally.

These ideas could be part of a Green Real Deal instead of the so-called Green New Deal. As reported, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff exposed the fraud saying that “the interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”

Saikat Chakrabarti went on to say to the governor of Washington, “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” In a weird sort of way, Ms. Chakrabarti did more to expose the hypocrisy of the Green New Deal than anyone on the right.

Think about that the next time you see a climate change protest on the news.

 

[Leongsam]

OPINION
03/31/2018 09:00 am ET
The Climate Change Hypocrisy Of Jet-Setting Academics
By Nives Dolšak and Aseem Prakash

JASON REED / REUTERS

Recently, we witnessed a fascinating conversation among a few of our professorial colleagues about their frequent flyer status on a prominent airline. Two of them had achieved “Diamond” status ― the very top of the priority boarding pecking order. They spoke the most and were the loudest. The others, with either Platinum or Gold frequent flyer medallions, also noted how “busy” they were with “all this travel.”
The group casually mentioned the various benefits ― such as seating upgrades and access to airport lounges ― that come with their statuses, but the bragging was not really about those perks. It was about importance and recognition. After all, only the most successful academics fly around the world, attending conferences, participating in workshops and giving lectures. Congratulations all around!

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
Support HuffPost
Also recently, 13 major universities launched the University Climate Change Coalition, or UC3, which seeks to “help local communities achieve their climate goals and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon future.” Several of these institutions are also participating in the Climate Leadership Network, a larger group of colleges and universities that have made a commitment to “take action on climate and prepare students through research and education to solve the challenges of the 21st century.”
But while these universities are working to help their communities take on climate change, academics are accumulating big carbon footprints with their jet-setting professional styles. As The New York Times noted, “Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel.”
This is a notable disconnect between what universities preach and what their culture incentivizes and their star professors do. Academics are probably among the people most aware of the threats posed by climate change. But might their own carbon-profligate lifestyles undermine their moral authority to demand that coal miners, Teamsters working on oil pipelines and mining-dependent Native American tribes sacrifice their own economic well-being to fight climate change?
Air Miles As Status Markers
What is the carbon footprint of flying? According to the Environmental Protection Agency, a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. One round trip flight from Washington, D.C., to Beijing generates 4.3 metric tons of CO2 per passenger seated in economy class, almost equivalent to the annual footprint of an average car. If you fly business class, multiply this by a factor of three.
When we have gently confronted our colleagues about carbon footprint issues in the past, we have received these sorts of reactions:

• We bike to work (or drive a Prius or a Leaf), therefore international or cross-country travel is OK.
• Because we are the global experts, travel is required to disseminate knowledge and to solve global problems.
• We buy carbon offsets.

These are good responses but ultimately not persuasive. The reality is that cross-country or international travel is an important status marker in our profession. Few academics want to give up this recognition they have probably earned after years of struggle and hard work.
The reluctance to unilaterally curb air travel also reflects a collective action problem. If “others” were to reduce their conference travel, I might be willing to go along. But what if they do not? To solve the free riding problem, universities should provide an assurance mechanism that levels the playing field.
How To Reduce The Carbon ‘Airprint’
As academics, we recognize that workshops, meetings and conferences are important for producing and disseminating knowledge. Our objective therefore is to reduce the carbon “airprint,” not eliminate travel.
One way is to increase the cost of travel by requiring professors and their funders to pay for the social cost of carbon. Higher travel costs would force academics to prioritize and they would travel only for the most important events. We suggest a two-step approach.
First, transparency.
Universities routinely require professors to fill out annual reports. What if these reports included a section on air travel? The university’s website could provide a carbon calculator that uses a standardized metric to assess the carbon airprint of their faculty’s professional travel.

In 2014, our school, the University of Washington, undertook a similar exercise. UW’s analysis of travel reimbursement data suggested that its professional travel that year amounted to 136 million miles and created 23,811 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Arguably, as with salary information, public universities could make the carbon airprint data publicly available. Let sunlight disinfect, as Justice Louis Brandeis had suggested.
Second, universities should establish an internal carbon tax.
Scholars have developed very good estimates of the social cost of carbon. Based on these estimates, universities could tax carbon emissions. Using the UW data, an internal carbon tax of $20 per ton (as per Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s 2018 proposal) would amount to slightly less than $500,000, a very small sum for a university with an operating budget of over $7 billion. The tax would be paid either by the department in which the traveler was located, or by the funding agency defraying the cost of the research-related travel. Of course, if the university hosting the professor wanted to pay the tax instead, that could be credited to the professor’s carbon account.
For equity reasons, a carbon tax should be tiered. Those below a specific travel threshold ― say 25,000 miles per year ― could be exempted. The marginal tax on carbon emissions could rise in a graduated fashion, with the rates for every tier adjusted so that on average, the university fully internalizes the social cost of carbon for the professional travel of its professors.
Universities could then use these funds to buy carbon offsets. Professors could buy offsets on their own as well and universities could then deduct the amount from that person’s carbon tax payment.
What About Academic Freedom?
Our proposal might be criticized on several grounds. First, it is plausible that we are exaggerating the scope of this travel problem. Academic travel probably constitutes only a small portion of all air travel. The UW study found that professional travel accounted for about 11 percent of the university’s total emissions.
But calculating carbon footprints is so easy, and carbon taxes would be such a minuscule part of the university budget, that the gains need not be huge. After all, universities that call for climate change action should at least scope out the problem internally and create base-level estimates of the carbon footprint for every professor.
Second, our proposal could be viewed as an assault on academic freedom. Arguably, professors and researchers should be able to travel wherever they wish, either to gather data or to present their findings. Any restriction on travel could be seen as constituting administrative intrusion into research, a very touchy issue in contemporary times.
In reality, most academic work is already subject to regulatory and administrative oversight. Take the case of human subject review. Universities want to ensure that their researchers pose minimum risk to any human subjects they study. Climate change poses the ultimate risk to the entire human population. Why not subject it to administrative review?
Universities As ‘True’ Climate Leaders
Our modest carbon budgeting proposal has several payoffs for universities. First, it would demonstrate to all stakeholders that universities were willing to walk the climate walk. Second, faced with a carbon budget, professors would have incentives to interact with their colleagues at other universities in novel ways.
Perhaps teleconferencing would become more popular. Maybe over time mega conferences with thousands of attendees would become less attractive as decentralized networks for knowledge exchange emerged. Instead of attending five major conferences every year, professors might start attending only two or three. And they might start looking for conferences within their time zones.
Academics are capable of finding the answers to most complex problems, including climate change. But their excellent research will be less effective in changing public policy and popular culture without their moral leadership. And moral authority comes when we are willing to forgo valuable things to serve the public purpose.
If there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is influenced by human beings, then academics should personally do something about it. Even if it means fewer conferences and less air travel.
Nives Dolšak is associate director of the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs and Aseem Prakash is the founding director of the Center for Environmental Politics at the University of Washington, Seattle.

 

[Leongsam]

The Top 12 Celebrity Climate Hypocrites

Alan Moore
March. 1. 2016
7.8kviews
0shares

Celebrities hate being called out for their hypocrisy.
In observance of this, we looked at 12 celebrities who are so disconnected from reality that they can’t see the hypocrisy in sitting in their big houses while condemning middle class Americans for driving too much, or for not switching their entire lifestyles to eco-friendly. These celebrities are worth a combined total of $1.9 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth.

We've also rated each celebrity on a scale of one to five, with five being the most hypocritical. These are the worst climate hypocrites:

When Leonardo DiCaprio isn't blaming conservatives for destroying the planet, he's cruising in his private yacht, or flying among the four houses he owns on both coasts. DiCaprio seems to think that his own air travel doesn’t affect the environment the way he claims it does for other people, even telling the German newspaper Bild that he planned to “fly around the world doing good for the environment.”
Report Author: Mike Ciandella

Starring in the nine-part alarmist Showtime documentary "Years of Living Dangerously," Cameron warned future generations were going to be left with a “world that’s in shambles” because of climate change. Yet, the director owns a collection of motorcycles, cars, dirt bikes, a yacht, a helicopter, a fleet of submarines and a Humvee fire truck.

According to the London Evening Standard (UK), despite telling British fans to “‘do their bit’ to tackle global warming,” Travolta has been “clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton’s tally.”
Travolta’s solution to climate change? “I’m wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.”
He added that “[e]veryone can do their bit. But I don’t know if it’s not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel.”

Where to begin with Al Gore? In 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (now the Beacon Center of Tennessee) found that Gore’s “20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average,” according to an ABC News online story.
Despite also briefly mentioning this in a newscast, ABC joined the other networks in praising Gore. In 2014 alone, there were five non-interview instances in which the networks praised Gore for being a “climate activist.”

Media mogul Arianna Huffington has committed an entire section of her Huffington Post website to environmentalism and climate change alarmism, yet she herself flies in a private jet.
According to Huffington, though, it’s not her jet that endangers the climate — it’s soccer moms and their SUVs. In 2003, she condemned SUV owners for “supporting terrorists,” in a series of television commercials. But when she was asked to clarify that comment by the liberal (and Soros-funded) outlet Mother Jones, she complained that “[t]here seems to be an epidemic of literal-mindedness at the moment.”
She claimed she was just creating satire. Not surprisingly, Mother Jones accepted this explanation, and fully endorsed Huffington's campaign, dubbed the "Detroit Project."

Jason Bourne might have his memories back, but Matt Damon can’t seem to remember how to follow his own advice on climate change.
Damon’s 2012 movie "Promised Land," which attempted to villainize the natural gas industry, was produced “in association with” Image Media Abu Dhabi, a company owned wholly by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
According to the CIA World Factbook, UAE exported $166 billion of crude oil in 2013. The UAE is also a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Oil producing nations have been very concerned by U.S. fracking for financial (not environmental) reasons.

Even among celebrities, there are few people more blatantly out of touch than Ian Somerhalder. The Lost and Vampire Diaries actor has tweeted from an airplane about the evils of taxi pollution. He’s also wished that people would stop driving cars – not because it would hurt the environment, but because it made him not want to open the windows in his apartment.
Somerhalder is also a prime example of a celebrity who puts up a facade of doing charitable work. The Ian Somerhalder Foundation, with its website full of pictures of the actor posing with animals, took in $522,384 in 2013, but only gave out $550 in donations. That’s close to 1/1000th of the money it received for environmental causes.

Woody Harrelson walks the walk more than most of the celebrities in this report, but only when he wants to. At the Cannes Film Festival in 2008, Harrelson realized that he had left his vegan belt and shoes behind, so he had them flown to France from California. Despite living in an “off-grid, eco-village community,” Harrelson’s home on Hawaii requires him to fly to the mainland several times a year for work and climate activism events.

In a new PSA for Conservation International, Roberts declared that nature has “fed species greater” than humans and has “starved species greater” than humans.
“Some call me nature. Others call me ‘Mother Nature’,” Roberts narrated ominously. “I’ve been here for over four and a half billion years -- 22,500 times longer than you. I don’t really need people, but people need me. Yes, your future depends on me. When I thrive, you thrive. When I falter, you falter. Or worse. But I’ve been here for eons. I have fed species greater than you, and I have starved species greater than you. My oceans. My soil. My flowing streams. My forests. They all can take you or leave you. How you choose to live each day, whether you regard or disregard me, doesn’t really matter to me. One way, or the other. Your actions will determine your fate, not mine. I am nature. I will go on. I am prepared to evolve. Are you?”
But Roberts owned at least part of a private jet through “pioneering fractional ownership company NetJets,” according to NBC News in 2006. Roberts has also been spotted boarding private jets with her family as recently as December 2013.

Gwyneth Paltrow teamed up with fellow actress Cameron Diaz to encourage Americans to switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs and hybrid cars in order to combat global warming. This team effort was part of a PSA from the Environmental Media Association. To show solidarity, the actresses added that they turn off their lights when they leave their bedrooms, and turn their thermostats “down to 65 degrees and wear a sweater” to conserve energy.
Paltrow and her ex-husband, Coldplay frontman Chris Martin, were criticized for insisting on being driven .06 miles between two celebrity get-togethers in 2012. Other celebrities, including Orlando Bloom, Miranda Kerr, Jane Fonda and Amy Smart, had no problem walking between the two events.
Despite stunts like this, Paltrow was ninth most influential climate change celebrity in 2011, according to The Guardian. Time magazine also listed her as one of “The 30 Most Influential People on the Internet.”
Paltrow’s London, England house with Martin lost 1,020 kWh of heat a year through poor insulation, according to a report by the British news outlet Building.co.uk, which used a thermal imaging camera to calculate energy loss. The couple also bought a $14 million Malibu estate.

When Climate Depot asked Mark Ruffalo at the 2014 People’s Climate March if people like Gore and DiCaprio are really the best spokespeople to “fight global warming” since they have huge “carbon footprints,” the actor was nothing short of dismissive.
“Oh brother,” Ruffalo responded. “That is a question you shouldn’t be asking here today because that defies the spirit of what this is about.”
He added that “[a]nyone who attacks Leonardo DiCaprio is either a coward or an ideologue.” Apparently there is no room for thinking poorly of DiCaprio’s habits of flying around the world to attend multiple parties in the same night, or borrowing the yacht of a Middle East oil billionaire -- twice.
Climate isn’t the only area where Ruffalo is a hypocrite. Despite joining the Occupy Wall Street protesters to rant against wealth and the financial industry, Ruffalo himself is worth $20 million.

As part of her faux-eco campaign, Diaz joined other celebrities in 2008 to make the MTV series Trippin’, which praised the planet’s most primitive lifestyles as being earth-friendly despite their high infant mortality rates and short life expectancies.
The 32-year-old Diaz, who earns a reported $20 million a movie, boasted that the cow-dung slathered walls of a Nepalese village hut were “beautiful” and “inspiring,” and she called the primitive practice of “pounding m&d” with sticks to construct a building foundation “the coolest thing.”
“I am going to go pound some m&d, baby! Mmm,” Diaz said to the cameras, adding “It was the coolest thing to be a part of." This was probably easier to say since it wasn’t necessary for her survival.
Despite the celebrities’ praise for the primitive life, Trippin’ showed them flying on multiple airplanes and chartering at least two helicopters and one boat to reach remote locations over the course of the first four episodes.
The series tried to explain the celebrities’ use of pollution-generating planes and SUVs to get from one remote location to another by featuring a program note at the end of each show which stated: “To reduce global warming, Trippin’ offset all of the energy used to make this show by supporting renewable energy products.”


So what do you think? Did we miss anyone? Download the whole report here (pdf).

 

[laksaboy]

Kids are very impressionable and propaganda works well on them.

Same old climate alarmist shit back in 1992.


Also, back when the dumbass millennials saw net neutrality as a matter of social justice, and took it to the streets.

Finally, leftists love to use children for their activism.

 

[syed putra]

I stopped using toilet paper and have not showered for 10 days to save the world.

 

[AhMeng]

I stopped using toilet paper and have not showered for 10 days to save the world.

Wow. 你真伟大。
Lol

 

[zeebjii]

The Top 12 Celebrity Climate Hypocrites



So what do you think? Did we miss anyone? Download the whole report here (pdf).

You miss our biggest climate change hypocrite PM Lee, who's lecturing sinkies to save the earth by using less plastic bags, while living it up in his gated and guarded mansion in Rochalie Drive.

 

[Valium]

@ginfreely's signboard.