Starbucks

Starbucks To Dairy-Shame Customers To Skip ‘Environmentally Unfriendly’ Whipped Cream

Evil methane-producing dairy cows give milk that is made into heavy cream that becomes whipped cream in your favorite coffee drink. Starbucks will now help you modify your behavior to give it up in order to save the planet.

Of course, Starbucks has long been on the forefront of all things progressive. Now it has completely succumbed to Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, and will use social engineering techniques to force a change in your behavior, but not theirs. ⁃ TN Editor

Starbucks released the results of its latest sweeping ‘sustainability’ audit and announced plans to become ‘resource positive’ late Tuesday, prompting analysts to ask: What, exactly, does that mean?

And although the company and many of its institutional shareholders have made a big deal about Starbucks’ sustainability rhetoric and celebrated its decision to phase out plastic straws to save the sea turtles, on Wednesday, investors shunned Starbucks shares (they were down more than 1%) as the company unveiled what Bloomberg described as its “ambitious goals” to reduce the environmental footprint that produces more waste every year to equal two Empire State buildings.

To wit, by 2030, the cafe chain is targeting 50% reductions in the amount of water it uses, the carbon it emits and trash it sends to landfills.

In “A Message From Starbucks’ CEO”, a blog post published Tuesday evening, CEO Kevin Johnson regaled readers with a history of Starbucks’ commitment to environmental responsibility, while rattling off a list of accomplishments.

But in the report, which was analyzed by Bloomberg, Starbucks’ hired environmental consultants warned customers that the best thing they could do to reduce the company’s harmful impact on the planet would be to buy cheaper drinks, and forego the milk.

That’s right: Instead of buying fancy frappucinos and indulgent espresso-based desserts, customers would do better to buy simple plain black espresso.

And if customers must have the frappucino, they should think about skipping the whipped cream.

Adding whipped cream to millions of Starbucks Corp. drinks emits 50 times as much greenhouse gas as the company’s private jet. Overall, dairy products are the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions across the coffee giant’s operations and supply chain.

As far as what Starbucks corporate can accomplish, the task does seem daunting.

The task is immense: Starbucks in 2018 was responsible for emitting 16 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, using 1 billion cubic meters of water and dumping 868 metric kilotons – more than twice the weight of the Empire State Building – of coffee cups and other waste. The audit was conducted with sustainability consultant Quantis and the World Wildlife Fund.

And Johnson admits that Starbucks can’t achieve its goals alone: It needs its customers to change their behavior as well.

“We know this journey will be challenging, we know we can’t do this alone, and we know this will require others to join us,” Chief Executive Officer Kevin Johnson said in an interview.

Read full story here…




Capitalism

Survey: The World Is Turning Against Capitalism

The United Nations’ propaganda war against Capitalism and Free Enterprise is paying off as a new global survey shows 56% agreeing that Capitalism does more harm than good. Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, is the only alternative offered. ⁃ TN Editor

A majority of people around the world believe capitalism in its current form is doing more harm than good, a survey found ahead of this week’s Davos meeting of business and political leaders.

This year was the first time the “Edelman Trust Barometer”, which for two decades has polled tens of thousands of people on their trust in core institutions, sought to understand how capitalism itself was viewed.

The study’s authors said that earlier surveys showing a rising sense of inequality prompted them to ask whether citizens were now starting to have more fundamental doubts about the capitalist-based democracies of the West.

“The answer is yes,” David Bersoff, lead researcher on the study produced by U.S. communications company Edelman.

“People are questioning at that level whether what we have today, and the world we live in today, is optimized for their having a good future.”

The poll contacted over 34,000 people in 28 countries, from Western liberal democracies like the United States and France to those based on a different model such as China and Russia, with 56% agreeing that “capitalism as it exists today does more harm than good in the world”.

The survey was launched in 2000 to explore the theories of political scientist Francis Fukuyama, who after the collapse of communism declared that liberal capitalist democracy had seen off rival ideologies and so represented “the end of history”.

That conclusion has since been challenged by critics who point to everything from the rising influence of China to the spread of autocratic leaders, trade protectionism and worsening inequality in the wake of the 2007/08 global financial crisis.

On a national level, lack of trust in capitalism was highest in Thailand and India on 75% and 74% respectively, with France close behind on 69%. Majorities prevailed in other Asian, European, Gulf, African and Latin American states.

Read full story here…




Trump Admin Will Approve Massive Alternative Energy Projects For Federal Land

Since President Trump has put the brakes on climate change policies, it is incongruous that the administration will now approve massive alternative energy projects on public lands, all of which will involve Public-Private-Partnerships. ⁃ TN Editor

The Trump administration is poised this year to do what congressional Democrats and other critics of the president’s “energy dominance” campaign have been demanding for months: advance large-scale renewable energy projects on federal lands.

By summer, the Bureau of Land Management plans to have issued records of decision (RODs) approving five commercial-scale solar and wind projects, as well as a major proposal to open 21,000 acres in Southern California for geothermal energy leasing, according to a BLM state-by-state priority project list obtained by E&E News.

To be sure, the priority list includes plenty of high-profile fossil fuel and mining projects, including issuing an ROD by April for a revised management plan that could open up sensitive wildlife habitat within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to oil drilling.

But the priority list under President Trump also includes target dates to issue final approvals for:

  • The Gemini Solar Project in Nevada, which would have the capacity to produce 690 megawatts of electricity, ranking it among the world’s largest photovoltaic power plants. Projected to sit on roughly 7,100 acres of BLM-managed lands about 33 miles northeast of Las Vegas, the project also includes a large solar storage capacity that would allow it to feed power to the energy grid after sundown.BLM in December published a final environmental impact statement (EIS) and proposed resource management plan amendment for the project in the Federal Register, kicking off a 30-day public protest period running through Jan. 27.
  • The Crimson Solar Project in California, which would have a capacity to produce 350 MW of electricity, or enough to power more than 100,000 homes. Proposed to be built on about 2,700 acres of federal lands in Riverside County, it also is projected to include a battery storage component allowing it to supply power after the sun goes down.It’s set for an ROD as early as February.
  • The Haiwee Geothermal Leasing Area, which would offer more than 21,000 acres in California for utility-scale geothermal power development. BLM has estimated that the proposed leasing area could spur $1 billion in investment in geothermal power projects capable of producing enough electricity to power about 117,000 homes.An ROD is expected in February.
  • The Walker Ridge Wind Energy Project in Northern California, which would string together about 42 wind turbines across 2,270 acres of federal lands and have the capacity to power about 145,000 homes.BLM is expected to approve the project by June.
  • The Borderlands Wind Project in New Mexico. The project in Catron County would have a capacity to produce up to 100 MW of electricity. The priority list forecasts issuing a final EIS for the project in March and an ROD approving it in July.
  • The Yellow Pine Solar Project in Nevada, which would have the capacity to produce up to 250 MW of electricity. It’s proposed to be built on roughly 9,000 acres of federal lands about 32 miles west of Las Vegas, and BLM withdrew the area from new mining claims for as long as two years while it conducts an EIS of the proposal. Yellow Pine is not as far along in the federal review process as the other projects on the list. A draft EIS is expected in January, followed by a final EIS in May. The project list forecasts issuing an ROD in July.

The projected approval dates come as conservation groups and congressional Democrats have criticized Trump’s focus on oil and gas drilling and mining on federal lands.

To date, BLM under Trump has approved only two solar power projects on federal lands, and no wind or geothermal projects.

BLM, as it has done for months, insists that solar, wind and geothermal energy have always been a part of the administration’s “all-of-the-above energy approach,” though the bureau added in an emailed statement that what projects get done are “subject to free markets.”

“The number of pending proposals for any type of energy development, including renewables, is driven by the number of applications we receive — which in turn is driven by market forces beyond our control,” the statement says.

BLM ‘caught in their own little box’

The list of renewable energy projects set for approval, though unusual, does not point to a sudden change of heart in the Trump administration’s views of renewable energy, said Scott Sklar, director of the George Washington University Solar Institute in Washington.

Rather, Sklar suggested the administration doesn’t have any choice but to make at least some effort to advance renewable energy projects, especially solar, now that “the industry is starting to get up to scale.”

If the Trump administration is going to conduct an American “energy dominance” campaign, he said, it can’t push to increase offshore oil production, for example, and not support offshore wind energy.

“Not that it’s in their hearts, but they can’t deny it,” he said of renewables’ place in the energy market.

“They’ve supported oil and gas development on federal lands, so why would you not support renewable energy? In the end, they’re caught in their own little box,” he said.

He added, “They are just sort of stuck, even though they probably wish [renewable energy] would just go away.”

The administration’s motivation is less important to congressional Democrats than the fact that solar, wind and geothermal power project applications are being processed.

Read full story here…




WEF

WEF: Future Cities Must Be Sustainable To Be ‘Smart’

The elitist World Economic Forum is 100% behind Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, claiming that the future Smart City should be ‘first and foremost a sustainable city to minimize its environmental impact.’ ⁃ TN Editor

And since biodiversity is a reasonable indicator of the overall health of an ecosystem, we should try to optimize it. In consequence we might improve the health of the inhabitants and liveability of urban environments.

How can cities of the future transform themselves to be more sustainable, healthier and biodiverse? Here are a few ideas.

A proposal for tomorrow’s cities

The goal of cities of the future should be to create a variety of undisturbed land-based and aquatic biotopes within urban environments, connected by corridors for animals to migrate and for seeds to spread. Green roofs, conventional parks, private gardens and green facades could create additional space for animals and plants to thrive.

Toronto is one example of a city that adapted development regulations according to this model, by passing the Green Roof Bylaw, which requires a certain ratio of green roofing for new developments above a certain size.

Toronto also offers subsidies for building owners willing to create green roofs with their Eco-Roof Incentive Program, something other cities should mimic; and some already do. While not all municipalities can create a costly incentive program like Toronto, they could, for example, reduce the mowing of public grasslands, sidewalks and other areas, which would improve living conditions for bees and other species. An even eco-friendlier policy might be to use animals for grazing these grasslands, providing natural fertilization and means of local food production. In Munich, one of Germany’s largest cities, a flock of sheep is using Englischer Garten, one of the largest urban public parks, as pasture, which could be model for other public parks.

Municipalities could also declare a certain part of their forests as protected areas or plant biodiverse forests with native trees, creating new biotopes. The same should be considered for certain ponds, lakes and creeks that should be situated in a perimeter prohibiting conventional agriculture, fostering eutrophication of close-by aquatic environments.

Such environmental strategies for future city development should be embedded into a strategic report accessible by all city stakeholders, providing explanations, guidelines and contact information for further help. One model for other cities is Vancouver, which is currently implementing its Greenest City Action Plan, comprised of local food production, strategic tree planting in public and private spaces, improving microclimate, food security and biodiversity. Governments could provide additional incentives, like free access to endemic seeds via community seedbanks, garden design assistance and subsidies or property tax reductions for those making positive contributions to the environment on their private propery.

Technology is key to quantifying biodiversity and understanding the evolution of urban ecosystems. Drone overflights feeding data into a wildlife-recognition model combined with geotagging could help us understand the evolution of the urban ecosystem. Sensors could analyse soil humidity, temperature and composition and monitor wildlife, informing strategic planning.

All cities should join together to create an open database so researchers across the globe can access data and provide insights to local communities. Based on this knowledge, cities could enhance their urban farming and gardening programs, increasing local organic food production and further improving the health of inhabitants. Such community food gardens also educate and inspire more sustainable behavior while providing many other benefits.

Read full story here…




World’s First Human Composting Facility Coming To Seattle In 2021

Earth worship is complete by offering your dead body back to nature as compost in the ‘death-care revolution.’. All that’s missing is the euthanasia center to hasten the process, as in the 1973 cult movie, Soylent Green. ⁃ TN Editor

In a move hailed as a positive step by environmentalists, Washington became the first U.S. state to legalize the composting of human bodies in May of this year.

And now, the Evergreen State will become home to the world’s first human composting facility in 2021 thanks to Katrina Spade, founder and CEO of Recompose, after the legislation she helped enact goes into effect in May 2020.

According to its website, Spade founded the revolutionary company with the goal of offering “natural organic reduction to the public,” a system that converts human remains into soil as an alternative to cremation or burial.

Recompose’s website explains the benefits of natural organic reduction:

“By converting human remains into soil, we minimize waste, avoid polluting groundwater with embalming fluid, and prevent the emissions of CO2 from cremation and from the manufacturing of caskets, headstones, and grave liners.

By allowing organic processes to transform our bodies and those of our loved ones into a useful soil amendment, we help to strengthen our relationship to the natural cycles while enriching the earth.”

In November, around 75 people attended what was described by the Seattle Times as “a housewarming party for a funeral home where bodies would not be burned or buried, but laid in individual vessels to become clean, usable compost.”

Spade told the crowd, made up of investors, doctors, architects, funeral directors, legislators, and lawyers:

“You are all members of the death-care revolution.”

When all is said and done, the process will yield about a cubic yard of soil per person. The soil can be taken home by friends or family and used to grow a tree or a garden. Remaining soil will be used on 640 acres of conservation land in southern Washington that will one day become an ecologically sustainable village.

In contrast, those who have opted to be cremated as a means to save money or take up less space geographically, have inadvertently left a burden on their family members. Spade explained:

“These days, some families regard even ashes from cremation as a burden, not a joy. As in, ‘we’ve had these ashes in the garage for six years.’ And we’re creating a cubic yard of soil.”

While Recompose is not yet up and running, the company is aiming for a $5,500 price tag for its natural organic reduction services while a green burial in the state of Washington averages around $6,000, cremation can range anywhere from $1,000-$7,000, and a conventional burial in a cemetery can set you back at least $8,000.

The idea may seem outlandish or uncomfortable to some, but Recompose is more than just a pipe dream. As an architecture student, Spade first became interested in the funeral industry back in 2012. She quickly delved into the idea of “environmentally sustainable, urban-focused method of disposition of the dead,” after seeing a lack of environmental ethic in both the cremation and burial industries.

In 2014 Spade’s idea took a turn toward reality when she received the Echoing Green Climate Fellowship. With the funding that followed she founded the non-profit Urban Death Project (UDP) and began working with soil science researchers, law professionals, and those in the funeral industry to lay the groundwork for a revolutionary system of death care the world had never seen.

Over the next few years Spade continued to work on UDP before securing over $90,000 via a Kickstarter campaign. Her idea also reached wide audiences through worldwide media coverage.

Then in 2017 Space founded Recompose, a public benefit corporation, to bring her idea to reality—a reality now taking shape in a warehouse in SoDo, where the company is ready to live out their mission to “offer a new form of death care that honors both our loved ones and the planet earth.”

Read full story here…




Lagarde: European Central Bank Demands ‘Key Role’ In Climate Change

Christine Lagarde, having switched from the IMF to heading the ECB, has shocked analysts by demanding a ‘key role’ in climate change matters. This is a tectonic shift in the mission of central banks.

Note also that the Minneapolis Fed chair states that its time for central banks to decide how to redistribute wealth.

The two go hand in hand, but confirm that the central banking system is fully complicit, if not causative, in the master plan to implement Sustainable Development, aka, Technocracy.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 stated, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” ⁃ TN Editor

Having failed miserably to “trickle down” stock market wealth for a decade as was their intention, something Ben Bernanke made clear in his Nov 4, 2010 WaPo op-ed, central banks have moved on to more noble causes.

Over the weekend Minneapolis Fed chair Neil Kashkari suggested it was time to allow central banks to directly decide how to redistribute wealth, stating unironically that “monetary policy can play the kind of redistributing role once thought to be the preserve of elected officials”, apparently failing to realize that the Fed is not made up of elected officials but unelected technocrats who serve the bidding of the Fed’s commercial bank owners.

Failing to decide how is poor and who is rich, central bankers are happy to settle with merely fixing the climate.

Overnight, Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda joined his European central banking peers by endorsing government plans to compile a fiscal spending package for disaster relief and measures to help the economy stave off heightening global risks. Kuroda said that natural disasters, such as the strong typhoon that struck Japan in October, may erode asset and collateral value, and the associated risk may pose a significant challenge for financial institutions, Kuroda said.

In short, it’s time for central banks to target global warming climate change:

“Climate-related risk differs from other risks in that its relatively long-term impact means that the effects will last longer than other financial risks, and the impact is far less predictable,” he said. “It is therefore necessary to thoroughly investigate and analyse the impact of climate-related risk.”

Kuroda’s crusade to tame climate came just hours after the ECB’s new chief, Christine Lagarde pushed for climate change to be part of a strategic review of the European Central Bank’s purpose, “spearheading a global drive to make the environment an essential part of monetary policymaking.”

As the FT put it, the plan “underlines Ms Lagarde’s declared goal as president to make climate change a “mission-critical” priority for the central bank. It comes as European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, whose team on Wednesday was officially endorsed by the European Parliament, is about to unveil her first landmark climate policy package.

“We have reached the point where the reputational risk of doing nothing is large enough that they will have to announce something at the end of the review — the big question is what,” said Stanislas Jourdan, head of Positive Money Europe, a campaign group.

Funny Jourdan should bring up reputational risk: after all he was referring to the criminally convicted former IMF head, who recently incinerated tens of billions in IMF bailout funds in Argentina. The same former IMF head who in April 2016 admitted that for the IMF to “thrive”, the world has to “go downhill”, and that the IMF “to be sustainable” it needs to be “very in touch with our client base” while adding that “when the world goes well and we’ve had years of growth, as was the case back in 2006 and 2007, the IMF doesn’t do so well both financially and otherwise.”

Naturally, Lagarde’s attempt to hijack the ECB’s mission from one of failing to hit an inflation target for years, diverting from Mario Draghi’s disastrous bubble legacy, and from making the wealth divide between the rich and poor the widest it has ever been, and to one of virtually unlimited debt monetization and MMT under the virtue-signalling guise of monetizing fiscal deficits to “save the climate” was promptly frowned upon by real central bankers such as Bundesbank president Jens Weidmann, who said last month that he would view “very critically” any attempt to redirect ECB monetary policy actions to tackle climate change. Then again, as has long been the case, the general public is by now well aware of Weidmann’s “bad cop” act – when push comes to shove, the German always folds, he will fold again.

It wasn’t just Weidmann who was appalled by Lagarde’s mission creep. Overnight, Rabobank’s Michael Every wrote that “just 24-hours after the Daily made the joke that said central banks will be adding a CO2 target to their CPI target, we see the Financial Times report that ECB President Lagarde wants a key role for climate change in the upcoming ECB review; this is apparently being opposed by the Germans, who believe that central banks are only supposed to focus on not-getting CPI right.”

Read full story here…




Pope Francis

Pope Francis: Catechism Should Include ‘Ecological Sin’

Militant Technocrats inside the Vatican have convinced Pope Francis to push nations to criminalize the vague act of “ecocide” in order to punish individuals and corporations for harming the environment.  ⁃ TN Editor
 

Pope Francis told a group of lawyers that he could like to introduce the category of “ecological sin” into official Catholic teaching.

“We must introduce – we are thinking about it – in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ecological sin against the common home, because it is a duty,” the pope said Friday in addressing participants in an international conference on penal law.

More specifically, Francis said, are all those actions that can be considered as “ecocide,” for instance, “the massive contamination of air, land and water resources, the large-scale destruction of flora and fauna, and any action capable of producing an ecological disaster or destroying an ecosystem.”

Ecocide “is to be understood as the loss, damage or destruction of the ecosystems of a given territory, so that its utilization by inhabitants has been or can be seen as severely compromised,” he said, adding that such a sin is “a fifth category of crimes against peace, which should be recognised as such by the international community.”

The pontiff said that such actions are “usually” caused by corporations, and “an elementary sense of justice would require” that they be punished for them.

An ecological sin is “an action or omission against God, against one’s neighbour, the community and the environment,” Francis said, quoting the Fathers of the recently concluded Pan-Amazon Regional Synod. “It is a sin against future generations and is manifested in acts and habits of pollution and destruction of the harmony of the environment, in transgressions against the principles of interdependence and in the breaking of networks of solidarity between creatures.”

Above and beyond its sinfulness, failure to care for the environment is an injustice and a crime, Francis suggested and should be legally enforced. “I would like to appeal to all the leaders and actors in this area to contribute their efforts to ensuring adequate legal protection for our common home,” he said.

The pope’s words coincided with the release of a new survey by the Pew Research Center, which found that church-going Americans accept their clergy’s on spiritual matters, but generally distrust their advice on issues such as climate change.

Read full story here…




anti-natalist

Anti-Natalist Movement: ‘I Wish I’d Never Been Born’

As Technocracy/Sustainable Development is drilled into everyone’s skull, anti-human groupthink increases exponentially as a direct result. This self-destructive behavior could be likened to the proverbial lemmings-over-the-cliff who voluntarily plunge to their death for no particular reason. ⁃ TN Editor

Adherents view life not as a gift and a miracle, but a harm and an imposition. And their notion that having children may be a bad idea seems to be gaining mainstream popularity

n February, a 27-year-old Indian man named Raphael Samuel announced plans for an unusual lawsuit. He was going to sue his parents for begetting him. “It was not our decision to be born,” he told the BBC. “Human existence is totally pointless.”

Samuel recently told me over Skype from Mumbai that his is a good life, and he is actually close to his parents. His complaint is more fundamental: he believes it is wrong to bring new people into the world without their consent. He wanted to sue his parents for a symbolic amount of money, such as a single rupee, “to instill that fear among parents in general. Because now parents don’t think before having a child,” he told me.

Samuel subscribes to a philosophy called anti-natalism. The basic tenet of anti-natalism is simple but, for most of us, profoundly counterintuitive: that life, even under the best of circumstances, is not a gift or a miracle, but rather a harm and an imposition. According to this logic, the question of whether to have a child is not just a personal choice but an ethical one – and the correct answer is always no.

Since his announcement, the lawsuit has not gotten off the ground. “I have been clearly told by a sitting judge that I will be fined by the court for wasting its time,” Samuel said. Still, his lawsuit gave the anti-natalist movement a boost, even earning a bemused mention by Stephen Colbert. In May, Dana Wells, a 37-year-old Dallas-based woman who goes by “The Friendly Antinatalist” on YouTube, posted a video featuring the Colbert clip and congratulating Samuel. “We all owe you a round of applause,” she said. “It feels like we’ve arrived. It feels like the big time!”

The notion that having children may be a bad idea seems to be gaining mainstream popularity. But when we hear about it, it’s most often in the context of the climate crisis: activists are worried about bringing children into a world threatened by rising seas, mass displacement and other calamities. Anti-natalists, however, believe that procreation has always been and always will be wrong because of life’s inevitable suffering. What is similar about both anti-natalists and climate activists is they are seeing an increase in attention due to general pessimism about the state of the world, giving both more opportunities to gain support.

In 2006, the South African philosopher David Benatar published a book which is widely credited with introducing the term anti-natalism. In Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, Benatar quotes the Greek tragedian Sophocles (“Never to have been born is best / But if we must see the light, the next best / Is quickly returning whence we came”) and the text of Ecclesiastes (“So I have praised the dead that are already dead more than the living that are yet alive; but better than both of them is he who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun”). These quotes suggest that the sentiments at the heart of anti-natalism have been around for a very long time.

In modern history, another strain of thought emerged, warning against the dangers of population growth. In the late 18th century, Thomas Malthus sounded the alarm that the population would outstrip the food supply. In 1968, a Stanford biologist named Paul Ehrlich published the bestselling book The Population Bomb and co-founded the organization Zero Population Growth (later renamed Population Connection), arguing that the growth in global population would lead to famines and ecological crisis. He also suggested that people have no more than two children.

One member of Zero Population Growth struck out on his own with a much more radical agenda. A man named Les Knight launched the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) with the goal of “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed”, as stated on the website that he launched in 1996.

While Benatar also sought to discourage reproduction, his ideas grew out of different premises. The objective of anti-natalism, as Benatar sees it, is to reduce human suffering. Since life inevitably involves some amount of suffering, bringing another person into the world introduces the guarantee of some harm. He argued that “the quality of even the best lives is very bad – and considerably worse than most people recognize it to be. Although it is obviously too late to prevent our own existence, it is not too late to prevent the existence of future possible people.”

Benatar told me recently that he has heard from many readers of his book who “have often felt that they were alone in the world. It was a great comfort to them to read a philosophical defense of a view they found intuitively correct.”

Read full story here…




Public-private partnerships

Public-Private Partnerships Proposed For 5G Rollout

The concept of Public-Private Partnerships was originally invented by the United Nations to implement Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. Since 5G is key to total surveillance, it is no surprise that P3s are playing a central role. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Cities should be deliberate about partnering with businesses and forming infrastructure strategies if they are to have success with 5G rollout, speakers from early 5G testbeds said Monday at the DC5G conference in Arlington, VA.

The Smart Docklands project from Dublin, Ireland, has brought 5G to a 1.5-square-mile area in the east of the city, and with it, officials have been rolling out small cell infrastructure to help close coverage gaps. Those small cells have been installed on all manner of city infrastructure, including lampposts, trash cans and stoplights. Edward Emmanuel, Smart Docklands’ project management and governance lead, said given the historic nature of the city, they have to be “really strategic” with the infrastructure they use. “We can’t just drill holes into them and stick things up,” he said.

Meanwhile, Salford in Greater Manchester, UK has looked to leverage its mixed-use MediaCityUK development at a 5G innovation hub, where businesses are shown how the technology can help make their operations more efficient through various accelerator programs. Jon Corner, chief digital officer at the City of Salford, said it has been effective as a “mechanism to bring companies in so they can start to discover that their innovations can be enhanced by 5G networks.”

 

In just a few years, both Dublin and Salford have become leading 5G testbeds, but they needed to show their desire to be innovative to find private partners. Emmanuel said Dublin has a reputation for not being an innovative city, perhaps due in part to its long history and aging infrastructure, but after reaching out to business partners and showing their plans, private sector companies were “surprised.” 

It was a similar story in Salford, which undertook fast development of its Media City project while conversations were ongoing with UK telecoms about partnering on fiber rollout. Those conversations sparked more discussions about how to partner on 5G, Corner said, and private companies were immediately positive once they learned of potential use cases.

“I felt a really strong desire among those private companies to say, ‘We’re very interested,'” he said.

For U.S. cities, it shows the importance of a coherent strategy around the approval and siting of small cells, something the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) looked to streamline in a ruling last year, which is now the subject of court challenges.

Meanwhile, U.S.-based telecom companies have continued to make big promises about the rollout of mobile 5G and are beginning to bring the technology into several cities.

On a recent earnings call, Verizon chairman and CEO Hans Vestberg said the company is still committed to reaching 30 markets by year’s end, while T-Mobile CEO John Legere said on his company’s earnings call that with accelerated infrastructure build-out, there are plans to “launch our foundational layer of 5G nationwide this year.” AT&T CFO John Stephens also said on an earnings call the company is on track to launch its “nationwide 5G network” next year.

Read full story here…




eco-friendly

Warning: Most ‘Eco-Friendly’ Products Do More Harm Than Good

Branding products as ‘eco-friendly’ is the hottest rage, pandering to virtue-signaled consumers but the reality is very different: Most eco-friendly products are more harmful than their normal counterparts. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Make no doubt about it: it’s now trendy to be the most planet-loving, alternative energy supporting, climate changing fighting Captain Planet that you can be. And what would being a friend to environment be without sanctimoniously ridiculing those who disagree with you or aren’t on your level of sustainability? Just ask Greta Thunberg.

But, as often happens with virtue signaling, the reality of the matter is far askew from how pretentious environmentalists present it. In fact, RT reports that avoiding all of the “green” eco-friendly products available on the market could be the best way to help the environment. 

Often lost in the fray is the fact that the fight against climate change is going to make some people very wealthy. The world will invest $90 trillion in new infrastructure in order to fight climate change over the next 10 to 15 years, as reports show that consumers will pay more to buy “sustainable” earth-friendly products. Unilever says that a third of consumers buy based on a brand’s environmental impact. A fifth of consumers favor “green messaging”, the same data shows. 

But not all products billed to be friendly to the environment actually are. For instance, organic farming “isn’t the planet-saver it’s promoted as, according to a study published last month in Nature Communications.”

The study shows that farming crops like beans, potatoes and oats organically creates more emissions over the entire course of the farm-to-table cycle than farming conventionally. “Trying to get all of Britain eating organic would create an environmental catastrophe,” said researchers at Cranfield University. 

Organic farming actually requires more land than conventional farming because it yields a smaller harvest per crop. The Cranfield University report show that if England and Wales switched to organic farming, they would need five times as much land for agriculture. Shipping would drive carbon costs sky high, despite the benefits of soil and water health improving dramatically without the conventional runoff from regular farming. Lowering emissions, however, would be “impossible without a major shift in diet”. 

This puts farmers into a precarious position, RT notes:

This places farmers in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between protecting biodiversity – popular neonicotinoid pesticides have been implicated in the mass death of bees, which are critical to maintaining adequate food supply via pollination – and lowering emissions. A one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to work. While organic farming represents just 1.4 percent of total world farmland, the industry has mushroomed over the past decade, worth $97 billion annually as of 2017. 

Other renewable energy, like solar, is also not as “green” as it sounds. Solar panel manufacturing is a “toxic mess”, as panels are produced using “carcinogenic, mutagenic heavy metal cadmium and requiring billions of liters of water to manufacture and cool”.

Electric vehicles also have a dark side: more energy is consumed in the production of electric cars than of gas cars. Meanwhile, a 2011 study showed that the carbon footprints of both vehicles are “about thee same”. EVs may not produce emissions while driving, but the piece notes what we all know: they are only as green as the electricity that’s used to charge them. 

Additionally, batteries in EVs are loaded with toxic chemicals, like lithium, copper and cobalt. The mining of these substances is devastating to the environment and batteries need to be disposed of in a way that does not allow them back into the environment. 

Meanwhile, biomass and biofuels also generate more carbon emissions than fossil fuels to create the same amount of energy. Substances that burn under the guise of “biomass” often can include anything from timber waste to garbage, and can often times litter the atmosphere with pollutants. Even burning clean wood often means cutting down trees. 

Even the old adage of paper over plastic has its downside. Paper bags generate more air and water pollution than plastic and actually require more energy to recycle. They take up more space in landfills and require more fuel to ship. “Consumers who believe they’re saving the earth by requesting paper bags at the supermarket (and municipalities who think banning plastic is the answer) are sadly misguided,” the piece notes.

Read full story here…