Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

Zeta Taskforce: Jun 27, 2002

Captain Fargle posted:

https://www.ecosia.org/

Just switched my search engine and disabled ad block. Zero cost or extra effort to me and the planet benefits in two ways. First way - trees get planted. 2nd way, Google gets slightly less money to screw things up and give a blind eye to authoritarian regimes. You nailed it on what our individual actions can and cannot do. They are not enough by themselves, but if we are pushing for systematic changes that bring some measure of pain and sacrifice, the worst thing is to be called out as hypocrites by the other side.

Changing subjects, this keto fad is getting out of hand. You can look at my reg date and realize that I was probably a fully grown, sentient human being in the 90's. If you were alive then too, you will remember the anti fat craze. The poster child was the Snackwell brownie. Quick Primer: Everyone lost their collective minds and decided any amount of fat would kill you, the USDA came out with the food pyramid where they basically told you to eat as much bread and pasta as you could, and the food science answered our collective hopes and fears with fat free foods. The brand Snackwell was born and pumped out fat free cookies, cakes and brownies that tasted OK. Not great but OK. I don't know if they were sold around the world, but at least in America we rejoiced. We will do anything to avoid eating the way we should, i.e. mostly whole grains, legumes, vegetables. Turns out they were loaded with high fructose corn syrup and all kinds of weird ingredients that mimicked the mouthfeel that fat provides, and we ate more of the crap because it was "healthy". Who can argue, look how few grams of fat there is on the label?

Fast forward to today. Now we are scared shitless about carbs. Fat is good now. The same food scientist who was early career in the 90's is now mid/late career and now ready to reformulate everything to take out the sugar and carbs. The concept of "keto" is not new, but now gets slapped on everything. I just came back from Costco and saw keto pancakes, keto energy bars, keto cookies, keto snacks of every kind, and of course keto brownies. What's even better for the industry is the stuff costs 6 times as much as the regular version. I have friends who are big into crossfit and they bring homemade keto muffins to events. They are OK, kind of chewy and you would never confuse them for the real thing, but they are fine. And supposedly guilt free. Who can argue, look at how few grams of "net carbs" there is on the label?

What does this have to do with climate change? Look at the ingredients on just about any of the packages and I guarantee you will see almond flour as one of the top ingredients, more often than not the #1 ingredient. Any recipe for keto anything will call for almond flour along with some form of sweetener like stevia. I know I am more pro market than a lot of other posters here, but something is wrong when these rich people are loading up their Costco sized carts with Costco sized boxes, some of which are 30% or 40% almonds by weight. They might be driving home with 25 pounds of almonds without even realizing it. If one almond = one gallon of water then are they they not driving home with an olympic sized swimming pool of water sucked out of the Colorado river? It would be impossible to actually eat that many almonds by themselves, but mix them together with some cocoa powder, monk fruit, stevia, and tapioca starch and you are off to the races.

/rant.

# ? Sep 18, 2021 18:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 12, 2024 00:25

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

it�s because people are lazy when it comes to foodstuffs. i don�t eat many carbs for medical reasons and i eat very little in the way of almond flour products unless i make a macaron or something. the texture all comes out the same and it�s very obvious that it�s almond flour (which like whatever that�s fine if you want to make an almond cookie and terrible for all other reasons).

don�t even get me started on the online communities� ridiculous loving pizza crusts.

# ? Sep 18, 2021 19:21

Zeta Taskforce: Jun 27, 2002

mediaphage posted:

don�t even get me started on the online communities� ridiculous loving pizza crusts.

Oh please, go on!

# ? Sep 18, 2021 19:48

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

Zeta Taskforce posted:

Oh please, go on!

well to start do you want your crust to be made out of chicken or cheese

# ? Sep 18, 2021 19:52

Zeta Taskforce: Jun 27, 2002

mediaphage posted:

well to start do you want your crust to be made out of chicken or cheese

This is already going in a weird direction. I was thinking cauliflower.

# ? Sep 18, 2021 20:45

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

Zeta Taskforce posted:

This is already going in a weird direction. I was thinking cauliflower.

you fool! that has a non-zero amount of carbs!!!!

# ? Sep 18, 2021 20:51

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

A big flaming stink posted:

https://twitter.com/dailyposter/status/1438886768317591558

oh for fucks sake

gotta love the climate policy of "its not gonna completely destroy the world, now is it?"

oliveoil posted:

Almost miss trump lol

CommieGIR posted:

Even with this stab in the back by Biden, Trump was significantly worse for the environment.

This can hardly be described as a "stab in the back". If you read the article:

quote:

The White House argues that a court order it opposes and is appealing requires federal officials to lease more than 78 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for fossil fuel exploration. Environmental groups, however, assert that federal law gives the administration broad discretion over whether or not to hold such sales.

Here's what happened:

On January 21st, one day after taking office, Biden signed Executive Order 14008 to, among many other things, put a pause on oil and gas drilling. Section 208 is the relevant section.
On February 12th, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) rescinded their decision for the lease sales in Gulf of Mexico, along with several other sites, in accordance with the EO.
In March, Louisiana and twelve other states (AL, AK, AR, GA, MS, MO, MT, NE, OK, TX, UT, and WV) filed a motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that the EO violates two Congressional statues: the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 ("OCSLA") and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 ("MLA").
In May, the administration filed their opposition.
In June, the DC Circuit ruled in favor of the states. Here's the reasoning (from page 33 of the ruling) of the Trump-appointed judge:

quote:
The Pause is in violation of both OCSLA and of MLA. As previously discussed, both statutes require the Agency Defendants to sell oil and gas leases. OCSLA has a Five-Year Plan in effect, in which requires eligible leases to be sold. As noted in the previously discussed opinions of the Office of the Solicitor, the Agency Defendants have no authority to make significant revisions in OCSLA Five-Year Plan without going through the procedure mandated by Congress. MLA requires the DOI to hold lease sales, where eligible lands are available at lease quarterly. By pausing the leasing, the agencies are in effect amending two Congressional statutes, OCSLA and MLA, which they do not have the authority to do. Neither OCSLA nor MLA gives the Agency Defendants authority to pause lease sales. Those statutes require that they continue Case 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK Document 139 Filed 06/15/21 Page 33 of 44 PageID #: 2093 34 to sell eligible oil and gas leases in accordance with the statutes. Therefore, the Plaintiff States have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this claim.
The administration appealed the ruling on August 16th, but while the appeals process takes place the preliminary injunction on the Pause remains in effect (i.e. the administration is legally compelled to continue the lease sales).
On August 31st, the BOEM announced that the lease sale will continue.

Next, let's talk about the tweet. It's worth noting that one of the founders of The Daily Poster is David Sirota, who is currently its Editor in Chief. As many of you know, Sirota was a senior advisor for Bernie's 2020 presidential campaign. He has been incredibly salty and petty about Bernie's loss, and has been conducting a campaign of trying to undermine Biden and his administration since then. He has also shared the DP article on his own account:

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1439253066981597184

This was then retweeted by the DP account:

https://twitter.com/dailyposter/status/1439254325465739266

Aside from the pathetic and embarrassing (not to mention duplicitous) sock-puppet behavior demonstrated above, the primary claim that is pushed by Sirota/DP is that the Biden administration is dismissing the IPCC report as unimportant. You can tell by the title of the DP article: �Does Not Present Sufficient Cause�, which is almost mockingly quoting the decision document by BOEM. The suggested reasoning is that Joe Biden cares more about corporate interests than the environment, and major media outlets are not raising a huge stink about it because they are � you guessed it � owned by corporations. Sirota also injects other claims, such as the bit about "Biden's plan to vastly expand offshore drilling"... which appears to be a flat out lie. Maybe Sirota is envisioning a scenario where Joe Biden himself screamed "lease out those wells NOW!" and everyone scrambled to comply and the few aides who dared to mutter "b...b...but sir... your campaign promises..." got fired, but what is actually taking place is simply a series of boring administrative and legal procedures.

Now, let's do some more digging. The quote in the article title is taken from the Record of Decision (ROD) document released by BOEM, which the article links to. Here's the relevant bit (from page 7):

quote:

On August 9, 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a new report detailing observations of a rapidly changing climate in every region globally. This report does not present sufficient cause to supplement the EIS, at this time. See Stand Up for California! v. United States Dep�t of the Interior, 994 F.3d 616, 628 (D.C. Cir. 2021). The report as well as additional analysis of climate change may be a significant consideration in the Department�s decisions regarding oil and gas leasing programs in the future.

The cited case, Stand Up for California! v. United States Dep�t of the Interior, can be found here. The case itself pertains to a rather long and complex dispute between a tribe in California and the Department of Interior. The details aren't particularly relevant; the reason it was cited in the ROD document is that it has a section that describes the circumstances that warrant supplementing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or preparing a new one. Emphasis mine:

quote:

Congress enacted NEPA in 1970. 42 U.S.C. �� 4321�4347. When an agency takes a �major Federal action[],� NEPA requires the responsible official to prepare a �detailed statement... on (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided..., (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses... and... long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.� 42 U.S.C. � 4332(C). This �detailed statement� has become known as an EIS.

An EIS goes through two stages: the draft EIS and the final EIS. 40 C.F.R. � 1502.9. Id. The principal agency � here, the Department of the Interior� prepares the draft EIS in conjunction with cooperating agencies and obtain comments regarding the proposed federal action. 40 C.F.R. � 1502.9(a). In the draft EIS, the principal agency must �identify the agency�s preferred alternative..., if one or more exists.� 40 C.F.R. � 1502.14(e). The final EIS must address all comments and discuss responsive opposing views it did not discuss adequately in the draft statement. 40 C.F.R. � 1502.9(b); id. � 1503.4(a). In responding to comments in the final EIS, the agency is permitted to (1) �[m]odify alternatives including the proposed action,� (2) �[d]evelop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration,� (3) modify or supplement its analyses, (4) make factual corrections, or (5) explain why the comments do not merit further agency response. 40 C.F.R. � 1503.4(a)(1)�(4). The agency must also identify preferred alternatives in the final EIS unless prohibited by law. 40 C.F.R. � 1502.14(e).

Where necessary, an agency must also prepare a supplemental EIS. An agency must prepare a supplemental EIS if (1) �[t]he agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns,� or (2) �[t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.� 40 C.F.R. � 1502.9(c)(1)(i)�(ii). An agency may also prepare a supplemental EIS if it determines that doing so would further NEPA�s purpose. 40 C.F.R. � 1502.9(c)(2).

When we review an EIS prepared under NEPA, our �role is �simply to ensure that the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious.�� Nat�l Comm. for the New River v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Baltimore Gas & Elec. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97�98 (1983)). We must �ensure that the agency took a �hard look� at the environmental consequences of its decision to go forwardwith the project.� Id. (quoting City of Olmsted Falls v. FAA, 292 F.3d 261, 269 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). In determining whether an agency is required to supplement its EIS, we also apply the arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 376 (1989).

In Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Supreme Court evaluated whether NEPA required an agency to prepare a supplemental EIS after finalizing the EIS. 490 U.S. 360 (1989). The Court concluded that, �the decision whether to prepare a supplemental EIS is similar to the decision whether to prepare an EIS in the first instance.� Id. at 374. If the federal action is pending, then the new information that comes to light must be �sufficient to show that the remaining action will affect the quality of the human environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered� to require a supplemental EIS. Id. (internal alteration and quotation omitted). Put simply, courts must apply the rule of reason, which �turns on the value of the new 21 information to the still pending decisionmaking process.� Id. at 374. In turn, we have held that �[t]he overarching question is whether an EIS�s deficiencies are significant enough to undermine informed public comment and informed decisionmaking.� Mayo v. Reynolds, 875 F.3d 11, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357, 1368 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).

To summarize, supplementing an EIS is necessary only if new and substantial information comes to light between when the final EIS is published and when the decision is being deliberated on.

At this point, you might be wondering why the IPCC doesn't qualify. After all, it did in fact issue warnings about catastrophic climate change, and everyone knows burning fossil fuels is a contributor. So why did BOEM conclude that it did not "present sufficient cause" to supplement the EIS? Not that supplementing it would actually change the final decision, since that decision was forced/mandated by the DC Circuit � but it is still worth discussing since it lies at the heart of Sirota's breathless reporting that aims to paint Joe Biden as anti-environment.

There are a few possible reasons. The most obvious one is that the IPCC report does not actually contain any new research. Indeed, the wikipedia page for IPCC explicitly says this:

quote:

The IPCC does not conduct original research nor monitor climate change; rather, it undertakes a systematic review of all relevant published literature to provide a comprehensive update on climate change, its effects, and potential strategies.

The assessment reports are compilations of existing (several decades worth of) scientific literature reviewed, analyzed and summarized by a UN panel of scientists for consumption by policy makers, who themselves may not have a scientific background. It is quite unlikely that it contains any new information that the BOEM career employees (who are actually experts in their relevant fields) who wrote the EIS were not aware of.

It's also worth noting that even though EIS stands for "environmental impact statement", the documents are actually massive reports, usually spanning multiple hundred pages. They can take years to prepare. Here's the relevant one. It is very long, but essentially compares the benefits and impacts of five different alternative approaches for the lease sale. These are compared in the executive summary, on page :

The immediate thing that might pop out at someone looking at this carefully is that even though these categories are related to various aspects of the environment (air quality, water quality, impact on protected species, etc.), they are different from the concerns of IPCC, which relate to climate change as a whole. In other words, there's a real good chance that the IPCC report was considered to have a very different scope and did not have any information that would tangibly conflict with and/or alter the analysis in the EIS.

To conclude:

Biden signed an EO which put oil and gas leases on pause (which he wouldn't have done if he indeed did not care).
The courts issued a preliminary injunction on the Pause.
The administration has appealed the ruling (which they wouldn't do if they indeed did not care).
The EIS was not written by "the administration", but rather by career employees at BOEM, who tend to both be very well-shielded from political pressure and also know their poo poo.

To mods/IKs: Please start enforcing the guidelines outlined in the Media Literacy thread so as to reduce the noise to signal ratio in this thread. People need to actually read the stuff they are posting, and seek confirmation from other sources, rather than, you know, breathlessly coming into this thread to slam controversial tweets along with zero effort edgy/cynical commentary.

Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Sep 18, 2021

# ? Sep 18, 2021 21:07

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; Can't post for 4 hours!; Pillbug

This is all very good info, and thanks for clarifying.

# ? Sep 18, 2021 21:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

It's a lot more than is needed. There's a federal court order. The agency can't not proceed with the process.

# ? Sep 18, 2021 21:35

Fame Douglas: Nov 20, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

The latest IPCC report isn't even out yet, I thought? Just a version leaked by scientists reasonably expecting a weakening of the language in the following months of review for political reasons.

# ? Sep 18, 2021 22:13

Judakel: Jul 29, 2004; Can't post for 9 years!

Offshore drilling is inherently harmful on first and second order effects. Disappointed that the system of checks and balances forces this undertaking regardless of that fact. Thanks for that Sirota link.

# ? Sep 18, 2021 23:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

Fame Douglas posted:

The latest IPCC report isn't even out yet, I thought? Just a version leaked by scientists reasonably expecting a weakening of the language in the following months of review for political reasons.

The IPCC reports are issued in phases; the most recent component released was August 6, the one referenced in the ruling. The leaked part of the report is the part scheduled for...March, iirc.

# ? Sep 19, 2021 00:59

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

Ras Het posted:

You don't get a lot of sub zero temps in much of the UK, but three months of 5c in a barely insulated flat that is only heated by an extremely expensive electric heater is very rough. The quality of housing in Britain is generally really bad, especially for the climate they have

These are very indirect effects though. It's true that low incomes are correlated with lower life expectancy and health but calling it "killing" is somewhat of a stretch IMO. If you go down that road suddenly everything becomes "killing". Higher cinema ticket prices? That's "killing the poor" because lack of social interaction correlates with lower life expectancy too.

Of course it should be absolutely illegal to turn off heating to a tenant for any reason anywhere in Europe. If it's not, that's hosed up. It is illegal around here and your heating costs are fully paid by the state(together with your rent) if you are on welfare.

And yeah, I can't deny that high energy prices are regressive and unfair to low income household and that the measures that would avoid these problems (like carbon tax redistribution)might just not get implemented by politics at all. But I'm also not sure if just let 'er rip and go full 5 degrees of warming is the better outcome for anyone. Is an unjust climate crisis mitigation worse than no mitigation at all?

# ? Sep 19, 2021 13:39

Cold on a Cob: Feb 6, 2006; i've seen so much, i'm going blind
and i'm brain dead virtually; College Slice

Captain Fargle posted:

Also, hi folks. I'm Fargle and I suffer from an extreme amount of anxiety as a result of climate change.

As such, I've determined to do what I can about that. My goal is to make my life and my future carbon negative and to encourage as many other people as possible to do the same.

Get a vasectomy or tubal ligation. It's the single biggest act you can take to reduce your carbon footprint outside of illegal or self-destructive acts.

Other than that, living car free, never flying, and switching to a plant based diet are the biggest actions you can undertake.

# ? Sep 19, 2021 14:28

Vitamin Me: Mar 30, 2007

Cold on a Cob posted:

Get a vasectomy or tubal ligation. It's the single biggest act you can take to reduce your carbon footprint outside of illegal or self-destructive acts.

Other than that, living car free, never flying, and switching to a plant based diet are the biggest actions you can undertake.

The idea that individual action can make any significant difference is pure propaganda..it's better to devote time and effort to get the right people in power who will limit oil drilling etc.

# ? Sep 19, 2021 15:20

Cold on a Cob: Feb 6, 2006; i've seen so much, i'm going blind
and i'm brain dead virtually; College Slice

Vitamin Me posted:

The idea that individual action can make any significant difference is pure propaganda..it's better to devote time and effort to get the right people in power who will limit oil drilling etc.

Right but I said "outside of illegal acts" and there's nobody I can vote for that will do anything about any of this, and technically revolutions are illegal so,

# ? Sep 19, 2021 15:25

Vitamin Me: Mar 30, 2007

Cold on a Cob posted:

Right but I said "outside of illegal acts" and there's nobody I can vote for that will do anything about any of this, and technically revolutions are illegal so,

Well then run yourself!

# ? Sep 19, 2021 15:34

Cold on a Cob: Feb 6, 2006; i've seen so much, i'm going blind
and i'm brain dead virtually; College Slice

Vitamin Me posted:

Well then run yourself!

To clarify, when I said "nobody I can vote for" I didn't mean there weren't any candidates that support net zero by 2050. It's just that I have zero belief they'll be able to actually make any progress on this issue, and I don't see how anyone else will do any better.

I completely agree that individual action actually making an impact is a myth. If it makes the Captain Fargle feel better and less anxious, that's still a good thing. Doing these things doesn't preclude them from supporting collective solutions as well.

# ? Sep 19, 2021 16:20

RIP Syndrome: Feb 24, 2016

Has anyone done a study on excess mortality caused by a shortfall of cinema tickets?

# ? Sep 19, 2021 17:21

ELTON JOHN: Feb 17, 2014

voting as an individual action doesnt matter any more than individual changes in consumption, and at least with consumption you can do it more than once every two years

# ? Sep 19, 2021 17:28

HookedOnChthonics: Dec 5, 2015; Profoundly dull

wait do people really think installing a browser extension is climate activism :stare:

that's absolutely a new low for me and i learned about this poo poo the other week:

Trabisnikof posted:

lol its a flat rate $7.99 a month scam:

https://www.aspiration.com/summit/planet-protection/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLrSO1YEhU

fraction-of-profit-to-reforesting is literally the thinnest, wateriest green wash possible and there's good odds are you're just funding some dudes to drive deisels out into the scree and turn over some dirt

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/planting-trees-climate-change-solution-3e5b6979561f/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00761-z

# ? Sep 19, 2021 20:09

BIG HEADLINE: Jun 13, 2006; "Stand back, Ottawan ruffian, or face my lumens!"

People be lovin' their stupid car stickers.

I want to make a fortune with one that just says (PIB). "Places I've Been." Or (IBP).

BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Sep 19, 2021

# ? Sep 19, 2021 20:34

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Zeta Taskforce posted:

Changing subjects, this keto fad is getting out of hand. You can look at my reg date and realize that I was probably a fully grown, sentient human being in the 90's. If you were alive then too, you will remember the anti fat craze. The poster child was the Snackwell brownie. Quick Primer: Everyone lost their collective minds and decided any amount of fat would kill you, the USDA came out with the food pyramid where they basically told you to eat as much bread and pasta as you could, and the food science answered our collective hopes and fears with fat free foods. The brand Snackwell was born and pumped out fat free cookies, cakes and brownies that tasted OK. Not great but OK. I don't know if they were sold around the world, but at least in America we rejoiced. We will do anything to avoid eating the way we should, i.e. mostly whole grains, legumes, vegetables. Turns out they were loaded with high fructose corn syrup and all kinds of weird ingredients that mimicked the mouthfeel that fat provides, and we ate more of the crap because it was "healthy". Who can argue, look how few grams of fat there is on the label?

Fast forward to today. Now we are scared shitless about carbs. Fat is good now. The same food scientist who was early career in the 90's is now mid/late career and now ready to reformulate everything to take out the sugar and carbs. The concept of "keto" is not new, but now gets slapped on everything. I just came back from Costco and saw keto pancakes, keto energy bars, keto cookies, keto snacks of every kind, and of course keto brownies. What's even better for the industry is the stuff costs 6 times as much as the regular version. I have friends who are big into crossfit and they bring homemade keto muffins to events. They are OK, kind of chewy and you would never confuse them for the real thing, but they are fine. And supposedly guilt free. Who can argue, look at how few grams of "net carbs" there is on the label?

What does this have to do with climate change? Look at the ingredients on just about any of the packages and I guarantee you will see almond flour as one of the top ingredients, more often than not the #1 ingredient. Any recipe for keto anything will call for almond flour along with some form of sweetener like stevia. I know I am more pro market than a lot of other posters here, but something is wrong when these rich people are loading up their Costco sized carts with Costco sized boxes, some of which are 30% or 40% almonds by weight. They might be driving home with 25 pounds of almonds without even realizing it. If one almond = one gallon of water then are they they not driving home with an olympic sized swimming pool of water sucked out of the Colorado river? It would be impossible to actually eat that many almonds by themselves, but mix them together with some cocoa powder, monk fruit, stevia, and tapioca starch and you are off to the races.

A friend served me a dish she called �keto chicken�� it turned out to be chicken wings baked in the oven with a mild dusting of paprika and salt. It�s just chicken!!! How can it be called keto chicken!!!

Im not sure how much it actually contributes but there was this bizarre trend among gym bros for protein powder made from actual beef protein in some way. Here�s what a market research site claims:

https://www.wrde.com/story/44670177/beef-protein-powder-market-size-in-2021-top-countries-data-with-34-cagr-global-industry-brief-analysis-by-top-key-companies-and-growth-insights-to posted:

Increase In Demand Analysis : The Global Beef Protein Powder Market Size was 600.2 million USD In 2020 and it is projected to reach 782 million USD in 2027, growing at a CAGR of 3.4% During 2021-2027. In this study, 2020 has been considered as the base year and 2021 to 2027 as the forecast period to estimate the market size for Beef Protein Powder.

The �Beef Protein Powder Market" segment had the largest market share In 2020. Its wide application in varied industry such as a Food Processing, Beverages, Dietary Supplements, Nutraceuticals, Lab Testing, Other is projected to register a lucrative market growth rate over the study period, The market segment is also flooded with innovative product launches, such as Organic Beef Protein Powder, Conventional Beef Protein Powder, This new product development and partnership between buyers and manufacturers likely to engage the market players over the next few years. Beef Protein Powder Market Research Report is spread across 130 pages and provides exclusive energetic statistics, data, information, trends and competitive landscape details in this niche sector with in-depth TOC.

. . .

Global Beef Protein Powder Market 2021 : Market Analysis and Insights:

In 2020, the global Beef Protein Powder market size was USD 600.2 million and it is expected to reach USD 782 million by the end of 2027, with a CAGR of 3.4% between 2021 and 2027

I feel disgust whenever I hear about this. It looks like it�s only becoming more popular.

Kinda OT but on Ecosia: I tried switching to different search engines but nothing comes close to Google for my work, even as Google has got worse and worse. My individually useless anti Google action is to leave gmail and pay for a service that doesn�t make money from surveillance capitalism. I know it doesn�t really matter, sigh.

mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Sep 20, 2021

# ? Sep 19, 2021 22:32

Zeta Taskforce: Jun 27, 2002

mawarannahr posted:

A friend served me a dish she called �keto chicken�� it turned out to be chicken wings baked in the oven with a mild dusting of paprika and salt. It�s just chicken!!! How can it be called keto chicken!!!

I love how foods that naturally fit into whatever fad get rebranded so they can become health food. You know what? Your keto chicken is also gluten free! You should start making pizza crusts with it apparently.

quote:

Im not sure how much it actually contributes but there was this bizarre trend among gym bros for protein powder made from actual beef protein in some way. Here�s what a market research site claims:

I feel disgust whenever I hear about this. It looks like it�s only becoming more popular.

It absolutely contributes. I like beef. I don't eat it every day and you don't need that much to enhance the flavor of a stew and it certainly does not need to fill your plate. But I actually eat it as beef. But the thought grinding it up so you can mix it in your shaker bottle and gulp it down post workout seems particularly gluttonous. And absolutely unnecessary according to these athletes.

Gym bros seem to unfairly get a pass with everything, environment included. It's somehow more satisfying to go after the starbux crowd for adding almond milk to everything. I was curious about how much almonds go into that stuff and it's not much. Like 5 almonds per cup. They really stretch them out and use cheaper ingredients as fillers. Thank you late stage capitalism? But that's why I bring up the keto fad. It takes a large physical mass of strange stuff to make a brownie keto. You really are hammering a round peg into a square hole. And these weird ingredients have an outsized footprint on the environment.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 05:08

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

Reminds me of those green tea pills.

"hey you know tea? the drink you make with leaves in water? Well we ~~got the cheapest worst tea and~~ put them in pills you take with water.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 06:44

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Slow News Day posted:

you know its kind of absolutely insane to completely discredit sirota solely because he was bernie's campaign manager. yeah he doesnt like biden, he's a socdem, they don't get along with conservatives

do you have a substantive reason to disregard his contributions on sight or do you just disagree with his ideology? like this in particular

quote:

Aside from the pathetic and embarrassing (not to mention duplicitous) sock-puppet behavior demonstrated above, the primary claim that is pushed by Sirota/DP is that the Biden administration is dismissing the IPCC report as unimportant.

is just catty. are you unfamiliar with the insanely common practice of contributing writers to tweet their articles, and then for the news org to retweet/post about it themselves?

A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Sep 20, 2021

# ? Sep 20, 2021 06:55

occluded: Oct 31, 2012; Sandals: Become the means to create A JUST SOCIETY; Fun Shoe

I don't read or post in this thread often because it is hella depressing but I think Fargle is to be highly commended for being proactive and optimistic and therefore helping the people around them also make positive changes without succumbing to despair; we'll need a lot more of that in the coming days.

edit: also corgies are the best dog; my fondest professional memory involves one being the Very Best of Dogs but that's a huge sidetrack even for this thread.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 07:17

Celexi: Nov 25, 2006; Slava Ukraini!

Captain Fargle posted:

Climate change is a problem of consumption at all levels of society. Individual action alone cannot and will not ever solve it but neither can we as individuals carry on as we did before. Each of us needs to do our part in our own way and not just abdicate responsibility. We very much CAN make things better and easier for those around us and those to come and I'm determined with all my heart to do so. When my time is up I want to go to my grave knowing that even if I couldn't fix the problems at least I didn't just spend my life passively making it worse.

If you're going to fight for climate action and try to apply political pressure for change you should back that up with your own actions in your personal life. Don't just be all talk and actually be an example you know?

Which reminds me. Here's another thing I very much recommend doing:

https://www.ecosia.org/

Ecosia is a search engine that takes all their profits from ad revenue and spends it on global reforestation initiatives. I have it installed as a browser extension for Chrome. They're completely transparent with their numbers and publish monthly reports that include details of who they're working with and where. You can find that here: https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planting-receipts/

I'm going to try and post regular updates here about what I'm doing as climate action and I want to very much encourage other folks to do the same. If you have suggestions about what I can do or ways I can exert greater pressure for change in my life then I'm always glad to hear it.

Go out and plant some trees everyone! You'll be amazed at how much better it helps you feel.

you can skip the middleman and just do https://www.bing.com/give/dashboard as ecosia is just showing bing results and microsoft took their advertisement cut before showing it in ecosia and the ad itself.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 07:29

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

occluded posted:

edit: also corgies are the best dog; my fondest professional memory involves one being the Very Best of Dogs but that's a huge sidetrack even for this thread.

Well there are larger or more active dogs that consume more and some smaller dogs like Pugs that emit a lot more methane but still, in terms of climate change, it may be a stretch to claim corgies are the best dog. Personality may pose challenges when we get to the "eat the rich" phase. Perhaps a small, non-gassy but very angry breed like a Chihuahua is a better bet.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 08:01

HookedOnChthonics: Dec 5, 2015; Profoundly dull

occluded posted:

I don't read or post in this thread often because it is hella depressing but I think Fargle is to be highly commended for being proactive and optimistic and therefore helping the people around them also make positive changes without succumbing to despair; we'll need a lot more of that in the coming days.

edit: also corgies are the best dog; my fondest professional memory involves one being the Very Best of Dogs but that's a huge sidetrack even for this thread.

i mean i'm happy for fargle to live their truth but they are making precisely 0 contribution of any significance to the fight against climate change--in fact, unless they are alone in this world, they would likely have a far, far greater impact if they did give in to despair enough for others in their life to notice and start relating to the problem as something intimate, emotional, and immediate, rather than distant and theoretical. it would certainly mean more than using the Climate Pledge Search Bar by Bing^tm

despair is good; it's a sign of accurate and sober stock-taking. palliatives that let us comfy well-fed posting pals continue to coast into the twilight are just a soporific to let the profit extraction continue while the CO2 ppm ticks higher, higher, higher every year. all the browser extensions in the world won't fix that for you.

and corgis are feral little anklebiters with an entirely undeserved prominence that i can only understand as yet another imposition by monarchy

e: really though i wanna tease this apart a little more--clearly by saying that 'we'll be needing a lot more of that in the coming days' you are acknowledging that poo poo is gonna go south, but what--the indomitable human spirit is going to make it all worth it? a light in the darkness is the hope we all need? what do you think the actual postive outcome of prizing indefatigable naive optimism is; what does it win us in real terms?

HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Sep 20, 2021

# ? Sep 20, 2021 09:49

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Slow News Day posted:

This can hardly be described as a "stab in the back". If you read the article:

Here's what happened:

On January 21st, one day after taking office, Biden signed Executive Order 14008 to, among many other things, put a pause on oil and gas drilling. Section 208 is the relevant section.

On February 12th, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) rescinded their decision for the lease sales in Gulf of Mexico, along with several other sites, in accordance with the EO.

In March, Louisiana and twelve other states (AL, AK, AR, GA, MS, MO, MT, NE, OK, TX, UT, and WV) filed a motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that the EO violates two Congressional statues: the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 ("OCSLA") and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 ("MLA").

In May, the administration filed their opposition.

In June, the DC Circuit ruled in favor of the states. Here's the reasoning (from page 33 of the ruling) of the Trump-appointed judge:

The administration appealed the ruling on August 16th, but while the appeals process takes place the preliminary injunction on the Pause remains in effect (i.e. the administration is legally compelled to continue the lease sales).

On August 31st, the BOEM announced that the lease sale will continue.

Next, let's talk about the tweet. It's worth noting that one of the founders of The Daily Poster is David Sirota, who is currently its Editor in Chief. As many of you know, Sirota was a senior advisor for Bernie's 2020 presidential campaign. He has been incredibly salty and petty about Bernie's loss, and has been conducting a campaign of trying to undermine Biden and his administration since then. He has also shared the DP article on his own account:

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1439253066981597184

This was then retweeted by the DP account:

https://twitter.com/dailyposter/status/1439254325465739266

Aside from the pathetic and embarrassing (not to mention duplicitous) sock-puppet behavior demonstrated above, the primary claim that is pushed by Sirota/DP is that the Biden administration is dismissing the IPCC report as unimportant. You can tell by the title of the DP article: “Does Not Present Sufficient Cause”, which is almost mockingly quoting the decision document by BOEM. The suggested reasoning is that Joe Biden cares more about corporate interests than the environment, and major media outlets are not raising a huge stink about it because they are — you guessed it — owned by corporations. Sirota also injects other claims, such as the bit about "Biden's plan to vastly expand offshore drilling"... which appears to be a flat out lie. Maybe Sirota is envisioning a scenario where Joe Biden himself screamed "lease out those wells NOW!" and everyone scrambled to comply and the few aides who dared to mutter "b...b...but sir... your campaign promises..." got fired, but what is actually taking place is simply a series of boring administrative and legal procedures.

Now, let's do some more digging. The quote in the article title is taken from the Record of Decision (ROD) document released by BOEM, which the article links to. Here's the relevant bit (from page 7):

The cited case, Stand Up for California! v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, can be found here. The case itself pertains to a rather long and complex dispute between a tribe in California and the Department of Interior. The details aren't particularly relevant; the reason it was cited in the ROD document is that it has a section that describes the circumstances that warrant supplementing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or preparing a new one. Emphasis mine:

To summarize, supplementing an EIS is necessary only if new and substantial information comes to light between when the final EIS is published and when the decision is being deliberated on.

At this point, you might be wondering why the IPCC doesn't qualify. After all, it did in fact issue warnings about catastrophic climate change, and everyone knows burning fossil fuels is a contributor. So why did BOEM conclude that it did not "present sufficient cause" to supplement the EIS? Not that supplementing it would actually change the final decision, since that decision was forced/mandated by the DC Circuit — but it is still worth discussing since it lies at the heart of Sirota's breathless reporting that aims to paint Joe Biden as anti-environment.

There are a few possible reasons. The most obvious one is that the IPCC report does not actually contain any new research. Indeed, the wikipedia page for IPCC explicitly says this:

The assessment reports are compilations of existing (several decades worth of) scientific literature reviewed, analyzed and summarized by a UN panel of scientists for consumption by policy makers, who themselves may not have a scientific background. It is quite unlikely that it contains any new information that the BOEM career employees (who are actually experts in their relevant fields) who wrote the EIS were not aware of.

It's also worth noting that even though EIS stands for "environmental impact statement", the documents are actually massive reports, usually spanning multiple hundred pages. They can take years to prepare. Here's the relevant one. It is very long, but essentially compares the benefits and impacts of five different alternative approaches for the lease sale. These are compared in the executive summary, on page :

The immediate thing that might pop out at someone looking at this carefully is that even though these categories are related to various aspects of the environment (air quality, water quality, impact on protected species, etc.), they are different from the concerns of IPCC, which relate to climate change as a whole. In other words, there's a real good chance that the IPCC report was considered to have a very different scope and did not have any information that would tangibly conflict with and/or alter the analysis in the EIS.

To conclude:

Biden signed an EO which put oil and gas leases on pause (which he wouldn't have done if he indeed did not care).

The courts issued a preliminary injunction on the Pause.

The administration has appealed the ruling (which they wouldn't do if they indeed did not care).

The EIS was not written by "the administration", but rather by career employees at BOEM, who tend to both be very well-shielded from political pressure and also know their poo poo.

To mods/IKs: Please start enforcing the guidelines outlined in the Media Literacy thread so as to reduce the noise to signal ratio in this thread. People need to actually read the stuff they are posting, and seek confirmation from other sources, rather than, you know, breathlessly coming into this thread to slam controversial tweets along with zero effort edgy/cynical commentary.

This is an excellent post, and everything in it is true. Joe Biden is still breaking a campaign promise.

1) Yes, it is absolutely true in the most tedious legal sense, the agency is operating appropriately on documents that are in scope for these very specific issue of offshore drilling leases. The justification, however tediously it is balancing on technicalities as assessed valid by a Trump appointment to the degree that the chudge's opinion ignores this issue, does not survive the barest high-level critical review: IPCC's methods and reporting are absolutely in scope, and it is in scope in a way that even and angry kindergartener wouldn't be shameless enough to deny.

2) With respect to executive power, we have already learned that the President is essentially a dictator. Joe Biden could instruct in the agency not to offer leases regardless, and that would be the end of it. He won't. This is a broken campaign promise.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Sep 20, 2021

# ? Sep 20, 2021 14:35

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Really sorry to reduce it to that grim level, but in my viewpoint, the difference between willfully raising the CO2 concentration of the Earth and other chemical attacks constituting war crimes is nil. Answers to the question "In what way are fossil extraction companies not committing first degree mass murder" must necessarily first repute the findings of the climate science community on both the subjects of the existence of anthropogenic climate change as well as its predictions on the aggravating social factors contributing to the destabilization of regions, the rise of warfare, and the suffering and death of increasing population of climate displaced peoples.

One may claim that my lens of looking at the issue is extreme and provides no wiggle room for political practicality in legacy political process. My challenge to such a claim is to point to me where I am wrong in my determination that fossil extraction is mass murder.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 14:44

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

With respect to your media ethics criticism of David Sirtoa:

-I find Dave to be extremely grating, and I blame Bernie's loss in 2020 with the tone he set in 2019 for the campaign, which in my extensive canvassing/banking I found turned away a lot of moderates.

-I find it incongruous that you would harp on medial literacy in the conclusion of your post, but towards the beginning of your post somehow think that it is weird for a publisher to retweet one of its frequent contributors' plugs for an article. Like, what planet have you been living on?

-as much as I credit Dave for failing the nation in the world by making extremely stupid mistakes early on in Bernie's campaign, I find his high level summary to be absolutely accurate on the basis that it is fundamentally trivial to link continued drilling with a rejection of IPCC findings. One plus one equals two, and permitting leading carbon emission entities and fossil extractors to expand supply constitutes a rejection of the conclusions of IPCC:

-Working Group 1: anthropogenic climate change is real, and continues report after report to increase in degree of systemic change and pace of systemic change

-Working Group 2: natural and socioeconomic systems are deeply vulnerable to climate change, and the consequences for failing to meet a variety of timelines are extremely severe

-Working Group 3: mitigation involves a combination of phasing out fossil extraction and dependency on the availability of fossil fuels to energy production industry as well as fossil fuel reagents in chemical and agricultural industry. In the most recent report, this is set to an extremely aggressive timeline that we now know was deliberately sandbagged even then, and that Be contributing authors and working group reviewers know between themselves that's the issue is more severe than they were allowed to report even in as grim a report as AR6.

It's absolutely valid to criticize the president of the United States in the harshest terms for failing to conduct policymaking in accordance with these findings.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Sep 20, 2021

# ? Sep 20, 2021 15:03

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

This is your annual reminder that the establishment of detention centers in 1930s period German policymaking and the German justice system (and later the 1940s death programs) was tediously and meticulously legal. We regardless criticize it, largely without paying attention to the tediously legalistic framework upon which the German state justified it.

Anthropogenic climate change affects everyone.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Sep 20, 2021

# ? Sep 20, 2021 15:11

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; Can't post for 4 hours!; Pillbug

~~Okay Potato Salad, slow your roll, please.~~ The people have spoken, carry on.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Sep 20, 2021

# ? Sep 20, 2021 15:14

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Fame Douglas posted:

The latest IPCC report isn't even out yet, I thought? Just a version leaked by scientists reasonably expecting a weakening of the language in the following months of review for political reasons.

AR6 WG1 is due tentatively next summer. It's not exactly being worked on in a SCIF surrounded by armed guards and division of Marines; contributing authors, especially headline authors, still talk to the press, and of course their contributing works are already published.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 15:18

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

CommieGIR posted:

Okay Potato Salad, slow your roll, please.

why. all the posts are quality. it�s not like somethingawful.com thread pages are a non renewable resource.

when people make foolish comments like completely excusing politicos because of technicalities, they should be called out.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 16:36

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; Can't post for 4 hours!; Pillbug

Texas is raising opposition to a spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Texas, but not for the reason you think:

https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/status/1439859734983622657?s=20

.....because it could contaminate the oil. Worth noting: Oil and Natural Gas wells have naturally occurring radioactive elements in them, and old oil pipelines are notable for being above background measurement.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 17:00

das hipster: Mar 7, 2005

CommieGIR posted:

Okay Potato Salad, slow your roll, please.

Can you elaborate why?

They're responding to other posts and making decent points. They're not poo poo posting, trolling, or even "doom posting". Outside of being critical of the democrats, what is being done wrong here?

# ? Sep 20, 2021 17:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 12, 2024 00:25

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Potato Salad posted:

2) With respect to executive power, we have already learned that the President is essentially a dictator. Joe Biden could instruct in the agency not to offer leases regardless, and that would be the end of it. He won't. This is a broken campaign promise.

How would Biden instructing the agency to not comply with a court order "be the end of it"? Can you walk us through how you would expect events to unfold in such a scenario? How many mid-level bureaucrats does the Department of Interior or the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have, do you think, who would be okay with mindlessly following orders they know to have been blocked and/or ruled illegal? Should Biden just fire people until he finally comes across one who will continue to not hold these lease sales?

With regards to "the president is essentially a dictator", it's definitely instructive that two people can look at the same set of facts and events and reach two different conclusions. To the extent that said conclusion in this case appears to stem from the capricious way Donald Trump conducted his presidency, I'm not sure how much merit it has, though. Many if not most of his dumb poo poo was blocked by the courts, and the relevant agencies fell in line and followed those court orders. Trump did throw lots of tantrums about it on Twitter, and screamed a lot along the lines of "DO SOMETHING" but he was quite impotent (although his impotence still caused massive damage). Just about the only instance I can think of where an agency ignored court orders was during the Muslim ban, when some CBP officers at a few airports continued to enforce the ban despite emergency stays issued by courts. Aside from that, there is no precedent for the executive branch to outright refuse to comply with stays and injunctions issued by the judiciary.

Generally speaking, you aren't going to encounter a lot of people who subscribe to an ends-justify-the-means mindset. "The President should do whatever he or she wants" is going to be met with lots of eye-rolling and ridicule outside of the most disillusioned of circles. This country, after all, was founded by declaring independence from the rule of a king, and the only people who argue for going back to that are fascists. What we are discovering with posts like yours is that fascists come in all political stripes.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 17:35

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

«‹›546 »