Simon

We have got some new cool emojis and reactions for you all to use! Try them out now by making a new post or by reacting to any forum post, photo, blog post or status update on this website. Go nuts! And let us know if you want us to add some more reactions.

Just don't go to the area as a tourist in the middle of the actual disaster (like so many selfish people did this summer when they visited popular tourist areas in Southern Europe when the region was being wrecked by huge wildfires)!

Lost Frequencies - The Feeling

I'm reading Dune by Frank Herbert right now.

Now, this is pretty cool! Someone in Stockholm, Sweden, apparently discovered a two-colored squirrel during a walk. Check it out: According to a Swedish biologist at the National Museum of Natural History, it is super rare to see a squirrel with white fields than those with normal solid brown fur. This is because they are much better visible and thus become easier prey for predators such as pigeon hawks or martens. Evolutionary biologist Jessica Abbott at Lund University told Swedish news site, Dagens Nyheter, that it is probably some kind of mutation that is behind the squirrel's color mix.

You have to give up one for the rest of your life. Which will it be?

@Sanjo I'm thankful that I live in a region that's experienced a rather cold and wet summer. People were worried that this year's summer would be just as bad as the one in 2018 with severe drought, high temperatures, huge wildfires and all the other misery that comes with heatwaves. But we got lucky this year.

Welcome to the community!

Yesterday, YouTube channel Melodysheep released a beautiful new video of humanity's potential future. The video asks the question if we are doomed or destined for transcendence. Check it out: What are your thoughts about the video and its message? Are you optimistic about our future, or will catastrophes like climate change and nuclear war doom us all?

This summer, we’ve seen unprecedented global air temperatures and global ocean surface temperatures. And the heat only seems to get more and more intense – with deadly consequences. In May 2023 we experienced sea surface temperatures globally that were higher than any previous May on record. And it continued with the hottest June on record globally, smashing the previous record of June 2019. And just a few days ago, it was confirmed that July 2023 was the hottest month ever recorded. “These records have dire consequences for both people and the planet exposed to ever more frequent and intense extreme events,” said Samantha Burgess, Deputy Director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). “2023 is currently the third-warmest year to date at 0.43ºC above the recent average, with the average global temperature in July at 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,” Burgess said. “Even if this is only temporary, it shows the urgency for ambitious efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, which are the main driver behind these records.” 2016 still holds the record for Earth’s hottest year. But according to forecasters, due to human-caused warming and a climate pattern known as El Niño, there is a 98 percent chance that at least one of the next five years will exceed that. Global average temperatures have already increased with about 1.1°C since the 19th century. Steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, combined with natural El Niño conditions, will most likely cause temperatures to accelerate to new record highs. And scientists are warning that even small increases in warming can exacerbate the dangers from heat waves, wildfires, drought and other calamities. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), there is a two-thirds chance that the annual average surface global temperature between 2023 and 2027 will be more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year. “This will have far-reaching repercussions for health, food security, water management and the environment. We need to be prepared,” said WMO Secretary-General Prof. Petteri Taalas. In other words: this summer's global heatwaves are just a foreshadowing of what's to come - and it's bad news for our health. We should be concerned not only about our own bodies' internal limitations in dealing with heat, but also about what heat can expose us to indirectly. Make no mistake. These heatwaves have deadly consequences. Last year’s heatwave in Europe killed more than 60 000 people. We still don’t have any numbers of this year’s heat-related deaths, but considering how bad it's been this summer - with extreme temperatures and wildfires - those numbers will surely be surpassed. “We’re in serious trouble,” said Dr Laurence Wainwright, a sustainability and psychiatry academic at Oxford University . And it is not just elderly people that are the most vulnerable to heatwaves. “People with cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and types of respiratory disease, diabetes, and pregnant women” are also at greater risk from heatwaves, according to Gregory Wellenius, professor of environmental health at the Boston University School of Public Health. In fact, “even the healthiest people can succumb to the impacts of heat.” In Arizona this summer, many people have suffered third-degree burns just from walking barefoot outside, which have led people to call it a month in hell. The heat is increasing the spread and potency of infectious diseases - such as dengue fever, malaria, Zika virus, and cholera. As the planet warms, these infectious diseases are spreading to new regions, such as Europe, that previously have been spared. The increased temperatures are also causing huge wildfires. Often with deadly outcomes, most recently seen in Hawaii. But wildfires also have more indirect consequences. In the United States alone, smoke from wildfires kills thousands of people prematurely every year. Heatwaves could also alter human behaviour and pose a significant threat to our mental health. Studies have shown a surge in emergency department visits for mental health conditions during heatwaves, as well as an increased risk of suicide during hot days, and even a rise in gun violence in the US during unusual warm periods. Already vulnerable groups are likely to suffer the most from increased temperatures and heatwaves. Unlike middle and upper-class people, who usually can work in air-conditioned offices, lower class people tend to work outside. And as it only gets hotter, these people will bear the brunt of the scorching heat. “Global warming, like other disasters, is just exacerbating inequality,” says Jason Kwai Lee, associate professor at the Yong Loo Lin school of medicine at the National University of Singapore. “We complain, we suffer. And then this whole thing repeats again next summer.” We seem to forget about it, he says. Let’s not forget about it this time. Let this summer be our wake-up call.

If China and the rest of the world’s biggest emitters do nothing, we will fail. But we will also fail if small emitters like Sweden do nothing. Swedish media today reported on a new poll that showed that nine out of ten right-leaning voters in Sweden considered China’s emissions to be more important than Sweden’s own emissions. The question asked was: "Does China affect the climate more than Sweden? Claim: The most important thing is not if Sweden reduces its emissions - the most important thing is that China does." 91 percent of people who vote for the right-wing parties in Sweden thinks that the most important thing is that China reduces its emissions, not that Sweden reduce its own emissions. Interestingly, the poll also shows that there is a big difference between the right-leaning and left-leaning political blocs regarding how many "fully" or "partially" agree with the statement, even if there is a majority on both sides. Of the voters who vote for "left-leaning" parties, only 57 percent agree with the above argument. Obviously and to no surprise to no one, a whopping 96 percent of people who vote for the Sweden democrats, which is a nationalist and far-right populist political party with literal Nazi roots, agrees with the statement. This might not sound like such a big deal. After all, China’s share of global CO2 emissions (30,9 percent in 2021) dwarfs Sweden’s share of global emissions (0,1 percent in 2021). Considering this, of course the most important thing is that China reduces its emissions, not that Sweden does. Right? Well, yes, but mostly no. It’s true that the emissions of many – if not most – countries in the world are dwarfed by a few big countries; namely China, United States (USA), India, and Russia (in that order). But that doesn’t mean that smaller and rich countries like Sweden, that has what some might consider negligible emissions, are off the hook when it comes to climate change. What Sweden and these other small countries does actually do matter a lot. Yes, if China and the rest of the world’s biggest emitters do nothing, we will never be able to tackle climate change. Obviously. But we will also fail if small emitters like Sweden do nothing. Just have a look at the graphic below (and read this excellent article by Hannah Ritchie that explores this topic much deeper). The graphic shows that the emissions from countries that emit less than 2 percent of global CO2 emissions collectively emit more than China. Now imagine if all of these countries decided to do nothing. And yes, these are “production-based” emissions, i.e. how much each country emits domestically. The numbers therefore don’t take into consideration how many of the world’s richest countries – like Sweden – have offshored some of their production emissions to countries like China. But even if you compare “consumption-based” emissions, the result doesn’t change much. China’s emissions go down a little, and the emissions from the United States goes up a little. This doesn’t give the argument that China’s emissions are more important any more weight. Consider the moral argument that’s based in climate justice. Rich countries have emitted more historically. In 2021, Germany’s share of global CO2 emissions was 1,82 percent. That’s not much. But Germany accounts for more than 5 percent if we consider the country’s historical emissions. Rich countries like Sweden and Germany have developed their countries and economies thanks to the cheap extraction and use of fossil fuels. There is also the technical aspect of this. Rich countries have the ability and the money to easily innovate, invest and deploy low-carbon technologies. For example, the price of solar and wind and battery technology have plummeted in recent decades as rich countries invest in and deploy more low-carbon technologies. And when rich countries invest in low-carbon technologies, they will bring prices down for the rest of the world. And this will directly benefit poorer countries and help them to use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels to develop their economies. And this is exactly what we need. We need low-carbon technologies to be cheaper than fossil fuels. Small countries can also become climate leaders and set expectations for the rest of the world. They can act as role models and show that it is possible to decarbonize our economies and transition to renewable energy. Rich countries have a moral obligation to reduce their emissions – no matter their size and share of CO2 emissions today. And they need to get their emissions down to zero as quickly as possible so that poorer countries can also develop their economies and improve the lives of their citizens while the world stays within the global carbon budget. Climate change is a global problem that requires international collaboration – from everyone. We can only succeed if we work together. The argument that my own small country shouldn’t reduce its emissions before one of the big polluters like China does is nothing more than a nationalistic cop-out. The people who use and push for this argument online are mostly the same people who a few years back were climate deniers. But these days they would sound crazy if they denied the overwhelming science of climate change, and no one in their right mind would take them seriously. So now they’ve evolved, but their agenda is still the same. They wouldn't call for emission reductions even if they lived in one of the big polluting countries because they don’t consider climate change a man-made crisis. It’s just another argument they use to downplay the climate crisis and their own responsibilities while slowing down meaningful climate action. Don’t believe them. Continue to push for climate action that is just and based on science. The cover photo shows smoke rising towards the sky from the chimneys of a paper mill in Sweden. Photo by Daniel Moqvist.

Greenpeace activists have covered UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's private home in black fabric, Sky News reports. The protest is directed against the government's energy policy as the UK government has previously announced plans to grant over 100 new oil and gas licenses off the coast of Scotland. The activists also hung a banner with the text "Rishi Sunak - oil money or our future?". According to AFP, the activists were arrested by police and later released on bail. Greenpeace have written more about the action on their website: Why Greenpeace activists covered Rishi Sunak’s house in black fabric. I must say, Greenpeace are awesome, and they know exactly what kind of stunts gets the most exposure.

And here's the outcome: Greta Thunberg fined for disobeying police at protest. Greta Thunberg was sentenced for disobeying law enforcement, Malmö District Court has announced. Thunberg is sentenced to pay 30 daily fines of SEK 50 (for a total of 1500 SEK) and must also pay 1000 SEK to the Crime Victim Fund. In court, Thunberg admitted that she was present and that she did not listen to the police's request. She denied any wrongdoing, citing emergency law. "It's correct that I was at that place on that day, and it's correct that I received an order that I didn't listen to, but I want to deny the crime," Thunberg said in court, according to the AFP news agency. "My actions are justifiable," she was quoted as saying. "I believe that we are in an emergency that threatens life, health and property. Countless people and communities are at risk both in the short term and in the long term." During a press conference, Thunberg said that the verdict came as no surprise and that she won't stop taking part in climate protests. "We can't save the world by following the law," Thunberg said. "It is absurd that those who act in accordance with science are the ones who pay the price and are prosecuted, while the fossil fuel industry is not held accountable." And sure thing, shortly after she was fined, Thunberg carried out a new action in the oil port in Malmö together with the organization Take Back the Future. Local news media reported that police removed her and several other activists as they blocked the entrance to the tanker depot and prevented tankers from driving out. "We are doing this because we are in the middle of a climate crisis. We who can act have an obligation to do so," Thunberg told news media.

A new analysis of genetic samples provides “some of the strongest evidence so far” that the coronavirus pandemic started by transmission from animals to humans at a market in the Chinese city of Wuhan, reports The Atlantic. The genetic samples were collected at the market shortly after the city was locked down in early 2020. The new analysis was done by an international team of researchers and indicates that raccoon dogs that were sold illegally at the site may have carried the virus in late 2019. “This really strengthens the arguments for a natural origin,” virologist Seema Lakdawala told the magazine.

If you thought that Donald Trump was done with trashing US democracy after losing the 2020 election, think again. The former president has been busy laying out his plans for a possible comeback in 2024, and they are not exactly moderate. According to Axios, which has compiled a list of Trump’s proposals so far, he intends to crack down on the “radical left”, “Marxist prosecutors” and give himself more power if he wins the next presidential election. He also wants to pardon all those who participated in the storming of the Capitol, fire any state officials who are not loyal to him, and cut off military aid to Ukraine. These are some of the highlights of Trump’s policy agenda, which he has been revealing in interviews, speeches and statements over the past months. Axios notes that much of his focus is on settling scores with his perceived enemies and reversing the actions of the Biden administration. He also seems to have a personal vendetta against Ukraine, which he blames for his first impeachment. He says he would immediately negotiate peace with Russia and stop supporting Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression. What do you think, will Trump be able to reclaim his power and reshape America according to his authoritarian vision? Or will he face a strong democratic opposition from within his own party and from the American people? On a related note: Trump’s policy platform is a (somewhat) stark contrast to that of his potential challengers in the Republican party, who are trying to appeal to a broader base of voters and distance themselves from the former president’s controversies. One of those challengers is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has been praised among right-wingers for his resistance to “woke” culture. DeSantis wants to make the whole country more like Florida, which he sees as a model of freedom and prosperity. Another possible contender is former Vice President Mike Pence, who has been keeping a low profile since leaving office. Pence says he wants to follow in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and restore conservative values and American leadership in the world. He also claims to have a good relationship with Trump, despite being targeted by the Capitol rioters who believed that Pence betrayed him by certifying Biden’s victory. Who do you think will win the Republican nomination in 2024?

If you are trying to cut down on sugar, you might be tempted to use artificial sweeteners instead. But according to a new guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO), this is not a good idea. WHO says that artificial sweeteners do not provide any long-term benefits for reducing body fat in adults or children. They also warn that there may be “potential side effects” from long-term use of sugar substitutes, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. WHO based its guideline on several studies that examined the effects of artificial sweeteners on weight loss and health outcomes. They found that there was no clear evidence that artificial sweeteners helped people lose weight or prevent obesity. On the contrary, some studies suggested that artificial sweeteners might increase appetite, alter the gut microbiome, and affect glucose metabolism. So what should you do if you want to lose weight and improve your health? WHO recommends that you limit your intake of free sugars, which are added to foods and drinks or naturally present in honey, syrups and fruit juices. Free sugars should not exceed 10% of your total energy intake, and ideally less than 5%. You should also eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds, and avoid processed foods and beverages that are high in sugar, fat and salt. And of course, don’t forget to exercise regularly and drink plenty of water. These are the best ways to achieve a healthy weight and prevent chronic diseases, without relying on artificial sweeteners.