This site uses cookies to deliver our services. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our cookie policy Cookie Policy
Got It

Save Mother Nature!

Open For Submission
Showing 1 - 10 of 23

Most Recent

For years, the ecological footprint of humanity and its activities has exceeded the biocapacity of the Earth, which in the current period (2019-2020) is causing the global collapse of our civilization.
0 0 up - 0 down
Laudato si' is the second encyclical of Pope Francis. The encyclical has the subtitle "on care for our common home". In it, the pope critiques consumerism and irresponsible development, laments environmental degradation and global warming, and calls all people of the world to take "swift and unified global action.”
In the fifth chapter, Bergoglio offers some guidelines for guidance and action. Not only a complaint, but it raises the question of what can be done to "get out of the spiral of self-destruction in which we are sinking". The Church does not pretend to define scientific questions, nor to replace politics, but the Pope calls for an "honest and transparent debate, because particular needs or ideologies do not harm the common good".
The judgment is severe: "The world summits on the environment in recent years have not responded to expectations because, due to lack of political decision, they have not reached really significant and effective global environmental agreements". The Pope asks "why do we want to maintain a power today that will be remembered for its inability to intervene when it was urgent and necessary to do so?"
We need a world ruler: "we need an agreement on governance (administrative) regimes for the whole range of so-called global common goods", since "environmental protection cannot be assured only on the basis of the financial calculation of costs and benefits . The environment is one of those assets that the mechanisms of the market are not able to defend or adequately promote ", he writes repeating the words of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church - is a book edited by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace for gather and systematize the Catholic teaching on social doctrine.
Also in this chapter, Pope Francis insists on the development of honest and transparent decision-making processes, in order to "discern" which entrepreneurial policies and initiatives will lead to "a true integral development". In particular, the study of the environmental impact of a new project “requires transparent political processes and subjected to dialogue, while the corruption that hides the true environmental impact of a project in exchange for favors often leads to ambiguous agreements that escape the duty to inform and in-depth debate ". Particularly incisive is the appeal addressed to those who cover political offices, so as to avoid "the logic of efficiency and immediatist" "today dominant:" if he has the courage to do so, he will be able to recognize again the dignity that God has given him as a person and will leave, after his passage in this story, a testimony of generous responsibility.
Finally, the sixth chapter, Education and ecological spirituality, because "every change needs motivation and an educational journey". All educational fields are involved, first and foremost "school, family, media, catechesis". The starting point is "to focus on another lifestyle", which also opens up the possibility of "exercising healthy pressure on those who hold political, economic and social power".
What happens when consumer choices manage to "change the behavior of companies, forcing them to consider the environmental impact and production models". We cannot underestimate the importance of environmental education pathways capable of affecting daily gestures and habits, from the reduction of water consumption, to the separate collection of waste to "turn off unnecessary lights".

All this brings to light the very pragmatic concepts embraced by Last Day Party:
1. The need for global governance.
2. The use of tools and organizations that allow smarter decision-making processes.
3. The responsibility of the leaders.
4. Education to spread best practices.
0 0 up - 0 down

The exhibition starts from my beginnings: the lions. They are the ones who taught me the photo. I was a very 'little idiot' kid: I lied, stole. I was kicked out of schools. Yet everyone has a passing chance. I was not afraid of my luck. Since I had nothing, no diploma, I agreed to sweep the Boulogne film studio where I met actors, directors. After a year, I made a film or two as an actor but I was bad, I did not work.

Everything changes when I fall in love with the mother of my best friend who takes me to the Allier. She makes me discover her love of animals and we create a zoological reserve, at the beginning, with deer, wild boars etc. then little by little, we raised tigers, lions. When I left when I was 30, I wanted to become a scientist. I went to Kenya with my wife today to prepare a thesis on the behavior of lions in Kenya. I then realize that the photos give information that the writing does not give. I'm starting to learn patience. At the same time, I became a balloon pilot. I then discovered aerial photography.

When I started photographing, I learned to look at beauty. What is more beautiful than a large oak in a field? What is more beautiful than a storm? This beauty crushes everything. Then the discourse on the beauty of the planet changed into a discourse on the urgency to save what can still be saved.

The success of “The Earth comes from the sky” comes from there: the beautiful is around us, we are not even aware of it anymore. I have no great merit. My only quality is to do everything for my work. I mortgaged my house for the "Earth seen from the sky" project. When you work on something, you have a certainty about what you do. It may be a little pretentious. But when you have the right subject, everyone is a good photographer. Besides, I always thought that my photos did not belong to me. Earth is a common good. This is also why all the photos will be sold for the benefit of my foundation and everything is carbon offset.

I dreamed of having a place where we could talk about ecology, awareness, raise awareness of the environment through free exhibitions, cooking classes, an outdoor tour. We now have a giant hive too. Having three hectares in Paris and a castle to do it is the dream. The GoodPlanet Foundation does not stop there and co-sponsors many projects around the world.

Since I was 20, I have been interested in the environment. It was not the same look as today. We were then interested in biodiversity: rhinos, elephants, birds. Today, we are talking about a global danger for all life on Earth. Scientists are now talking about the sixth extinction. Our values and our way of life resemble the society consumerist society in which we live. And finally, this religion of growth is killing life on Earth. What we could do at 2 billion, we cannot do at 7 billion. The population has been multiplied by 4 and the consumption of meat and fish by 8. We are consuming the Earth. We have been realizing all this for ten years.

I am a very worried optimist. We are going to an unknown world, not everyone is going to die but it is a more complicated world, more cyclones, storms, an unbalanced world. What is terrible is that life on earth next to us is disappearing: wild animals only represent 2% of the world's biomass. There is only us on Earth. And today, it's ridiculous to think that we can stop the machine. We must not think that it is useless to act, all our actions in favor of the planet amortize, we must continue to fight.

You can eat organic, live in the countryside, stop buying industrial meat. It's simple. It will not change the world but allows you to be in tune with yourself. Acting makes people happy.

Politicians lack courage. They are either oblivious or so obsessed with their electoral vision that they don't see what's going on. I imagine all the files that accumulate on the desk of Emmanuel Macron when this subject should exceed all the others.

The COP 21 agreement? What a false ass. The words petroleum, fossil energy and coal are absent, otherwise the producing countries did not sign. The problem is the selfishness of everyone, of the nations. Everyone does what he wants. We need a world government.

1 1 up - 0 down
The claim that humanity only has just over a decade left due to climate change is based on a misunderstanding. In 2018, a fairly difficult-to-read report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that humanity needs to cut its carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in half by 2030, to avoid global warming of 1.5°C above the levels seen before the industrial revolution. What this actually means is roughly, “We have about 12 years before fixing climate change becomes really expensive and tough.”
Humanity can still live in a world with climate change – it’s just going to be more work, and many lives and livelihoods are likely to be threatened. But it’s complicated, because this century we are facing many problems at the same time, and we are more dependent on each other than ever.

Under pressure
To get our food, most of us humans depend on global transport, payment and logistics systems. These, in turn, require fuel, electricity, communications and a lot of other things to work properly.
All these systems are connected to each other, so if one starts crashing, the chaos may cause other systems to crash, and before we know it we’ll have massive shortages and conflicts.
It’s hard to calculate the exact risk of this happening, since it has never happened before. Until recently, the world was split into separate regions that were largely independent of each other.
But we do know that climate change puts the whole world under pressure – everywhere, at the same time – making the risk of these systems collapsing more serious.
For example, it’s easier for businesses to handle cybersecurity and energy supply when they don’t also have to cope with natural hazards. Likewise, it’s difficult for governments to maintain infrastructure when politicians are busy dealing with the public’s reactions to food prices, refugees and ecological crises.

Building resilience
Geoengineering to reduce the impact of climate change – for example, by reducing CO₂ levels or pumping reflective particles into the Earth’s atmosphere to deflect the sun’s rays – might work. But if disaster strikes and those operations stop, the effects of climate change can return quickly.
The reasonable thing to do is to work on making our systems more resilient – and there are plenty of opportunities to do this. In practice, this means more local energy production, better backup systems, work on reducing climate change, and being more willing to pay extra for safety.

Disasters and diseases
So what about the other threats humanity is facing? Though natural hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and hurricanes can be disastrous, they pose a comparatively small threat to the survival of the human race.
Hazards big enough to cause entire species to go extinct are relatively rare. The typical mammalian species survives for about a million years, so the risk is roughly one in a million per year.
Asteroid impacts and supervolcanos do happen, but they are rare enough that we do not have to worry about them. Even so, planning for the day when we need to deflect an asteroid or make do without agriculture for a decade is a smart move.
Pandemics are worse. We know the 1918 flu killed tens of millions of people worldwide. New influenza viruses are popping up all the time, and we should expect to see a big pandemic at least once every 100 years.
Over the past century, we have become better at medicine (which lowers the risk from disease) but we also travel more (which increases the spread of diseases). Natural pandemics are unlikely to wipe out the human race, since there is almost always somebody who is immune. But a bad pandemic might still wreck our global society.

Technology attacks
Bioweapons, which use bacteria, viruses or fungi to harm humans or agriculture, are another issue. Fortunately, they have rarely been used in war, but they might become more dangerous in the near future because advances in biotechnology are making it easier and cheaper to modify organisms and automate lab work.
As this technology becomes more accessible, there’s a growing risk it could be used as a “doomsday device” by nasty regimes, to deter other states from seeking to topple them. Right now, the risk is smallish, but it will surely become larger if we do not figure out better ways to detect pathogens early on, keep an eye on risky biotechnology and do diligent diplomacy to keep governments sane.
Perhaps the biggest risk to humanity right now is nuclear weapons. I would personally guess the risk of a nuclear war (not necessarily world-ending but still horrifying) to be somewhere between one in 100 and one in 1,000 per year. This risk goes up or down, depending on tensions between countries and the competence of the people handling early warning systems.
At the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, we do a lot of work on Artificial Intelligence (AI). As with biotechnology, the risk right now is pretty minimal, but it might grow in time as AI become better and smarter, and we think it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Developing tools to ensure AI stays safe and operates in a way that benefits humanity could save money in the long run, and it’s unlikely to make things worse. Again, the probability of an AI disaster is fairly undefined, since it changes depending on how well we prepare for it.
I can’t give a probability of a world-ending disaster that isn’t more or less guesswork. But I do think there’s a big enough risk of such a disaster in our lifetimes that we should work hard to fix the world – whether by making sure governments and AI stay safe and sane, replacing fossil fuels, building backup systems and plans, decentralising key systems and so on. These things are worthwhile, even if the risk is one in a million: the world is precious, and the future we are risking is vast.
1 1 up - 0 down
The most effective way to fight global warming is to plant lots of trees, a study says. A trillion of them, maybe more.

And there's enough room, Swiss scientists say. Even with existing cities and farmland, there's enough space for new trees to cover 3.5 million square miles (9 million square kilometers), they reported in Thursday's journal Science . That area is roughly the size of the United States.
The study calculated that over the decades, those new trees could suck up nearly 830 billion tons (750 billion metric tons) of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That's about as much carbon pollution as humans have spewed in the past 25 years.
Much of that benefit will come quickly because trees remove more carbon from the air when they are younger, the study authors said. The potential for removing the most carbon is in the tropics.

"This is by far—by thousands of times—the cheapest climate change solution" and the most effective, said study co-author Thomas Crowther, a climate change ecologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.
Six nations with the most room for new trees are Russia, the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and China.

Before his research, Crowther figured that there were other more effective ways to fight climate change besides cutting emissions, such as people switching from meat-eating to vegetarianism. But, he said, tree planting is far more effective because trees take so much dioxide out of the air.
Thomas Lovejoy, a George Mason University conservation biologist who wasn't part of the study, called it "a good news story" because would also help stem the loss of biodiversity.

Planting trees is not a substitute for weaning the world off burning oil, coal and gas, the chief cause of , Crowther emphasized. "None of this works without emissions cuts," he said.
Nor is it easy or realistic to think the world will suddenly go on a binge, although many groups have started , Crowther said. "It's certainly a monumental challenge, which is exactly the scale of the problem of climate change," he said.

As Earth warms, and especially as the tropics dry, is being lost, he noted.
The researchers used Google Earth to see what areas could support more trees, while leaving room for people and crops. Lead author Jean-Francois Bastin estimated there's space for at least 1 trillion more trees, but it could be 1.5 trillion.
That's on top of the 3 trillion that now are on Earth, according to earlier Crowther research.
The study's calculations make sense, said Stanford University environmental scientist Chris Field, who wasn't part of the study.
"But the question of whether it is actually feasible to restore this much forest is much more difficult," Field said in an email.
0 0 up - 0 down
<div>“I am hopeful that Antarctica in its symbolic robe of white will shine forth as a continent of peace as nations working together there in the cause of science set an example of international cooperation.”</div> <div>These words by US naval officer and polar explorer Richard E. Byrd in 1957 are now inscribed on the Byrd Memorial at the US base McMurdo Station, Antarctica.
</div> <div>Two years later, at the height of the Cold War and with the threat of a nuclear holocaust looming large, Antarctica made its place in the history books and became this symbol of international cooperation.</div> <div>Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the UK and the US came together and dedicated the continent to peace and science through the signing of the Antarctic Treaty. It froze territorial claims, demilitarized the area, established peaceful cooperation and freedom for scientific research.

</div> <div>The Antarctic Treaty and its related instruments are a defining symbol of the power of multilateralism and good governance that are possible to achieve even at moments of heightened political strife.</div> <div>Many of its principles have been incorporated into the broader body of global governance and law and it paved the way for the development of other international instruments such as the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) that aims for the protection of the continent’s ocean wildlife.</div> <div>It has also enabled a large amount of multinational research to be carried out that has provided hugely important insights into our changing planet.

</div> <div>Antarctica is a continent covered with ice and snow. Its ice contains 70% of the planet's fresh water, and the ocean surrounding Antarctica contains a distinctive array of marine life such as corals, crabs, whales, seals and penguins.</div> <div>Microscopic algae and tiny shrimplike creatures – krill – serve as food for the entire ecosystem. The powerful currents that surge around Antarctica, gather nutrients and regenerate the waters before they spiral off to feed the ocean globally.</div> <div>While the Southern Ocean may be at the bottom of the planet (from a northern hemisphere perspective), it is very much at its heart. If we are to restore the health of the ocean, and planet, then that is where we must start.
0 0 up - 0 down
Current capitalism is no longer acceptable as it is destructive for the planet. We must re-examine quickly and in depth the rules and norms that govern it.
0 0 up - 0 down
Light pollution has eliminated our ability to see the stars at night and some are fighting back.
Past generations were able to see the stars at night set against a black sky.
In 1889, during his stay at the asylum of Saint-Paul-de-Mausole near Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, Vincent van Gogh painted the night sky filled with stars in his famous painting, "The Starry Night".
0 0 up - 0 down
As livestock farming continues to raise complex questions about sustainability and climate change, some say the future of food is lab-grown meat or veggie burgers that “bleed."

But a group of researchers from Tufts University have proposed a different solution — if you get can get past the gross factor.
The team says that cultured insect tissue could be part of a potential solution to our future food production. Writing in “Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems,” they explain why lab-grown insect meat — fed on plants and genetically modified for maximum growth, nutrition and flavor — could be the green alternative for high volume, nutritious food production.

“Due to the environmental, public health and animal welfare concerns associated with our current livestock system, it is vital to develop more sustainable food production methods,” lead author Natalie Rubio said.
Combined with genetically modified livestock, labriculture and plant-based meat alternatives, the researchers say insect meat could become part of a future solution.

Insect farming requires much less water and space than plant-based substitutes, genetically modified livestock and lab-grown meat, the team wrote, and twice as much of a cricket is edible than of a big-boned, big-bellied cow.
“Compared to cultured mammalian, avian and other vertebrate cells, insect cell cultures require fewer resources and less energy-intensive environmental control, as they have lower glucose requirements and can thrive in a wider range of temperature, pH, oxygen and osmolarity conditions,” Rubio said. “Alterations necessary for large-scale production are also simpler to achieve with insect cells, which are currently used for biomanufacture of insecticides, drugs and vaccines.”

Technology already developed to stimulate the movement of insect tissue for biorobotics could also be applied to food production, since regular contraction may be required for cultured insect muscle to develop a “meaty” texture, the researchers wrote. But a big question remains — how will it taste?
The short answer, Rubio said, is no one knows.

“Despite this immense potential, cultured insect meat isn’t ready for consumption. Research is ongoing to master two key processes: controlling development of insect cells into muscle and fat, and combining these in 3D cultures with a meat-like texture,” she said. “For the latter, sponges made from chitosan – a mushroom-derived fiber that is also present in the invertebrate exoskeleton – are a promising option.”

In the future, insect meat could even be made to taste like lobster, crab or shrimp due to the evolutionary proximity of insects and crustaceans, Rubio said.
0 0 up - 0 down
Chemists are finding better ways to extract biodegradable materials from crustaceans and insects.
Lobster bisque and shrimp cocktail make for scrumptious meals, but at a price. The food industry generates 6 million to 8 million metric tons of crab, shrimp and lobster shell waste every year. Depending on the country, those claws and legs largely get dumped back into the ocean or into landfills.
0 0 up - 0 down


End of content

No more pages to load

Incompatible Browser

Supported browsers are Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge, IE 11+, Opera, and Safari.