“But none of this stuff is insurmountable – it’s just hard. We CAN do this stuff. If you were wringing your hands about unemployed truckers, good news! They’ve all got jobs moving thousands of cities inland!

Period” (Cory Doctorow).

“We should definitely take the climate issue seriously, but when it comes to biodiversity, there are other threats that are at least as important to consider, says Johan Ehrlén, professor at the Department of Ecology, Environment and Botany (DEEP) at Stockholm University” (my translation from the Swedish press release).

Yes! This perfectly sums up what has been bugging me about the otherwise great thing of more and more people waking up the the problems of global warming. Because, if we only focus on that threat we run a huge risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water. We need to fight climate change but we must not forget why we fight climate change!

Shifting from a local to a global viewpoint ought to mean multiplying viewpoints, registering a greater number of varieties, taking into account a larger number of beings, cultures, phenomena, organisms, and people. Yet it seems as though what is meant by globalization today is the exact opposite of such an increase. The term is used to mean that a single vision, entirely provincial, proposed by a few individuals, representing a very small number of interests, limited to a few measuring instruments, to a few standards and protocols, has been imposed on everyone and spread everywhere. It is hardly surprising that we don’t know whether to embrace globalization or, on the contrary, struggle against it” (Latour 2018, pp. 12-13).

Music that kills. Literally.

”In our effort to save the climate, are we destroying the environment” (Michael Shellenberger)?

I knew it! It is not me, it is global warming that is making me fat. Maybe.