Cattle ranching is “the largest driver of deforestation in every Amazon country, accounting for 80 percent of current deforestation rates,” according to researchers at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Greenwashing, political influence, destroying the Amazon – This story has it all.
The Amazon is being burned down to make way for the cattle industries to meet the demand for Brazilian beef, and it’s backed by a major investment firm that touts Corporate Social Responsibility, BlackRock investments, and is a huge backer of Joe Biden.
JBS, the exporter of Brazilian beef, is mainly responsible for this. JBS is backed by not only BlackRock, but other investment firms such as, Capital Group, Fidelity Investments, and Vanguard.
So let piece this together, the Amazon is being burned to satisfy the markets demand for beef.
Is it possible that if the demand for beef didn’t exist, that maybe JBS wouldn’t be killing the rain forest?
Our president has been successful in pulling back all kinds of consumer and environmental regulations and protections. It was expected. He promised this all along.
He is sacrificing long term stability for short term gains. This will come back to haunt everybody in the end.
He will continue doing this. He will also continue to attempt to gut access to adequate healthcare. No need to complain. He is proven to be above the law and is just ignoring the world’s cries.
So – what are you going to do about it?
It’s simple: money talks – go vegan. By going vegan, you will invest in products, and live a lifestyle, that considerably reduces harm to the environment and to yourself.
This will send a true environmental message and give a big middle finger to the White House, and to the corporations manufacturing and processing items that are ultimately killing us, and the environment.
What’s that saying? If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the …….
A global switch to diets that rely less on meat and more on fruit and vegetables could save up to 8 million lives by 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds, and lead to healthcare-related savings and avoided climate damages of $1.5 trillion (US) , Oxford Martin School researchers have found. (Source)
As the US continues to drop bombs on its war against reason as it relates to climate change, consumers need to act.
If the market demands cars with improved fuel efficiency, or electric cars, whatever rollbacks the Trump administration implements on fuel efficiency standards will not matter.
Automakers will be forced to comply with market demands.
Our dollars and decisions drive the market, not Trumps war on science and reason.
Screaming on social media doesn’t help, especially if you go out and buy a gas guzzling SUV afterwards.
Gas prices are rising. The petroleum industry and car manufacturers win if these proposed rules go into effect. In the long run, auto-consumers loose at the gas pump and via continued environmental degradation. But that doesn’t mean we quit and blame Trump.
Buy smart if you care about climate change–and don’t get sucked into the noise, such as the argument about safety as it relates to cars with better fuel efficiency standards. That’s crap.
Oh, and by the way, fuck you EPA. Remember, you make the rules we make the calls.
I’ve been doing some thinking about the concept of evil recently. Much of this stems from our president’s response to hurricane relief efforts in Puerto Rico, as well as his desire to make healthcare unattainable to those that need it most.
There was a question during the 2016 debates that was posed to Bernie Sanders regarding the biggest threat to national security, and Bernie cleverly responded climate change. I believe our president said illegal immigration when posed the same question–don’t quote me on that, though it sounds like something he’d say. But isn’t a lack of empathy towards the poor and less fortunate from those in power just as big of a threat to national security as climate change, immigration, or some rogue nation? Could lax gun laws also pose a similar security threat? They are supposed to keep us secure, but somehow the math in that equation isn’t really adding up.
What I’m dancing around is that the president doesn’t have any real interest in helping Puerto Rico recover. Puerto Ricans do not vote. Texans do. Environmental regulation isn’t really in the best interest of large corporations profiting on abusing the earth’s resources. Ensuring that all citizens have access to affordable healthcare isn’t in the interest of insurance providers or those that govern. And ensuring that strict gun laws exist to help prevent more senseless killings is not in the interest of the gun lobby or the NRA. War though is big business and the big boys like that. See the thread here? I’m proposing that maybe the biggest threat to our national security might not be as easy as a canned answer that tested well in a focus group, works great on a debate stage, and generates media soundbites. Shoot, Donald Trump might not even be the biggest risk to national security, he is just a man–an evil man, but just a man nonetheless. America will continue to survive after him. But what drives him and those like him will remain, and that is self-interest, which is at the root of climate-change crisis and all of the other crisis we face. It might be that we have created a system that has enabled it’s own undoing.
Is it possible for people and leaders within a democratic capitalist system to shed their self-interest for the sake of national security?
More Food for Thought
Here’s one to help get started with as it relates to national security and our wants (self-interest) – The US population is increasing exponentially. The need for a better food management system is imperative. American’s eat meat because they want to, not because they need to. If we shifted to a plant-based diet and used arable land more efficiently, we’d be able to feed more people here and around the world. There are a lot of studies proving this – I’m not going to cite one, simply turn to your Netflix account and watch a food documentary. But if you are still insistent on some proof – here’s something from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition you could read. The study concludes that the lactoovegetarian diet is better and more sustainable, but not sustainable in the long-run considering it’s fossil-fuel requirements. If as a society we acted on what was best for what we need now and for the future, we’d reconsider our diets entirely and use technology to help us develop sustainable farming methods. But the thing is, I’m not a baby calf nor do I intend on growing up to be a 400 lb bovine–keep your milk and cheese, Dr. Lactoovegetarian.