Esg-360

A state governor is an elected official who is responsible for the administration of their state. They are expected to work for the betterment of their state and its citizens. However, not all governors are able to fulfill this responsibility effectively. One reason for this could be a lack of knowledge and expertise about leadership.

Leadership is a complex skill that requires knowledge, experience, and the ability to make sound decisions. A governor who lacks these qualities may struggle to effectively lead their state. They may make poor decisions, fail to address important issues, or be unable to effectively communicate with their constituents.

In such a situation, the state and its citizens suffer. Important issues may go unaddressed, and the state may fall behind in areas such as economic development, education, and healthcare. The governor’s lack of leadership may also lead to a loss of trust and confidence among the citizens, further exacerbating the situation.

To prevent this from happening, it is important for governors to have a strong understanding of leadership and the skills required to effectively lead their state. This can be achieved through education, training, and experience. Governors should also be willing to seek advice and guidance from experts in the field of leadership.

A state governor who lacks knowledge and expertise about leadership can have a negative impact on their state and its citizens. It is important for governors to have a strong understanding of leadership and the skills required to effectively lead their state. By doing so, they can work towards the betterment of their state and its citizens.

In the 1970s, after studying the science behind how burning fossil fuels would warm the planet, oil companies realized that addressing climate change would threaten their core business. They hid evidence and launched their own campaigns to bring doubt and obstruct needed regulations to protect their profits. As oil prices skyrocket and CEOs announce major profits, discussions of climate concerns continue to be dodged by this industry decades later.

Scientific experts explain that if we want to maintain a livable planet, oil production needs to decrease 75% by 2050. If leaders of public and private sectors donate to clean energy and reduce financing for fossil fuels, we will meet the targets set in the Paris Agreement and limit global temperature rise to less than 2°C.

~ Time Magazine

KEY: There is still time to have a major impact. Here are 5 Things WE can ALL DO: (1) Radically reduce our consumption, (2) Eat as low on the food chain as you can, (3) Keep our homes & work spaces cooler in winter, warmer in summer, turn our water heaters to a lower temperature, (4) travel less, and (5) Vote, Volunteer and become Engaged Activists for climate, for sustainability, and for our common survival.
"Heat. Flood. Fire. Drought. War. Inflation. Welcome to the Age of Extinction.
Our Planet is Changing in Profound, Terrifying, and Visible Ways Now. But We’re Still in Denial About What It Means."

~Jonathan Wood Logan

The commitment described below, to make even green tech components recyclable, confirms that we don't need to resign
ourselves to familiar "lesser of evils" rationalizations, to support this
conversion from carbon; but
rather that - with consistency
and creativity - we can reach
sustainable ends, by way
of sustainable means.

When seeking the courage to stay in this marathon effort, it lends moral support,
to see so much evidence around, that
none of us is alone in caring, & trying...

Spiraling temperatures 🌡

Our planet is getting warmer. Every year, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) calculate the average surface temperature around the globe. These annual temperature data make up the global temperature record — and it’s how scientists know that the planet is warming.

Red spirals indicate years with warmer-than-average temperatures. The visualization “turns red” after 1975, showing that most of Earth’s warming has occurred in the last several decades.

Overall, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The year 2021 tied for the 6th warmest year on record. https://go.nasa.gov/37QvXr9

2021 Tied for 6th Warmest Year in Continued Trend, NASA Analysis Shows – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet Earth’s global average surface temperature in 2021 tied with 2018 as the sixth warmest on record, according to independent analyses done by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Deforestation? How deadly are its effects?

Currently, it is said that the forest inhabits over 70% of earth's wildlife and plants species. This without any further explanation, shows how important our forest reserves are and why they ought to be protected. But with the increasing need of forest resources by humans, our precious forests is gradually turning into bare lands.

According to a report made by the Nigeria Conservation Foundation (NCF), Nigeria has so far lost about 96% of her natural forest cover. It also reported that deforestation is increasing at an alarming rate of 11% per annum. So once again I ask, how deadly are the effects of deforestation?

This are some of the major effects of deforestation;
Loss Of Habitat: This the main effect of deforestation. When this trees are cut down continually without any replacement, those areas once occupied by those trees will become bare overtime, as whatever organism been inhabited in that area will be forced to migrate to a different area, and sometimes when this organism are unable to find a suitable location to migrate to, they die off, which might lead to extinction of said organism. So far there are more than ten species that have gone into extinction as a result of deforestation, they include; The Formosan Clouded Leopard, The Paradise Parrot, The Sumatran Orangutan, The Pygmy Raccoon, e.t.c.

Soil Erosion And Flooding: When a forest land is left bare, this gives way for erosion as there are no obstacles left to help hold the soil particles, therefore allowing them to move freely with flowing water when it rains. This also leaves the land vulnerable to flooding. Flooding in general has destroyed the means of livelihood for many persons, and for some, it has forced them out of their shelter.

Other major effects include desertification and global warming which I'll discuss at another time. Now that we've some of the effects of deforestation, let's discuss how to avoid/prevent deforestation.

So how do we prevent deforestation?

First and foremost, plant a tree where you can. This is the most important thing.

Secondly, we should limit our usage of forest materials that are not that important; Make your homes and offices paperless, and with introduction of computer gadgets, this is one thing that will not be difficult to achieve.

Plant five trees for every one tree you cut down. This is describe as the ultimate golden rule to help grow our forest and still enjoy it resources without worry.

Article written and published by Warrence Oghenevwegba ©.

Here is a closing statement by a defendant in one of the Printworks trials. It is so powerful that I am copying the lot, but if time is short please read the last 5 paragraphs which are fairly brief.

Why blockading Murdoch’s printing presses was an act of moral necessity to prevent the incitement of mass violence Written and delivered by Joel Scott-Halkes

26th May 2022 St Albans Magistrates Court

On September 4th 2020 I and 51 others from Extinction Rebellion were arrested for blockading the printing presses of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp in Broxbourne on the outskirts of London. Our action blocked and delayed the delivery of newspapers including The Sun, The Times, the Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Evening Standard for a single night.

In St Albans Magistrate court between the 21st and 26th May 2022 I self represented myself alongside 5 other incredible activists against the charge of ‘wilful obstruction of the highway without lawful excuse’.

What follows is my closing speech delivered to the court on the 26th in which I argue that: -
** Our action was necessary to prevent the newspaper’s crime of incitement to mass murder –
** Our action was in defence of the public order –
** Our disruption was entirely proportional to the threat of climate breakdown and likely saved News Corp millions of pounds in the long run –
** That if the judge could not find a legal reason to acquit us, she should hand in her resignation as an act of moral rebellion against a failed legal system

HEADING: What death by heat looks like

Your Honour senior police officers in this case have said repeatedly that their decision to arrest and remove us that night had to be made in the ‘wider context’. I couldn’t agree more. So in that spirit I would like to begin by describing what is happening 5,000 miles away as we speak right now. In the Himachal Pradesh region and other areas of India and Pakistan, temperatures are this very week rising above 49 degrees celsius. The effect of such heat is barely imaginable to those of us privileged enough never to have felt it, but the reports make clear the horrors. When the heat hit, those who were lucky enough to afford air conditioning retreated to their homes to survive. But soon electricity transmission lines buckled in the heat and the electricity grid went down. Those caring for the young, the vulnerable and the elderly were forced to resort to laying wet towels on their bodies to keep them cool. But in remote villages the wells soon began to run dry. With not enough water for wet towels and drinking there was no option left . By the time the horrific powerlessness of their situation hit, it was too late. To travel to a nearby village in that heat would mean death, but to stay at home would mean the same. Dying of heat stroke is not to be described lightly. The body cannot safely go above 42.5C.

You’ll know, Your Honour, if you’ve ever had a fever that the effects are at first disorientating. You enter an altered state. Then comes the nausea and vomiting. Next a splitting headache. Finally, rapid breathing and a racing heart rate. As the body passes safe temperatures, proteins begin to denature. The body literally starts to break down. As the electrolytes of sodium and potassium begin to fail, the nervous system shuts down. The brain passes through confusion, a numbing sensation and then into complete shut down. By this point death is a relief. And this is the thin end of the wedge.

At the wide end, scientists are predicting - in the words of David Attenborough - ‘the collapse of civilisation as we know it’. In the opinion of experts such as Johan Rockstrom at the Potsdam Institute this could bring with it hundreds of millions of deaths. This is not an opinion. Not a personal view that I or my codefendants hold. This is a reality. This is physics.

HEADING: Why the billionaire press are guilty of incitement to violence, and why we had to stop them

Your Honour, my codefendents and I undertook the action we did to prevent a serious crime; namely that of the repeated and continued incitement to violence by the billionaire controlled press. And before I go on I remind Your Honour that over 80% of the British press is controlled by majority voting shares or direct ownership by just 5 (white, male) billionaires. To understand why the years of climate denial, delay and misinformation published in newspapers such as The Sun, The Times and The Daily Telegraph should be legally considered as acts of willful incitement to violence, we need to first grasp the causality of climate death.
If I were to pipe noxious fumes into someone's bedroom, killing them in their sleep, and if someone were found to have written and published material encouraging me to do so, it would only be reasonable to conclude that the publisher of that information would be guilty of incitement to violence.

Let us scale up for a moment. If, say in the case of the tragic Bhopal disaster in which toxic fumes were released through a large urban area killing thousands of people, would we say the same? Sure it was not as local as just a single bedroom and the gases in question polluted an environment rather than a building, but legally we would all agree that if anyone had incited such murderous behaviour they would be guilty of a crime. Why then should it be any different when it comes to the deliberate pollution of our entire shared atmosphere with vast quantities of deadly carbon emissions?

In reality of course, there is no difference whatsoever (only that in this case the death toll will be measured in millions or billions, not thousands). As such Your Honour, the wilful incitement to pollute in such a way, in full possession of the facts of such pollution’s effect, is logically a crime, and a crime of heinous proportions at that.
But did the Murdoch and wider billionaire press that we disrupted wilfully incite such violence?

Irrefutably.

In a piece of research by Australian group Get Up in which they surveyed 8,000 articles in the Murdoch press on climate policies and action, they found that only around a quarter (27%) were positive about reducing carbon emissions whilst double that number (57%) were negative, either arguing against action to reduce carbon emissions or actively encouraging larger amounts of it! To quote Dominic Lawson writing in The Times as just one example: “global warming is good for species, including humans.”

You have also, in the evidence in this case, heard from my codefendants how elsewhere in the billionaire press more specific incitements to violence were made against those fleeing the effects of such psychopathic climate arson. We have heard how Katie Hopkins writing in The Sun called for ‘gunboats’ to be unleashed on refugees attempting to cross the channel who were elsewhere branded by her as ‘cockroaches’. This appears to be the plan the billionaire press had for our future at the time of our action. Enrich themselves at the expense of the people of the Global South and then unleash the gunboats on those poor millions when they flee. You have also heard of my own personal experience, albiet far less severe: Profiled by the right wing newspapers for my activism only to then receive r**e and death threats online as a result.

But arguably, when it comes to the Murdoch empire in particular, the criminality goes even further. Far from just inciting politicians to endlessly pull the fossil fuel lever, News Corp International appears to have had a hand on the lever itself. In 2020 it was reported that 206 meetings had taken place between News Corp and 10 Downing Street in the preceding two years. One such meeting between Rupert Murdoch and Boris Johnson took place only 72 hours after Johnson won the last election. Not a single Prime Minister since Thatcher has won an election without Murdoch’s backing and our home secretary, Priti Patel, who has featured so illustriously throughout this trial, was a guest at Rupert Murdoch’s wedding.

But if you don’t believe me on this, surely we can trust Murdoch’s own staff. When News Corp Australia finance manager Emily Townsend resigned her role in 2021 and emailed all staff in the company she wrote that she found it “unconscionable to continue to work for an organisation promoting climate change denial and lies”. This was all the more understandable when one considers that Ruper Murdoch is a major investor in global fossil fuels and even sits on the board of one oil and gas company - Genie Oil and gas - alongside the upstanding pillar of moral decency that is Dick Cheney.

You will then surely agree Your Honour, that with the irrefutable causality outlined above, it was equally unconscionable that we should not have acted to prevent the continued incitement of mass climate murder.

HEADING: The disruption of our protest was entirely proportional, indeed may have saved News Corp money in the long run.

We have heard in this case that it can, in certain circumstances, be entirely legal for a protest to block roads. When policing such a protest, the protestor's freedom of expression under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be balanced against the disruption caused by such an assembly.

The recent Zeiglar supreme court ruling on this matter states that more weight should be given to protestors’ freedom of expression when they are expressing “important political views” not “idle tittle tattle.” I ask you, what could be a more important political view then attempting to prevent the collapse of civilisation and the incitement to mass murder? Indeed, our choice to block the printing presses for 12 hours only, seems in this context, disproportionately short. Arguably we should still be blocking the presses now. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that it is frankly insulting to hear the prosecution complain of the delay of some newspapers being delivered in the context of the awe inspiring catastrophe those same newspapers have sort to hasten.

But despite this, you have also heard of my - and my codefendants - severe remorse at having inconvenienced the workers of the Newsprinters in any way. We do not undertake activism as a leisure activity, we do so out of a sense of overwhelming moral duty. Any disruption to everyday people caused by the ex*****on of this duty is something we always deeply regret. But when it comes to financial disruption, something the prosecution has spoken of at length, it is entirely apparent to me that in the long run we have likely saved News Corp money. How can this possibly be so? Well, it was projected by major consultancy firm Deloitte that inaction on climate crisis could soon be wiping around 7% off Global GDP - or £178 trillion in total. These numbers seem abstract but it's worth applying them to the earnings of News Corp. News Corp has annual revenues of around £7.5billion. As a globally exposed company it is not unreasonable to expect therefore that such a 7% fall in GDP would affect them directly. A 7% loss of News Corps revenues is £570million.

By comparison, the £1.2m that we are accused of having cost the company through our protest seems like a very good saving!! To be clear about the infinitesimal scale of this cost compared to News Corp’s earnings, £1.2m is 1/5000th of this multinational corporation’s annual revenues. It is barely 0.002%. This tiny outlay was surely worth it to help alert the corporation of the imminent loss of value it will suffer from climate collapse. Indeed when publishing climate denial, I would argue that such - highly affordable - climate protest should be an entirely expected cost of doing business.

We have heard in evidence from the Managing Direct of Newsprinters Ltd (the subsidiary of News Corp that runs the printing presses) that they have not once, nor do they currently plan to do so, undertake a climate risk assessment on their business. This is about as reckless as having a picnic on the rail tracks without checking the train times. With such careless disregard for climate change’s impact on even their own bottom line, if our protest was successful in making them consider climate risks at all and acting to mitigate them, we will have surely saved them millions in the long run.

HEADING. Why our act of disruption was in defence of the public order

In 2021 the UK’s Ministry of Defence published a review called “A changing climate: Assessing the impact of climate change for UK defence and security”. In this review they outlined some truly extraordinary risks to the British Public. These include: Rising sea levels; extreme weather; the spread of diseases such as the West Nile virus, dengue fever and Zika; flooding; the flooding of landfills leading to further pollution and the overheating of public buildings such as prisons, courts and schools. The review goes on to warn of resulting civil unrest. In acting to prevent such dire circumstances it is self-evident that our protest, far from disrupting the public order, was undertaken in defence of it.

HEADING: So what explains the police’s extraordinary act of repression on our right to protest?

We’ve established that road blocking protests can be legal in the context of important political issues and that arguably there can be no more important political issue than the continuation of civilization itself. We’ve also seen how our protest was remarkably undisruptive when considered in proportion to News Corp’s operations.

So why then, did the police and the Home Secretary, act so extraordinarily and desperately to shut down our legal right to freedom of speech? The list of bizarre acts and farcical acts undertaken by both that night are scarcely believable: -

** The police logs given in evidence show that the Home Secretary Priti Patel harassed police officers throughout the night of our protest, “seeking the early removal of protestors”... but no detailed record of the content of these phonecalls was written down.
**The Chief Constable’s phone mysteriously updated itself and deleted all its messages from that night. So did his assistant officer by remarkable coincidence.
** The night of the protest Hertfordshire police’s email systems were conveniently ‘down’ for routine maintenance leaving no paper trail of any written correspondence of the policing that night.
** We’ve seen police officers - namely the Silver Commander - openly contradict his own evidence in court about how influenced his decisions were by political pressure.
** We’ve seen Gold Command claim he forgot to log the surely most crucial piece of his evidence in which he claims to have told his superior that he would not be pressured by the Home Secretary.
** Indeed the actions of the police and Home Office were so unusual and unprofessional that an internal police review had to be undertaken.

What on earth explains this?

Dr Paul Slovic of the University of Oregon, a Psychologist, may have the answer. Slovic speaks of the ‘psychic numbing’ effect that happens when atrocities become too large or too numerous for the human brain to compute.

We can empathise well with one person’s suffering, a hundred maybe, but when it gets into the millions or even billions we conversely experience more apathy, not less. This results in extraordinary acts of repression. Surely it is this psychic numbing that explains the police’s unwillingness to consider the vital purpose of our protest.

Indeed, in Silver Command’s police log we can see an extraordinary omission. Whilst he actively assessed all sorts of risks on the night of our protest - including the risk of the government losing confidence in policing - he, by his own evidence, never considered the risk of systemic climate collapse.

This act of psychic numbing by the police is entirely understandable. Evolutionarily we have evolved to process empathy for small groups of humans only, we are not yet used to doing so for millions. No wonder the police that night thought only of the disruption caused by our protest to the immediate 200 or so employees of the printing presses in deciding to arrest us and not of the disruption caused to millions if our protest was not successful.

However, Your Honour, this mental distortion does not excuse our conviction. Here in this court we have the space and time to seriously consider the full picture. We have the ability to force ourselves out of the psychic numbing that, just like the heat stroke I described above, threatens to shut down the very nervous system that keeps us alive to the world.

HEADING: Why you should either find us not-guilty by the law, or resign from your job as a judge

So in closing Your Honour, I argue this. If you are persuaded of the simple causality that inciting the mass release of toxic gases into the atmosphere constitutes an incitement of extreme violence, you will either conclude two things.

Either the law does allow you to acquit us in recognition that we acted to prevent mass death and to defend the public order… …
or it doesn’t.

If you cannot find a legal reason by which to uphold our sacred right and duty as citizens to prevent mass death, then the only logical conclusion you can reach, I would humbly argue, is that the law has failed. Indeed beyond just failing, you must surely conclude that the law - and thus yourself as a Judge - are complicit in hastening the arrival of climate breakdown.

This is not a rhetorical flourish to end my speech on a high. This is physics. This is reality.

Therefore if you do conclude that by the law of the land you must hand us a guilty verdict, I call on you to also hand in your notice with it. If you must convict us today, I call on you to quit your role so that you may avoid ever having to criminalise those who act in defence of life again

The more we recycle, the less garbage winds up in our landfills and incineration plants. By reusing aluminum, paper, glass, plastics, and other materials, we can save production and energy costs, and reduce the negative impacts that the extraction and processing of virgin materials has on the environment.

.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23052022/short-lived-super-climate-pollutants-impact/

New Study Says World Must Cut Short-Lived Climate Pollutants as Well as Carbon Dioxide to Meet Paris Agreement Goals - Inside Climate News Climate policies that rely on decarbonization alone are not enough to hold atmospheric warming below 2 degrees Celsius and, rather than curbing climate change, would fuel additional warming in the near term, a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes. T...

Climate change.

Esg-360 updated their business hours.