These Trees Are Not What They Seem
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2021
- The story of how the Nature Conservancy, the world’s biggest environmental group, became a dealer of meaningless carbon offsets.
Read the full feature story here: www.bloomberg.com/features/20...
#Storylines #BloombergBusinessweek #Green
--------
Like this video? Subscribe: ua-cam.com/users/Bloomberg?sub_...
Become a Quicktake Member for exclusive perks: ua-cam.com/users/bloombergjoin
QuickTake Originals is Bloomberg's official premium video channel. We bring you insights and analysis from business, science, and technology experts who are shaping our future. We’re home to Hello World, Giant Leap, Storylines, and the series powering CityLab, Bloomberg Businessweek, Bloomberg Green, and much more.
Subscribe for business news, but not as you've known it: exclusive interviews, fascinating profiles, data-driven analysis, and the latest in tech innovation from around the world.
Visit our partner channel QuickTake News for breaking global news and insight in an instant.
Read more about the carbon offset controversy here: www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees/
We know its all about Taxes. Give up already.
I'm in disbelieve, you meant they hold their own forest to a ransom???
GO TALK TO INDIA AND CHINA. WE'VE DONE ENOUGH IN THE U.S.
GO LOOK UP CO2 DROUGHT. THE EARHT DOEN'T HAVE THE PPM THAT THE EARTH HAD MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO. IT HAS BEEN IN A STEADY DECLINE.
YOUK NOW PLANT TAKE IN CO2 AND GIVE OXYGEN WE BREATHE. BASIC 2ND GRADE SCIENCE
1 Corinthians 15 : 1 - 4 the gospel saves. Refuse the mark.
one time I donated 20 dollars to the nature conservary, I then got at least 100 letters in the mail asking me to donate again. So much paper created and wasted in the mail to tell me to donate. I had to call them so they would stop mailing me.
Same here!! Even when i do "return to sender" it doesn't work. And sometimes they give my information away to similar organizations to then spam me too. It should be illegal to just give addresses away.
Yep. Sierra Club, Greenpeace and many others have done that too. So instead of motivating me to give more or to rejoin, it turned me off. Just like with huge for-profit companies, it's sometimes hard to totally remove yourself from their databases. Even sending mass emails (instead of paper) still uses energy for servers and storage.
@peter Grahame so what? Those trees still have to be grown, the paper manufactured, incl. sawing, bleaching, etc., transported, and sold. If that's for nothing, that's a lot of energy (potentially from coal sources even, and transport with gas vehicles) wasted. Still counts in my book.
@peter Grahame I hear all trees produce Oxygen that offsets CO2
It's all about money...
Just like anything in the corporate world: what matters is the appearance of doing what's right without the expense of actually caring to do it.
show must go on
We must rely on experts ... translation ... plausible deniability, only plausible because you control and game the whole regulatory process.
It's the human nature. I'm sure every business owner wants to protect their business.
But global warming is TOooooootallly real. even though you BS artists are lying to get more money..
you dont lie to get money but once you have it
human 1 (carbon offset buyer): ill pay you to plants trees so that i can make more CO2.
human 2 (carbon offset seller): sure, ill burn down more trees to clear space to plant more trees.
nature: 👁👄👁
correction it should be Human 2 : sure, ill just declare that there arent enough trees in this land and we will pocket it
Cobra Effect right there
same thing happening everywhere in the world sadly
Microalgae farming, seaweed and oyster farming is the key
This reminds me of plastics. Like I agree plastic straws are bad, but you shouldn’t feel like you’ve done enough once you give up plastic straws. People buy a metal straw and are satisfied now that they have eliminated less than 1% of their plastic use
Plus plastic straws are better for the environment than Paper straws as plastic straws are easily recyclable whereas paper straws are not.
plastic straws are better than metal straws. The carbon footprint of a metal straw is insanely higher than a plastic straw. Like, 10000x higher.
@@SharkWarrior35 Really depends where you are. Just because something can be recycled doesn't mean it will be recycled. If plastic isn't recycled it goes to landfill or the sea. If paper can't be recycled it will just biodegrade.
@@bishboshs yeah but most peoples who live on cities throw their rubbish in bins which end up in landfills. And landfills are built to prevent decomposition.
Yeah, but the same goes for plastic bags, 1% +1% =2% , 1000 people at the local Starbucks, means 1000 straws a day less,plastic package, however if you buy a good fitting phone case you get a more luxury plastic box with more plastic then the case, .....the star is only better since its metal if you stay using it, however the metal is recyclable and the question then you could ask, should everything be from wood and metal, making metal produce a lot of emission, wood needs a lot of trees, and plastic is recyclable 2, .....in the end its the way its handled and used, Roman already had trash belts full of stone pots, however those were never bad for the environment because they are just made of mud, so only the heating produces and destroys trees, but they grow back....if you plant a new 1
Planting trees is such a cop-out for corporations because it removes them from any responsibility of actually lowering the GWP of their operations actively.
It would be half the problem if they were really planting them - or making sure the people they paid to do it actually did it on new land. Would love to see what's stated in contracts between the offsetting party and the one directly involved in delivering the offsetting project...
Finally this is being brought to light... Good job
The danger of bad incentives
How do you feel about carbon tax as an incentive instead?
@@JulianSloman works until they shift to countries without regulation
The "offset your carbon" never made any kind of sense to me. It's just bogus accounting.
it only make sense if it's between two carbon producing company to trade their investments of CO2 emmision reduction just like how SO2 emission trade solved acid rain.
@@FathinLuqmanTantowi Acid rain was not nearly as comprehensive a problem. Consumption drives emissions. Pretending you are consuming less by "paying someone else to pretend they are emitting less" (because there is no way to actually tag & track molecules; it's all Conceptual) does not in fact change anything. It's like paying someone not to beat their own child so you can beat yours, because "this 1 time you really have to." The bottom line is: harm is done, but those who cause the harm are lulled into thinking they "contributed a solution." Change your patterns! OK, you won't be able to never drive, never fly. Drive Less! Fly Less! Don't own 200 pairs of shoes, own 100. Don't buy a 2nd car, a 3rd car. Share cars or use ride services. Like that. It has to matter enough to make those incremental changes.
Just come to Asia we will going to suffer the most.
This is trending for european companies. In the Netherlands people basically get brainwashed that this is correct. To tell the truth, it reminds me of the Enron weather stock and what happened to them. It might seem environmentally friendly but not sure about ethics.
In the end of the day, it's just another business deal in this beautiful divisive racial world! How radical it just sounded when one said it's the first world problems and not just any county, not any town or city or state nor country and continent! And we still won't admit that! How great has the human animal transformed into today! Yohooo!
you mean a scam
@@kevinbrown4073 well, sorry for being sarcastic but then again, those who cares are those who are powerless. Haven't heard of anything against them anyway, but I gotta admit that was truly a genius scheme. I'm sure they got paid handsomely.
@@daviel you were being polite which I respect. All I will say is that the corporatists got paid esp Al Gore
@@kevinbrown4073 I can foresee no rainforest jungles are left in the next few decades despite every government shouting and chanting to go green. And honestly, this case is nothing compared to the Louisiana oil spill. Have you heard?
You mean the world
I've always found it weird to plant trees instead of trying to reduce deforestation that destroys way more and needs a long time to grow back as it was
i agree , takes too long for tree to grow back, not realistic
Sure, buying an existing forest land means your carbon footprint gets reduced, but that also means whoever is selling the forest land has their carbon footprint added.
Unless the seller plants new forests, this whole "carbon stocks" thing is a zero-sum game.
that CO2 molecule geometry really hurts my eyes. seriously its not water not every molecule is curved
You must be a treat to be around
The way the world works... atleast it's a bit of motivation to do something with my life.
Investing in crypto is the only big chance of making money
investing , and sit on your laurels mentality i really dislike
My wife and I had two cars. Finally decided to ditch one and take the train + bicycle to work from now on. A series of small actions compound over time.
How old are you?
you just could'nt afford the repayments on the second car
Excellent, but there's one decision above all others in import: go vegan.
@@djayjp so you can eat veggies that are 99% plastic dependent (pipes, bags, plastic mulch, greenhouses, etc)?
@@djayjp being vegan doesn't help at all.
FYI: recently India passed forest land laws that allows Companies to use the forest land without any explanation about how it is used.
Great work on bringing this to light!!
Now bring to light how Al Gore said the world was going to end in 10 years, but its been 15 years. you all need to pay closer attention because the government and science and CNN all lied to you
When Bob Marley said we are living in Babylon he was all the way right man, when are we going to put our life’s first before the rules of making money?
Be careful what you wish for. Great reset has started and you're not going to like it.
It's completely ok to cut down the trees as long as you don't burn the wood, the carbon is still bound in the wood. The amount of carbon that a tree removes from the atmosphere is ultimately only what is bound in it's biomass. E.g. when leaves fall to the ground and rot away that carbon bound in them again ends up in the atmosphere as CO2. Fruits eaten by animals will be metabolized, and again the C bound in them ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere.
There is a misconception of trees as a kind of perpetual washing machine for the atmosphere. The carbon from the CO2 has to go somewhere, and that's the biomass of the tree.
What else do you do with the wood? Don't tell me to combine it with equal weights of synthetic resin and build houses out of the ensuing structures. The population is heading for collapse within the next hundred years, so there's no long term demand for those buildings, which will be left to rot.
@@nicktecky55 It's a cycle anyway, the only thing you can do is keep it a bit longer in the wood state. If that's as a tree, furniture or part of some building doesn't make a difference.
@@Pengochan Absolutely. The only products that should be the envisioned outcome of Carbon Capture in its widest sense are chalk and clay. Chalk is probably the most promising, because what is required is a small organism to make the shells, a large vat and energy. None of which will stop the Greenland ice sheet from melting of course.
Yeah... this isn't a problem with the idea of carbon offsets or the companies purchasing them. This is a problem with environmental groups scamming people.
Environmental groups might be responsible for misguiding public opinion or their own fraudulent behavior, but let's not pretend they are the ones responsible for the impact our system and its companies have had on various environments and ecological crisis.
Wrong. Carbon offsetting is just a way for the rich companies to buy their way around the emission laws. When you create such nebulous, wishful-based system, it's bound to be abused from every side.
@@disasterdrew7738 I don't think anyone is pretending anything. Carbon offsetting is a good, pragmatic solution. But it clearly needs more oversight. These companies legitimately believe they're offsetting their carbon footprint, we shouldn't be shaming them for trying to do the right thing.
You're doing excellent work. Thank you for this material!
I miss when reporting dealt with complicated issues like this.
It's happening here, all hope is not lost
We built a giant windfarm in the Netherlands, mostly with tax money. Our government sold them to Google and Facebook.
When we build a cleaner energy system, Big Tech companies should not get preferential treatment over citizens paid for its construction.
As mentioned in the video: they have deep pockets, they can build their own
Well, it seems that you got pack your tax money if they paid for them. And they bought them with their big pockets.
Issue is "net zero" and "sustainability" are more talked about than acted on
A Kenyan scientist called Dr Mordecai Ogada has been speaking out about the activities of the Nature Conservancy in Northern Kenya. Please read his work and hopefully do a video about it.
1 + someone purchasing that 1 does not equal 2. the companies should buy chunks of rainforest land and protect it from farmers and loggers for at least 75 years. or buy barren land and plant and maintain high carbon reducing trees for at least 75 years. i say 75 years because once the deal is up, the trees can be logged, so making it a long time prevents that incentive.
"We can convince ourselves of anything, regardless of the facts"
Keep going, you're so close to self-awareness.
The forests of North Carolina and Virginia are clear-cut, ground into pellets, containerized and shipped to Europe and China to meet climate offset goals. Much is burned in coal fired power plants. Not only is this irrational from an emissions standpoint; lumber prices in North Carolina have tripled, damaging the construction industry.
Go look at Florida, there are almost no natural trees left and all in perfectly straight rows. THey use white pine because they re-grow fast and can be harvested again within 20 years but are a completely foreign tree and don't fit in the american ecosystem
This is really unfortunate, and it DOES matter. It matters because if they weren't taking these dollars then the money might go toward alternative offsets that are doing something REAL like capturing at the factory.
Cost to cure world hunger : 30 Billion
Cost to fund US Army Yearly : 737 Billion
I am all for protecting forests and habitat environmentally this makes sense. Protecting a forest so we somehow offset CO2 in the atmosphere does not make any sense.
1. Forests are carbon neutral - sure they absorb CO2 but they also release it in leaf fall and on decomposition of the trees when they die. If you want to capture carbon then grow a forest and fell it on ideal maturity and preserve the timber in buildings/furniture.Offsets are trading schemes set up for companies who wish to do the same thing.
Years ago Anime of all the media showed it done right.
There was a regular job in this fictional future earth. People cut down trees and put them underground to actually offset CO2.
Wow. Great reporting, but a sad reality. Thank you for putting this out there.
a major flaw in this video, or trexler's philosophy in general, is that the idea of offsets are inherently bad, in the first place. the concept itself is self validating because it essentially awards one the license to pollute. the notion that you can continue to extract fossil fuels and release emissions because you'll 'offset' them on some norwegian solar farm later. it simply does not work that way.
Yes, those trees are under threat because the land will be sold if they don't get their money, and thus cut. Clearly it's a threat...
Nature Conservancy doesn't sell land. the land won't be sold.
@@badmongo0 That's their opinion and they're sticking to it huh.
@@Adyen11234 its a fact, not an opinion. give me one example where The Nature Conservancy sold land. Never happened, never will.
@@badmongo0 then how can the trees they own be under threat?
@@lonyo5377 they aren't under threat, that's what this documentary explained. They claim they're under threat so they can sell credits. this is all explained in what we just watched
This is a proposal to economically recycle plastics- In Australia we have many open cut mine pits. This proposal is to store the worlds plastics in those pits allowing the sun to breakdown them down into either a minable commodity or as carbon sequesting.
John Stossel, Penn & Teller, and that Michael Moore documentary have been talking About Green Washing for over TWO decades.
It’s just about money......those trees are always there regardless if they pay for or not......
those trees will be there in 100 years, after al gore keeps refreshing his "We only have 10 years left" 10 more times. yall are idiots.
Really great food for thought here 👍🏽
I’m a bit disappointed that this documentary does not go all the way showing what’s wrong with the current carbon offset systems. Is it actually that difficult to prove that you’re genuinely increasing the carbon-capturing capacity of a land? We have earth-observing satellites that can monitor properties coverage quite easily.
The examples given are not being paid to plant trees, they are being paid to not cut down trees. So if you weren't going to cut them down anyway, promising not to cut them down doesn't change anything. The other side is that if you pay someone not to cut down trees and for a year or 2 they don't, then after that they do, then the original offset which was valid at the time is now no longer valid. The fundamental problem is that trees are only temporary stores of carbon. Even if you don't cut them down eventually they die and rot and release all the carbon again anyway. Over the long term a forest does not actually reduce carbon just by existing. Cutting down trees and using the wood for construction or furniture etc can be better than leaving the trees in the forest because then the carbon is locked away long-term.
It would make more sense to pay people to plant trees and fine them for burning trees. But it can be difficult to know who burned the trees, or even if you know it's difficult to get them to pay the fine. If they haven't signed up to the fine system how do you enforce it. The country where the land is located would have pass a law banning burning trees so it was a crime that could be punished. Without that you have to bribe them not to burn them. It's like someone blackmailing someone by threatening to release photos of them. You could pay them every month for 2 years and then they still release them anyway. You now have the embarrassment and you lost a load of money.
It's very hard to make this work on a global scale. It's not surprising they haven't managed it.
Perfect timing of this video considering today’s Apple 2021 Keynote and their renewed claims of “working towards and soon becoming a Carbon-Neutral company” ... yea sure.
It would be better to just say 'we will be doing better'. No magic, no unprovable claims, just solid effort in a truly measurable and repeatable way.
When it comes to Apple in particular, they've shown willingness to throw a lot of money into lowering emissions. They are most likely not messing around.
@@fVNzO Yeah, their HQ in Silicon Valley has its own solar power plant to be used as electricity for their HQ
It got recommended to me after one of the podcast I listen to; it’s really eye opening, especially reading stories of people from the comments that donated as well
Corporates are going keep hoarding money and things are going to get worse but when they do the richest would have resources to protect themselves or provide some kind of protection to the common people and in the process make more money again.
"what do I know? Anything
what don't I know? Everything"
Eye opening! Thanks for a great report.
Nature Conservacy, but cut 72% of the trees, of their own land ? What an irony !
I can’t believe the Nature Conservancy sold out like that!
what an eye opener. thank you for flagging this legal but morally questionable practice.
Carbon offsets was a term funded by an oil company, shell, bp...let’s talk about this first, it was a term created to take the spotlight of big corporations and instead put the responsibility in the hands of the consumer.
Does Net Zero Emmission also count for employees that drive diesel cars to their workplace? (I mean before the pandemic when people used to drive to work)
ah, i remember those days.
Heck I saw a woman trying to get a diesel pump to work with her credit card when she has a brand new Jeep. Saw it 2 days ago. Just thought if it when you mentioned people driving in their diesel ICE vehicles to these companies. We're doomed if people are so blind and dumb.
I really thought big tech is taking this seriously but looks like there is no alternative to governments and scientists stepping in just doing their work and not get influenced by greed.
😂😂😂😂🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂🤣😂🤣😂😂😂🤣
Big tech taking it seriously...and governments not getting influenced by greed? 🤣😂😂😂🤣
Great informative video bloomberg
a child can verbally call out a issue, a genius will give u a solution.
money plain and simple; trading carbon is the biggest scam in history
As one of the contributors to this video, I see this as a sad story. I'm a lifetime member of The Nature Conservancy, and even worked with TNC on carbon offset issues many years ago. The fact that TNC went so wrong in this case just makes clear how challenging it is to do offsets well. It's possible, but not nearly as profitable for the industry that has grown up around offsets.
Carbon offset credit system will be fixed using distributed ledger technology. Credits will be able to be tracked and verified. There's a few companies, DOVU and NORI already working towards fixing the bogus credit problem.
At least the Nature Conservancy spends the money on land acquisitions and field biologists. I spent a wonderful day on some of their land last fall. They bought a piece of prime wetland in a tidal zone near me and allow public access. Let's face it, many of us think carbon offsets are nothing but a money making concept designed for profit while appeasing environmentalists. If they use the money they made in the example layed out in the video, then I think it's a net benefit.
carbon offsets look like insurance.
insurance of the brand (both of the buyer and the seller)
regulation is needed in this space for an absolute bottom of what the rules are per contract
I feel like planting trees to fight climate change is like giving ship passengers buckets to scoop out all the water while the ship is being actively torpedoed.
6:17 TNC Pennsylvania Ridges project. 12:31 TNC, American Carbon Registry rebuttal statement.
Carbon offsets made Al Gore very wealthy. Don't knock it.
This is fascinating.
A MASSIVE SCAM within a MASSIVE SCAM.
Didn't see that coming
Interesting piece. Lot's of issues raised, but not many solutions presented. Here's one: We need to immediately make it more lucrative to CONSERVE Earth's rain forests rather than to DESTROY them. Thought experiment: Imagine how many acres of Earth's precious rain forests were destroyed in the amount of time it took to produce this video.
This story deserves more views. Share
Sounds like everyone's finally realizing how effed our countries are, in every corner and almost every system, you'll find similar B.S to this.. Great video though!😊
everyone? most people are sheep. probably 90% are.
People are realizing this but they wont do anything, steady as she goes :)
I don't agree completely with Seasíracy but it seems this kind of situation is, unfortunately, happening in every big environmental organization. Their claims serve for nothing, they have been corrupted by money.
Carbon sinks also aren't infinite. There is only a finite amount of land available for afforestation, and once there are trees there, that's it. Those trees have to stay there. Peatland is bit better in this regard, but it comes to the same thing - allowing companies to avoid cutting emissions in their operations by planting trees doesn't fundamentally address the problem.
or worse....companies buying unused credits from a low polluter so they can continue to spew.
They just run the numbers, if it is cheaper to pay someone else to not pollute than it is to make meaningful changes in their operation....they just cut the cheques.
disney should install solar panel on their building roofs, which can reduce their grid power consumption. also other companies with private owned buildings can do the same!!!!!
The best way is always reduce the power consumption in the first place!!!!!!
Better yet, shut down completely...now that would really reduce their carbon footprint.
@@joeshmoe7967 That would be even better in the long run!!! That would be only 200k more unemployed, but they would easily find new employment in the industry!!
It's The Producers - sell the same share to as many investors that fall for it.
So I have a genuine question: I am a land owner. I own rural timber and open prairie land. It is a very unique property that is highly valued due to it's potential for housing as there is not only amazing views but ample ground water underneath the land. Now with thay said the land is and has been in its 100% natural state no farming only ranching grazing the grass down allowing for the natural prevention of grassland fires and depositing natural bovine fertilizer into the ground. Now, would you say me registering this land and selling credits is a scam? It had pre-existed in this natural condition for hundreds of years....I would turn and say I would receive much more money selling the land to property developers along the front range. The property would eventually be turned into housing with all the native grasses replaced and trees cut down. So I ask. How is it a scam to get paid to preserve your land ?
The top 10% of the wealthiest population emits 50% of the carbon emissions, while the poorest 50% emit only 10%. The problem is greed. When someone starts talking about greed, I'll start caring about this narrative.
source?
Best line of the video 'after 30 years carbon offsets haven't changed anything'.
Rationing energy and products per person is the only way any real change can happen. Without letting the rich pay for offseting higher use. France is on the right track banning some short flights at least where trains are an alternative.
Seems like this video is not arguing against carbon offsets, just pointing out how there is some corruption or organizations that do it incorrectly.
The "offsets" business seems bogus from the start. If, for example, a trucking company operates and CONTINUES to operate, it will continue to add carbon to the atmosphere. OK, they set aside a section of forest as compensation. But all forests reach an EQUILIBRIUM, where new wood mass being added, is balanced by old wood mass decaying. Meanwhile the trucking company continues to add NEW carbon to the atmosphere from fossil fuels. This does not equate.
Talk to India and China....also what about the 5000plus energy patents the U.S. government has classified due to national security?
time to stop giving to nature conservancy. And registries need to be consolidated with much higher standards and oversight.
A video so much so about Nature Conservancy and America yet there is a Clip of Singapore in 11:57 and right-hand driving.
Very powerful message to those pretending to offset the Co2 emissions
Global warming is a lie. Al gore said we only have 10 years left 15 years ago you idiot.
@@davidanalyst671 qanon, do you copy?
Wait, the Conservancy gonna cut most of the trees there but the video doesn't say what is gonna be there after. They're gonna plant something that grows faster and produces more oxygen or some solac/ wind farm?
Again, the video DOESN'T say this
Unfortunately there are several large holes in critical information within this video to help really understand what is going on.
07:46 That's called "double dipping" where I'm from, and if you do it on the clock you can get fired.
7:25 The logic used by Nature Conservancy is doubly wrong. First of the forest is obviously already owned by them, as correctly pointed out by the video, secondly, you CANNOT offset carbon unless you increase the net ability absorb carbon. What they are saying is like, oh, I prevented this patch of forest from being cut down. This does NOT increase the ability to absorb carbon, you just keep it flat, then you go around and say ok now we can emit more carbon. The result is a net increase of carbon released. Because you increase the total carbon emission without actually increasing the ability to absorb.
7:20 Why is nobody talking about how this is a shocking fraud?
Bloomberg are, it's in the video. Nobody is listening, that's a different story.
@@nicktecky55 Bloomberg with many, many apolgies for the fraudulent "charity".
Nice video 😊
This is so disappointing, we need to all work to ensure this doesn't happen any longer.
Wow. Just wow
Greed and immorality has taken over the human psyche
"I hate big companies" sent from iPhone while paying for monthly subscriptions for Amazon and Disney while buying gas everyday from big oil companies.
lol i've been saying this. Companies are just reactionary to human indulgence.
Fully agree with this report, in particular the need for systemic change if we are to reduce our carbon impact to the level of actually making a difference (@ 11:45). But for such a change to occur, people need to make sacrifices...real, life changing sacrifices. Unfortunately I don't see the selflessness, altruism and fortitude in society today that is needed for such sacrifices.
Carbon tax not carbon credit!
and Carbon Tax also not useful....
About time this was talked about! Although, doesn't it seem so huge a task for short-term human brains?!
Especially yours.
Alex Jones said this 3 years ago and everyone called him crazy. Once again, he’s right.
Of a person is patient enough... AJ is right. He’s just 5-10 years a head of the curve
Talking about climate ive seen a documentary on netflix seaspiracy its called about an irish guy who was looking in fishing and how it impects on climate change can you guys make a docu about that aswel we need to spread the word
Composting for the win!
Great reporting. Until big businesses who have maximum impact do the right thing, individual actions are a drop in the ocean (not that individuals should be discouraged). Governments need to take sustainability more seriously and start closing these gaps.
Eventually, money can not produce O2. Please think again.
The closing remarks says it all, while the nature conservatory really needs to be probed.
Thank you _
This is a huge revelation. The importance of journalists in democracy can never be overstated!
it would be a revelation if we had any journalists
it would be a surprise to me if we had any jounalists. @Bloomberg you all are such trash I read DW, SKY, and RT because bloomberg is such trash
for those of you that don't know, RT is owned by the russian government, and nobody can deny its propaganda. But at least its not as bad as @bloomberg!!