Connect with us

Editorials

We Can’t Save The World By Destroying It

Published

on


By Julia Barnes, Director of the Award-winning motion picture, “Sea of Life”

We are in the midst of the 6th mass extinction of life on Earth, caused by industrial civilization.

Most of us wouldn’t know it because public discourse around the environment has been hyper-focused on climate change, emphasising severe weather, sea level rise, and increased storms as if those would be the worst or only outcomes. Climate change is just one symptom of a much larger problem. On a global scale we face a multi-faceted, interconnected existential threat.

The ocean, which is the foundation of life on the planet, is being destroyed.

Much of the carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere doesn’t stay in the atmosphere. It gets absorbed into the ocean, making the ocean more acidici. In a more acidic environment, animals who build shells and skeletons can’t form. Ocean acidification has been attributed to 4 of the 5 mass extinctions in Earth’s historyii. Right now, the oceans are going acidic faster than in most of those extinctions.

The oxygen in two out of every three breaths we take comes from plankton in the ocean. Plankton populations have been diminished by 40% and are decreasing at a rate of about 1% per yeariii.

Industrial fishing has wiped out 90% of the large fish in the oceaniv. The fact that fish populations have been decimated is a huge problem in and of itself. It also exacerbates the acidification of the ocean. Fish sequester carbon in their bodies and they excrete things called “gut rocks” which make the ocean less acidicv. The removal of fish means those fish can’t play their role in keeping the ocean’s acidity in balance.

Runoff from agriculture has created ocean dead zones – areas devoid of oxygen where almost nothing can live. There are over 500 dead zones in the oceans worldwidevi. When fish swim into these dead zones they die because they can’t breathe.

Ocean warming is causing coral reefs to bleach and die at unprecedented ratesvii. Coral reefs are home to 30% of all species in the ocean at some stage in their life cycles. They are predicted to be wiped out by the middle of the century if ocean warming and acidification continueviii.

The destruction on land mirrors that of the ocean. 90% of the old growth forests have been wiped outix. 90% of the native prairies in North America were destroyed to make room for agriculturex. Wildlife populations are collapsingxi.

Extinction rates today are 1000 times higher than background rates of extinctionxii. 200 species are driven extinct every dayxiii.

We are losing the real world on which we depend.

“To this point, despite decades of activism, the environmental movement has failed to stop or even slow the destruction. The problems are accelerating. Everything is headed in the wrong direction.”

As the situation intensifies, more and more people are waking up and recognize that things need to change. The problem is, the mainstream environmental movement does not represent an effective model for creating the kind of change we need. Their tactics and their demands are seriously flawed.

The mainstream climate movement is pushing for a rapid rollout of 100% renewable energy. Even if their greatest ambitions are realized, the natural world will not be better off.

Solar, wind, hydro, and biomass are not solutions to our environmental problems; they are alternative ways of powering our destructive society at the expense of the natural world.

The idea that producing more energy from solar or wind will lead to less carbon emissions is the primary argument in favour of “renewable” technologies. Yet this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Solar panels and wind turbines have been called “alternative fossil fuels” because they require fossil fuels at every stage of production from mining, shipping and manufacturing, to installationxiv. And when energy from solar and wind is added to the grid, rather than displacing fossil fuels, it simply adds to the amount of energy at the disposal of civilizationxv. Environmentalists are calling it an energy “transition” but it should really be called an energy “addition” because that’s what it is.

Words like “clean”, “free”, “safe”, and “sustainable” are often thrown around when talking about renewable energy. Examining the processes involved in making these technologies reveals a very different picture.

A dystopian lake filled with toxic wastexvi, mountain-top removal copper mining, industrial steel manufacturing, global shipping, large scale habitat destruction, sand mining, and massive greenhouse gas emissions are essential parts of renewable production.

Renewable energy is just another industry that adds to the destruction of the planet. It does not deserve the “green” reputation it has garnered.

Unfortunately, greenwashing has become embedded in the movement to save the planet. The conversation around environmentalism has been flooded with oxymorons. “Sustainable development,” “sustainable cities,” “green growth”.

You have to be insane to think you can have infinite growth on a finite planet. So why do so many people – including environmentalists – still think and talk and act like we can?

Putting the word “sustainable” or “green” in front of something does not make it so. It does, however, make it easier for some people to avoid looking at the problem.

We are told that we can have our cake and eat it too. But that is a lie.

There is no surplus in nature. All of the comforts and luxuries we receive come at a cost which is paid by other species, other humans, and future generations.

We need to stop pretending that we can have this way of life without destroying life on the planet.

The push for alternative energies is a push to solve for the wrong variable. It takes our high-energy culture as a given and the natural world as having to conform to the insatiable demands of industrial civilization.

We cannot afford to waste time  we don’t have on solutions that will not work.

Instead of asking “how can we maintain the systems we have without harming the planet?” (answer: we can’t), the primary question we should be asking is “what does the world need?”

Below is a list of demands that are more in line with physical reality.

  • Reduce emissions by 20% per year beginning with the most non-essential luxuries. (i.e. Retractable stadium roofs, leaf blowers, lawn mowers, useless consumer goods, air travel, and so on). Only count actual emissions reductions, not “net zero” which is turning out to be a carbon laundering shell gamexvii.
  • Contract the global economy. It should be obvious that infinite growth is incompatible with life on a finite planet.
  • Encourage families to have fewer children, especially in affluent countries. Make all forms of reproductive control freely available to allxviii.
  • De-industrialize everything.
  • Localize the production of food. Move from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Stop the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Phase out a large percentage of animal agriculture. Restore the land that was previously used to grow feed crops for animals (which accounts for 77% of agricultural landxix) back to native prairies or forests or whatever it was before it was destroyed for agriculture. Stop growing cash crops (including for biofuel) and restore that land to native habitats.
  • Make pollution illegal.
  • No new construction or “development”. Cement alone is responsible for 8% of global emissionsxx
  • Stop subsidizing destructive activities (i.e. fossil fuels, industrial fishing, industrial agriculture, etc.)
  • Moratorium on all commercial fishing. Fish sequester carbonxxi and excrete “gut rocks” which make the ocean less acidicxxii. Many fish populations are close to collapsing, but we could see them recover if we let them. Industrial fishing is also the leading cause of plastic pollution in the oceanxxiii.
  • Immediately halt all extractive and destructive activities. (i.e. fracking, mountaintop removal, tar sands, deforestation, nuclear power, offshore drilling, expansion of the grid, global shipping, the manufacture of “renewables”, electric, hybrid, diesel, and gasoline cars, trucks, etc.)
  • Completely protect all remaining native forests, prairies, wetlands, and mangroves.
  • Restore all damaged lands.
  • No new dams. Begin a dam removal program for currently existing dams, removing roughly 6-10 dams per day. Dams have been called “methane factories” because they produce so much methanexxiv. Some dams produce more greenhouse gasses per unit of energy than fossil fuel power plants. Dams also destroy rivers and kill anadromous fish, which is reason enough to remove them.

i https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

ii https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-008-0381-8

iii http://wormlab.biology.dal.ca/publication/view/boyce-d-lewis-m-worm-b-2010-global-phytoplankton-decline-over-the-last-century/

iv http://wormlab.biology.dal.ca/publication/view/myers-ra-worm-b-2003-rapid-worldwide-depletion-of-predatory-fish-communities-nature-423280-283/

v http://www.seaaroundus.org/OtherWebsites/2009/EnvironmentalResearchWeb_FishGutRocksSolvePuzzle.pdf

vi https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/04/oceans-suffocating-dead-zones-oxygen-starved

vii https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/08/explore-atlas-great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-map-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR2wmzXFkMOFAB3McABaAS0kSOgDsB8FzbasmhZ-M8WmfPvEgqn3Jg-Xxok

viii https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07051

ix https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/old-growth-forests-help-combat-climate-change/

x https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170720103131.htm

xi https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

xii https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6187/1246752

xiii https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/16/nature-economic-security

xiv https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340212459037

xv https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618312246

xvi http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth?ocid

xviihttps://vtdigger.org/2014/05/07/suzanna-jones-betraying-environment/

xviii https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about

xix https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

xx https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844#targetText=Cement%20is%20the%20source%20of,behind%20China%20and%20the%20US.&targetText=To%20do%20this%2C%20annual%20emissions,at%20least%2016%25%20by%202030.

xxi https://theconversation.com/sea-creatures-store-carbon-in-the-ocean-could-protecting-them-help-slow-climate-change-108872?fbclid=IwAR3HEpu4Kg7BbVh1koFHB0ZoSLgxBTsr2Lpu-GzRnpMzi0b5E51G0Psfdec

xxii https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16432-fish-an-ally-against-climate-change/

xxiii https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/03/great-pacific-garbage-patch-plastics-environment/

xxiv https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/

Julia Barnes is the Director of the Award-winning Motion Picture, Sea of Life

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Editorials

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Published

on

 

Something interesting is happening in Hollywood. People are walking away from the Golden Globe Awards.

And for good reason.

Anyone who has ever worked in the filthy abyss of Hollywood, New York, or any major entertainment city will know first hand how these systems work. Sycophants, parasites and moguls and talent agents willing to step all over each other just for the sake of another prize. Some will even kill for a shot at the brass ring.  And industry divided cannot succeed.

The only good thing I found in the Golden Globes was watching Ricky Gervais lampoon the stars and their handlers from the stage. Bravo to Gervais, it doesn’t make a difference what you think of him, afterall, he had something that most of Hollywood doesn’t have. Balls. Guts. And a way of delivering amusing reality dosed insults to their face only to find he’s been re-instated as the show host for the next years showing.

 

The annual Golden Globes ceremony has been unable to find a broadcasting partner or any celebrities willing to present or collect its awards after a Hollywood boycott over its diversity and ethics scandal, resulting in a pared-down event with the emphasis on philanthropy.

According to Variety, the Globes’ talent bookers have failed to persuade any big Hollywood figures to attend the 2022 edition of the awards ceremony, a hitherto glittering annual event that traditionally kicked off the lucrative awards season. In March 2021 more than 100 public relations firms announced they would withdraw cooperation with the Globes, a series of high-profile Hollywood figures, including Tom Cruise and Scarlett Johansson, made stinging public criticisms, and TV network NBC cancelled its broadcast of the 2022 edition. (-The Guardian)

 
eguardian.com/film/2022/jan/09/golden-globes-lose-their-shine-as-a-listers-shun-unethical-ceremony

But this years showing not only lacked the luster of Hollywood today, but doesn’t even have a Network or Livestream to cover it.  I guess we’ll have to rely on celeb Twitter Feeds.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Arts

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

Published

on

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, January 5, 2022

Propaganda is most impactful when people don’t think it’s propaganda, and most decisive when it’s censorship you never knew happened.

 

When we imagine that the U.S. military only occasionally and slightly influences U.S. movies, we are extremely badly deceived. The actual impact is on thousands of movies made, and thousands of others never made. And television shows of every variety.

The military guests and celebrations of the U.S. military on game shows and cooking shows are no more spontaneous or civilian in origin than the ceremonies glorifying members of the U.S. military at professional sports games — ceremonies that have been paid for and choreographed by U.S. tax dollars and the U.S. military. The “entertainment” content carefully shaped by the “entertainment” offices of the Pentagon and the CIA doesn’t just insidiously prepare people to react differently to news about war and peace in the world. To a huge extent it substitutes a different reality for people who learn very little actual news about the world at all.

The U.S. military knows that few people watch boring and non-credible news programs, much less read boring and non-credible newspapers, but that great masses will eagerly watch long movies and TV shows without too much worrying about whether anything makes sense. We know that the Pentagon knows this, and what military officials scheme and plot as a result of knowing this, because of the work of relentless researchers making use of the Freedom of Information Act. These researchers have obtained many thousands of pages of memos, notes, and script re-writes. I don’t know whether they’ve put all of these documents online — I certainly hope they do and that they make the link widely available. I wish such a link were in giant font at the end of a fantastic new film. The film is called Theaters of War: How the Pentagon and CIA Took Hollywood. The Director, Editor, and Narrator is Roger Stahl. The Co-Producers are Matthew Alford, Tom Secker, Sebastian Kaempf. They’ve provided an important public service.

In the film we see copies of and hear quotations from and analysis of much of what has been uncovered, and learn that thousands of pages exist that nobody has yet seen because the military has refused to produce them. Film producers sign contracts with the U.S. military or CIA. They agree to “weave in key talking points.” While unknown quantities of this sort of thing remain unknown, we do know that nearly 3,000 films and many thousands of TV episodes have been given the Pentagon treatment, and many others have been handled by the CIA. In many film productions, the military effectively becomes a co-producer with veto power, in exchange for allowing the use of military bases, weapons, experts, and troops. The alternative is the denial of those things.

But the military is not as passive as this might suggest. It actively pitches new story ideas to movie and TV producers. It seeks out new ideas and new collaborators who might bring them to a theater or laptop near you. Act of Valor actually began life as a recruitment advertisement.

Of course, many movies are made without military assistance. Many of the best never wanted it. Many that wanted it and were denied, managed to get made anyway, sometimes at much greater expense without the U.S. tax dollars paying for the props. But a huge number of movies are made with the military. Sometimes the initial movie in a series is made with the military, and the remaining episodes voluntarily follow the military’s line. Practices are normalized. The military sees huge value in this work, including for recruitment purposes.

The alliance between the military and Hollywood is the main reason that we have lots of big blockbuster movies on certain topics and few if any on others. Studios have written scripts and hired top actors for movies on things like Iran-Contra that have never seen the light of day because of a Pentagon rejection. So, nobody watches Iran-Contra movies for fun the way they might watch a Watergate movie for fun. So, very few people have any notions about Iran-Contra.

But with the reality of what the U.S. military does being so awful, what, you might wonder, are the good topics that do get lots of movies made about them? A lot are fantasy or distortion. Black Hawk Down turned reality (and a book it was “based on”) on its head, as did Clear and Present Danger. Some, like Argo, hunt for small stories within large ones. Scripts explicitly tell audiences that it doesn’t matter who started a war for what, that the only thing that matters is the heroism of troops trying to survive or to rescue a soldier.

Yet, actual U.S. military veterans are often shut out and not consulted They often find movies rejected by the Pentagon as “unrealistic” to be very realistic, and those created with Pentagon collaboration to be highly unrealistic. Of course, a huge number of military-influenced films are made about the U.S. military fighting space aliens and magical creatures — not, clearly, because it’s believable but because it avoids reality. On the other hand, other military-influenced films shape people’s views of targeted nations and dehumanize the humans living in certain places.

Don’t Look Up is not mentioned in Theaters of War, and presumably had no military involvement (who knows?, certainly not the movie-watching public), yet it uses a standard military-culture idea (the need to blow up something coming from outerspace, which in reality the U.S. government would simply love to do and you could hardly stop them) as an analogy for the need to stop destroying the planet’s climate (which you cannot easily get the U.S. government to remotely consider) and not one reviewer notices that the film is an equally good or bad analogy for the need to stop building nuclear weapons — because U.S. culture has had that need effectively excised.

The military has written policies on what it approves and disapproves. It disapproves depictions of failures and crimes, which eliminates much of reality. It rejects films about veteran suicide, racism in the military, sexual harassment and assault in the military. But it pretends to refuse to collaborate on films because they’re not “realistic.”

Yet, if you watch enough of what is produced with military involvement you’ll imagine that using and surviving nuclear war is perfectly plausible. This goes back to the original Pentagon-Hollywood invention of myths about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and runs right up through military influence on The Day After, not to mention the transformation — paid for by people who throw a fit if their tax dollars help prevent someone freezing on the street — of Godzilla from a nuclear warning to the reverse. In the original script for the first Iron Man movie, the hero went up against the evil weapons dealers. The U.S. military rewrote it so that he was a heroic weapons dealer who explicitly argued for more military funding. Sequels stuck with that theme. The U.S. military advertised its weapons of choice in Hulk, Superman, Fast and Furious, and Transformers, the U.S. public effectively paying to push itself to support paying thousands of times more — for weapons it would otherwise have no interest in.

“Documentaries” on the Discovery, History, and National Geographic channels are military-made commercials for weapons. “Inside Combat Rescue” on National Geographic is recruitment propaganda. Captain Marvel exists to sell the Air Force to women. Actress Jennifer Garner has made recruitment ads to accompany movies she’s made that are themselves more effective recruitment ads. A movie called The Recruit was largely written by the head of the CIA’s entertainment office. Shows like NCIS push out the military’s line. But so do shows you wouldn’t expect: “reality” TV shows, game shows, talk shows (with endless reunifications of family members), cooking shows, competition shows, etc.

I’ve written before about how Eye in the Sky was openly and proudly both completely unrealistic nonsense and influenced by the U.S. military to shape people’s ideas about drone murders. A lot of people have some small idea of what goes on. But Theaters of War: How the Pentagon and CIA Took Hollywood helps us to grasp the scale of it. And once we’ve done that, we may gain some possible insights into why polling finds much of the world fearing the U.S. military as a threat to peace, but much of the U.S. public believing that U.S. wars benefit people who are grateful for them. We may begin to form some guesses as to how it is that people in the United States tolerate and even glorify endless mass-killing and destruction, support threatening to use or even using nuclear weapons, and suppose the U.S. to have major enemies out there threatening its “freedoms.” Viewers of Theaters of War may not all immediately react with “Holy shit! The world must think we’re lunatics!” But a few may ask themselves whether it’s possible that wars don’t look like they do in movies — and that would be a great start.

Theaters of War ends with a recommendation, that movies be required to disclose at the start any military or CIA collaboration. The film also notes that the United States has laws against propagandizing the U.S. public, which might make such a disclosure a confession of a crime. I would add that since 1976, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has required that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”

To learn more about this film, view it, or host a screening of it, go here.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Editorials

The Grinch That Stole Christmas

Published

on

Back in the mid 70’s as my wife and I were starting our photography business Wally Miller, a successful local businessman, invited us to his office to offer help in the form of business advice. He asked only that we bring a financial statement and of course we complied.  The business startup process was new to us and after two years we were still losing money, and there it was in plain sight on the financial statement.  Wally welcomed us warmly and after a few minutes of careful study of our financials offered this observation, “You have no bad debts.”

Naturally I took this as a compliment.  I was proud that we had no bad debts, but that is not what Wally meant.  He elaborated, “If you have no bad debts that means that your credit is too tight and that translates into lost business.” His meaning was clear.  To be successful, really successful, you have to accept reasonable losses.  It’s the very nature of business.  If you want 100% certainty there can be no risk and without risk there can be no profits.

There’s a lesson in this thinking for Joe “McFuqwad” Manchin, the tight-ass, penny-pinching Grinch ruining Christmas for every American under the cover of “fiscal responsibility.”  His staffers gave us a look into his rationale, revealing two of the real reasons behind Joe’s decision to be the big NO.

Apparently Manchin believes that giving money to the poor in the form of a child tax credit is unwise because in his view, many will spend the extra dollars on drugs.  Likewise he is opposed to paid leave, stating that people will just call in sick and then go off deer hunting.

Now let’s all agree that in a free society, there are good and bad actors.  No law can legislate what is in the hearts of men.  No law can dictate integrity or honor.  If that were the case, there would be no GOP, no Jim Jordan, no Ted Cruz, no Matt Gaetz, No Marjorie Taylor Green, no Lauren Boebert. You get my drift, but I digress.

Once you agree to recognize that the actions of individuals are beyond your control, you must the adjust your decisions and subsequent actions to affect the greatest good for the majority.  Charity benefits the worthy and unworthy alike, without discrimination.  To withhold benefits from the worthy because there will always be unworthy recipients is to succumb to the devil’s play, a game of reduction that punishes all for the few.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Translate:

We are One

Mobilized TV

Mobilized TV on Free Speech TV  takes a deep look at our world, the consequences of human activity on our planet, and how we can reverse and prevent existing and future crises from occurring. Mobilized reveals life on our planet as a system of systems which all work together for the optimal health of the whole. The show delves into deep conversations with change-makers so people can clearly take concerted actions.

Produced by Steven Jay and hosted by Jeff Van Treese.

Mobilized’s TV series Mobilized TV  premieres on Free Speech TV on Friday, October 15, 2021. All episodes appear:

Fridays 9:30 PM Eastern (USA/Canada)

Saturdays:  6:30 PM (Eastern USA/Canada)

Sundays:  8:30 AM Eastern (USA/Canada)

January 7, 8, 9, 2022

Leading Environmental Justice Attorney, Thomas Linzey of the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights is a leading force helping communities implement successful rights of nature laws. Find out how your community could take on big business to serve the health of all.

 

INTERVIEWS2 days ago

Savor This: Allan Savory on Real World Solutions Now

INTERVIEWS2 days ago

Ecologic Economics and Steady State Economies with Brian Czech

INTERVIEWS2 days ago

Sustainable Growth on a Finite Planet is Not Possible

The Web of Life5 days ago

It is time for a better relationship with our beautiful, blue planet.

Editorials7 days ago

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Featured1 week ago

How Are Grassroots Energy Projects Are Taking Back Power From Utility Companies

Arts1 week ago

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

Food3 weeks ago

How Climate Change Narratives are Used Against Us

Editorials4 weeks ago

The Grinch That Stole Christmas

Editorials4 weeks ago

bell hooks on feminism, race, violence and dealing with rage

Food1 month ago

Moving beyond the Moo– A Post Cow World

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

The Case for Rights of Nature in Practice

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

We are One

Mobilized TV1 month ago

How we can eradicate heart Disease

Mobilized TV2 months ago

Howard Bloom: Imagination Takes You Everywhere

Featured2 months ago

From Punk to Planet: Slam Dunk the Junk with Dave Street

Uncapped2 months ago

The Hoodless Hoodie and No-Wax Floors

Editorials2 months ago

The Decisive Role of Conscience: Clues for Non Violence

Asia2 months ago

The Love for All Animals

Featured2 months ago

Community and World Health: Protecting Native Seeds

An Empowered World2 months ago

In Chile, A different and courageous alternative with new ideas and proposals for leadership

Editorials2 months ago

Celebrating Food Sovereignty | Highlights of Solidarity Actions in October

Editorials2 months ago

Food Sovereignty, a Manifesto for the Future of Our Planet | La Via Campesina

Editorials2 months ago

Good Needs Better Distribution: We Already Have the Tools We Need to Solve Climate Change

Chuck W.2 months ago

The United Nations system: What’s Gone Wrong? What’s Gone Right?

Mobilized TV2 months ago

A Moral Responsibility: Jean Su, Ctr. for Biological Diversity

Editorials2 months ago

OPINION COLUMN: No presidential program raises paradigm shift in education

Mobilized TV2 months ago

On Free Speech TV: Rethinking Humanity with James Arbib of RethinkX

International3 months ago

Anti-mining resistance repressed in El Estor

International3 months ago

Coronacrisis, neoliberalism, democracy: what’s next

Asia3 months ago

Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina’s recent meeting with Pakistani envoy has a message for India

Mobilized TV3 months ago

Sustainable Architecture, Design and Building for a Sustainable Planet

Mobilized TV3 months ago

A better understanding of lawn care for Climate Care featuring Dr. Rob Moir of the Ocean River Institute

Mobilized TV3 months ago

Stories from the Reservation: Davidica Little Spotted Horse

Editorials3 months ago

Understanding the global neglect of indigenous peoples

Editorials3 months ago

Diabetes And Net Zero

Editorials3 months ago

Land Workers of the World Unite: Food Sovereignty for Climate Justice Now!

Featured3 months ago

A Primer on Climate Security

Editorials3 months ago

A Finger In The Dam

Mobilized TV3 months ago

Free Speech TV: Episode 001: Davidica Little Spotted Horse

Editorials3 months ago

The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-friendly Investments Are Better Job Creators

Editorials3 months ago

Behind the Lofty SDGs the Reality is People Don’t Trust Governments to Act

Editorials3 months ago

Rebranding Public Service

Editorials3 months ago

More than 65 groups call to fundamentally reorient its approach to global policy development on food and agriculture issues.

Chuck W.3 months ago

“We hold” this truth “to be Self-evident.”

Editorials3 months ago

The Monsters Go for a Walk in Chile

Editorials3 months ago

Sharing Surplus: An Ethic of Care

Editorials3 months ago

“If there is gas collusion in Chile, then distribution should be done by a public company”: Sector workers

Africa3 months ago

Eurasian Women’s Forum Seeks Answers to Significant Questions in Women’s World

Editorials3 months ago

Modifying the Organic Statutes at the University of Santiago de Chile

Categories

Trending

Translate »
Skip to toolbar