I haven't seen Moore's film, but it has been widely panned by environmentalists and other media critics for false/misleading information, including maligning Bill McKibben, who is widely respected. Apparently, the film trashes all efforts to move off a carbon-based energy system and offers nothing in terms of practical, hopeful solutions. This kind of rhetoric actually helps the fossil fuel industry, i.e. all our options are problematic, so no use transitioning away from the current system. Sure, solar and wind aren't ideal, and we certainly need to consume FAR less, but how else do we transition? One review I read said the strongest part of the film is the critique of biomass, a position which many environmentalists agree with (including McKibben, who changed his mind after he learned more).
Here's a response from McKibben: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/bill-mckibben-climate-movement-michael-moore-993073/
@herondreams Thanks for letting us know. I know Bill McKibben to be dedicated and a true environmentalist who wrote the seminal book about climate change over four decades ago. I started watching Moore's film right after it was posted and although I hadn't heard about the maligning of McKibben, I found myself shutting it off after about five minutes.
Well, in order to solve the Climate Crisis, you must first be educated that there is an issue to begin with. This article discusses how much information about climate crisis is contained in student science textbooks.
Almost none in many cases.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/textbook-investigation-climate_n_5ec6d26dc5b69106a7355661
For me, the path to resolution and adaptation to climate change lies in the education and opening of learning opportunities for women, in particular in the third, developing, and aboriginal communities. There is no single nexus where we as a species are involved that can impact in breadth and depth.
In another post, someone talked about Senegal, funny it was in Senegal I saw the effect of targeting education at women, and it has had a profound impact on what I see as my life's work now. In many ways, it's a Faustian bargain worth making.
I'm going to post this link in a couple of threads here, because it is a very gestalt picture of the coming climate disaster, but from a human perspective, and much of what this ProPublica article reports is stuff many on here have seen for years.
ProPublica: Where Will Everyone Go?
@laura-f Thank you for posting this well done Propublica article about climate change and migration. ProPublica consists of top journalists who you can subscribe to for free/donation. When you click on any of their article, a subscription request pops up. They never send spam, just daily articles worth reading.
Migration will escalate as the climate continues to devastate crops. People will migrate to survive. In Central America, the pressure on the U.S. borders will escalate.
They showed that when crop failures abound, people first move to the cities for food. But urban crime then escalates so people move again and head for the U.S.
They explained that we need a system for migrants to flow throughout the U.S. and Canada where they can help alleviate the labor problems of our aging population. If we lock them out, then a great humanitarian crisis will ensue as people begin suffering and dying in Central America at unimaginable rates.
Great article about how Costa Rica has restored their forests:
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/costa-rica-slows-stops-and-reverses-deforestation/
A great example of how art, science, and business can come together to combat climate change:
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/artists-erect-mural-in-warsaw-that-eats-smog/
Restoring 30% of the world's ecosystems in priority areas could stave off extinctions and absorb CO2
Interesting and hopeful.
Returning specific ecosystems that have been replaced by farming to their natural state in all continents worldwide would rescue the majority of land-based species of mammals, amphibians and birds under threat of extinction. Such measures would also soak up more than 465 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a new report released today. Protecting 30% of the priority areas identified in the study, together with protecting ecosystems still in their natural form, would reduce carbon emissions equivalent to 49% of all the carbon that has built up in our atmosphere over the last two centuries. Some 27 researchers from 12 countries contributed to the report, which assesses forests, grasslands, shrublands, wetlands and arid ecosystems.
"Pushing forward on plans to return significant sweeps of nature to a natural state is critical to preventing ongoing biodiversity and climate crises from spinning out of control," said Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, the lead author of "Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration," published in Naturetoday. "We show that if we're smarter about where we restore nature, we can tick the climate, biodiversity and budget boxes on the world's urgent to-do list."
In a first, the study focuses on the potential benefits of restoring both forest and non-forest ecosystems on a global scale. "Previous research has emphasized forests and tree planting, sometimes at the expense of native grasslands or other ecosystems, the destruction of which would be very detrimental for biodiversity and should be avoided. Our research shows that while reviving forests is critical for mitigating global warming and protecting biodiversity, other ecosystems also have a massive role to play," said Strassburg.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-world-ecosystems-priority-areas-stave.html
This is aptly described in a documentary by David Attenborough: "A Life On Our Planet" on Netflix. It provides an excellent analysis of the issues. He concluded that we must embrace nature and regrow the wilderness areas of the planet.