Particularly interested if it has already impacted your life, or scrapped any plans or influenced where you decided to live.

Anybody else chose their current/ next home because of lower natural disasters risk or climate change resilience?

We've all heard about solar PV panels, but that's not the be-all and end-all of technologies which could make buildings more efficient and less harmful to their environments. May I ask what else have folks got up their sleeves?

Dimensions of environmental friendliness

All good technical discussions start with a host of term definitions and context statements, so I'll attempt to start this one off on strong footing! I figure that anything which checks one or more of these checkboxes (reasoning included) works, but please feel free to colour outside of the lines -- this is just a kicking off point. Note that anti-ticking a checkbox is fine; everything has trade-offs, and sometimes paired solutions can negate each others' downsides. Magnitude is always a factor, too, since this field is rarely black and white.

(no need to bring receipts, mind; I'm sure we can keep this light hearted so as to avoid digging into comparative EPD critiques :3)

• Low embodied carbon (the kgCO2e emitted per a cradle-to-grave analysis (EPD, often) of a product),
• Low operational resource consumption (anything which works as well as an inefficient equivalent, but uses less energy/consumables -- LED vs. incandescent bulbs, heat pumps vs. nat gas furnaces, insulation vs. no insulation, etc.),
  • Includes water conservation, too!
• Durability over design life (per the Canadian Wood Council (they're ... a little biased), the median service life of buildings is <90 years, so adjust amortization periods accordingly),
  • Includes things like wildlife-urban interface-safe materials, as well as clay bricks and whatnot.
• Sustainability (if we can't do it for more than a century, let alone a few decades, it's probably not worth the sunk costs),
• Low environmental toxicity (no point trying to save the environment if it's all a toxic swamp afterwards),
• Supportive of local ecology (built environments tend to be biodiversity deserts -- cobblestone boulevards, brick walk ups, and tin roofs are hostile everything but pigeons and rats. Think native planting, green retaining walls, planted pavers, etc.).

(full disclosure: I'm probably going to borrow several of these at some point, so this is a half-discussion, half-I'm-outsourcing-my-research post 😅 hopefully that's acceptable ...)

This was something I was surprised to learn on a recent trip to the zoo. While the palm oil industry is absolutely wrecking a lot of our rainforests, and, most notedly, orangutans, boycotting all palm oil is actually worse for the environment because palm oil is the most land-efficient vegetable oil crop. It supplies 40% of global vegetable oil but only uses 6% of the land dedicated to oil production.

It's also extremely versatile because "it is semi-solid at room temperature so can keep spreads spreadable; it is resistant to oxidation so can give products a longer shelf-life; it’s stable at high temperatures so helps to give fried products a crispy and crunchy texture; and it’s also odourless and colourless so doesn’t alter the look or smell of food products."

The issue is who produces it and how, so it's only certain products that should be boycotted.

I'm sure the solution isn't as simple as "download this app," but the zoo I went to recommended using the PalmOil Scan app (produced under the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) and led by Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, Chester Zoo, Auckland Zoo, Zoos SA and Mandai Wildlife Group). It's essentially only available in the Anglosphere (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States), but it tells you if the entire company meets their standards (but not individual products so users don't just boycott all palm oil).

We acknowledge that all companies that receive a rating are in different places on their journey to use 100% certified sustainable palm oil. We want to recognise those companies that are doing well and encourage those companies that need improvement. We hope that by creating this rating system we will accomplish this task and assist consumers with making the most educated shopping choices in regards to sustainable palm oil.

Companies are scored on a point structure and can earn a rating of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or No Commitment.

I'm sure a lot of Tilderianeses are conscious of this, so I wanted to share the information (and presumably get more info from someone who knows more).

So last night at around 11pm, my partner and I ended up with an European goldfinch - most likely a fledgling - sitting on our balcony, backed into a corner and in a total state of shock. My theory is that it couldn't fly properly, and hit the floor hard enough to cause a serious concussion, then tried to stay as safe as it could while it recovered.

We had zero idea how to handle the situation, and it was too late to call anyone, so we heeded the internet's advice and set up a safe shelter for it - a shoebox with some holes punched into it and a towel laid down, which we took inside and placed in a dim, quiet place, in hopes the bird was just lightly concussed and would be able to sleep it off.

That wasn't the case - in the morning we found the bird awake, huddled in the corner of the box, puffed up and unresponsive. I took the box outside next to a tree where some sparrows usually love to sit, and lifted the lid. After a few minutes it started looking around, but would not move from the corner of the box at all. I waited for 10 more minutes to see if it would try anything, and saw that it had no plans of leaving the box, so I covered it back up and took it back inside.

Plan B was to seek professional help immediately, and that's what I tried to do.

However, it turns out the Romanian government has no resources to rescue and treat injured wildlife. Unless it's large-scale animal abuse or environmental damage, there is no one to call.

So I turned to the NGOs and volunteer groups. I reached out to all the resources available in my area, hoping someone would have the time, capacity and desire to take the poor bird in and give it the help it desperately needed.

One doctor was unfortunately out of the country, and his clinic didn't have capacity to help, especially in his absence. A second doctor never returned my call or responded to my message.

I reached out to the emergency number of a wildlife rehabilitation center, and heard nothing for hours. I called a different center, and got a response, but their only contact in my area was the doctor that is currently out of the country; their center was 3 hours away by train, too stressful for both me and the bird. I called a veterinary clinic, and got a quote for ~25 euro, for a consultation with a spot at 2pm.

I then finally got an answer from the first rehab center, who asked me to try to take the bird outside again. However, at 1:30pm I checked the box, trying to follow the instructions I was given, and I was met with a bird that unfortunately passed away.

It really sucks - I tried to help this poor critter but there just aren't sufficient resources; wildlife is the least of the government's priorities, and NGOs by their nature are never sufficiently staffed nor have the funds and capacity to sustain the demand. Especially with the heatwaves hitting Europe, I'm sure my bird wasn't the only one having accidents this week.

Nobody is at fault here - it just was the wrong timing for everyone involved - but I can't help but feel guilty anyway.

I don't even know what the point of this post is besides to complain, and I guess to grieve a tiny soul that deserved more. Maybe we should all take a moment and appreciate the birds chirping outside. They're beautiful, and we should protect them as much as we can.

Rest in peace, little bird.

I feel like seeing dead birds was very rare before but it feels quite common this year. Maybe I'm just driving more in a different area this year and the rate was surprisingly low last year, but I really feel like I'm constantly seeing dead birds over the last few weeks.

Recently I've been watching the show Jet Lag on Nebula. It's an entertaining little reality show where people compete in contests which require a lot of travel, especially in commercial aircraft.

I've noticed that they are really really traveling a lot for a frivolous reason and having a huge carbon footprint. (Yes I understand that the flights they go on are booked anyway and would fly if they weren't on them, sort of).

During the show they sometimes use a graphic to show the travel distance and then also mention that they are using Gold Standard carbon offsets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard_(carbon_offset_standard)

I've read a bit about carbon credits and carbon offsets before. I think it seems like a bit of a boondoggle to let people with money greenwash their activities. Has anyone here researched this and come up with a different conclusion?

I think maybe this is a very newbie question to ask on this Tildes group.

Preamble ... this is another rambling, jumbled soliloquy that may or may not make any actual points ... or, you know, sense.

"Climate Change is causing the rise in populism".

That is a theory I have entertained for many years -- going back to before the 2016 US Presidential election. And--confirmation bias being what it is--since I believe the theory, I keep seeing anecdotal evidence all over the place connecting the two.

But, thinking about it this morning, looking at it logically ... I still think there is probably a connection, but I'm not really sure. It may well just be a coincidence of timing. And even if there is a connection, I'm just not quite sure what it is. If it is true ... why? What is the actual connection?

So ... why do countries keep electing populist "Trump-like" leaders?

That's already a hard question to answer clearly, without quickly descending into personal attacks and ad hominems and such.

Plus, of course, generalization is problematic ... we're talking about different countries, different cultures, different histories driving each vote. It's not all the same. And yet, over and over again, election after election, it sure looks the same.

I think the main reason is a tribal "fear of invaders" reaction, mostly against the rise of immigration, particularly immigration from (to paraphrase Trump) "the shit-hole countries". Maybe it's an even more basic "fear of change" reaction. But I definitely think, in the US, the rise of Trump was a direct result of the illegal immigration issue -- not exclusively, but that was a big piece of the puzzle. In particular, Trump equating Muslims with terrorists, and Mexican immigrants with criminals, etc.

Here in the EU, immigration -- particularly the 2015 refugee crisis caused by the wars in the Middle East -- was probably the top reason for Brexit, as has been most of the populist surge over here since then. One country after another here keeps electing right-wing leadership based on the "we'll keep out the dirty immigrants" campaign promises. Hungary, Italy, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, the list just keeps going. I live in Germany these days, and I gotta tell you, there is nothing scarier than seeing a huge surge in popularity in the German far-right.

The other top reason that seems to be driving it is some kind of sense of nationalistic self-determination. People feeling like their country--their home--is being changed by Outside Forces, and trying to lock it down, trying to find a way back to the good old days when the white people ran things and the brown people cooked and cleaned for them.

In Hungary, Orban routinely gets massive support with his constant rants about "Brussels" (meaning the EU) trying to force their gay liberal anti-Christian agenda down the throats of decent God-fearing Hungarians, and I see variations of that theme in most of the populist movements.

Right now, I want to say the populist trend is a response to (or rather, a denial of) the consequences of Colonialism and resource depletion. I think (again, over-simplified), people here in the Industrial Western World do not want to hear that the problems in the rest of the world are our fault, and that we have a responsibility to the people there, to try to help address some of the problems we've helped cause ... and instead, people are electing leaders who tell them the rest of the world is going to hell but it's not their fault and if they just lock down their borders, everything will stay "nice" in their country.

Something like that, anyway.

Okay ... so, resource depletion and a backlash against the consequences of Colonialism.

Does that seem like a fair and reasonable generalization of what is driving the rise in populism?

Because none of that is really connected to Climate Change. Sure, it depends on "which" resources we're talking about, but even in a magical hypothetical world where burning fossil fuels doesn't cause the planet to heat up ... wouldn't we still be seeing just about the same results from the Colonialism-and-resource-depletion issues?

But then again, at a global level, everything is pretty much connected to everything else. I feel like, coming at it from that angle, I could make a fairly good argument that Climate Change and resource depletion are pretty closely related, regardless of which resources you're talking about.

Oh yeah ... one more wrinkle. I'm primarily talking about populism in the US, Canada, UK, EU. I actually know a lot less about the situations in other regions. Asia. Latin America. Bolsonaro. Millei. I know there are others, but names elude me at the moment, and I don't have an understanding of why they are getting elected. Are they part of this trend? Do they blow a hole in my logic? IDK.

tl;dr

Okay ... I guess that's my new thesis -- populism is primarily being driven by a denial of the consequences of Colonialism and resource depletion ... which may or may not be closely related to Climate Change itself; I'm still just not sure.

Or, more broadly, more Climate-Change-inclusive -- populism is about people seeing that the world is dying, and electing leaders who A) tell them it's not their fault, and B) promise to save their country, even as the rest of the world burns.

Thoughts?

I assume everyone in the New York/New Jersey/eastern PA/maybe northern Delaware area just felt their buildings shaking.

That was a 4.8 magnitude earthquake originating near Lebanon, NJ (a ways west of Edison). You can look at the details from the US government's earthquake tracking website.

I've never felt an earthquake before, so that was something. I thought the people above me had turned on a motorcycle or something. I had no clue what could shake the building like that. Then it dawned on me. Not the place you expect these things. (I'm sure the Californians find this cute!)

I've been idly browsing for a home weather station for a while, hoping to contribute to the local sensor network for a region that's got lots of microclimate variation. I saw this one from Seeed Studio today, and was hoping for some reviews and advice. Seeed Studio devices are known for open source software, and I wouldn't mind playing with writing a tie-in for sprinkler system automation so we're not irrigating when it's about to rain. It wouldn't be situated so far from the house that we'd need to use the LoRaWAN feature, though.

Concurrently, we just had an inch of rain dropped on our house in the space of 15 minutes, with winds that were taking down tree branches. The weather report says "light rain", weather stations a mile away continue to indicate that everything is bone dry with quiet air. This rainstorm breaks a nearly month-long drought. I'm finding it nerve-wracking that climate change makes it impossible to use past local weather as a predictor of what to expect for gardening, home maintenance, and outdoor activities, and local weather reports are so inaccurate. So that's (hopefully) where the weather station might come into play.

That being said, any chat about your local conditions and reporting from your station is welcome.

Public Transportation should be free. Or near free, like a library. The same way we tax or want to tax pollution, we should fully subside public and ecological transports.

I was thinking about this earlier and was disappointed to find very few examples of pollution tax being put to funding public transports. Even fewer of public transportation being free. It's a bit underwhelming that this isn't talked about more in environmental policies.

Let's assume that they have full control over congress, so politics isn't an issue. I think looking at what a good global climate policy would be useful, because it allows us to see where we stand. It could also serve as a platform for future candidates.

It seems to me that the new president should take a wide-ranging series of measures to curb emissions in all the major domains: electricity, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. [1]. You might argue that measures taken in isolation from other countries are not sufficient. While that's true, someone has to start. The US taking the lead on climate change would have a profound impact on all other countries. The US could use its very strong diplomatic weight to pressure other countries to adopt similar measures.

So what should these measures be? The major one would seem to be a carbon tax, applied to all major sources of emissions: energy production (coal plants, ...), agriculture (cattle and meat imports), jet fuel (current taxes are very low), etc. Another one could be a tax on imports depending on how much the exporting country does against global warming. Maybe a new kind of free trade alliance among "climate-virtuous" countries could be created.

Any thoughts? Have any serious global policy proposals been made and studied in the past?

[1] : https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change