PPCC - Pisitófilos Creditófagos - HoT SuMMeR 2021

[el malo]

Wonderful...

https://wolfstreet.com/2021/08/10/this-reddit-lament-sums-up-wonderfully-what-lots-of-home-buyers-will-grapple-with-as-housing-market-normalizes-and-work-from-home-fizzles/

This Reddit Lament Sums up Wonderfully What Lots of Home Buyers Will Grapple with as Housing Market “Normalizes” and Work from Home Fizzles

The price of FOMO.

Here is a Reddit lament by a self-admitted FOMO-home-buyer in Canada. The couple, mistakenly thinking that working-at-home (WAH) was permanent, had bought for that reason a house “hours away” from Toronto six months ago. But turns out, WAH was transitory for them, and now they need to sell the house.

But in the two weeks that the home has been on the market, they didn’t get offers that would allow them to make a profit or break even, as the market is cooling – a horrifyingly bloodcurdling stupendously surprising situation of having to sell a house without being able to make an instant profit.

And they can’t even rent out the house profitably in their estimates. What kind of horror show is this??

This is the horror show of having bought a house in what has been identified as the #2 Housing Bubble in the world, behind New Zealand, and now this housing bubble is “normalizing,” or “cooling,” or whatever, and suddenly the plans go kaput.

Obviously, the couple can sell the house. But they’ll have to price it to where the market is, and the market isn’t where they thought it would be, or where it was six months ago, and they’ll have to try harder and longer and cut the price, and eventually they’ll be able to sell the house. But the dream of making C$100,000 or whatever in six months on flipping a house “hours away” from Toronto have evaporated.

The post was brought to my attention by Steve Saretsky, a Realtor in Vancouver, whose work, reports, and data have appeared on WOLF STREET. Also note the post’s terse marital nuances that come with a situation like this — “she’s livid about the situation and refuses to live here now,” he says:

“Sorry if this is horribly formatted, I’m not a redditor.

“My wife and I bought 6 months ago at the height of the housing market it seems now. We bought hours away from work (Toronto) as we both were working from home. We thought WAH would be permanent and we were both afraid of missing out on buying if we didn’t pull the trigger. Wife is being called back to work full time. I’ve been given notice that we’re going back part time come September.

“We listed our house a bit over two weeks ago, no offer has come in that we break even on let alone profit. Our realtor has told us the market is cooling and that it would be a surprise if we got what we were asking for. We’ve gotten a couple of offers, none of which are asking price.

“We’re at a loss. My wife is looking for work locally but due to the nature of her work she is unlikely to find equivalent in pay or opportunity. She also doesn’t want to leave her employer, she has great upward mobility and seniority there. I don’t personally mind commuting part time but she’s livid about the situation and refuses to live here now.

“My friends keep telling me that there is no such thing as a Canadian market cooling and to just wait it out until it sells.

“If we listed for rent I think we wouldn’t be making a profit.

“Any suggestions would be appreciated.”

What’s amazing to someone like me who has been around the block too many times is the naiveté and the surprise displayed in these eloquent words by the perplexed and frustrated potential home seller. What were they thinking when they bought the house?

They weren’t thinking. They were governed by the fear of missing out (FOMO), and the poster admitted it. FOMO stipulates that you stop thinking, and that you act without thinking, and act now before someone else snaps the overpriced house out from under you. A housing bubble operates on that basis. You cannot maintain a housing bubble without FOMO.

The post also lays bare the whole conundrum of buying a nice big house somewhere far away from the city because now you can work at home, both of you, and then the bosses say, both of them, no, you gotta come back to the office. This stuff really sucks. And I suspect that there’s going to be a lot of it.

Brillante. Exquisito. Se juntan todos los topicazos de la burbuja inmobiliaria en una misma historia.

Sería triste si no fuera porque los dos parecen ser profesionales consolidados (ella tiene un perfil senior por lo que dice el post) y a esta gente se le presupone un mínimo de cultura, sobre todo financiera. Lo mejor son los amigos.. "esto no baja, se fuerte".

Ella ha estado a punto de dejar un buen trabajo por la puñetera vivienda. Si le hubieran contado a nuestros abuelos que la gente iba a renunciar a un buen trabajo por quedarse en los cuatro ladrillos en los que vive, se hubieran liado a garrotazos. El mío ya les digo yo que sí.

[PastorMesetario]

¿Qué se ve desde la torre de Toronto?

[sudden and sharp]

[...] El problema es indefectiblemente energético, de externalidades, estructura productiva y de gestión de residuos y suelo (que ahora es un chiste quitando dos o tres países nórdicos). Mientras no se haga nada con eso, especialmente depender casi 100% de combustibles fósiles, nada cambiará. Todo lo demás, propaganda, por parte de unos y otros, para seguir con su chollo particular.

Al final como siempre, será por las malas. Pero esta vez no va a haber enemigo al que culpar porque no se va a librar ni dios.

No todos los datos apuntan ahí:

• Población disminuyendo.
• Cada vez más superficie arbolada. (En Europa.)
• Mayor eficiencia anergética y alimentaria.
• Menos hambre y sobre todo guerras.
• Etc.

Y lo suyo es usar _todas_ las fuentes de energía, no cambiar de oligopolistas.




Y en lo que no puedo estar de acuerdo de ninguna manera es en que no encontrarán culpables, cuando ya te están culpando a ti.

[senslev]

Vendida por 250000$ 

[Derby]

https://www.reuters.com/business/slowing-inflation-growth-lifts-dow-sp-records-2021-08-11/

Slowing inflation growth lifts Dow, S&P to records

NEW YORK, Aug 11 (Reuters) - The Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 closed at record levels on Wednesday, as data indicated U.S. inflation growth may have peaked, while sectors tied to economic growth advanced on the heels of the passage of a large infrastructure bill.

[trovatore]

¿Qué se ve desde la torre de Toronto?

Tó Toronto!

Enviado desde mi SM-T580 mediante Tapatalk

[puede ser]

Yo sigo con mi especial veraniego que titularé: "inculcando la nueva normalidad a los lectores progres".

https://elpais.com/economia/2021-08-11/los-inmuebles-de-sandra-ortega-se-devaluaron-el-ano-pasado-en-100-millones.html

El balance del año pasado da cuenta precisamente de la dificultad de manejar el negocio inmobiliario a causa de la pandemia, que obligó a “hacer frente a la renegociación” de algunos arrendamientos y a conceder “periodos de carencia a determinados inquilinos”. Esas dos causas, junto con la paralización de la actividad hotelera y los “retrasos en la evolución de algunos de sus proyectos que se encontraban en fase de desarrollo” son, según las cuentas anuales, las causantes de las pérdidas de 91 millones. La facturación en 2020 cayó cerca de un 24%, pasando de 209,4 millones en 2019 a 159,6 millones.

(...)

El coronavirus también hizo resentirse el valor de las propiedades de Rosp Corunna. El grupo valoraba estas a finales de 2020 en 468,7 millones a precios de mercado. Un año antes, eran 576,6 millones, lo que supone casi 108 millones menos. La inmensa mayoría de ese patrimonio, 311 millones, son edificios de oficinas, seguidas de hoteles (casi 120 millones), inmuebles residenciales y comerciales (30 millones) y otras tipologías. Casi todos los edificios, equivalentes a un valor 412 millones, están fuera de España. Durante el ejercicio, la compañía compró un edificio de oficinas en Londres, para cuya gestión creó una nueva sociedad dependiente en el Reino Unido, y vendió dos propiedades en Alemania por las que obtuvo un beneficio de cerca de 36 millones, que ayudan a explicar el incremento de la facturación inmobiliaria

[PastorMesetario]

¿Qué se ve desde la torre de Toronto?

Tó Toronto!

Enviado desde mi SM-T580 mediante Tapatalk

¡Torontontero!

Casi. 

A lo mejor desde la torre se puede ver la casa de la canadian-visillera-pro, aunque esté a varias horas de Toronto 

[R.G.C.I.M.]

Donde quiera que esté,  mi casaes miiiiiiiiiaaa

Toronto torontontero tero
Toronto torontontero tero
Toronto torontonto

[el malo]

Vendida por 250000$ 

Imagino que estamos hablando de un NFT ¿verdad?

No me extraña que alcancen esos precios. Qué obra de arte. Qué trazo. Esa combinación de colores que encandilaría a Goya.

Qué blanqueo de capitales ni qué transacciones opacas 

[pollo]

[...] El problema es indefectiblemente energético, de externalidades, estructura productiva y de gestión de residuos y suelo (que ahora es un chiste quitando dos o tres países nórdicos). Mientras no se haga nada con eso, especialmente depender casi 100% de combustibles fósiles, nada cambiará. Todo lo demás, propaganda, por parte de unos y otros, para seguir con su chollo particular.

Al final como siempre, será por las malas. Pero esta vez no va a haber enemigo al que culpar porque no se va a librar ni dios.

No todos los datos apuntan ahí:

• Población disminuyendo.
• Cada vez más superficie arbolada. (En Europa.)
• Mayor eficiencia anergética y alimentaria.
• Menos hambre y sobre todo guerras.
• Etc.

Y lo suyo es usar _todas_ las fuentes de energía, no cambiar de oligopolistas.




Y en lo que no puedo estar de acuerdo de ninguna manera es en que no encontrarán culpables, cuando ya te están culpando a ti.

La lista que pones es como el que se consuela porque se va a morir, pero al menos no tan rápido.
¿Población disminuyendo? Dime dónde. Una cosa es que haya previsiones de bajada de la población, a largo plazo (2040-50 en adelante) y a nivel planetario, y otra cosa que sea un argumento que tenga ninguna validez ahora mismo. Antes de que comience a bajar la población (globalmente, que en este caso es lo único que importa) va a pasar mucho tiempo aún, con lo cual sigue siendo un problema.

Superficie arbolada: como ejemplo  Asturias y Galicia tenemos más superficie arbolada que nunca. Pero de eucalipto y pino. Mucho cuidado con estas ideas, porque en la mayoría de casos no obedecen a una solución de nada, sino a una degradación de las condiciones que crean las luvias y fijan la humedad, por mucho arbolado que haya. Esto es otro tema del que habría mucho que hablar y del que mucha gente piensa erróneamente, que vale cualquier verde y de cualquier manera.

Mayor eficiencia energética y alimentaria. La eficiencia per se no produce una disminución del consumo de recursos (paradoja de Jevons). Esto es fácilmente comprobable viendo datos del consumo energético mundial. La eficiencia no indica nada de por sí. El consumo de recursos energéticos (y de todo tipo) está directamente relacionado con la población.

Menos hambre y sobre todo guerras: lo de las guerras, en donde hay muchos conflictos en activo que no dejan de existir porque no los veas en los medios, dale un par de décadas y lo mismo con lo del hambre, que tiene una relación absoluta con el cambio climático. Como los patrones del agua potable cambien en todo el mundo (y los glaciares y nieves eternas tienen pinta de ir a menos en todos los sitios que existen, por lo que dicen los científicos que los estudian desde hace ya lo menos 40 años) ya verás que risa con el hambre.

Que lo que cuenta no es el "ahora", es el "dentro de poco".

Y en cuanto a la energía, no entiendo el contrapunto, porque no he dicho nada al respecto. Precisamente llevo años diciendo que lo que hace falta es que exista la posibilidad de alimentar cualquier máquina con cualquier tipo de energía (y eso sólo va a poder hacerse mediante electricidad, no voy a entrar ahora en el porqué). Y eso hoy día es un problema exclusivamente tecnológico, a la hora de transportar y almacenar energía. Cuando se resuelva este problema de forma general se podrá alcanzar esa meta. Nunca antes. Y se debería aspirar a la descentralización de la producción energética en todo lo posible.

Ahora mismo eso no puede ser porque para producir electricidad valen muchas cosas, pero para mover el transporte o máquinas que necesitan autonomía (vehículos especialmente, pero no sólo) sólo puedes usar derivados del petróleo.

En cuanto a lo de "culparnos", yo me refería a conflictos entre países. Pero no es cuestión de culpa. Es cuestión de matemáticas. Una persona, por el hecho de existir, va a tener unas necesidades que cubrir. Y en el mundo civilizado eso implica: agua para beber, ducharse, lavar, etc., suministro diario de alimento, gastos energéticos contínuos por vivienda, transporte, etc, gastos materiales varios... Todo eso es básicamente inevitable, así que el concepto de culpa aquí es absurdo (a los efectos es irrelevante lo que digan los políticos), pero no se puede negar o ignorar que la población equivale a consumo de recursos, de forma inevitable, con una proporción muy ajustada a la población. La eficiencia sólo modula muy limitadamente ese consumo.

[newclo]

Vendida por 250000$ 

Te lo cambio por mi NFT de Messi
https://serenitymarkets.com/todos-los-comentarios/macro/el-paquete-de-messi-para-el-paris-saint-germain-incluye-crypto-fan-tokens-el/

[newclo]

https://serenitymarkets.com/todos-los-comentarios/macro/la-k-marshalliana-pasa-a-negativa-en-ocasiones-anteriores-el-mercado-cayo-con-dureza-ha-sido-el-factor-alcista-mas-importante-en-los-ultimos-anos/

La K Marshalliana pasa ¡a negativa! En ocasiones anteriores el mercado cayó con dureza. Ha sido el factor alcista más importante en los últimos años.
10:16 || 12/08/2021 En Destacados, Macro

Marshall decía que cuando la lluvia de dinero que cae sobre una economía vía liquidez excede el crecimiento nominal desborda sobre varios activos creando burbujas.

La explicación más probable para todo lo que ha pasado en las bolsas, es que la apreciación de las acciones se explica por el Marshallian K, donde la liquidez excede el crecimiento económico nominal y se desborda en burbujas de activos como en la burbuja de Internet, la burbuja de la vivienda y la burbuja de la deuda corporativa. Habrá más burbujas en el futuro.

La cita es de Scott Minerd.

Este factor ha sido decisivo, llueve dinero el mercado sube. Y no hay otra, matemáticas puras…

Pero ¿y qué pasa cuando la K marshalliana se da la vuelta y pasa a negativa? Pues nada bueno. Bloomberg dedica un artículo hoy precisamente a este tema, advierte que este factor de liquidez ha cambiado de signo y que las dos últimas veces en que lo hizo al SP 500 le costó un 16% de bajada. El artículo está teniendo mucha repercusión y ya lo están comentando muchos analistas

Aquí tienen el gráfico en cuestión:



Fuente Bloomberg/Ezints

Como vemos la última vez en que se vio este fenómeno bajo el 19,8% y la anterior un 16%. En la década de 2000 a 2004 sus apariciones tampoco fueron buenas aunque la situación no era tan comparable, pero cuando aparece la primera vez, causa un gran desplome y un gran lateral en esa época.

Muy a tener en cuenta. Puede parecer enrevesado este indicador, pero a mí me parece que no hay nada más peligroso para el mercado que esa K Marshalliana que le ha hecho subir a alturas digamos «subiditas de tono»

José Luis Cárpatos

P.D. Aprendiendo de Derby, y para honrarle a ella y a ustedes, estoy practicando a destacar con colores y pegar los artículos con sus imágenes y ¿saben? no es sólo que lleve su tiempo es que hay que tener una firme decisión de querer compartir.
Gracias por todo, mi Lady

[gregorsamesa]

[...]

Al final como siempre, será por las malas. Pero esta vez no va a haber enemigo al que culpar porque no se va a librar ni dios.

Y en lo que no puedo estar de acuerdo de ninguna manera es en que no encontrarán culpables, cuando ya te están culpando a ti.

y para recalcar esto, que a mi modo de ver es lo más importante del asunto:
(creo recordar que Derby ya trajo este artículo).
https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham#:~:text=A%20few%20years%20after%20BP,of%20carbon%20dioxide%20each%20year.

The carbon footprint sham

A 'successful, deceptive' PR campaign

In a dark TV ad aired in 1971, a jerk tosses a bag of trash from a moving car. The garbage spills onto the moccasins of a buckskin-clad Native American, played by Italian American actor Espera Oscar de Corti. He sheds a tear on camera, because his world has been defiled, uglied, and corrupted by trash. The poignant ad, which won awards for excellence in advertising, promotes the catchline “People Start Pollution. People can stop it.” What’s lesser known is the nonprofit group Keep America Beautiful, funded by the very beverage and packaging juggernauts pumping out billions of plastic bottles each year (the likes of The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, and Anheuser-Busch Companies), created the PSA.

The real message, underlying the staged tear and feather headdress, is that pollution is your problem, not the fault of the industry mass-producing cheap bottles.

Another heralded environmental advertising campaign, launched three decades later in 2000, also won a laudatory advertising award, a “Gold Effie.” The campaign impressed upon the American public that a different type of pollution, heat-trapping carbon pollution, is also your problem, not the problem of companies drilling deep into the Earth for, and then selling, carbonaceous fuels refined from ancient, decomposed creatures. British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals.

It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint" in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life — going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling — is largely responsible for heating the globe. A decade and a half later, “carbon footprint” is everywhere. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a carbon calculator. The New York Times has a guide on “How to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint.” Mashable published a story in 2019 entitled “How to shrink your carbon footprint when you travel.” Outdoorsy brands love the term.

“This is one of the most successful, deceptive PR campaigns maybe ever,” said Benjamin Franta, who researches law and history of science as a J.D.-Ph.D. student at Stanford Law School.

Of course, no one should be shamed for declaring an intention to “reduce their carbon footprint.” That’s because BP’s advertising campaign proved brilliant. The oil giant infused the term into our normal, everyday lexicon. (And the sentiment is not totally wrong — some personal efforts to strive for a cleaner world do matter.) But there’s now powerful, plain evidence that the term “carbon footprint” was always a sham, and should be considered in a new light — not the way a giant oil conglomerate, who just a decade ago leaked hundreds of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, wants to frame your climate impact.

The evidence, unfortunately, comes in the form of the worst pandemic to hit humanity in a century. We were confined. We were quarantined, and in many places still are. Forced by an insidious parasite, many of us dramatically slashed our individual carbon footprints by not driving to work and flying on planes. Yet, critically, the true number global warming cares about — the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide saturating the atmosphere — won’t be impacted much by an unprecedented drop in carbon emissions in 2020 (a drop the International Energy Agency estimates at nearly eight percent compared to 2019). This means bounties of carbon from civilization’s cars, power plants, and industries will still be added (like a bank deposit) to a swelling atmospheric bank account of carbon dioxide. But 2020’s deposit will just be slightly less than last year’s. In fact, the levels of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere peaked at an all-time high in May — because we’re still making big carbon deposits.

So when BP tweets an ad encouraging you to “Find out your #carbonfootprint” with their “new calculator,” it’s time to rethink the use of the term. While superficially innocuous, "carbon footprint" is intended to manipulate your thinking about one of the greatest environmental threats of our time. (The threat of nuclear warfare with the potential for both the harrowing spread of radioactive material and the development of a nuclear winter are in the running, too.)

“This industry has a proven track record of communicating strategically to confuse the public and undermine action, so we should avoid falling into their rhetorical traps,” said Geoffrey Supran, a science historian at Harvard University who investigates the tactics of fossil fuel interests.

“You have to admit it’s very compelling. It's sticky,” said Susan Joy Hassol, a climate change communicator who worked as a senior science writer on three congressionally mandated National Climate Assessments. “It’s effective propaganda.”

PROPAGANDA
“It’s time to go on a low-carbon diet,” BP wrote in bold letters on its website in 2006, with its “carbon footprint calculator” just a click away. (In 2004 alone, 278,000 people calculated their footprints.) The site was part of BP's ad campaign, “Beyond Petroleum.”

Fast forward, and BP is still producing bounties of oil and gas every day (4 million barrels a day in 2005 versus 3.8 million barrels today). In 2019, BP purchased its “biggest acquisition in 20 years,” new oil and gas reserves in West Texas that gave the oil giant “a strong position in one of the world’s hottest oil patches,” according to the company. Today, BP touts its foray into lower-carbon fuels, but these are limited in scope. In 2018, BP invested 2.3 percent of its budget on renewable energies. Its bread and butter is still black oil and gas. What low-carbon diet?

It’s evident that BP didn’t expect to slash its carbon footprint. But the company certainly wanted the public — who commuted to work in gas-powered cars and stored their groceries in refrigerators largely powered by coal and gas generated electricity — to attempt, futilely, to significantly shrink their carbon footprint. In 14-year-old web pages no longer accessible online but documented by Julie Doyle, a professor of media and communication at the University of Brighton, BP published ads asking “What on earth is a carbon footprint?”, “Reducing our footprint. Here’s where we stand,” and “What size is your carbon footprint?”

Doyle concludes BP sought to explain what a carbon footprint is “in a way which assigns responsibility for climate impact to the individual, while BP registers its own concerns by appearing already to be doing something about it.”

Yet in a society largely powered by fossil fuels, even someone without a car, home, or job will still carry a sizable carbon footprint. A few years after BP began promoting the “carbon footprint,” MIT researchers calculated the carbon emissions for “a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters" in the U.S. That destitute individual will still indirectly emit some 8.5 tons of carbon dioxide each year.

“Even a homeless person living in a fossil fuel powered society has an unsustainably high carbon footprint,” said Stanford’s Franta. “As long as fossil fuels are the basis for the energy system, you could never have a sustainable carbon footprint. You simply can’t do it.”

The genius of the “carbon footprint” is that it gives us something to ostensibly do about the climate problem. No ordinary person can slash 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. But we can toss a plastic bottle into a recycling bin, carpool to work, or eat fewer cheeseburgers. “Psychologically we’re not built for big global transformations,” said John Cook, a cognitive scientist at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “It’s hard to wrap our head around it.”

Ogilvy & Mather, the marketers hired by British Petroleum, wove the overwhelming challenges inherent in transforming the dominant global energy system with manipulative tactics that made something intangible (carbon dioxide and methane — both potent greenhouse gases — are invisible), tangible. A footprint. Your footprint.

“It’s a perfect storm of industry, culture, and psychology,” said Cook.



British Petroleum didn’t just deploy the “Beyond Petroleum” ad campaign in the U.S. In the UK, the marketing firm filmed regular people on the streets of London for a TV ad. The marketers asked questions like “Do you worry about global climate change?” so people would naturally reply with “I” or “We” when responding to a weighty question about global warming. This allowed BP “linguistically to remove itself as a contributor to the problem of climate change,” explained Doyle.

One of the creators of BP’s ad campaign who approached Londoners on the street, the PR professional John Kenney, later acknowledged it was all a marketing scheme, not a sincere effort to promote BP’s low-carbon or renewable energy transformation. “I guess, looking at it now, ‘beyond petroleum’ is just advertising,” Kenney wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed in 2006. “It’s become mere marketing — perhaps it always was — instead of a genuine attempt to engage the public in the debate or a corporate rallying cry to change the paradigm.”

BP, powerful and wealthy, signaled it would wean itself from oil. “Only they didn’t go beyond petroleum,” wrote Kenney. “They are petroleum.”
Rewriting the narrative
The term “carbon footprint” isn’t going anywhere. “I think it would be hard to undo that phrase or to change it,” said Jennifer Marlon, a researcher at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

Some people certainly might want to jettison the term. “I apply the general rule of thumb that climate advocates shouldn't amplify fossil fuel industry propaganda,” said Harvard University’s Supran. Rather than perpetuating “carbon footprint,” Supran suggested instead “fossil fuel emissions,” “fossil fuel pollution,” or “fossil fuel footprint.”

But because the phrase is here to stay, climate communication researchers emphasize that the meaning behind “carbon footprint” can be expanded, far beyond what BP wants it to mean. Lowering your carbon footprint should include being an engaged citizen who recognizes how to actually curb the planet’s warming, explained Hassol. It’s critical to talk about climate change with people so it’s consistently a matter of concern. It’s not enough for the issue to pop up as a viral news story during a disaster exacerbated by climate change, before fading into a chaotic ether of vitriolic politics, celebrity gossip, and a grim pandemic.

And then there’s an individual's most potent tool: “Voting is the number one action,” said Hassol. Voting for what?

It’s (relatively) simple. Voting for leaders who, among other things, have plans or strategies to slash the rampant flow of fossil fuels through the economy, mandate buildings that use less energy, and accelerate the electrification of America’s cars and trucks (transportation is the leading U.S. contributor of greenhouse gas emissions). In the U.S., the choice is clear. Democrats have a new, comprehensive 547-page climate plan that includes bold legislation to create a national electric vehicle charging system. To boot, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has a climate task force that recommends transitioning to 100 percent renewable electricity (wind, solar, geothermal) in 15 years.

On the other hand, Republicans have a plan that hinges on planting a trillion trees over the next 30 years. Yes, plants do soak up carbon from the atmosphere, but even 1 trillion trees will make only a dent in civilization's burgeoning carbon problem (not to mention that trees are more susceptible to wildfires in a warming world, and this burning pumps loads of carbon dioxide into the air).

While the pandemic has laid bare that our personal actions alone won’t stabilize the planet’s disrupted climate, some voluntary decisions beyond voting can still be important, and influential. Here’s a poignant example: When someone installs solar panels on their roof, their neighbors are more likely to install the panels too, a trend that’s shown in multiple studies. “It’s the effect of social contagion,” said Hassol.

Critically, our voluntary, independent choices will pack a bigger climate punch if we have options to make significantly better choices. Perhaps the greatest deterrent to Americans buying electric cars (electric vehicles only make up about 1.8 percent of cars purchased in the U.S. today) is people’s understandable concern about running out of power on long trips. The U.S has some 111,000 gas stations. What if there were 100,000 electric filling stations? Beyond cars, a survey of both city and suburban bikers said they would bike more if there were safe, accessible bike paths and easy parking (cars get their own lots and multi-story parking garages!).

It’s true that each time we fill up at the pump and drive off we’re inevitably emitting heat-trapping carbon into the atmosphere. That’s technically a “carbon footprint.” But we're given no other choice. “The strategy is to put as much blame on the consumer as possible, knowing the consumer is not in a good place to control the situation,” said Franta. “It basically ensures that nothing changes.”

And as ambitious changes are stymied, Earth relentlessly warms. Globally, nineteen of the last 20 years are now the warmest on record. Forests in the Arctic Circle are aflame, the Southwestern U.S. is mired in a megadrought, storms are becoming more intense, glaciers are fast receding, and a colossal Antarctic ice shelf has destabilized and threatens to redraw maps all over the globe. The ocean is warming, rising, acidifying, and losing oxygen. Climate change is here, even if half of Americans don’t think climate change will harm them personally, but a majority acknowledge the globe is warming.

“It reveals how we think this is something that is far away,” said Yale’s Marlon.

BP wants you to accept responsibility for the globally disrupted climate. Just like beverage industrialists wanted people to feel bad about the amassing pollution created by their plastics and cans, or more sinisterly, tobacco companies blamed smokers for becoming addicted to addictive carcinogenic products. We’ve seen this manipulative playbook before, and BP played it well.

What’s your carbon footprint?

“They were brilliant,” said Marlon. “They had good marketers.”

Luego ya cada uno se puede montar sus categorizaciones, que si negacionistas, que si oficialistas que si tragacionistas y patatín y patatán, pero la cuenta corriente de los superdirectivos de BP, Exxon etc seguirá parriba y la de los pringadillos pabajo.

[newclo]

Me aburría y os traigo esto:

https://www.ccn.com/banks-are-broke-viral-video-from-2013-more-relevant-than-ever/

Agradecería comentarios sobre su nivel de importancia o magufada