Climate Isn’t Stagnant, And Our Focus Is Misguided
Do you remember Pangaea, or when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, or how cold it was during the Ice Age? Me neither. I remember hearing about many historic events when I was in grade school, but a lot has changed on and around the planet since its formation. Earth is an incredibly varying, evolving organism that has supported many phases of life, destruction, and rebirth. As we have grown tremendously as a species, it is compoundingly inconvenient that the climate isn't perfect, or perhaps even ideal, for our uninterrupted prospering.
I recently received a text message from a polling organization seeking feedback. The first question was, “Do you think Climate Change is real?” The answers to select from were: “A) Definitely, B) Probably, C) I'm not sure, D) Probably not, or E) Definitely not”. I found this to be a very silly question, but I find it silly that this whole movement is even transpiring as it is. For starters, we are not all in agreement of the true meaning of Climate Change. Rather than the changing climate being a fact of nature, because we live on a planet that is alive, globalists have created an ideology out of these words. It is a scare tactic used to make people widely frantic and unable to think fully critically, and to stir tensions with anyone who may challenge your information. My answer read, “The climate has never been stagnant, so I suppose A.” Even though they gave five options, it is still a yes or no question about a topic with abundant nuance. I find this prodding to be overt propaganda.
The second question was, “Should we be investing in solutions that tackle the climate crisis?”, followed by the same five response options. I'm not sure if this question would be different if I had initially chosen another response, but the first question mentioned nothing about a crisis... It literally only asked if climate change is real. These two concepts are not linear! Again, this is propaganda because they are forcing an assumed pretense. Who, exactly, does this polling organization want to invest in solutions, and what solutions are they researching and testing? These are important variables that deserve more than a yes or no response.
According to the UN, “Climate change refers to long-term shifts and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, but since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels (like coal, oil, and gas) which produces heat-trapping gases.” Even here, no mention of a crisis anywhere. My argument against this definition is that it is narrow-minded and biased. It is one thing to point out greenhouse gas emissions, but it is incredibly ignorant to disregard the colossal deforestation that has paralleled our industrial agricultural system and land development, resource extraction practices, the exorbitant pollution of our waterways, and the natural cycles of the Earth. There is plenty of legitimate evidence that human behavior impacts the functions of the planet, and that we have several crises to mitigate. But we're completely missing the point in assuming a changing climate must equal crisis, and then only blaming the fossil fuel industry for causing harm to us all.
Our society must push back on the dogma that is making up this issue. We need to be aware of how much our behaviors affect everything around us, yet we cannot pretend that humans can control all forces of nature. We also cannot pretend that the urgency of these problems have been portrayed accurately. Projections of sea levels rising, temperatures increasing, seasonal weather patterns, and the roles of animals in our ecosystems have repeatedly been wrong or misleading. There is much nuance in all of these issues. However, the organizations who are harping down the new belief system of Climate Change are really causing more harm than good. And labeling challengers of this newly held belief as “deniers” is, again, focusing blame in the wrong directions, and attempting to suppress debate about data and solutions.
The main thing I want people to realize is that we do have solutions to their biggest proposed concerns: the carbon cost, and global surface temperatures. Sure, we should be funding research and innovating new technologies to be able to rely less on fossil fuels, especially since we don't know for sure how long our supply will last, or what will happen to the structure of the planet as the cavities containing fossil fuels get depleted. And there will never not be a demand for energy, so people should always be trying to help progress our species forward! But claiming that electric vehicles are a primary solution, and then ignoring the resources involved in creating and sustaining the usage of these vehicles (the sources of the electricity to charge them, for example) just looks like pandering to a new industry that the elites are already invested in.
Also, attempting to shift our diet away from evolutionary biological science and into manufactured, plant-based synthetics that have no basis in optimal human health is directly influenced by a new industry created by dangerous, unelected global leaders. If they really wanted to mitigate carbon in the atmosphere, and rising temperatures, the first place to start is right under our feet...in the soil! Yet I never hear the governments disclose any advice about regenerating our soils, which is the foundation of the food chain for all of life. Instead, they seem to want to disregard any helpful advancements in the food system in order to keep us convinced of food scarcity.
Soil is the second largest storage container for carbon, the ocean being the first. Since we live on land, we impact the land. It's quite simple. Yet this is where we've gone wrong: some humans seem to be under the impression that we can extract from Mother Nature without consequence. We are one with the planet, not separate from it, therefore, we are responsible for reciprocity as we consume resources. Now the repercussions are right in our faces, with increasing illness, displacement, and suffering, despite the advancements in food, medicine, and infrastructure, and our leaders are misguiding us as to what is really causing this, and how we should be responding.
Clearly, everything we do has an effect, because everything that we have comes from the Earth. Yet for nearly the past century, we have been choosing to poison the life-giving elements that we rely on, while also taking away the planet's own revitalizing mechanisms. We've been around for a while now, so of course we've impacted systems of the earth, which impact the climate over time. But we are not more forceful than Earth itself; the climate would be changing whether or not humans even existed! It is not the planet that needs saving, but our own behaviors that need a reality check.
If we are concerned about rising global temperatures, we need to look at how stripping the earth of forests for urban development and agriculture causes a heat increase. Bare fields, buildings, and pavement all increase the surface temperature, undeniably. Vegetation is much cooler, in comparison, when the sun beats down. You find respite in the shade of trees on a hot summer day, and burn your bare feet when you walk down your driveway to get the mail. This is a simple cause-and-effect discussion that we are lacking. I suppose we need more housing as populations increase, but we need better land management in doing so. Sure, it must be easier to clear-cut a forest to put in roads and houses or apartment buildings, but why not leave patches of forest within the new communities, rather than taking it all away? We have become trained to not want natural habitats near human habitats, separating us from nature in the name of profits. This is something we can become more creative about, if we want to mitigate rising temperatures. And roofs could certainly use some innovating as well, as they sit on so much of the surface area.
As far as agriculture, a huge part of the regenerative movement is to eliminate bare ground. Think of how hot the sand gets at the beach, and compare it to how relieving the long grass feels, even despite its sharp blades! There are ways of managing livestock effectively so that they don't overgraze, but rather eat enough, stomp enough, and eliminate enough, to stimulate new growth and pull carbon out of the atmosphere, as the animals move onto the next pastures, until they return again. Ruminant animals were designed to eat things (which the sun helps produce) that we cannot, and turn it into protein that we have evolved consuming. It's a win-win-win cycle of life, and there are only problems when we abuse and neglect the system. Many animals are guilty of this exploitation, case in point: cows will graze until there's nothing left, if let alone. Humans have been blessed with wisdom and consciousness to be the honorable directors of assisting ecosystem functions and prosperity. Therefore, the more viable grasslands that are properly managed, and the more biodiverse our farmlands, the cooler the planet due to maximum vegetative coverage, as well as maximizing the sequestering of carbon from the atmosphere into the soil. This is an extent to which humans do have control.
Other factors we, as a species, have unhindered control of is what we apply to our crops, and what crops we plant. Monocrops, or growing a field of only one variety of plant, are not a natural formation of vegetation. If you look at a forest, even one that was planted after it had been cut for lumber, there is an abundance of different plant species. In conventional monocrop fields, the goal is to eliminate all other plant species, which requires the use of chemical herbicides. In addition to these, farmers also apply other chemical pesticides. All of these solutions are poisons, anti-biotics; life killers. To think that these chemicals couldn't harm us, if their purpose is to eliminate plants, bacteria, fungi, and other animals that are in these fields, is simply reckless. So we are destroying the life in the soil, minimizing the amount of vegetation that grows, and depleting the nutrients in our food, because the nutrients come from the life in the soil. They also get in our waterways, mostly through runoff, which happens much more when soils have less vegetation. The biggest kicker, though, is that these chemicals need repetitive applications, because, as I have stated and will continue to hammer down, life itself is regenerative! You can try to kill it all you want, but we and our synthetics are not more powerful than Mother Earth. Life will always keep coming back; weeds will keep popping back up, critters will make their way through, fungal spores float through the air!
These chemicals are certainly poisons, but they are mostly and consistently harming us, by depleting our soils of the capacity to function prosperously to provide our nutrients, reduce temperatures, and sequester carbon. It has become more than apparent to me that these “crises” are just talking points and not something the people in authority are willing to do something positive about. That would require drastic reductions in the demands of the chemical industry, and drastic changes in the food industry, which are loaded with corporations that have mutual financial relationships with the controlling elite. Governments fund research and subsidies, which puts money in the pockets of these big companies, who, in turn, fund political campaigns and lobby for regulations in their favor. In the meantime, we are being poisoned, our soils are bare and our food is deprived, and we are bypassing the mitigation of ecological function shifts.
My response to the second question was likely unread by the poll takers, but I said, “Climate change is different than a climate crisis. There are many crises on the planet that impact the climate, but calling them all one thing is counterproductive. And we have solutions. Fix the soil and our food supply, stop spraying toxic chemicals all over, and stop polluting everything. The rest is up to Mother Earth.” We cannot stop climate from changing, so is the goal to end climate all together? My comment was unacknowledged, but I was informed that the organization was randomly gifting three participants with a gift card in appreciation of their time. I was not a winner, but I wonder what the other participants' answers were, as I was given no information on how to review the results of the poll, or how the results were to be utilized.
We need to move forward without getting bogged down by the global and industrial messages. We must correct them, and be more mindful of what we are seeking. We need to acknowledge and adjust our behaviors that actually impact our local ecological functions, both individually and by demanding so from those who supply us our resources. Stop falling for the apocalyptic ideology, and let us start to only think in terms of regeneration.
Life begets life. Every one of our cells regenerates over and over throughout our time here, as with every other life form. We need to stop destroying the living organisms that we cannot easily see. Their functions have massive impacts that we are uneducated about, despite our many years of forced schooling. The microorganisms' purpose here is to help filter toxins and repurpose matter; they clean the air and water for us! Mother Earth has her own detoxification and cleansing systems, and those have been under chemical assault for the past century, and physical assault since the dawn of agriculture.
What is imminent is this: we need to stop harming all of us with tiny toxins that accumulate everywhere over time. We need to help the microorganisms that make up all of our ecosystems. All of these measures matter! Begin putting more life into the Earth, and more life into your own life! Perhaps this is how we can mitigate some of the consequences of the changing climate that actually affect daily life, such as threats to food and water security.
I believe that the arguments being promoted are only trying to make us fearful, overwhelmed, and submissive. We need to be better than that. Look at what we're doing, fix what we can with the abundance of information readily available to us these days, and also accept that we cannot control the forces of nature. We have a part to play, so we must be responsible to our own environments and resources. But we are not omnipotent, and we do not need the globalists to tell us what is “best for all of us”. We are individually and locally responsible for cleaning up our own circumstances, and those effects will ripple outward. The people and institutions in power have proven that they cannot save us, as their actions thus far have only increased the poisoning of our foods, waters, lands, and bodies. Nothing has changed on their end, besides us giving them more isolated power, yet they want us to sacrifice our resources and autonomy. I refuse to be controlled by people who repeatedly enrich themselves by manipulating us into ideologies that perpetuate their deceptive measures.
Corruption is undeniable, and the evidence is everywhere, yet the masses still relinquish responsibility to these beings. It is time we put an end to this propaganda and fear-mongering, take control of our own lives, and regenerate our own slices of the world around us. We cannot help anyone else if we don't first help ourselves. Allow the earth that you inhabit to be full of life again. Plant gardens of all kinds. Put in some effort to ensure that your food comes from farmers who care about the quality of the soil they produce from, and stop giving your hard-earned dollars to companies who want you hooked on their nutrient-poor, highly processed, chemical-laced, food-based byproducts. Stop buying water from plastic bottle manufacturers. Stop listening to the news, whose job is to invoke emotions, and do your own research on how life innately regenerates, all on its own! Again, we are not more forceful than Mother Nature. The best we can do is connect to and learn about nature; what the Earth has always generously offered to us. The worst we can do is be obedient to authority and disconnected from the natural world. Where you focus your energy is a choice. Are you going to sit back and be told what is real and good, or are you going to evaluate and consider with your own mind and body?