@futurism.com
And what is not discussed is ghg - esp CO2 - have other actual as well as potential harm.

Increasing ocean acidity is already changing the ecosystem.

There's starting to be evidence that today's CO2 concentration - over 50% higher than at any time in human history - is starting to impact blood chemistry in people.

Shading the earth does NOT address these issues.

And, as a chemist, I wonder how they have evaluated these "safe" particles to understand the life-cycle impact on atmospheric chemistry.

#ClimateAction #CO2_impacts #EcosystemDamage

@anirvan
In other words, we were well on our way to decarbonizing our energy supply, and the billionaires figured out that there are even more profitable ways to waste energy than bitcoin.

Anyone who believes market forces, or market forces influenced by carbon taxes, are sufficient to address #GHGemissions, #ClimateCrisis , #EcosystemDamage haven't been paying attention. Or they are worshipping at the altar of Friedman, ruled by faith in a false idol.

@Nonilex
(1/2) My comment:

I urge you to reject the proposed rule change.

Clearly  "the definition of “harm,” like the other nine verbs in the definition, should be construed to require an “affirmative act[ ] . . . directed immediately and intentionally against a particular animal—not [an] act[ ] or omission[ ] that indirectly and accidentally cause[s] injury to a population of animals.” " is a misleading statment that fails to recognize the ability to predict cause and effect - something scientists, and wildlife biologists, have made great progress in doing with increasing accuracy.

It is clear that ANY act that changes the environment in a way that can reasonably be expected to reduce the "population" of specified animals causes harm.  The fact that such act is committed by entities that know, or should have known, that it "causes injury" of protected species is clear indication of intent.  

(Continued)

#EndangeredSpecies #LegalSophistry #extinction #EcosystemDamage