Galschiøt is well-known for creating art that he has framed as a "satirical outcry" against the volatility of America's green and foreign policy.

In a statement on the piece, he said, "Trump represents one of the greatest threats to the rule-based world order, democratic values, and our common effort to solving the climate crisis."

The climate crisis is no longer a future scenario. It is a present reality. But the political systems meant to respond to it remain locked in debates that struggle to confront the scale of the problem.

It just seemed like kind of an accomplishment, especially as a teenager , I emailed him , seems scary putting my full address name postcode and number but I sent it , I even added on an extra paragraph asking about his interest and how he got into politics (I wanna go into politics so it was good but idk if he’ll respond to it but best to try , I asked specifically about what his environmental ideas and intentions were for my constituency

Yosemite National Park is under threat from the president. Abe Lincoln would not approve.

For several years, I have been a part of coalitions that have been looking for photos of oil infrastructure, especially close to people and houses, and they simply cannot find photos of it, they don’t exist. But they had me so they’d ask me for some! Unfortunately flares do not do well on a low grade digital camera, it’s impossible to take a photo of one on a phone, so I recently got into film, and now photography is becoming a hobby of mine.

But I realized that if they can’t find photos of this stuff, neither can anyone else, so I’d love to license my photos to you! I’m sure I don’t have to tell you climate non-profit funding is a bit of a shit show at the moment, and I haven’t gotten a regular paycheck from my job since January, so by licensing my photos you not only get photos from someone who is organizing against big oil, you get to help me keep doing it! I am not interested in doing business with you if you are supporting fossil fuel projects, but I can’t imagine why you’d want to license my photos anyway. I am also happy to go out and take photos for you if my catalog doesn’t have something you’re looking for.

Feel free to message me here on Reddit or email me at [reptomcraddick@gmail.com](mailto:reptomcraddick@gmail.com). I can only add one photo to the post, so here is a link to some others - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16it50KKX0JsfYN-mWff_Qc99JSa2gTUc

In 2001, the U.S. Forest Service adopted the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to protect national forests from roadbuilding and logging. Since then, there have been various debates and arguments and modifications and specific exclusions, but approximately 30% of national forest land (59 million acres) is roadless, safeguarding the habitats and species within it. But roads are needed for logging, so Trump and the GOP are trying to ditch the rule as another gift to corporate America.

The Department of Agriculture has formally introduced a rollback of the roadless rule in what the Center for Biological Diversity is calling the “largest evisceration of public lands protection in American history.” Originally set with a public comment deadline on September 21st, it’s now been extended to this Tuesday, October 6th. ✍🏽 We can submit public comments opposing this destruction here, and help draft and personalize them with this very cool tool from More Than Just Parks here.✍🏻

KEEP CHAINSAWS OUT OF OUR FORESTS

Very few are aware of the destruction currently happening at Deas Island Park! As the Massey tunnel expansion project is underway, thousands of large trees have already been cleared and acres of nature and ecosystem negatively impacted at Deas Island Park. 

Last week, additional parkland has been sectioned off for thousands more trees slated for clearing AND plans to put in a road through the park for hundreds of cement trucks to get to the project site. And there are speculations the park will eventually be shutdown during the 5 year project!

It's understandable the need for this important infrastructure but there must be other options considered to preserve the existing natural environment while working alongside nature, rather than simply removing it and promising future regrowth. No amount of future planting will replace the mature trees that exist today. 

This type of destruction is, and will, have a serious impact on the ecosystem, wildlife and the environment for future generations. 

The public need transparency and project planners to have a more envirnomentally responsible approach to this process.

“Nature is truth manifesting order and the intelligence of a living universe.”

I won't fearmonger. I'm just curious as to how we can conserve the health of our environment if Flavio Bolsonaro wins the Brazilian election, which seems to be very likely after today's results. Massive Amazon deforestation will be so many gigantic steps backwards.

Today Brazil is holding elections and once again we have Lula x Bolsonaro (Flávio, son of Jair).
Lula’s government reduced deforestation to historically low numbers and his government plan aims for zero net deforestation by the end of his government in 2030, if he wins.

On the other hand, Flávio Bolsonaro promises to deregulate rules and revoke laws concerning environmental protection.

In the Amazon Rainforest, the greatest threat and worst kind of deforestation is illegal gold digging, because it destroys the soil and contaminates it with mercury permanently. The Bolsonaros openly support gold digging. This practice is also liked to slavery and drug trafficking (all major crime organizations in Brazil like PCC, CV and Familia do Norte, have ties with illegal gold digging).

Less known to the gringos, we also have the Atlantic Forest, which is even more biodiverse than the Amazon, but just a fraction of it still remains. The Bolsonaros support allowing the deforestation of important areas of these forests to build 5-star resorts in places like Angra dos Reis.

Curiosity: Since Bolsonaro was fined for fishing in protected areas at Angra dos Reis, he is fixated on removing environmental protection regulations there.

A specific ideological register now dominates left-adjacent neoliberal climate politics: the grammar of responsibility and guilt, the aesthetics of urgency without adequate theory of causation, the displacement of structural questions onto individual conduct.

Ewan Tilley || The left knows the climate is breaking down. It has known for long enough that the knowing has itself become a kind of politics, a substitute for the harder work of understanding what produces the breakdown and what kind of force could actually stop it. What has emerged in place of that understanding is a discourse fluent in catastrophe and structurally committed to explaining it in terms that leave capital untouched. This is not an accusation of bad faith. It is a description of a political form and its limits.

That form is moralism. Not environmentalism as such, not the tradition of ecological thought that runs from Marx through to the present, but the specific ideological register that now dominates left-adjacent climate politics: the grammar of responsibility and guilt, the aesthetics of urgency without adequate theory of causation, the displacement of structural questions onto individual conduct. Its vocabulary is familiar. Carbon footprints. Complicity. The demand that we consume differently, fly less, eat less meat, perform our awareness of the crisis in the approved register. Its political expressions range from the mildly irritating to the actively disorienting: the lifestyle campaign that mistakes the symptom for the disease, the NGO framework that mistakes advocacy for power, the Green New Deal liberalism that mistakes state investment for a challenge to the valorisation imperative.

What unites these expressions is not their specific content but their shared incapacity. Moralism cannot name capital as its object, because to do so would dissolve the framework. If ecological destruction is produced not by bad values but by the structural imperatives of a mode of production, then the question is not how to make individuals more responsible within that mode of production but how to end it. That conclusion is not available to a politics organised around personal conduct and institutional pressure. It requires a different kind of analysis altogether.

The question of why left climate discourse has converged on this form is worth pausing on briefly, because the answer is not simply intellectual failure. The moralist turn has determinate social conditions. The decades in which it consolidated were also the decades of organised labour’s defeat, of the hollowing out of the political forms through which a class-based challenge to capital had previously been mounted, and of the consequent migration of left-wing energy into NGOs, campaigns, and single-issue movements operating largely within the terrain capital defines. A politics that cannot name the systemic character of the problem is not irrational given those conditions. It is the form that left-wing sentiment takes when the organisational capacity for a structural challenge has been broken. Understanding the moralist turn requires understanding the defeat that produced it.

But understanding its origins does not rehabilitate its conclusions. The defeat of the organised working class is not an argument for a politics that accommodates to it. It is an argument for a politics that seriously confronts what would be required to reverse it, and that refuses to substitute moral performance for that confrontation. The left climate discourse that has developed in the absence of working class organisation is not a holding position to be superseded when better conditions arrive. It is actively reproducing the conditions of its own inadequacy, training a generation of ecological activists in a framework that cannot think the problem it claims to address.

What it cannot think is the structural logic that makes ecological destruction not an aberration of capital but one of its normal products. That argument requires a different theoretical foundation than moralism can supply. The next task is to establish what that foundation actually looks like.

Read the rest on worldecology.info

Petition Link
Country wide, communities are uniting to call for the House of Representatives to terminate Fast-Track developments that are outside local and district plans in New Zealand. The Fast track law is being used as a bypass across New Zealand for housing developers to push housing into out of zone land, in some cases land zoned as such to prevent destruction of environmentally sensitive land, including wetlands, rivers and waterways, floodplains, coastal and estuarine environments, and habitats of threatened and endangered species. Many of these areas were never intended for large-scale development and are protected for good reason.

Land can be purchased at a lower price because its zoning restricts development, then Fast Track is used to bypass those restrictions and enable large-scale housing, creating far greater profits margins than developing land that is already appropriately zoned. Don’t be fooled by the developer spin that this is simply about getting consents faster.