We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

2456766

Comments

  • #2


    All those things you mentioned are part and a result of the current economic structure.

    Some of it is by ignorance, most of it by greed.

    I’d prefer a model where investment in raising education and lowering poverty is the number one goal. If we raise our collective brain power we’d solve the issues, if we can’t solve the issue well then at least we are providing a better life before the ‘end’.

    On the topic of warmer seas, what was the temperature raise? .75c since 1880.
    It’s also incredible that ‘reliable’ sea measurements start in 1880, but it still requires adjusting.
    Even looking at the data 1934 -.22c jumps to .35c in 1941. That’s a .57c jump.... imagine if that happened from 2013 to 2020, the media wouldn’t be able to contain themselves... Al Gore and Attenborough would be telling us that it’s so warm Mars will be ice free in 5 years


  • #2


    What do you all think of Biden's stance on climate change? Looks like he's taking it very seriously. How has the president elect being duped into thinking it's real, or is it a conspiracy to make some people richer or what?


  • #2


    What do you all think of Biden's stance on climate change? Looks like he's taking it very seriously. How has the president elect being duped into thinking it's real, or is it a conspiracy to make some people richer or what?

    That's a topic for Current Affairs/IMHO


  • #2


    Danno wrote: »
    Yes. Hence why I posted the link. Highlighted above is the complete hyperbole of a prediction made. Let's check back here in little under 9 years to see if its hyperbole or truth.


    Oh I can guarantee that if we come back in 9 years and those areas on the map that are coloured red under the 'sea level rise' setting are actually under sea level (ie, they flood with just a normal tide unless artificial flood defenses have been installed) someone on here will be saying it's because all the heavy buildings forced the ground to sink or other such nonsense, And someone else will say 'Sure this place used to always flood' when previously, it used to flood during storms, but now it floods during high tide.

    https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/11/-6.3542/53.3464/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2030&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_level_0&slr_model=kopp_2014

    The article you linked to shows sea level rises with annual flood events. any of the urban places affected by flooding have had flood defenses installed, but we are likely to see these defenses fall short in many areas

    Of course, each flood event will follow some series of concurrances, allowing people to say that the reason for the flood was not sea level rises, it was bad luck because there was an onshore wind after a heavy shower on a spring tide and the real cause of the flood was that storm drains were blocked and the new tennis court was built on a flood plain, etc etc etc.

    This has been the pattern for hand waving away natural disasters for decades. But now we're seeing the beginning of the 'Blue sky floods'
    Where properties are getting damaged by flooding at high tide when there has been no rain or storm surge to blame it on
    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaau2736
    Using these nuisance flood thresholds, Sweet and Park (12) show that the number of hours at nuisance flood stage has increased substantially over time. Across 27 locations in the United States, the number of nuisance flood days has risen from an average of 2.1 days per year during 1956–1960 to 11.8 during 2006–2010. By 2035, nearly 170 coastal communities in the United States are projected to experience flooding more than 26 times per year (13).


  • #2


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    They actually are. Consider, for example, when the hurricane season gets going and anything passed Cat 3 develops, or a heatwave in Europe occurs, or we get a few windy and wet days here in Ireland. These weather events become further proof that climate change is happening and not about weaving up a lucrative narrative at all.

    Lucrative narrative?

    So people only talk about flooding and hurricanes because they've invested in Sea Wall construction firms and Storm Shutter manufacturers is it?

    Your 'follow the money' logic needs to be cast a bit wider to see who is funding all of these 'think tanks' that exist almost purely to cast doubt on climate change and campaign against regulations on polluting industries


  • #2


    My views were laid out in another thread, climate change 3 -- an alternative to both orthodox climate change and skeptical positions commonly taken.

    It has been locked recently after about the fourth off-topic bun fight between the two groups I am trying to join with my third option. That third option basically says considerable warming seems inevitable, whether it's the fault of human beings or not, and the best response is mitigation, not economic disruptions on a huge scale. .

    And my views have been laid out in multiple threads across this site where I outline the natural progression of the 'Nothing to see here' climate change 'skeptics'

    Phase 1.) Global Warming is not happening, in fact, we're probably heading into a mini ice age (this is abandoned now by all but the nuttiest 'skeptics')

    Phase 2.) Ok, so the world seems to be warming, but it's all within natural variability, It'll be cooling again soon (something to do with maunder minimum/solar cycles)

    Phase 3.) Ok, so maybe humans are contributing something to climate change, but it's very very small because humans cannot possibly affect the mighty planet earth. Anything we see now is just part of a bigger natural cycle that hasn't been fully accounted for (people like Gaoth laidir are still in this phase)

    Phase 4a) Ok, so Humans are warming the planet, but it won't cause any real harm, it might even be good. (Anyone who scoffs at the predictions in scientific papers relating to more harmful, heatwaves, floods, consequences related to lost glaciers and changing rainfall patterns, more powerful storms, loss of biodiversity etc)

    Phase 4b) Ok, so humans are warming the planet (along with caveats like 'contributing to' and 'along with natural causes (never defined') but it would cost more to reduce GHG emissions (politically, culturally and economically) so we're better off just building our cities on stilts and living underground anywhere near the tropics (go capitalism!) (MT is here verging on phase 5)

    Phase 5) Oops. Sorry everyone, we were wrong, climate change is real, actually, I believed in it fully this whole time and always advocated that we take action to prevent it, but it's too late now, the genie is out of the bottle. We're stuck with it so no point now in even trying to prevent climate change, we should focus entirely on Mitigation. Lets all buy land in Siberia and Canada and Norway and screw everyone who cannot afford to relocate to a less inhospitable climate. (We should probably buy lots of guns to keep them nasty climate refugees out)


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Oh I can guarantee that if we come back in 9 years and those areas on the map that are coloured red under the 'sea level rise' setting are actually under sea level (ie, they flood with just a normal tide unless artificial flood defenses have been installed). . .

    It has been noted for some time that the the climate models used to supposedly "prove" humans are controlling the global climate have not successfully predicted anything. That lack of predictive skill invalidates them and relegates them to the science of climate doomology.

    Claims about the predictive performance of climate models are built on quicksand. Climate modellers claiming predictive skill decades into the future operate in a fantasy world...
    <snip>
    Climate models cannot be verified or falsified (if at all, because they are so complex) until after the fact. Strictly speaking, they cannot be considered to be legitimate scientific products.

    source


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    And my views have been laid out in multiple threads across this site where I outline the natural progression of the 'Nothing to see here' climate change 'skeptics'

    Phase 1.) Global Warming is not happening, in fact, we're probably heading into a mini ice age (this is abandoned now by all but the nuttiest 'skeptics')

    Phase 2.) Ok, so the world seems to be warming, but it's all within natural variability, It'll be cooling again soon (something to do with maunder minimum/solar cycles)

    Phase 3.) Ok, so maybe humans are contributing something to climate change, but it's very very small because humans cannot possibly affect the mighty planet earth. Anything we see now is just part of a bigger natural cycle that hasn't been fully accounted for (people like Gaoth laidir are still in this phase)

    Phase 4a) Ok, so Humans are warming the planet, but it won't cause any real harm, it might even be good. (Anyone who scoffs at the predictions in scientific papers relating to more harmful, heatwaves, floods, consequences related to lost glaciers and changing rainfall patterns, more powerful storms, loss of biodiversity etc)

    Phase 4b) Ok, so humans are warming the planet (along with caveats like 'contributing to' and 'along with natural causes (never defined') but it would cost more to reduce GHG emissions (politically, culturally and economically) so we're better off just building our cities on stilts and living underground anywhere near the tropics (go capitalism!) (MT is here verging on phase 5)

    Phase 5) Oops. Sorry everyone, we were wrong, climate change is real, actually, I believed in it fully this whole time and always advocated that we take action to prevent it, but it's too late now, the genie is out of the bottle. We're stuck with it so no point now in even trying to prevent climate change, we should focus entirely on Mitigation. Lets all buy land in Siberia and Canada and Norway and screw everyone who cannot afford to relocate to a less inhospitable climate. (We should probably buy lots of guns to keep them nasty climate refugees out)

    And from reading most of those threads such comments belong more certainly in the deep realms of personalisation and daft generalisations eg 'scientific papers' are not rosetta stones. They can be both criticised and disproved. Nothing there but got forbid anyone should do so ...

    But I guess it's good to know that in the field of science and meteorology our knowledge can only have one hue and everything and everybody else is either a heretic or an outright gun toting racist or similar

    :rolleyes:


  • #2


    It has been noted for some time that the the climate models used to supposedly "prove" humans are controlling the global climate have not successfully predicted anything. That lack of predictive skill invalidates them and relegates them to the science of climate doomology.
    'Noted' only certain in dark corners of the internet where facts are distorted and scientific studies are attacked because of conspiracy theories about scientists chasing grant money
    Your source by the way is a well known Climate change denial 'think tank' and the chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton. (Monckton is one of the biggest clowns out there who hasn't got the first clue about science or integrity)

    They do not publish in the scientific literature, they write 'essays' where they can say absolutely anything they like without anyone challenging their facts or assumptions
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute


    And then there's NASA (supported by a published study by Berkley scientists that appeared in journal Geophysical Research Letters)
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
    1984_for_alan.jpg


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »

    And then there's NASA (supported by a published study by Berkley scientists that appeared in journal Geophysical Research Letters) . . .


    You quote Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley. Would you mind mapping the Y axis local examples for the same period (Dublin Airport and Valentia will do) and while you at it can you explain the range of results on the X axis, it seems as we go further to the right the range diverges a lot from the centre.



    The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
    Our study builds upon a growing literature — notably that led by our co-author Justin Ritchie of the University of British Columbia — indicating that commonly used climate scenarios are already well off track and will become increasingly off track. As Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters write in Nature, the highest emissions scenario commonly used in research to represent a “business as usual” trajectory into the future “becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year.


    source


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    'Noted' only certain in dark corners of the internet where facts are distorted and scientific studies are attacked because of conspiracy theories about scientists chasing grant money
    Your source by the way is a well known Climate change denial 'think tank' and the chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton. (Monckton is one of the biggest clowns out there who hasn't got the first clue about science or integrity)

    They do not publish in the scientific literature, they write 'essays' where they can say absolutely anything they like without anyone challenging their facts or assumptions
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute


    And then there's NASA (supported by a published study by Berkley scientists that appeared in journal Geophysical Research Letters)
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

    My oh my, those damn predictions have gotten worse with time, not better. Here are more recent RCP4.5 projections, with actual global observed temperature in black dots. Temperature scraping the bottom of the RCP4.5 members. But let's all ignore that and jump on the worst-case scenario bandwagon and wait for "some urban areas to be entirely under water by 2030".

    498916.png


  • #2


    My oh my, those damn predictions have gotten worse with time, not better. Here are more recent RCP4.5 projections, with actual global observed temperature in black dots. Temperature scraping the bottom of the RCP4.5 members. But let's all ignore that and jump on the worst-case scenario bandwagon and wait for "some urban areas to be entirely under water by 2030".

    498916.png

    1. It's nice to quote your sources. If it's not a peer reviewed journal or at least some professional body , then how can anyone be sure that there weren't errors or omissions in the analysis of the data? Especially given that the data in your graph looks very different to the data on the NASA graph. Your 'observed' temperatures show an increase of .4c between 1990 and 2019 and the NASA version shows observed warming of .9c for the exact same range
    That's a massive difference

    2.
    The RCPs relate to the emissions scenarios. In the RCP scenarios, the emissions are all projected to be about the same until the mid 2010s when they start to diverge as carbon reduction strategies were expected to begin reducing CO2 emissions. The RCP 8.5 scenario most closely matches our current CO2 emissions of on balance about 11.7GtC per year (the net increase in the atmosphere after carbon sinks are accounted for)

    Therefore, we cannot really use the RCP scenarios to distinguish early warming before the paths diverge because they're all more or less the same

    What we have observed in the past 5 years is a significant increase in the rate of warming. Despite La Nina conditions, our global average temperature has not gone below 1c above pre-industrial since about 2015 despite natural variability such as La Nina that would, absent climate change, have driven global average temperatures below average
    metofficegovuk%3Axxlarge
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2020/2021-global-temperature-forecast

    and to call the statement 'some urban areas to be entirely under water by 2030" a worst case scenario is ridiculous given that I posted a link to a study a few posts ago showing that 'Some Urban areas' are already getting flooded at high tide

    I suppose you can call the foreshore of a beach 'above sea level' if it only floods twice a day


  • #2


    I am still interested in the difference between Gaoth Laidirs graph and NASAs one. When he gets a chance I hope he responds


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I am still interested in the difference between Gaoth Laidirs graph and NASAs one. When he gets a chance I hope he responds

    Considering it is almost 2am, I'd give him the opportunity of a Friday night's sleep to respond. I'd wager the response will be well worth the wait. ;) :cool:


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I am still interested in the difference between Gaoth Laidirs graph and NASAs one. When he gets a chance I hope he responds

    Missed this post. That's a graph I posted over the past several years, adding the dots after each year. It was from some IPCC report that I can't remember now but I'll try and dig it out later.


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    1. It's nice to quote your sources. If it's not a peer reviewed journal or at least some professional body , then how can anyone be sure that there weren't errors or omissions in the analysis of the data? Especially given that the data in your graph looks very different to the data on the NASA graph. Your 'observed' temperatures show an increase of .4c between 1990 and 2019 and the NASA version shows observed warming of .9c for the exact same range
    That's a massive difference

    2.
    The RCPs relate to the emissions scenarios. In the RCP scenarios, the emissions are all projected to be about the same until the mid 2010s when they start to diverge as carbon reduction strategies were expected to begin reducing CO2 emissions. The RCP 8.5 scenario most closely matches our current CO2 emissions of on balance about 11.7GtC per year (the net increase in the atmosphere after carbon sinks are accounted for)

    Therefore, we cannot really use the RCP scenarios to distinguish early warming before the paths diverge because they're all more or less the same

    What we have observed in the past 5 years is a significant increase in the rate of warming. Despite La Nina conditions, our global average temperature has not gone below 1c above pre-industrial since about 2015 despite natural variability such as La Nina that would, absent climate change, have driven global average temperatures below average
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2020/2021-global-temperature-forecast

    and to call the statement 'some urban areas to be entirely under water by 2030" a worst case scenario is ridiculous given that I posted a link to a study a few posts ago showing that 'Some Urban areas' are already getting flooded at high tide

    I suppose you can call the foreshore of a beach 'above sea level' if it only floods twice a day

    I originally took that chart from the IPCC AR5, Fig 11.25. and overlaid the annual HadCRUT4 temperatures in black dots.


  • #2


    Entirely, mind. Maybe that film Waterworld was not far off the mark afterall.

    I tbought we were all meant to be.under water already :)


  • #2


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    I tbought we were all meant to be.under water already :)


    Without contrived, frightening forecasts, they would soon be out of business. :)

    . . . there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

    source - IPCC


    Kevin Trenberth
    said in journal Nature (“Predictions of Climate”) about climate models in 2007
    . . . None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

    source


    In fact the IPCC openly acknowledges that its models should not be trusted.

    . . .The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

    source - IPCC


  • #2



    In fact the IPCC openly acknowledges that its models should not be trusted.

    Predicting unknown unknowns is a difficult task. Hyperbole from scientists and media alike does not help.

    Computer modelling is fascinating, but hind casts with modified data inputs does not validate the accuracy of forecasts, at least we should see replication, if there is an embedded natural warming it’s lost in CO2 forcing.

    With the topic of worsening extreme weather events. If your models and theory are pinned on additional energy being absorbed.. weather is feed by energy then you must hold to the idea of ‘worse’ weather events.

    Yet a deeper inspection of flooding will find that areas for development are typically on flood plains, beach front and river sides.


  • #2


    Nabber wrote: »
    Predicting unknown unknowns is a difficult task. Hyperbole from scientists and media alike does not help.

    Computer modelling is fascinating, but hind casts with modified data inputs does not validate the accuracy of forecasts, at least we should see replication, if there is an embedded natural warming it’s lost in CO2 forcing.

    With the topic of worsening extreme weather events. If your models and theory are pinned on additional energy being absorbed.. weather is feed by energy then you must hold to the idea of ‘worse’ weather events.

    Yet a deeper inspection of flooding will find that areas for development are typically on flood plains, beach front and river sides.

    Nobody is saying that places didn’t flood just that these events happen more often. There’s also the fact that the vast vast vast majority of scientists and world governments believe that the climate is overwhelming caused by humanity’s actions since the industrial revolution with significant contributions made over the last 60 odd years.


  • #2


    Nobody is saying that places didn’t flood just that these events happen more often. There’s also the fact that the vast vast vast majority of scientists and world governments believe that the climate is overwhelming caused by humanity’s actions since the industrial revolution with significant contributions made over the last 60 odd years.

    Why over the last 60 odd years in particular?

    The engines of cars, vans, trucks, etc... have become alot more efficient over the last twenty five years in particular, but manufacturers have always been looking for ways of getting more return on the fuel used.

    Same for power generation, much more efficient and with strict laws surrounding emissions they're way more cleaner now.

    Agriculture has seen strict laws and regulations enacted also. Same for aviation. Thats before we even consider the contribution of renewables to our power grid.

    It seems to me that all efforts made by the green lobby have failed spectacularly if you concede what has been highlighted in your statement.

    So, then begs the question - if you are saying the green lobby's laws and regulations have failed, why would "even more regulation" work?


  • #2


    Because there's more power, more agriculture, more consumption of everything now than there was 60 years ago, it's not rocket science. Not only have populations expanded greatly, but we all buy way more stuff now. Engines might be more efficient, but there were few cars 60 years ago, now every housing estate in Ireland has barely enough room for all the cars. Humans consume consume consume, that's what we do.

    60% of wildlife gone since the 1970s - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54091048

    Apparently the earth is at its hottest for 12,000 years

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arctic-temperature-record-100-4-degrees-earth-warmest-12000-years/

    I don't think it's a green agenda in particular, the outlook is bleak from any angle.


  • #2


    'Saving' the environment for big profits:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2G7jBEUGiQ

    As an aside, I wonder is there a reason why Greta Thunberg uses a top of the range gold plated Apple phone to read her speeches from? Like being sponsored by them maybe? Is this what the so-called 'left' have become? Middle class, gated community, high consuming walking billboards for big, for profit corps?


  • #2


    Even if Greta has a gold plated Ferrari, that doesn't mean the environment doesn't need saving.


  • #2


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    'Saving' the environment for big profits:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2G7jBEUGiQ

    As an aside, I wonder is there a reason why Greta Thunberg uses a top of the range gold plated Apple phone to read her speeches from? Like being sponsored by them maybe? Is this what the so-called 'left' have become? Middle class, gated community, high consuming walking billboards for big, for profit corps?

    Ah, Jimmy Somerville now has an American accent...

    R-3700182-1425388687-7190.jpeg.jpg


  • #2


    Nobody is saying that places didn’t flood just that these events happen more often. There’s also the fact that the vast vast vast majority of scientists and world governments believe that the climate is overwhelming caused by humanity’s actions since the industrial revolution with significant contributions made over the last 60 odd years.

    Separating more often and more impact is the issue we are facing. Weather disasters expenses are going to increase based on development growth and the expenses invested in construction.

    Ireland has a poor history with planning and considerations to enforce developers to provision for flooding.
    Ireland flooded in the past and will continue to flood with or without human inference whether local or through AGW.

    We are now in a situation where every flood is attributed to global warming and what once were subtle hints towards responsibility has turned to full on blame. "Mary's house on the banks of the Shannon wouldn't have been flooded if it wasn't for global warming".

    Whether you support AGW theory or not, it's completely illogical to ignore the direct impact of zoning, planning and development, which with or without Climate change is a serious problem.


    If you'd like to stress test your governments commitment to protection and safeguarding for the existential threat of AGW.

    How many have regulated/forbid developments that are 2m ASL?
    Where are the 10m wall developments coastal cities need to survive?
    Why do public AGW activists continue to purchase beach front properties?#
    Why is there no Carbon foot print labelled on products?


    I'm on board with a cleaner planet, cleaner energy, less carbon sure why not?
    I'm wholly against what the AGW message is now. A horrendous abomination, with millions of Twitter Slacktivists, and a crusade of the rich and able. To be green costs €€€, which most of the planet can't afford.

    When Hollywood support it, that's usually a clear indication that it's gone rotten.


  • #2


    I learned an interesting fact at work today. The push to remove plastic packaging from consumer products in favour of e.g. recycled paper/card can have a negative environmental impact, i.e. the water consumption involved in producing (at least some) recycled paper outweighs the impact of producting the plastic it replaces. This was an eye-opener for me.


  • #2


    I learned an interesting fact at work today. The push to remove plastic packaging from consumer products in favour of e.g. recycled paper/card can have a negative environmental impact, i.e. the water consumption involved in producing (at least some) recycled paper outweighs the impact of producting the plastic it replaces. This was an eye-opener for me.

    I would rate the increasing concentration of plastics in food, soil and water via micro plastics as a reason enough to ban the stuff outright.


  • #2


    Danno wrote: »
    Why over the last 60 odd years in particular?

    The engines of cars, vans, trucks, etc... have become alot more efficient over the last twenty five years in particular, but manufacturers have always been looking for ways of getting more return on the fuel used.

    Same for power generation, much more efficient and with strict laws surrounding emissions they're way more cleaner now.

    Agriculture has seen strict laws and regulations enacted also. Same for aviation. Thats before we even consider the contribution of renewables to our power grid.

    It seems to me that all efforts made by the green lobby have failed spectacularly if you concede what has been highlighted in your statement.

    So, then begs the question - if you are saying the green lobby's laws and regulations have failed, why would "even more regulation" work?

    According to that "Green" media darling Carla Augustberg on Newstalk this lunchtime - by driving electric cars and building windmills here, they will get fewer hurricanes in the US:rolleyes: These media clowns continue to drag climate science threw the mud:mad:


  • #2


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    According to that "Green" media darling Carla Augustberg on Newstalk this lunchtime - by driving electric cars and building windmills here, they will get fewer hurricanes in the US:rolleyes: These media clowns continue to drag climate science threw the mud:mad:

    Where is the electricity to come from to power these 'electric veh-he-cals'. Where are the materials going to come from to produce these cars in the first place? And are the factories that produce these cars powered by environmentally sound power sources? Questions we should be asking, but are not, because everything today is presented to us on a surface level. It's all about being seen doing the 'right thing', while not actually doing it.


Society & Culture