
I’ve been watching Landman clips on YouTube and I have mixed feelings on it.
I think it does a good job of capturing the futility of this situation, in the sense that every stage of fossil fuel production (and consumption) is populated with folks “just doing their job,” providing for their families, following orders, etc. I watch this show and see the banality of evil, oil CEOs who genuinely believe they’re doing right by the world rather than burning it down.
But I’m also acutely aware that this is not the take most viewers will be walking away with. We’re talking about a general public that idolizes the likes of Tony Montana, Gordon Gekko, Patrick Bateman, Tony Soprano, and Jordan Belfort, despite their films/shows explicitly depicting their downfall as a result of their moral failings.
The vast majority of viewers are going walk away from these films feeling less guilty for their own fossil fuel consumption.

I debated adding the F, but SLRPNK does this weird thing where it adds a huge space after the degree symbol and it just looked weird. When writing for American audiences I prefer using °F as °C seems to unintentionally downplay the severity of warming, but either way it’s real bad.


I love this angle! That makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate your detailed breakdown.
My main criticism of this piece is, as implemented, it still relies on a larger governing body of some sort to police inter-local conflict. If we just do away with federal government entirely, there’s nothing stopping a warlike locality from invading and conquering another to increase its territory and resources, and if that continues unchecked you just get another federal government. (Other examples abound, such as a locality upstream dumping toxic waste into a river that serves as drinking water for a locality downstream.)
If you don’t have a federal body those issues go unresolved, but if you do, the struggle becomes checking the power of said body and preventing it from taking away local sovereignty. And I don’t have any easy answers to that.


Sorry about that! Had trouble uploading the thumbnail and accidentally pasted the image link instead of the article. Post is updated to https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/22/in-a-bombed-out-reservoir-ukraine-huge-forest-grown-a-return-to-life-or-toxic-timebomb

I’m personally focused on climate change, but where did you post that? And is there any way to archive that information? (Archive.org most likely saved a snapshot of the page.) The vast majority of the stuff I post gets single-digit upvotes, I think part of it is just a userbase issue. Even main page posts only get a few comments, I don’t think we’ll see real traction and engagement until the number of total users goes up by 10x.

Amidst all the horrible news about data purges and erasures, this is a glimmer of hope. The real losers (as usual) are the American people, who stood to benefit massively from clear, understandable data on climate risk at a local level. I’ve been pre-emptively archiving federal climate resources for the past 6 months, as it all seems to be on the chopping block.

2x on local hard drives, 2x in the cloud. Not taking any chances with this.

I think about this a lot when we’re talking about animal, bird, and insect populations, because all those massive declines we’re hearing about are measured from 1970 onwards. By that point industrial civilization had been chugging away for a full century, and ecosystems were already severely degraded. Then I think about how settlers clear-cut the Eastern US with just hand-powered axes and saws, and that was a hundred years before that.
In most areas we’d have to go back over 10 generations to encounter a truly healthy ecosystem. Shifting baseline is absolutely a real thing.


Ticks move into lawns as well, and while I haven’t found studies comparing the density of ticks in shorter grass vs. flower beds, I would assume it’s a wash; even if there are less ticks in turfgrass, you’re walking/lying on that grass, allowing more opportunities for them to latch onto you. Whereas you’re not walking through flower beds, so even if there’s a greater tick population, you’re not coming into contact with them as much.


Read the article; it’s not abandonment, it’s intentional cultivation. The former is more beneficial to wildlife than maintaining a pristine yard, but in most cases it’ll just end up with your yard being taken over by invasives. The latter is managing your yard in a way that encourages native, pollinator-friendly (and beautiful!) plants.


My yard used to be hard-packed clay where only the most tenacious weeds could survive (field bindweed, burdock, thistle, dandelion), so my first step was putting down multiple layers of heavy cardboard to smother them, then covering that with about a foot of wood chip. That killed the latter three and helped to start softening up the soil (worms move in when organic matter is present), but bindweed just pushed through the cardboard and wood chip, so I had to hit that with (selective, judicious) applications of herbicide. It was a hobby for the first year, but now my yard is weed-free and the soil is turning more rich and loamy!
I’ve mostly used starts/seedlings to fill in my beds, but now that the weed pressure is lower I’ve started putting soil & compost over the mulch to encourage my plants to self-seed. I’m also filling in all the “blank spaces” with ground cover, to provide an additional barrier against weeds. A mature garden will require a little weeding now and then, but for me that’s something I enjoy (it’s a break from work, and time in the sun), and it’s definitely not as intensive as vegetable gardening.


Is the city just going to fine each building $25 every time an inspector checks?
From the city’s website, it looks like a fine of $300 can be assessed for buildings with more than 9 units (and for multiple infractions).
I assume this would incentivize owners to inform their tenants of the policy, and make composting more easily accessible to them. I can think of a dozen loopholes and unforeseen consequences of this law, but however imperfect, I still believe it’s a step in the right direction. Food waste is a massive issue, as is nutrient loss from our soils, and ultimately I think that inconvenience is a small price to pay for addressing that. I realize that not everyone feels the same way, which is why incentives are needed.
This law is a negative incentive, so I would hope that some positive incentives could be implemented as well.


deleted by creator


I love linking this story in composting subs when people ask if citrus peels are OK! Great demonstration of the power of adding organic matter.
That said, it should be acknowledged that moisture and heat probably played a big role in how quickly the peels broke down and fed the soil; I don’t think you’d get similar results in a dry/desert ecosystem.

Agreed. I’m getting tired of these pencil-pusher reports implying that “the economy” is going to keep chugging along at a reduced rate, as if we can just shuffle around our stock portfolios and weather the storm.
The “Planetary Solvency” report by IFoA is one of the first mainstream papers that’s taking a sober look at the climate crisis. If we hit 2°C by 2050, they’re seeing a significant likelihood of:
I don’t even want to think about 3°C and 4°C scenarios.

Jesuits are real ones. The Nazis considered them to be one of their “most dangerous enemies” due to their principled opposition. Glad to see they’re keeping the flame alive.

Banks trying to take profits buying air conditioner stocks while society and the biosphere is crumbling around them is a perfect encapsulation of this crisis. I’m doing my best to laugh at the absurdity of it all, because the alternative is paralyzing depression.
If you’re interested in the more fundamental dynamics at play here, I’d highly recommend giving these a watch:
Good catch!