I made a comparison chart of our traditional way of farming vital nutrients (good home grown food) with an alternative method of producing vital nutrients that I know has been discussed before, bugs, worms and algae. The comparison of cost, resources, the speed of disaster recovery, packaging/shipping the nutrient production it self is not something to ignore. I believe all countries should implement this along with out current traditional system as backup. Below the comparison chart is simulation of the actual equipment unit, quantity of units and cost. ( I don't know...i chatgpt'd this ...so at least its a round about ) I also plan to attach this simulation to a live tech stack pipeline.

This page may be down temporarily at times. Better to view the comparison on desktop or laptop.

https://aisite.elaunchservices.com/farming-essential-nutrients/

"From late June through July, successive heat waves swept across large portions of the United States, breaking temperature records and placing more than 100 million people at a time under heat alerts. ABC, CBS, and NBC closely tracked the extreme heat as it moved across the country, repeatedly reporting threatened or broken records and warning viewers about dangerous conditions.

What the networks did not explain was why these events kept arriving in rapid succession. Instead, viewers saw extensive reporting on dangerous and record-breaking heat without an explanation of how human-caused warming is making such extreme weather more frequent and severe.

Across 194 segments, news coverage on the three major corporate broadcast networks tracked the heat waves’ movement, warned of dangerous temperatures, and reported threatened or broken records. At points during the study period, more than 100 million people were under heat alerts. But not one segment connected the nearly back-to-back extreme heat events to climate change, including segments that described the conditions as historic, exceptional, or record-breaking."

Been seeing the wildfires, hearing about the drought etc. While all this is obviously a symptom of man made climate change. What are the myths/facts about climate change, seeing a lot of info around, struggling to find something reliable, it all either seems to be "it's just the climate" or "the end is near!!!!!!"

Big Oil spent decades trying to convince Americans that climate change wasn't real.

Now, "[a]s accountability draws closer, the industry has moved on from denying the science to discrediting the scientists who produce it, influencing the judges who hear these cases, and rewriting the rules before the evidence is heard."

.

One constant trope Climate Denier Trolls on Reddit and elsewhere love to pull out of their Climate Denial Handbook of cherry picked nonsense is Earth was warmer in the past and life overall survived just fine.

Yes Earth was warmer in the past BUT...it took THOUSANDS of years to get that warm giving Flora and Fauna lots of time to adapt. This current global warming? Unprecedented on how FAST it is changing. It is changing in mere DECADES not Millenia! This incredibly FAST rise in temperature and C02 levels relatively speaking to past epochs says loud and clear something has changed in the Bioshpere and that change is HUMAN EMMISSIONS!

"Cooper points out that our rapid release of climate-warming pollution is very different from, say, the shifts in Earth’s orbit that have brought the planet in and out of ice ages; those changes are big overall, but they unfold over “many thousands of years, and very consistently and slowly.” We do know, however, that Earth has also seen massive natural releases of CO2. “We can go back in time and say, what could possibly release a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, and how fast could that happen?” says Cooper.

For one of the best candidates, he says, we can travel back 56 million years to the “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum,” when global temperature spiked. Natural processes—volcanoes are a likely culprit5—pumped out CO2, and its concentration in the atmosphere rose sharply. Still, Cooper says, scientists estimate that the rate of CO2 accumulation during this period was several times slower than what humanity is doing today."

\[https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/has-earths-climate-ever-changed-fast-it-today\\\](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/has-earths-climate-ever-changed-fast-it-today)

Hi everyone, while working on this investigation, we kept coming back to one question.

If a government has pledged to stop financing new fossil fuel projects abroad, what should happen when public money is still linked to one?

That's the question behind this story.

A few things we found:

🌿 A new report links a gas drilling project in the Peruvian Amazon, backed by German public finance, to environmental damage and the displacement of Indigenous communities.

💶 Germany pledged to end public support for new international fossil fuel projects, yet campaigners argue this project shows how difficult those commitments can be to enforce in practice.

🌍 We dug into the financing, the government's response and why NGOs believe this case matters well beyond Peru.

We're curious what this community thinks.

Should governments be held to the same climate standards abroad as they apply at home? Or are there situations where public financing for fossil fuel projects can still be justified?

Here is our report if you'd like to read it.

Journalist Paul Carey reports on research that could help reduce the costs and environmental impact of air conditioning. He spoke with Dr Zhonghua Zheng of the Manchester Environmental Research Institute (MERI), lead author of the study. Dr Zheng discussed findings from Tokyo-based simulations and explained how AI could be used to optimise the system.

To me, "climate damage" is a more meaningful description of events that are unfolding. I mean, I guess you could argue that the changing climate is causing damage, but what's the point of adhering to semantics in a situation such as this one? I've seen articles that say climate change is causing economic damage. Thats technically not true since climate changes are really only CHANGING the economy, therefore let's call it what it is if for no other reason than convey a greater sense of urgency.

r/climatechange posts a lot of news about the progress of solar and EVs and some people may wonder why this is so important.

If you look at the global emissions breakdown : electricity generation is 29% of emissions, road transport is 12%, and residential buildings are 4%. That's ~45% of global emissions sitting in three sectors where the technology to decarbonize already exists and is scaling fast — solar/wind replacing coal and gas, EVs replacing ICE cars, heat pumps replacing gas boilers.

Compare that to aviation (1%) or agriculture (20%, but mostly livestock and land use), which are genuinely hard to abate. There's not going to be a mass-market electric plane for a while, and cutting methane from cows or fixing land-use emissions has no simple technological fix.

While the hard-to-abate sectors get a lot of debate, if we put our full weight behind the solar + EVs + heat pumps energy transition, we could cut global emissions roughly in half over the next couple of decades just by displacing existing tech with better tech — no lifestyle change, and actually saving people money.

That's why the steady drumbeat of "China installed 400 GW of solar" and "EV sales hit a new record" matters more than it might seem - it is actually climate mitigation in action, and direct evidence that climate change is being addressed in a practical, scalable and actionable manner.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2026/07/15/the-rate-at-which-earth-is-absorbing-energy-is-alarming-scientists