Elephants in Thailand Are Out of Work During Pandemic
The lack of tourists in Thailand has left many elephants without work. Many elephant camps are unable to feed them and have left operators with no way to take care of their charges. Elephants are an integral part of the tourist industry in Thailand, and 3,800 elephants in the country are working domesticated animals.
The tourism industry, 20% of Thailand’s economy, has been devastated by the pandemic, and many organizations are struggling to pay for the food and handlers needed for their elephants. An elephant eats as much as 300 kg (660 lbs) of fruits and vegetables each day. Elephants, especially in the northern part of Thailand, have been left chained up as companies deal with the lack of work for them.
We saw the one camp [in Chiang Mai] that had closed and was basically holding all of their elephants parked on one-meter chains 24 hours a day. It’s like battery farming of chickens. Basically, you throw food at them, you scrape the dung away and that’s going to be their existence for the next three months.”
There aren’t many good options for out-of-work elephants. Some of them may end up working for illegal logging operations. It is also illegal to release the elephants into the wild, and national parks and sanctuaries don’t have enough resources to handle the doubling of the elephant population. Some operators have been forced to bring their elephants back to rural villages where the elephants are more able to feed off the land.
Over the weekend a medical researcher reportedly on the verge of a new coronavirus discovery was shot and killed over the weekend. Bing Liu, 37, was found inside his home in North Pittsburgh on Saturday. Shortly after Liu was found, the body of Hao Gu was found shot dead inside his car less than a mile from Liu’s home. Some have reported Gu shot Liu before taking his own life, reporting this as a murder-suicide. A motive is still unknown at this time.
Liu had a Ph.D. in computational science from the National University of Singapore and worked as a research associate at the University of Pittsburgh. Liu was reportedly close to making a significant discovery about COVID-19, with the university saying the following;
Bing was on the verge of making very significant findings toward understanding the cellular mechanisms that underlie SARS-CoV-2 infection and the cellular basis of the following complications,
The new Michael Moore documentary has sparked quite a bit of media outrage over the past week. People are outraged that the film seemingly pointed towards population control as the solution to climate change. Additionally, people have pointed out that the documentary uses outdated methods of renewable energy to falsely claim that renewable energy will not fix the climate problem. I find that whenever content strikes this much controversy and makes this many people angry, they probably have some interesting points. More often than not, the content that enrages people the most is the content that forces us to examine hard truths that we were not ready to face.
Upon listening to media coverage about the documentary I was under the impression that the documentary was about climate change and the fact that renewable energies are not going to save us. I believe this is a pessimistic media narrative painted by neo-liberals who are outraged over the idea that to make real change happen, we may have to change our lifestyles.
In order to truly save the planet, as pointed out in the film, we need to radically consume less on a global scale. This is perfectly displayed early on in the film when General Motors releases a new line of electric vehicles. But what charges the vehicles? How green is it? The source of power is from a Lansing power plant that uses 95% coal. Many people do not want to make radical changes in their lifestyle. They want to feel as though they’re making a difference, earning a pat on the back, while they continue to maintain the same lifestyle.
In reality, the film is about the harsh truth that like many things in life, corporate greed has taken over our mission for renewable energy for their own personal profits. The film touches on the fact that our mission for renewable energy is a hopeless attempt to save our lifestyles, not our Earth.
While watching the film, I learned more about how deep the corporate greed runs. Often times these solar and wind plants are being funded by the same companies responsible for the fossil fuel industry. It was another reminder that billionaires will follow the money, and that morality plays no part in their decisions. Even the Koch brothers have their own line of solar products, profiting from supposedly making the world a better place.
How can men destroy what is left of nature to enrich themselves? Well, that’s why they’re billionaires and you’re not.
In 2011, forests were destroyed to make room for “green” wind turbines. In this one instance, 134 acres of forest were destroyed, and then, in 10 to 20 years when the wind turbines stopped working, they’re sent to landfills. This is just one of the examples highlighted that shows how renewable energy is not as green as we think it is, especially when the motive is money.
Who am I to judge you for being outraged? Maybe you’re a white upper-middle-class citizen trying your best to stay in touch while not really being able to relate to struggles of the marginalized community. Your options are to either move out of your comfort zone to try and actually make a difference or maintain the status quo while making marginal changes that don’t really have a lasting impact but make you feel very good inside. I would imagine that if you’re comfortable with your life, economically and socially speaking, it would be extremely disconcerting for someone to tell you that the only way to continue to survive is to completely change the way we consume, the way we live.
It is for this reason, I believe, that so many are outraged by this documentary. Not because the film mentions population control, not because the film points out the problems with renewable energy, but because the film forces you to confront the cold reality that the only option is a comprehensive change to everyone’s lifestyle on a global scale.
I highly recommend watching the full documentary if you have the time. You can watch the full documentary here: Planet of the Humans
All facts can be fact-checked on Planet of the Humans website.
Smithfield Workers File Lawsuit to Request Protection against Coronavirus
A lawsuit has recently been filed against a Smithfield Foods pork plant in Milan, Missouri. The pork-processing plant is accused of not adequately protecting workers during the coronavirus pandemic. Workers have reported not taking time to cover their mouths after coughing or covering their mouths after sneezing for fear of missing meat as it goes by, thus resulting in the risk of disciplinary action. The complaint was filed by an anonymous worker. Along with the health of the workers, the health of the public has also been brought into question.
Several dozen workers signed a letter that was delivered to plant management during the week of March 30 complaining of cramped conditions and a lack of protective equipment and accommodations for sick leave. It cited the company’s policy of assigning workers a disciplinary point — a tally that can lead to dismissal — if they took a day off.
Many meatpacking facilities around the country have shut down or are working at a lower capacity. Ten workers have died from the coronavirus while around 6,500 employees either contracted the virus, are showing symptoms and/or have missed work due to self-quarantine. The CDC has recommended that Smithfield facilities establish stricter social distancing regulations. Through the lawsuit, workers are requesting changes to Smithfield’s practices rather than compensation.
Smithfield workers are not unionized. Before the Coronavirus outbreak workers reported not having enough time for bathroom breaks. Workers frequently suffered from urinary tract infections and other stress injuries.
COVID-19 Causes Fossil Fuel Usage to Drastically Decrease, While Renewable Energy Usage Increases
As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, in recent months we have seen a massive reduction in energy usage. We’re seeing the greatest decrease is fossil fuel usage since fossil fuels became widely used in the mid 20th century. Coal demand is expected to fall more than it did after WW2. Energy demand is expected to drop by an unprecedented 6% this year, this is around the equivalent of the entire energy demand of India.
While fossil fuel demand decreases, renewable energy is expected to grow this year. The pandemic has shown how poor the fossil fuel industry functions. The cost of storage and the cost of the supply chain to move fossil fuel is extremely expensive, and without the demand for fossil fuels, the industry is collapsing.
Birol and the IEA are confident that the growth in renewables should signal a shift from fossil fuel companies toward generating clean energy.
Some experts have pointed out that if the 2008 recession is anything to go off of we may likely see a large spike in energy usage after the pandemic is over. Others have talked about the importance of using this pandemic as an opportunity to make the transition to renewable energy and not go back to our old ways.
We want to see emissions drop because of a stronger and bigger renewable industry, lower fuel bills and the creation of hundreds of thousands of new green jobs. And that’s what must be at the heart of our recovery from this crisis.
How Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Exacerbate COVID-19
Age and preexisting health conditions are the two of the biggest factors that determine how susceptible you are to COVID-19. Auto-immune diseases reduce immunity. Diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and high blood pressure are all preexisting conditions that make you more susceptible to COVID-19.
Unfortunately, in today’s environment, more and more young people are susceptible to these diseases than ever before. This can be credited to a number of factors, one of which is a large increase in endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
A huge body of research into a family of chemicals that alter hormone action, called endocrine-disrupting chemicals, has increasingly established them as significant contributors to the risk of these very diseases: diabetes, obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, reduced immunity, and more.
A report was released in 2012 by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environmental program showed that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are a global health threat. Studies have been published over the last 20 years linking these chemicals to the same health problems that exacerbate COVID-19. BPA’s, PFOA’s, and many different pesticides are among some of the chemicals that are pointed out in this research.
This will not be our last pandemic. Due to the environmental implications of our lifestyle, the Earth will continue to release viruses as a biological defense. So how do we take better care of ourselves for the next pandemic, and for the future? An article by Organic Consumers talks about the importance of the FDA and the EPA regulating chemicals and better establishing what is safe and what isn’t. Additionally, they point out the importance of producing materials that are safe in the next generation of materials produced for consumers.
First, regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency need to use modern science to establish what is safe and what is not.
Second, we need the next generation of materials used in consumer products to be inherently safer than what we have today, because many of those products contain, and emit, endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
Youtube Bans Coronavirus Information that Goes Against the World Health Organization
Youtube’s chief executive Susan Wojcicki said in an interview that Youtube would be banning all content regarding coronavirus that contradicts The World Health Organization. Wojcicki says the goal is to get rid of “Misinformation on the platform”, by removing anything they deem “medically unsubstantiated”.
“Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”
Unfortunately, what they deem medically unsubstantiated is entirely up to their discretion and not up for debate. It seems, as pointed out by Collective Evolution, that the information they deem medically unsubstantiated is information that negatively targets the establishment.
It seems that any type of information that threatens political/government, corporate and other elitist agendas is heavily targeted.
The censoring of information by supposed “fact-checkers” could easily be seen as a blatant violation of our right to free speech. Fact-checkers continually flag information as false, or “fake news” without giving counter-evidence that proves this information to be false.