More Cognitive Dissonance, Part Two
It is truly saddening to see so many articles which proclaim complete nonsense. The worst part is that so many people are culturally indoctrinated to the point where they cannot see through these false claims. In this particular one, the claim is made that we need to protect nature (true), quote:
“Our five breakthroughs for nature echo and expand upon those same themes, emphasizing the urgent need to transform our relationship to the natural world on which we ultimately all depend. In a nutshell, here is the handful of headline actions that we are advocating:
- We need to put nature at the heart of decision-making, with governments and the private sector held accountable for making nature a global priority.
- An annual investment of US$500 billion to protect and restore nature is a minimum requirement, with funding diverted from environmentally harmful activities into nature-positive initiatives.
- The communities and local organizations working on the front line of conservation are the ones best placed to address the interrelated biodiversity and climate crises through action at local level, but they need far more support.
- Safeguarding nature is crucial to climate stability and human health, and we need to redouble our efforts to halt the destruction and degradation of these vital life-support systems.
- For far too long, advances in technology have worked to the detriment of nature, but they have enormous untapped potential to support its conservation. Technological innovation is not a silver bullet—and needs to go hand in hand with drastic emissions cuts—but it’s a vital weapon in our armory.“
The first four ideas I really liked. They make good sense and would definitely help if put into action. The trouble is that the last idea completely wipes out the entire list…
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
