Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
The Fossil Fuel Industrial Complex does not like Celebrities or Movie Stars speaking out against the crime of doing nothing about the threats of climate change. They will scream “hypocrite” or claim, through paid-for pseudo scientists, that the data is “inconclusive”, then willfully, and perhaps illegally, hide the truth for decades. None of this will stop the shift toward grass roots action and now Jane Fonda is at the forefront, which is not surprising.
Of all people, Jane Fonda is no stranger to activism. She has advocated on many fronts throughout her life including protesting war, violence, discrimination and now her current focus is on the climate crisis.
At Glamour’s Women of the Year Awards, Fonda stated that she hasn’t met Greta Thunberg, but that her life has changed because of her. She further reflected in an interview on how compelled to action she became, inspired by the young climate fighter.
“She urged us to get out of our comfort zone and stop behaving like business as usual, and that’s what inspired me to move to D.C. and join with students. And I thank you so much for the courage of what you are doing. We can’t leave it to young people. It wasn’t their fault. We have to stand alongside them.”
– Jane Fonda
Fonda then helped to launch the climate crisis campaign called Fire Drill Fridays. The name was inspired by the book “On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal” by author Naomi Klein and the stand out quote from Greta “act like your house is on fire”. The actress then uprooted her life to move to Washington in order to protest on a weekly basis each Friday for a total of 4 months. Jane aims is to bring continued awareness of the climate crisis and advocate for the Green New Deal, an initiative aimed directly at the climate crisis that lays out demands to phase out the use of fossil fuels and completely be replaced with 100% renewable clean energy by 2030.
Her protests and engagement in civil disobedience on Capitol Hill have thus far resulted in five arrests, with another arrest on the 15th almost a certainty. Fonda has even brought several of her celebrity friends to join in the cause, all of whom have also been detained, including Rosanna Arquette, Catherine Keener, Ted Danson, and Sam Waterston.
Fonda has felt both sides of the spectrum in her many years as a political activist and resister; she has garnered much respect for her courage and bravery during protests at the U.S. Capitol, however the actress didn’t always hold positive public regard. Quite the opposite, almost half a century ago, Jane was heavily criticized, with some branding her as a traitor, and many harboring hate for decades after her protests surrounding the anti-war movement.
In 1972, Fonda took a trip to North Vietnam where it was revealed that the U.S. was unjustly bombing farmlands and targeting innocent people, during her trip she also spoke on Hanoi radio about the wrongdoings she had witnessed, sparking massive controversy. However the tipping point that drastically changed public perception of her for many decades stemmed from a photograph that she apologized for and yet was never forgiven by her critics.
In many ways this experience of negative backlash, which was particularly fierce due to her being a female movie star, makes her the perfect person to stand up to some of the same powerful forces she defied in her youth.
The fact is that the fossil fuel industrial complex has denied and deflected and at the same time perpetrated a crime against all of us, rather than contributing to sustainable alternatives, for at least 50 years. Who better to Join the ranks of those seeking to bring attention to this failure of government and industrial power elites than Jane Fonda, veteran advocate and icon.
Despite all of the ups and downs, Jane Fonda has endured during her life as a political activist. She, clearly, is not stopping. She is not backing down and will continue to use her celebrity to raise awareness. As an elderly woman, the actress is willing to risk continued arrests in order to call out to governments that continue excessive use and even promotion of fossil fuel systems that they must stop immediately.
With only a limited amount of years left for any of us to turn the fossil fuel disaster around – there is a countdown, that if not addressed will result in dire and irreversible planetary consequences. Scientists have sounded the warning bell time and again for years about global warming and the climate crisis, yet insufficient governmental action, and even willful resistance, to positive change has been the norm.
The fossil fuel industry have known for years of the negative environmental implications yet continue, in the name of profit, to cause increases the CO2 emissions to be dumped into the atmosphere. All through lack of support for alternatives and even active promotion of existing deadly technologies and systems.
Mass mobilization and civil disobedience including Fonda’s Friday Drill Fridays, Extinction Rebellion and big names like Greta Thunberg and Leonardo DiCaprio will, no doubt continue and increase. These and other positive grass roots actions are essential in order to force governments and private industry to finally wake up and listen, then take the drastic and immediate steps needed toward solving this global problem.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
On Wednesday, November 13th at 11:26 a.m., an earthquake with a magnitude of 3.9 and a depth of 5.7 miles was reported 12 miles away from Ridgecrest, California. Interestingly, this earthquake is located at the same epicenter as the record-breaking 6.1 magnitude and 7.1 magnitude earthquakes that occurred on July 4th and 5th, respectively.
A closer look at the big July earthquake that occurred on Independence Day reveals that it appears to have activated the Garlock fault. The fault line is 185 miles long and runs from a junction with the San Andreas fault at Antelope Valley and has largely been inactive for the past 500-years. However since the July quakes, Ridgecrest has felt more than 80,000 earthquakes, most of them too low on the richter scale to warrant news coverage, resulting from the Garlock fault’s movement.
“The fact that the Ridgecrest rupture terminated right next to the Garlock is what cased this behavior.”
Zachary Ross, Assistant Professor of Geophysics at Caltech
However, generally, such movement should not cause immediate alarm as it’s quite common for faults to shift after a big earthquake. A “trigger slip” is where an earthquake is triggered by a previous quake – in this case, according to seismologists, today’s quake may have been a “passive response” to the Magnitude 7.1 earthquake, 11 miles from Ridgecrest, CA at 8:19 PM.
“The fact that we have a trigger slip after a 7 [magnitude earthquake] is really common. It’s like a passive response to the energy being released by the big earthquake”
Lucy Jones, Seismologist
In early October, Time magazine published a report citing scientific study, by researchers from the California Institute of Technology and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where it was indicated that the movement along the Garlock fault could indicate a possible increase in seismic activity, and that the fault was capable of producing an 8.0 magnitude earthquake at some point, although there is no way to predict when.
Earthquakes with a 3.0 magnitude or more were reported to have had an epicenter near the Ridgecrest fault in the last ten days. With a recent three-year data sample as a reference, 234 earthquakes on average happen every year in California and Nevada with 3.0 to 4.0 magnitudes. It is important to bear in mind that each whole number on the Richter scale is exponentially stronger than the previous whole number (an 8.0 is 33 times stronger than a 7.0 but a 9.0 is, yikes, 1,089 times stronger – arrived at by multiplying 33×33).
Although this earthquake, at 3.9 was at a magnitude that is common and not powerful enough to do damage, the fact is that Southern California is home to highly vulnerable fault lines and a quake measuring 8.0 or higher is going to happen at some point, it is only a question of when. Therefore it is highly advisable to prepare for any earthquake-induced emergencies that may happen now, and your chance of avoiding any negative effects will be far higher in the event that “the big one” happens anytime soon.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Alibaba Group Holding Limited’s annual Singles’ Day sales event is held on the 11th of November. The origin of Singles’ Day comes from the event’s date, 11/11 or “double eleven,” which references the number one as it relates to being single and not in a relationship (one is the loneliest number after all). When it first occurred in 2009, it was a kind of anti-Valentine’s Day when single people could splurge and purchase gifts for themselves. In its more recent years, Singles’ Day has welcomed all, regardless of their relationship status, and has turned into a major online shopping event where consumers across the globe can buy name brand items at discounted prices. Because of its worldwide popularity, this ‘single’-day sales event was eventually rebranded into the Global Shopping Festival in 2015 as it became more like a “holiday season celebrated by merchants and consumers worldwide.”
This year immediately yielded huge numbers, with the company reporting $17 billion dollars (120.7 billion yuan) in just the first hour and a half alone. The first nine hours has yielded $22 billion dollars (158.31 billion yuan) and many project the sales to beat 2018, which brought Alibaba approximately $30 billion dollars worth of sales from Singles’ Day.
Although it’s often dubbed as China’s equivalent to Black Friday and Cyber Monday, Singles’ Day is much bigger. This year, within the first 68 seconds of the event, Alibaba Group achieved their first $1 billion in sales, and at the half hour mark, they recorded their first $10 billion in sales. After their first 24 hours, they surpassed the previous year’s record of $30.7 billion in sales with approximately $38.4 billion. In comparison, last year’s Black Friday grabbed just under $25 billion in total sales over a five-day period, while Cyber Monday, for example, had less than $8 billion.
Over 200,000 brands are participating, one million new products are on offer and more than 500 million users are expected to participate in this year’s festival – about 100 million more than last year. Estimated consumer savings from brand and platform promotions and coupons are around RMB 50 billion.
global shopping festival 2019 / alibaba group
Although Alibaba is a Chinese e-commerce site, nearly half a billion shoppers participate around the world as they bolster their global reach through their multiple websites dedicated to handling sales between China and specific global regions, with Hong Kong, US, Australia, UK, and Japan accounting for some of the international buyers that take part.
“This year, both buyers and merchants have more than doubled and we’ve already seen a series of record-breaking moments. We’re looking forward to sharing even more good news.”
Yin Jing, Co-President of Lazada, a Subsidiary of Alibaba Group
The event’s launch included a countdown celebration gala that was broadcasted from the Shanghai Mercedes-Benz Arena. Musical performances from Jackson Yee, G.E.M. and Taylor Swift, along with a live stream with Kim Kardashian, helped to promote sales further on the evening before the big day. Also, something noteworthy about this year’s event is that co-founder and former chairman Jack Ma was not present as he recently resigned in September of this year, which coincidentally lined up with the company’s 20th anniversary since it was first established.
Alibaba’s CTO Jeff Zhange described the event as an
“Airplane flying at turbo speed.”
Jeff Zhang, CTO of Alibaba
Additionally, he attributed this speed to the company’s biggest focus of making this “airplane” more efficient.
The 2019 event is particularly significant in regards to the continued US and China trade war, with many Chinese companies riddled with uncertainty about the future of their businesses, yet according to what Richard Wong, Head of ICT for APAC, stated to Bloomberg TV, “Alibaba will probably be the one that will be able to circumvent and come out from the trade war in better shape”.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
If you are still having trouble accepting the fact that climate change is real, then you are definitely not factoring in the overwhelming consensus of science. Earlier this week, the academic journal BioScience released a scientific research paper providing data from the past forty years, all pointing to the conclusion that our planet is currently in a state of climate emergency. Then, if the paper’s research is not enough on its own, perhaps the fact that over 11,000 scientists authorized it will help convince you.
At the bottom of the report, there are 11,258 signatures, all coming from different scientists across 153 countries and multiple disciplines. The paper’s multi-disciplinary approach creates room for a variety of evidence, demonstrating how global warming is effecting the planet from geological, biological, physiological, neurological perspectives and beyond.
This is also a wake up call about the fact that the science on climate change is no longer divisive. In science’s unbiased eyes, the Earth is in an unequivocal state of emergency.
“Climate emergency” is the exact diction that the paper uses to define the planet’s current situation. The words associated with climate change have evolved many times over the years. From “global warming” to “crisis,” language can certainly affect the way people think about the issue. The authors of this paper decided on “emergency” because it provokes more urgency than mere “change” but not as much chaotic hopelessness as “crisis.” After all, the purpose of the paper is to unveil proof and evoke action, not to have people helplessly bury their heads in the sand.
The paper outlines six major changes people must enact if they want to save the planet. Namely,
As the paper makes clear, these changes are hardly suggestions, but more like necessities at this point. If we do not alter our priorities in a timely manner, we will face the worst of climate change’s wrath and be utterly defenseless to it.
Like most realistic studies on the climate crisis, this paper is not for the faint of heart. It opts for harsh truth over optimism. That being said, the research is not without occasional glimmers of hope. The outline of solutions points us in the right direction. Similarly, the authors acknowledge recent surges in environmental protests and eco-friendly ingenuities across the world as ongoing positive changes. Data-wise, fertility rates are already dropping and more people are switching from fossil fuel burning to more sustainable, renewable energy practices. Likewise, even politics are slowly catching on to the issue, with the UK Parliament declaring a climate emergency and United States Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Earl Blumenauer and Sen. Bernie Sanders all introducing the Green New Deal to Congress.
The world is far from perfect, and more action is still needed if we want to combat climate change effectively. However, the science is nearly unanimous, and the debate surrounding the issue’s severity is no longer a point of contention. Now, we just need people in power to stand with science, believe in the facts, and put in place urgently needed changes to begin to find ways to save us all from possible extinction.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
This week had a gaggle of new trailers hitting the street so we decided to choose five to showcase and feature in this post.
Soul is an American computer-animated fantasy adventure comedy film produced by Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures. It is directed by Pete Docter, produced by Dana Murray and stars the voices of Jamie Foxx, Tina Fey, Questlove, Phylicia Rashad and Daveed Diggs. The film is scheduled to be released on June 19, 2020.
Bad Boys for Life is an American buddy cop action comedy film directed by Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and Will Smith and starring Smith and Martin Lawrence. The sequel to Bad Boys (1995) and Bad Boys II (2003) and the third Installment in the Bad Boys trilogy, the film follows detectives Lowrey and Burnett reuniting once again when a Romanian mob boss exacts revenge on the duo just as they are about to officially retire.
The Invisible Man: a science fiction psychological horror film written and directed by Leigh Whannell. It is a very loose modern adaptation of both the novel of the same name by H. G. Wells and a reboot of the 1933 film adaptation of the same name. The film stars Elisabeth Moss, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Aldis Hodge, Storm Reid and Harriet Dyer.
Hala is a 2019 drama film written and directed by Minhal Baig. It was screened in the U.S. Dramatic Competition section at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival. It is scheduled to be released in a limited release on November 22, 2019, followed by digital streaming on December 6, 2019, by AppleTV+.
Screen legend Bruce Willis plays Lt. Wakes, a vengeful police detective determined to solve the murders of his partner and informant. Wakes joins forces with Madison (Whelan), a witness injured during the shootings.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
In the fifteen years that Facebook has graced our computer screens, the website has undergone many aesthetic and technical changes, yet its lower-case, white printed name set against a blue background has stood the test of time as the company’s unmistakable corporate logo. However, even the most familiar things must evolve at some point. Despite its long run, Facebook’s corporate logo is finally changing and the change is far from subtle.
Facebook’s updated logo no longer reads “facebook” but instead shouts “FACEBOOK” in all-caps, slightly bolded Helevetica font. According to Mark Zuckerberg, the new logo is meant to offer a sense of security and optimism, with its soft edges and comfortable spacing reminding users that the website was created to bring people together.
Perhaps even more dramatically than the all-caps decision, though, Facebook’s new logo is also losing its signature blue and white color combo. The company’s name will now be written in transitional colors, changing hue depending on the application it is seen on.
The logo will be seen on multiple applications, as Facebook also announced that it will start branding itself more straightforwardly on the company’s other apps and sites. One may not know that Facebook owns Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus, Workplace, Portal, and Calibra. The company plans on making this Facebook-family of services more blatantly related, printing “from Facebook” on each homepage using the new logo.
This re-branding marketing stunt could not have come at a more astute time for Facebook. The company has been in hot water for well over a year at this point, and the pot is beginning to boil over.
During the 2016 election, the Cambridge Analytica British Consulting Firm used Facebook to steal data and falsely advertise for the Trump campaign. Since then, the company has been accused of profiting off of fake-news and not doing enough to police their content.
Just a couple weeks ago, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grilled Mark Zuckerberg before Congress, exposing the young CEO’s ignorance as well as his lack of initiative to address Facebook security issues and protect its users.
Similarly, Senator Elizabeth Warren has scathingly called out Facebook during her Democratic presidential campaign. Part of her anti-corporation platform includes breaking up the big tech conglomerates—that means Apple, Google, Amazon, and yes, Facebook. Essentially, Warren gave a voice to the widely accepted belief that Facebook currently holds too much control and has become an unchecked power.
No—Facebook is not on great terms with its users nowadays. More and more people are deleting their accounts on the site that once ruled social media, following the #deletefacebook trend growing across the globe. Sadly, there is not a whole lot Facebook can do about the underlying causes, though. As dumbfounded as Zuckerberg may have seemed before congress, these cyber-security questions are far from simple.
For now, Facebook is doing what it can for itself. It is changing its image, hoping that the updated logo and united approach to the multiple apps will revamp interest in the site and maybe just cover up some of the hostility it currently faces. A new logo doesn’t actually solve anything. Facebook will still remain the same old site it always has been. So how do we take the new logo? As a sign of corporate reformation on Facebook’s behalf? Or as a symbolic front to distract user’s from the company’s inaction? Or is it just a logo? A marketing ploy like any other meant to make the website more modern and appealing to digital passerbys.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
Under former President Barak Obama, a number of environmental policies were pushed to lower carbon emissions and combat the climate crisis across the United States. Ever since Trump entered office, though, the White House has been working to rollback much of the eco-friendly progress that Obama helped make possible.
In response to Trump’s careless approach to environmental issues, the state of California has taken it upon itself to put a cap on carbon emissions, with Governor Gavin Newsom proposing fuel saving and zero-emission requirements for automobiles throughout the state.
Being the most populated state in the nation, California is known for its traffic-filled cities and its progressive-minded people. Currently, the state is also feeling the effects of global warming firsthand, with unparalleled wildfires, droughts, and coastline erosion taking tangible tolls on the state’s residents and natural beauty. Therefore, it makes sense for California to go after cars in the battle against climate change, and if Trump is not going to help the Golden State, then it will make the changes for itself.
California’s proposed statewide legislation includes calling for lighter and more eco-friendly fuel-efficient vehicles. The state wanted to uphold Obama’s stringent goal of a 54.5 mpg average by 2026 rather than Trump’s far more lenient 36 mpg target. While this fuel-efficient technology might make cars more expensive up front, it would actually help drivers save money in the long run as they would not have to fuel up as often—thus avoiding the daunting California gas prices and pleasing the everyday car owner.
But, of course, these proposed policies did not please car manufacturers. With California setting its own emissions standard apart from the federal standard, car companies feel that it would be too difficult and expensive for them to adapt their vehicles just to fit a single state’s independent regulations.
For these reasons, many car companies sided with Trump and eventually solidified the federal government’s standards as universal, barring California from creating its own separate policies. Among these car companies that backed Trump were General Motors, Toyota, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Mazda, and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. These uber-wealthy corporate entities were powerful enough to sway policies against California.
Notice the irony, however, that hardly any of these companies produce American cars. Many of them are headquartered in Japan with the exceptions of Hyundai coming from South Korea and Fiat coming from Italy. General Motors is the sole American company on the list, and it is based in Detroit, over two thousand miles from the West Coast.
Despite the pushback, California is determined to continue fighting for environmental policy reform. Many of the state’s citizens and politicians alike are enthused about the idea of fuel-efficient and zero-emission requirements taking place. Even if Trump and an army of foreign auto corporations may have won this round, the Golden West is not giving up and will continue to campaign for constructive policies and initiatives in the ongoing battle against the climate crisis.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
In the latest upcoming movie from Focus Features and “Carol” director Todd Haynes, Mark Ruffalo plays corporate attorney Rob Bilott, a corporate defendant who represented DuPont for the better part of his career. When a small West Virginia town shows Bilott the chemicals that DuPont is dumping in their water, though, he changes allegiances, embarking on a harrowing true story that becomes the central narrative for “Dark Waters.”
“Dark Waters” is an eco-cinematic adventure disguised as an intense, informant style crime movie. While most “environmental films” center on either the vast wonders of the natural world or post-apocalyptic nightmares, “Dark Waters” takes the sub-genre in a more grounded and familiar direction.
There is nothing sublime about “Dark Waters”—except perhaps the performances and the cinematic art. The film’s setting switches off between a corporate office and a lowly West Virginia town. There are no beautiful mountaintops or thrilling action fights; just a daringly authentic image of America meddling in corruption. It may be slow moving, but that measured pace creates suspense and an uncommonly candid depiction of what it takes to fight people in power for the sake of eco-friendly reformation—something we’ve come all too familiar with in the modern fight against the climate crisis.
As Ruffalo’s character turns his back on DuPont and starts to file cases against the company he once worked for, he uncovers more and more disturbing details about the conglomerate’s lack of environmental consideration. In the small West Virginia town, he learns that cows are dying in fields, that the streams are running with chemicals, and eventually, that this contaminated substance may be in the community’s drinking water. All throughout the investigation, though, DuPont grows more suspicious and Bilott more paranoid, believing that the company may stop at nothing to hide their wrongdoings.
The movie has echoes of “All The President’s Men” and “The Post,” but with a plot placed on a much smaller scale. Bilott is not a celebrated hero that earned national praise for his bravery. He is an unsung hero who did the right thing, and challenged the almighty masses for the sake of a few defenseless people.
Rob Bilott is a real person. He is still alive today. Sadly, you probably won’t find his name in the history books. On the other hand, DuPont remains a multi-billion dollar company and a household name in America. In today’s movie market filled with superheroes and warriors, “Dark Waters” gives us an honest illustration of what heroism really looks like, and the thanklessness that can often come with making the right decision.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
In October, sixteen-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was selected to receive the Nordic Council Environmental Prize. The prestigious award is given once a year to a Nordic person, company, or organization that shows great initiative on the environment’s behalf. Winning it is an honor, filled with deep sentiment and 350,000 Danish kroner ($52,000). Greta Thunberg, however, is not interested in making money off of her cause, and she is way past sentiment.
In an Instagram post made earlier this week (see embed below), Thunberg expressed her gratitude for being offered the award, and she applauded the Nordic countries for their environmental ingenuities so far. However, she declined to accept the Council Prize, stating that “the climate movement doesn’t need awards” and that the governments handing them out should show their support by listening to science and creating more effective environmental policies.
She specifically called out the Nordic countries for the fact that despite their efforts, they could still be doing more to protect the environment. Bitingly, she posted, “In Sweden we live as if we had about 4 planets according to WWF and Global Footprint Network. And roughly the same goes for the entire Nordic region.”
Thunberg’s declination to accept the award and its accompanying money is emblematic of her message—less rhetoric, more action. Instead of focusing on symbols, Greta campaigns for concrete change, meeting with world leaders to push for policies that directly combat the climate crisis.
During the time that she could have been accepting the award, Greta was doing what she does best: working restlessly on the other side of the globe. While two other climate activists spoke on Thunberg’s behalf at the Nordic ceremony, the young activist herself was in California, addressing the Golden State in the wake of its wildfires.
Thunberg has been a leading climate activist for over a year now. She dropped out of school to pursue this career on a global scale, inspiring many people to follow in her footsteps and realize how urgent of an issue climate change really is. We don’t know what the future holds for Miss Thunberg, but all indications are that we can expect it to be propitious, and will root for her no matter how many awards she receives or refuses.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
It is no secret that Exxon Mobil hasn’t been the kindest to the planet over the years. The big oil company is one of the nation’s most prominent gasoline providers, and fueling automobiles is the world’s leading purpose for fossil fuel burning and the foremost cause of greenhouse gas emissions.
For years Exxon has gone unchecked for the environmental damage they have done as a company—after all, they were never really doing anything illegal. However, former Exxon Chief Executive Officer and U.S. Secretary of State under President Trump, Rex W. Tillerson is currently in hot water. The man is facing two legal battles, one in New York and one in Massachusetts, for allegedly lying to investors about the risks and impacts of global warming.
At last, Tillerson may be held accountable, but these are not environmental trials per-se. Instead, they are hitting the oil tycoon where it really hurts: his wallet. And the cases are not about compensating for ecological destruction, but something far more pertinent to those who navigate the corporate world: money.
In both New York and Massachusetts, Tillerson is accused of knowingly providing investors with false information about the climate crisis. Reportedly, Tillerson sold climate change as underwhelming, insignificant, and perhaps even good for business. Meanwhile, he depicted Exxon Mobil as a champion of environmentalism. While the company does do some philanthropy in that area, these statements clearly omit some essential details, namely that Exxon does far more harm than good for the natural world.
Thus, the trial is really just a fraud case, a dry instance of one person deceiving another for financial benefit. These cases happen all the time and usually do not garner much attention. Given Tillerson’s prominence, though, and Exxon’s dodgy history in the battle against climate change, this particular fraud case has made some noise. While Tillerson argues that the press attention is unnecessary, pandering, and based on corporate stigma rather than facts, many environmentalists are happy to see a big oil company put on the stand and questioned about its impact on the planet.
At the end of the day, the trial is mainly about money, but the larger implications of Tillerson having to answer for Exxon’s climate denial involves something much more significant. Trojan-horsed as a fiscal wrongdoing, Tillerson’s current predicament stands as a testimony to environmental justice and shows that rich business executives are not immune to consequences.
If all this is confusing, that’s probably because major corporations usually try to mask these muddy legal situations with jargon and loopholes in order to maintain their quality public images. Right now, however, Tillerson may be caught in a trap, and Exxon’s lies, deceits, and blatant disregard for scientific accuracy are finally becoming apparent in black and white, even if what really brought him to the stand is printed in green.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
Over the past ten years, online streaming has changed the course of television history. Services like Netflix and Amazon Prime have transformed the way that we consume media, taking the physical TV out of TV and replacing it with laptops and handheld devices. In the upcoming months, however, history is about to take another enormous leap forwards, as the addition of several new streaming services will take entertainment to entirely new, competitive, and corporately segregated levels.
While Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu have more or less reigned supreme as the premiere streaming services since they launched, they will soon meet a new lineup of fierce rivals on the battlefield. Over the next few months, Disney, AT&T’s WarnerMedia, Apple, and NCBUniversal will all be entering the streaming world, respectively with the launches of Disney+, HBO Max, Apple+, and Peacock… and that is just a handful of them.
For the most part, each of these new streaming platforms will feature all of the content owned and created by their respective parent companies. With a Disney+ subscription, one can watch everything from Marvel movies to Star Wars to “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.” HBO Max will offer every episode of “Game Of Thrones” and “Friends.” Peacock will give you every episode of “Saturday Night Live” and “The Office.” And so on.
Of course, there are a few exceptions to this rule. For example, Disney plans to keep its streaming service relatively family-friendly, and therefore will not be offering some of its more mature properties—i.e. 20th Century Fox content such as “Deadpool” or Miramax titles such as “Pulp Fiction,” all of which are technically under the wing of Disney, but do not fit their wholesome brand.
Owning intellectual properties from Fox, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, National Geographic and beyond, Disney+ is bound to be the biggest juggernaut in this oncoming streaming war. The service also comes at the most affordable price, costing only $7 a month as opposed to HBO’s estimated $15/month or Netflix’s current $12/month.
The Walt Disney Company is not underestimating the significance of Disney+’s launch. CEO Bob Iger has frequently mentioned that it is Disney’s most important development in the fifteen years that he has led the company—and this is the man who spearheaded the Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm acquisitions. As a testament to its importance, Disney has also dropped over a billion dollars into marketing for Disney+, recently even releasing a 3-hour long trailer showing a taste of everything the service will offer.
Disney is doing all this because they know that they will have to compete with some very skilled rivals. While Disney may have a wide breadth of content in their libraries, they are limited to their own intellectual properties. If someone is a fan of DC over Marvel, then they may take their money over to Warner’s HBO Max. Likewise, if someone is a die hard Trekkie rather than a Star Wars enthusiast, they may opt to subscribe to CBS All Access so they can watch the new episodes “Star Trek: Discovery” and “Piccard.”
This is where the corporate segregation becomes a limitation for streaming. When it was just Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu in the ring, these services would license out content from larger film studios. Netflix, for example, could write a check to Warner Brothers to have their movies and TV shows on their site. Because of multiple deals like this, subscribing to a streaming service used to mean getting access to a wide-range of content made by many different companies.
Now that the larger companies are creating services exclusively for their own libraries, taste and target audiences will play a larger role in the world of streaming. The streaming playing field is not just about to get far more competitive, but it is also about to get far more divisive. Rather than subscribe to a seemingly arbitrary collection of movies and shows via Netflix or Amazon, subscribers will have to chose based on the company whose work they prefer the most.
Unfortunately, this means that if someone is a fan of both Harry Potter and Star Wars, they are out of luck and will have to pay for two different services to get them both. This could even lead to an issue of oversaturation, as people are unlikely to pay for five different services just so they can get the variety they desire. If that is the case, they might as well go back to paying their cable bill.
Thus, the future may lie in mergers and bundles between the services. For small additional prices, subscribers could get extra content or access to more than one streaming platform at a time. Disney has already started offering bundle plans with Hulu, which will give subscribers access to some of those less wholesome titles excluded from Disney+. This may be the only way to keep streaming sustainable and affordable in such a corporately stratified landscape.
What will really determine who gets out of this streaming war alive, however, will be original content. Regardless of how good Disney’s library is, viewers can only rewatch the Marvel and Star Wars movies so many times before they desire something new to keep them subscribing. Therefore, original shows and films will be the key to keeping audiences invested. Netflix and Amazon have already been slowly transitioning towards this, focusing more on their own productions of lately as the licensing model fizzles out.
Likewise, Disney+ is promoting itself in part with new movies and shows—among them a live action “Lady and the Tramp” remake, a Marvel series focused on Tom Hiddleson’s Loki, and Star Wars’ “The Mandalorian.” Meanwhile, HBO Max is promising a “Game of Thrones” prequel series. It is products like this that will be available exclusively through the streaming platforms that will keep certain companies’ services afloat over others.
All in all, each company best saddle up with their best writers, directors, casts, and crews, because creativity will be the most powerful weapon in the streaming war. Whoever wields it best is most likely to stand triumphant in the end.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
“You got twenty-one bridges in and out of Manhattan, shut ‘em down; Three rivers, close ‘em; four tunnels, block ‘em; Stop every train and loop the subway. Then, we flood the alley with blue.”—This is the plan that Chadwick Boseman’s character devises to catch a pair of cop killers in the new Brian Kirk directed and Russo Brothers produced action-thriller “21 Bridges.”
Over his illustrious acting career, Boseman has been prominently casted to play historical black figures in movies that thematically center around race. In this decade alone, he has portrayed Jackie Robinson, James Brown, and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His most recognizable character, however, is the fictional superhero Black Panther, who appears in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. With a story that focuses on African culture and global race relations, Black Panther’s standalone movie raked in over a billion dollars at the box office and earned Marvel its first Best Picture Oscar nomination.
Needless to say, Boseman has been a major supporter of contemporary black cinema, frequently playing the leading man in movies that celebrate the African and African American experience. Whether he is belting out “Get Up” or leading a chant of “Wakanda forever,” the forty-one year old Howard University graduate actor is bound to bring elements of black pride and dignity to his roles.
It is therefore somewhat curious that Boseman’s newest character is a member of the New York City Police Department. In “21 Bridges,” Boseman plays Detective Andre Davis, the son of an NYPD officer who died in the line of duty years ago. Now, Davis is but a disgraced investigator, but when eight cops are killed during a Manhattan armed robbery, he is recruited to find the culprits and possibly redeem himself in the process.
To carry out this task, Davis locks down the island, and the movie becomes a game of cat and mouse as he tries to squeeze out the criminals. As Davis digs deeper, though, he uncovers greater truths about the situation and realizes that he may be a part of something much larger than the events occurring around him.
On the surface, “21 Bridges” does not seem to have anything to do with race. Superficially, it looks like nothing more than a generic police-centered crime movie. At the same time, though, given the theme of cop-killing and Chadwick Boseman in the lead role—not to mention that most of the other law enforcement in the film are played by white folks and one of the culprits is played by Stephan James from “Selma,” “Race,” and “If Beale Street Could Talk”—it seems safe to say that one of the film’s many twists will eventually put us face to face with race-related conflicts.
The movie’s trailer hints at this ever so fleetingly. In a brief shot where Boseman is standing off with James in a subway car, we hear James say “You’re the only cop tonight who speaks first and shoots second.” Because Boseman plays what seems to be the only black cop in New York and that James plays a black man in jeopardy, this statement is likely not without racial undertones. Thus, although it may not be noticeable at first, “21 Bridges” could very well be a movie that engages in racial themes.
If Boseman delivers on the role and the plot is compelling enough, then it could add to the actor’s ongoing filmography that so far specializes in bringing black stories to wider audiences and starting crucial dialogues about race and society in American cinema and culture.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
It was over forty years ago on ABC when three dissatisfied police-academy graduates became private detectives for the Charles Townsend Agency, thus becoming Charlie’s Angels and kicking off one of the most popular female-led television series of the 1970s. From TV writer-producer team of Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts, the original “Charlie’s Angels” ran for 110 episodes, garnering a strong cult following in its time.
Since the original program left TV in 1981 due to diminishing popularity, there have been a couple attempts at reviving the franchise. In the early 2000s, Sony’s Columbia Pictures produced two filmic reboots, the 2000 McG directed “Charlie’s Angels” and its 2003 sequel “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle.” With an updated plot and cast, these playful adaptations faired alright at the box-office, but were critically underwhelming, being nothing more than lighthearted rehashes of the bygone original series. In 2011, ABC again tried to refresh the series on television, but immediate low ratings got it canceled after only seven episodes.
Perhaps you’d expect Sony to take the hint and realize that people are not as nostalgic or invested in “Charlie’s Angels” as they were in 1976. However, in the current state of Hollywood, every major production company is looking for whatever intellectual properties they have in their libraries to capitalize on. Thus, here in 2019, yet another rendition of “Charlie’s Angels” is coming to theaters.
Kristin Stewart, Ella Balinska, and Naomi Scott play the three title characters in the 2019 “Charlie’s Angles.” Happily, this is a much more diverse version of the angels than we’ve ever seen before on screen—conventionally the angels have all been white excluding Lucy Lui’s character in the 2000 and 2003 movies.
Furthermore, Elizabeth Banks directs the film and is playing a version of the character Bosley. With a woman behind the camera for the first time, it is likely that the new “Charlie’s Angels” will also shed some of the misogyny and sexualization that defined previous installments in the franchise. If the trailer is any indication, the new movie will keep the original series’ tongue-and-cheek humor, but it will also be a bit self-referential, mocking the past incarnations’ flaws and turning them on their heads to empower the female protagonists.
Thus, “Charlie’s Angels” one salvation may be the fact that it will be a progressive film, an action-comedy that will defy a whitewashed Hollywood and radiate with crucial feminine energy in the wake of the #MeToo movement.
This is all worth celebrating, but from an industry perspective, we have to question whether or not audiences will actually take the time to go see the new “Charlie’s Angels.” Make a reference to the original series, drop the name Bosely or the Charles Townsend Agency to young people at Comic-Con and you will probably receive blank stares. Perhaps older audiences are interested in the “Charlie’s Angels” universe, but they are not the main demographic going to the movies—especially not big-budget action movies like this one.
Elizabeth Banks, who also wrote the screenplay for the new movie, is setting the flick in the same diegesis of the original series, with direct ties to that universe. She is essentially trying to do with “Charlie’s Angels” what JJ Abrams did with “Star Trek.” The difference is that “Star Trek” has one of the most committed fan bases on earth and when Abrams revived it in 2009, there were still millions of people curious to see more of that same universe. “Charlie’s Angels” does not have that same longevity to it. The title is remembered as nothing more than an outdated show from the seventies, and a so-so couple of films from the turn of the millennium.
In the best of circumstances, “Charlie’s Angels” will take the route of Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man” and be an unexpected hit based off of a B-rate property. More likely however, it will fall into the ether of glossy Hollywood magic paired with quality talent, but not having enough of an audience for it to gain much momentum.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
After last year’s Oscar nominated documentary “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” stirred up nostalgia for the retro children’s show “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood” and its wholesome host Fred Rogers, it was only a matter of time before we saw the loveable man portrayed in a feature.
In January 2018, Sony’s Tristar Pictures bought the rights to a screenplay titled “Are You My Friend.” Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster wrote the script over six years ago and it earned a place on the 2013 blacklist. Centered on Fred Rogers, the story focuses on his relationship with a skeptical Esquire reporter who finds a transformed outlook on life when he sits down to interview the endearing kids show host.
The project was retitled “A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood” and from the earliest stages of development, one question was on everyone’s mind: who could portray the renowned Mr. Rogers on the screen? Being a legendary figure for an entire generation’s childhood and holding an unparalleled demeanor of authenticity, gentility, and kindness, not just anyone could fit Mr. Rogers’ white-laced, sky-blue sneakers.
Therefore, one of TriStar’s first decisions in pre-production was to cast somebody who could accurately and effectively capture Mr. Rogers’ quasi-celestial star power. The studio also also needed to find somebody who could portray Rogers in his middle ages, as the film takes place in the mid-nineties, towards the end of his career.
Rather than go for an unknown to play the lead, Sony aimed high and casted the incomparable Tom Hanks, turning the project into an image of an icon playing an icon.
Make no mistake, Tom Hanks has more than enough talent to play Mr. Rogers. With two Oscar wins and three additional nominations under his belt, the sixty-three year old actor seems up to snuff for any role thrown his way. Over the years he’s been in everything from comedies to dramas to action flicks to musicals. He’s played diverse fictional characters from the dim-witted Forrest Gump to a literal man-child in “Big,” and has portrayed several real figures such as Captain Richard Phillips, Pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, Ben Bradlee, Walt Disney and more—not to mention his unmistakable voice-acting as Woody in the “Toy Story” franchise.
Indeed, nothing seems beyond Tom Hank’s abilities, and his talent is appreciated widely enough that his mere presence on screen is likely to draw an audience. That being said, it is possible that when it comes to playing Fred Rogers, Hanks’ strength may actually be his weakness, and his recognizability may paradoxically end up detrimental to the performance.
As aforementioned, Mr. Rogers is an icon. There can only be one of him. No matter who plays him, audiences will naturally notice inconsistencies between the actor’s portrayal of the man and the man himself. If an unknown actor played Rogers, however, then at least there would be a blank canvas on which the film could project their depiction of him.
With Tom Hanks being an icon as well, audiences will inevitably see him within the character. No matter how well he portrays Rogers, Tom Hanks will always be Tom Hanks to the audience. Thus, viewers may struggle to overlook the actor when aiming to appreciate the character.
This is already somewhat evidenced in the film’s trailer. While Hanks seems to be doing a good job playing the lead character, there is one noticeably uncanny element—his voice. Both Hanks and Rogers have recognizable voices, but they are very different in tone. When Hanks tries to impersonate Rogers’ light, gentle voice, we cannot help but hear traces of the actor’s signature deep drawl underneath. This is just one manifestation of the dilemma that comes with Hanks as Rogers.
None of this is to say that Tom Hanks will not be able to pull the role off. Stranger casting choices have surprised us in the past, and “A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood” already received positive acclaim following its premiere at the Toronto Film Festival. We are just noting that despite the star power that Hanks brings to the project, there is a cost to that star power in a role like this. The actor will have to deliver something truly above and beyond to convince us that he is the real Fred Rogers and not just Tom Hanks sporting a red-sweater, white shirt, tie, and khakis, singing along in the Land of Make-Believe.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
Watching the trailer for John Cena’s new Nickelodeon movie “Playing With Fire,” one might think that it looks familiar. A movie about a macho guy played by a buff actor being left in charge of a bunch of kids is certainly something we’ve seen before. From Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Kindergarten Cop” to Vin Diesel’s “The Pacifier” to Dave Bautista’s “My Spy,” this is a trope that has been done time and time again.
Each film and each actor brings something new to this micro-genre, however, so the ultimate question is really what John Cena and the people at Nickelodeon and Walden Media will do differently with it.
Andy Fickman is directing “Playing With Fire.” Fickman has directed a number of live-action kids movies from “Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2,” to “She’s The Man” to “Race To Witch Mountain.” This is not even Fickman’s first film where a hyper-masculine leading man falls into a father position, as he directed “The Game Plan” with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson back in 2007. The film is also based off of a screenplay by novice writer and comedy actor Dan Ewen, and Matt Lieberman of “The Addams Family.”
What will really be stealing the show in “Playing With Fire” however will be John Cena, who plays firefighter Jake Carson. After Carson and his fellow unit members rescue a family of three children from a burning building, they must care for the kids until they reunite them with their family. Given the fact that the children are roughly three, nine, and sixteen years old, a whole lot of hilarity takes place when they are put in the hands of these inexperienced paternal figures.
John Cena has worked with children before. After becoming famous as a WWE wrestler, Cena moved into film acting in 2006 in the action-war movie “The Marine.” He swiftly moved over to starring in more wholesome comedic content, though, hosting Nickelodeon’s Kids Choice Awards and the revival of “Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?” Known as a gentle giant both on and off screen, the massive Cena, standing six feet tall at 250 pounds, has an enormous heart beneath his muscly exterior, making him the obvious choice for the lead role in “Playing With Fire.”
Alongside Cena, Keegan-Michael Key and John Leguizamo play fellow firefighters in the movie. These two comedians are bound to provide some great banter, playing the two goofy sidekicks next to the hardened Cena. Likewise, the children in the film will be played by Finley Rose Slater, Christian Convery, and Brianna Hildebrand.
Being hardly more than a toddler, Slater has never been in a movie before. At ten years old, Convery has appeared in a couple projects, including “Venom” and “Beautiful Boy.” Hildebrand, however, you may recognize as the comically apathetic Negasonic Teenage Warhead in “Deadpool” and “Deadpool 2.” Overall, there is a lot of talent in the film backing Cena up, both old and young, familiar and new.
This is the second time that Nickelodeon Movies joined forced with Walden Media this year. In August, the two production companies teamed up for “Dora and the Lost City of Gold,” which received positive reviews and delivered as a fun comedy for the whole family. Joining the party for “Playing With Fire” is also Broken Road Productions, which has produced classic family films such as “Daddy Daycare,” “Are We There Yet?” and “Paul Blart: Mall Cop.”
In total, “Playing With Fire” may be a story that has been rehashed multiple times, yet it still seems promising in its own right. There is enough talent to keep the adults entertained and enough slapstick, kids humor to keep the children laughing. The movie comes out on November 8th and currently has no other major children’s movies to go up against. Thus, if everything goes right, “Playing With Fire” could spark an audience and ignite itself as a hit.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
Over the past year, in the face of a rapid increase in the threat of CO2 emissions and its effects on the climate, various groups and activist organizations have staged demonstrations in response to a lack of any solutions or action from governments and industry leaders worldwide. Curiously, real reporting that makes the important connections between the causes, the extreme weather events and the demonstrations into account is scarce.
The week of September 20-27, 2019, we saw a record of 7.6 million people around the world take to the streets and strike for climate action. This is by far the largest assembly of people mobilized for an ecological cause in history.
The Global Climate Strike shows that there are clearly a significant number of people motivated to challenge the status quo and, potentially, spur an accelerated end to the fossil fuel era. People’s Climate, Rise for Climate, Fire Drill Fridays, are just a handful of the hundreds of organizations that have formed (and will continue to form) in recognition of, and in direct response to, the emerging ecological emergency.
From Jakarta to New York, Karachi to Amman, Berlin to Kampala, Istanbul to Quebec, Manila to Mumbai, Guadalajara to Asunción, in big cities and small villages, millions of people joined hands and raised their voices in defense of the climate. These large numbers are speaking out and showing concern in order to raise awareness and bring attention to both the problem and the lack of an adequate response from those in power. The least the media can do is acknowledge the overwhelming numbers and help by shining a light on the issue.
Extreme temperature swings from both extremes are happening. July was the hottest month in recorded in history worldwide since record keeping began over 400 years ago. Earlier this month, in Denver, Colorado, was one of the greatest temperature changes in the city’s recorded history of a 64 degrees range; with temperatures at 83 degrees in the a.m. dropping all the way down to 19 degrees. These are just a couple of examples, however, extreme data confirming the danger is being reported by scientists and researchers with increased regularity all over the globe.
Hurricanes and floods are getting larger and more frequent. Research by The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and The Union of Concerned Scientists have found that hurricanes and storm systems have increased in the level of intensity over the past decades. Scientists anticipate further and significant intensity increases, along with warmer ocean temperatures and higher sea levels, as a result of global warming trends. The ocean is facing a multitude of severe damage symptoms and dangers beyond the sea-level rise predicted, and that itself could wipe out major cities around the world. Five storms this year: Hurricane Barry, Dorian, Imelda, Melissa and most recently Nestor have all directly impacted the United States.
Fires have devastated the lowlands in Bolivia, destroyed thousands of acres in Plumas National Forest in the US, droughts result in fires in several parts of Australia, and the list goes on. California is preemptively shutting down power systems as they try to reduce the fire danger during high wind, low humidity conditions.
A growing number of famous activists and celebrities have been putting faces to the fight against the global climate crisis.
With her extensive news coverage, Greta Thunberg is the face at the forefront of the climate action movement. In August, she travelled by sailboat to the U.S. from Europe. This raised awareness for her campaign to bring attention to the Climate Crisis. A huge boost to her profile came with the now-famous/historic speech at the U.N. in late September.
Leonardo DiCaprio is well-known for his dedication to environmental activism, and he hasn’t slowed down. Even in 1998, he established the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation to “restore balance to threatened ecosystems, ensuring long-term health and well-being for all Earth’s inhabitants.” So far, it has funded over 200 environmental projects and awarded 85 million euros in grants. He’s also spoken about the climate crisis at the Davos economic forum and with the United Nations.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle recently revealed that they decided to have only two children to help protect the environment against the “terrifying” effects of the climate crisis. The royal couple have also taken significant actions outside of their marriage to fight against the climate crisis.
Celebrities: Natalie Portman, Mark Ruffalo, Will and Jaden Smith, Emma Thompson, Martin Sheen, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Radiohead, Robert Redford, Billie Eilish, Chris Hemsworth, Kerry Washington, Janelle Monáe, Chris Evans, James and Suzy Amis Cameron, David Attenborough, Matt Damon, Dave Matthews, Laurie David, Marshall Herskovitz, Alan and Cindy Horn, Norman and Lyn Lear, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Ed Begley Jr., Adam McKay, Bill Nye, Gwyneth Paltrow, Pearl Jam, Kevin Reilly, Pharrell Williams, Shailene Woodley and more are all fighting hard to contribute towards positive change with the climate crisis using their public platforms.
Last week, Extinction Rebellion had over 100 high-profile climate activists sign an open letter to the media to change the way that we relate to the global climate crisis. This record celebrity involvement with possibly the most militant and radical of climate crisis movements shows that its growth potential is as yet untapped.
Among the notorious names are: the actors Benedict Cumberbatch, Peter Capaldi, Ray Winstone, Jude Law, and Sienna Miller, and as well as the musicians Mel B, Adam Clayton, Bob Geldof, and Jarvis Cocker.
Extinction Rebellion praised all signatories: “it’s easy to call out people for being hypocrites, but braver to talk about transforming how we relate to the planet.” So far, the way that we’ve been talking about our relationship to the planet is that it is each individual person’s fault for contributing to the climate crisis and that we are simply not changing our lifestyles enough to reduce our collective carbon footprint. And while this is partly true, the greater issue is that individuals are essentially given no other choice but to perpetuate the fossil fuel industry that runs throughout every facet of our livelihood. Meanwhile it has become clear that those that have vested interests in those systems will never voluntarily relinquish power, even if that means the eventual extinction of all life on earth.
Dear journalists who have called us hypocrites,
you’re right.We live high carbon lives and the industries that we are part of have huge carbon footprints. Like you – and everyone else – we are stuck in this fossil-fuel economy and without systemic change, our lifestyles will keep on causing climate and ecological harm.
There is, however, a more urgent story that our profiles and platforms can draw attention to.
Life on earth is dying. We are living in the midst of the 6th mass extinction.
OCTOBER 16, 2019 BY EXTINCTION REBELLION
The letter is essentially a statement against the mass media culture that calls out the hypocrisy of climate activists who have no choice but to participate in the toxic structures they aim to dismantle. It’s an innovative argument against these repetitive and unproductive cries of hypocrisy that get us nowhere but closer to our own looming extinction.
The letter draws attention to a deeper issue, much larger than, and clearly unsolvable by, addressing individual hypocrisy, and it points to an urgent problem that requires immediate unified action from our international governments and industry leaders.
Extinction Rebellion (XR) is an international movement that aims to halt mass extinction, which is an increasing danger brought on by the climate crisis and global warming, and minimize the risk of social collapse through non-violent civil disobedience. So far, they have engaged protests in cities all around the world, including London, Dublin, Vancouver, and more to come.
Founders Roger Hallam and Gail Bradbook created Extinction Rebellion to bring people together to express collective power to bring about necessary ecological change. Their motto “Rebel for life” stems from the very real crisis that our world is under attack and we need to do something about it now.
The movement was formed just under a year ago, and it has sparked worldwide attention by highlighting the world’s imminent collapse. Their vision on their official website, rebellion.earth, states: “We rise in name of truth and withdraw our consent for ecocide, oppression and patriarchy.
We rise up for a world where power is shared for regeneration, repair and reconciliation.” Their logo symbolizes the current state of mass extinction: an hourglass in the middle of the earth highlighting that time is running out and the earth is dying. The black coloring is also intentional and represents the color of mourning.
In one form or another, most people can get behind the notion of doing “better” in regards to how we treat our planet, but Extinction Rebellion is taking that concept to another level: one of urgent action. Their stance is that our governments have failed us, and they continue to do little to nothing to address the climate crisis. In response, XR has taken a public and open defiance against the government, and they vow not to stop until their demands are met.
Their mass-coordinated events happen frequently, whether for inducting and training members regarding how to handle police presence, fundraising and organizing “rebel ringers”, facilitating global meditations, or targeting strategic locations for demonstrations. Their protest campaigns initially started in and around the UK, and now, even more are significantly being seen worldwide, in multiple countries and continents: XR is very much an international movement.
Their concept is to work outside our failed system because the government is currently unresponsive regarding what is truly happening to our planet. They do this by creating disruptions to the government sectors status quo, which is seen when XR shuts down roads, bridges, creates blockages, spills fake blood (the blood of our children), fake oil, or even super-gluing themselves to government buildings.
In whatever they do, their point is to make a drastic and bold statement that this is a planetary emergency. The disruptions are not meant to incite, but rather to maximize public exposure to garner more people to join the cause for change. Protesters are willing to uproot their lives and liberties, often getting arrested, just to join forces with others and call on those that can make actionable changes to save us and our future generations from a dying planet.
Extinction Rebellion has 3 main demands, which also encapsulate the general demands of the entire climate action movement. The first is to “Tell the Truth.” Governments must stop denying or hiding the fact that there is a very real and threatening ecological crisis, and they must properly and honestly declare the climate emergency.
The second is to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by the year 2025, by reducing green house gasses and preventing losses in biodiversity.
And finally, to insure a lasting effect, the creation of a Citizen’s Assembly, which would include ordinary educated people to lead in the decision-making processes for enacting innovative climate and ecological justice.
These movements are a multifaceted phenomenon that will not fade away and could soon become the largest sociopolitical movement the world has ever seen. And with each non-coincidental catastrophic weather event, the backlash against the entrenched “fossil-fuel industrial complex” will grow in size and influence.
“Global warming causes major damage to the global economy and the natural world and engenders risks of catastrophic and irreversible outcomes”
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, 10TH OCTOBER 2019
The number and size of ‘in-your-face’ protests will also increase. It will soon be impossible to ignore the reality of the climate crisis, as it unfolds before our eyes, and more and more people around the world will recognize the threat of almost certain global extinction, if we do not take immediate action to change the underlying corrupt systems immediately.
Right now, there are countless scientific and technological advancements that are available to give us another choice to save ourselves and our planet, and yet, nothing is happening because the powers-that-be are too complacent or corrupt to act. They continue to hide behind the media’s ignorant cry of celebrity and activist hypocrisy thereby blocking any meaningful change.
Since the industrial revolution, there has been a struggle escape the system that threatens our collective survival, and now we desperately need a way out. The climate IS changing, whether it manifests overtly by droughts, flooding, heat waves, storms, melting polar caps or any number of catastrophic events. The chosen path should be obvious: one that works with sustainable energy, ‘zero-waste’ innovations and ultimately finding ways to halt any further planetary abuse.
“Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”
Sir David Attenborough, 3rd December 2018
The XR, along with other Climate Crisis Inspired movements will inevitably and unquestionably grow with each new extreme weather event, and this “battle” between those who are fighting for the planet and those who block progress will become the central issue of our time.
As a critical mass approaches, grass roots movements will increase in power and, hopefully, their influence will mark the beginning of a permanent change away from the human behaviors that created this crisis.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
Tesla’s third-quarter profit results released on Wednesday, October 23rd surprised investors after a long-time series of doubts about the company’s ability to compete with larger and better capitalized rivals in other parts of the world.
The company announced a $143 million profit third quarter profit in 2019, and that, by the end of September, Tesla had $5.3 billion in cash and cash equivalents along with $371 million in operating cash.
Additionally, after Chief Executive Elon Musk announced his promise of a 2020 rollout with a more affordable SUV and more self-driving technology, Tesla’s shares rose almost 21% to $307.12 within hours of the unexpected news.
This is obviously good news for both Tesla and its investors, but there are going be a few more battles needed to prove consistent profitability and to remain ahead of the market it was the first to establish.
“Given the breakneck speed of expansion, Tesla will face significant demands on its cash pile.”
Nicholas Hyett, Financial Analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown
So far, Tesla has shown significant increases in production efficiency while setting another record for deliveries led by Model 3. This, along with their new, cost-cutting Shanghai Gigafactory 3, holds promise that they’ll be able to meet these profitability demands.
After returning to profitability, Tesla revealed that its Shanghai Gigafatory is now ready to start producing EVs for China, the world’s most populated country. In fact, it’s already assembling full vehicles on a trial basis to work out a few regulatory kinks before official production begins.
Tesla released their Q3 2019 update and said “China is by far the largest market for mid-sized premium sedans. With Model 3 priced on par with gasoline powered mid-sized sedans (even before gas savings and other benefits), we believe China could become the biggest market for Model 3.”
As Tesla breaks significant ground in China, their sustainable influence reaches beyond North America, aiming for a greater presence on the global stage.
Elon Musk’s proposed third iteration of his solar roof tile products is now ready for sales.
During his company’s annual shareholder meeting in June, Musk promised that these solar tiles would have a significant improvement in performance and affordability. If you factor-in future utility savings and how much a new roof installation generally costs, the product would be on par with the cost of cheap, non-solar roofing tiles.
This is a significant development towards affordable, sustainable energy measures since Tesla first unveiled the product in 2016 and opened pre-orders in 2017.
However, consumers have been generally slow to purchase the solar tiles because of their reservations regarding timeline expectations for prospective installation.
Hopefully, once more information about this is made available, the sales will take off, thereby increasing the accessibility for many more homes to go solar.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
Income inequality has been talked about a lot over the past couple decades. The vast inequities between those who make the most and those who make the least amount of money have caused a noticeable change in the American populace. Class divides have become a significant topic of debate; socioeconomic status can dictate one’s entire wellbeing; and Socialism, once considered a quasi-dirty word in America, is now an ideology championed by several politicians and an enormous number of young voters.
Just how bad is income inequality, though?
As it turns out, our anxieties over the concept are well grounded, and class divides may even be worse than our minds are able to comprehend.
According to data from the 2018 Sussie Global Wealth Report and the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the number of people worldwide who have less than $10,000 total 3.2 billion. The bulk of those people fall in the $1,000-$10,000 range. Staggeringly, though, 1.5 billion of them have under $1,000. This is an enormous base, showing that the massive majority of people in the world are living on strained finances.
| Bottom Net Worth of each bracket | How Many Adults | Who |
| $100 | 1,500,000,000 | Subsistence Farmer |
| $1,000 | 1,700,000,000 | Median U.S. Renter |
| $10,000 | 1,300.000,000 | Median U.S. Family with no College |
| $100,000 | 436,000,000 | A.O.C. after a few years in Congress |
| $1 million | 40,000,000 | UK’s current P.M. |
| $100 million | 49,000 | Exxon CEO |
| $1 billion | 2,700 | Berlusconi |
| $10 billion | 150 | Musk, etc. |
| $100 billion | 2 | Bezos and Gates |
**Data: Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2018, Bloomberg, Federal Reserve
The difference between the billions of people at the bottom of this income pyramid, and the handful of people at the top is almost too much to truly conceptualize. To visualize it is to compare golf balls to planets. The number of people holding the majority of wealth is infinitesimal, hardly perceptible compared to those who live in fiscal straits.
Of course, there are certain variables that this global data may not take into account. For example, countries that do not have monetary economies or egalitarian societies that place less emphasis on individual earnings may fall into lower brackets, but they may measure their wealth in different ways.
However, from the Western perspective of a developed nation, this data is quite shocking. In the United States alone, income equality is alarming, almost too much to really wrap one’s head around. As aforementioned, the numbers are impossible to visualize in their entirety. While we can see people living in poverty and signs of inequity, the true extent of the issue is borderline unfathomable. We cannot imagine billions of people compared to figures in the single digits. The problem is evidently systemic at this point, the result of nearly 250 years of capitalism and hundreds of choices made by politicians, businessmen, and everyday citizens along the way.
Furthermore, while there has been increased awareness and conversation about this issue in recent years, the immediate future does not look promising of any reformation. In 2018, the first time ever in America, billionaires paid lower tax rates than the working class. This is in no small part due to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a cornerstone of President Trump’s trickledown economics plan.
Thus, the lower class citizens of our country are not just earning less than our billionaires, but they are also forking over a larger slice of their paycheck to the government. It all adds significant insult to the injury that is our persistent income inequality issue.
Although we cannot visualize or even really even begin to understand income inequality all together, what we can see is that there is a form of unfairness at hand, that resources are distributed unevenly, and that many people are getting the short end of the stick that falls from the almighty money tree.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
These recently released movies are perfect for getting you in the mood for the spooky season
In “Joker”, Batman’s Gotham City is a cesspool of dirt and depravity where Arthur appears doomed to live and die encircled with nothing but depression and humiliation. Mentally Ill and mercilessly tortured by the “sane” members of society all around him, he finds some respite in his chosen career of clown-for-hire and hopeful comedian wannabe by night.
“Zombieland: Double Tap” is a follow-up to the 2009 zombie-horror-comedy “Zombieland.” It has been ten years since the first movie hit theaters and surprised audiences with its humor and fresh take on the genre. Fortunately, despite how long it has taken to produce a sequel, the aforementioned original cast and director are back in their rightful places for the new film.
“IT: Chapter 2” is the sequel to Warner Brother’s 2017 blockbuster hit, “IT”, and it was the most anticipated horror movie of the year. Splitting the extensive story into two chronological films will likely be a more enthralling and digestible way to appreciate It, even if it does deviate from King’s literary form. Therefore, what makes this film an anomaly in the world of direct sequels, is that it takes place twenty-seven years after the events of the first film.
Set in the 1890s, this upcoming black-and-white horror movie follows the story of two lighthouse keepers as they battle cabin fever, intoxication, madness, mystery, and mayhem on a secluded New England island.
“The Addams Family” is based off of Charles Addams’ famous 1960s live-action TV series of the same name. Just like the series, it focuses on the title family, which is made up of ghoulish versions of American nuclear family archetypes.
“Sleeping Beauty” is certainly a timeless tale, and thus Maleficent is an everlasting villain. However, there is one recent performance of the antagonist that stands above the rest. And that is Angelina Jolie’s.
“Mary” is not the pleasant melodrama that we might have been expecting or even hoping for. Instead it is yet another horror movie, and while the ship setting looks somewhat original, the possessed little girl trope and the cursed old relic convention cannot help but render the film a little clichéd.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
This weekend has a number of new movie releases to look out for so we decided to choose five to showcase and feature in this post.
“Sleeping Beauty” is certainly a timeless tale, and thus Maleficent is an everlasting villain. However, there is one recent performance of the antagonist that stands above the rest. And that is Angelina Jolie’s.
Set in the 1890s, this upcoming black-and-white horror movie follows the story of two lighthouse keepers as they battle cabin fever, intoxication, madness, mystery, and mayhem on a secluded New England island.
“Jojo Rabbit” is about a young boy in the Hitler Youth. Like many German kids of the time, he aspires to be a Nazi soldier when he grows up. He buys into the party’s ideologies and believes their propaganda. That is until he comes face to face with a Jewish girl and learns, despite what the Nazis have taught him, that she is harmless, pleasant, and appealing.
“Zombieland: Double Tap” is a follow-up to the 2009 zombie-horror-comedy “Zombieland.” It has been ten years since the first movie hit theaters and surprised audiences with its humor and fresh take on the genre. Fortunately, despite how long it has taken to produce a sequel, the aforementioned original cast and director are back in their rightful places for the new film.
In this feminist dystopia, critics recognized that the women in “Paradise Hills” went beyond simple archetypes, and offered an array of original voices.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
The first trailer, which was more like a teaser, was released for the film in late August, and it left a lot unsaid with the short, two-minute clip that viewers first saw. This week’s newest trailer release now showcases the key details of the movie’s core plot: the real life Fox News Scandal of the women who brought down one of the most powerful media executives, Roger Ailes.
“Bombshell” stars Charlize Theron, Margot Robbie, Nicole Kidman, and John Lithgow, and it will be released in theaters at the end of the year on December 20th.
Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org
Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.
