Exactly. This accuracy greatly exceeds any ICBM need. And Israel has already put things in orbit with six successful launches so far so any need for that bit of posturing has been satisfied.
Again, I answer: that's a result of might makes right. China's position didn't improve because they lacked the might to resist the British, not because of the ban itself.
First, note you are saying that the ban didn't actually improve China's fundamental problem. I've been saying that all along.
And I already outlined a strategy of legalization and creation of a local opium industry that didn't require China to be militarily superior to the UK.
So the only way to ensure an entirely free market is to remove all possibility of a corporation using regulation for an unfair advantage?
I don't imply that an entirely free market is the goal. I just point out that the problem here has nothing to do with the market, regulated or not. Instead, it has everything to do with the regulators.
This would require a long process of slowly cleaving corporate and political power, something that Americans don't seem prepared to undertake.
I'm all for the cleaving. But instead, there seem to be people obsessed over imaginary free markets rather than stunted real ones. Fixing the latter will do more to cleave corporate and political power, since it'll provide non-political alternatives to gaming the political system.
While discretion seems like a good idea, there are times where obligation is the better idea. Once a really powerful party has no moral obligation, they will gladly fuck with you, and it's all downhill from there.
I'll just note that if they aren't allowed to fuck with you, moral pretext or not, then that constraint is far more effective than obligation. And if they don't exist at all, then that's even more effective than an effective constraint.
Part of the reason that I wouldn't live in a deregulated environment. Which could include California, if you think of the Enron crisis.
The Enron crisis was not in itself significant. A business committed fraud and it fell. By mentioning California, you indicate you are actually speaking of the California electricity crisis which was far more than just a out of control business. There the California state government forced the three private electricity utilities to lose huge sums of money in a rigged market (where the utilities were forced to buy very expensive power well above the price that they were selling to their customers) while providing hugely profitable opportunities to Enron and other electricity traders.
It was a straightforward transfer of wealth from the private utilities to certain generators and electricity traders by the California government. This only stopped when the second of the three electricity utilities was about to go bankrupt. It wasn't a deregulated environment else California would not have been able to force the utilities to make such adverse and destructive choices.
The California electricity crisis is a demonstration that you can screw up deregulation in a really bad way. But it's not a demonstration that deregulation is inherently bad or problematic.
And of course, this pathetic attempt at deregulation happened in California. Maybe we ought to consider that aspect of things.
but it makes sense to crack down on the diploma mills and degree purchasing
I disagree. I don't see the sense of involving California in this process when there are accreditation bureaus. My feeling is that if there is someone who thinks that they should be able to get a certificate of education or other considerable effort just by spending money, then the diploma mill is doing society a service by taking the mark's money.
So if the Legislature wishes to encourage the promotion of such activity by preventing fraud and dishonesty in such endeavors, it's certainly a reasonable interpretation.
Sounds like it to me.
One might even take it as an obligation on their part to use all suitable means to do so.
My take on that is a bit different. Once a really powerful party has an moral obligation to fuck with me, it's just going to go downhill from there. Part of the reason, I don't live in California any more.
Note that this section is merely a "declaration" without any legal relevance unless it is referenced by enforcement provisions elsewhere or the courts decide to care about the "intent" of legislation. Further, it's legislation and is not a part of California's constitution. Legislation is not automatically constitutional.
The phrase "Regulated rent seeking" implies the shitty kind of regulation.
If however regulation was say, I don't know, made for say consumer protection, and for the citizens rather than bought and paid for by corporations, I think you would see regulation that works for the most part.
"If".
The market becomes skewed when one commercial interest gains leverage via regulation which is exactly what is happening in this story.
I agree. I just don't see the point of trying to make a dig at the "Invisible Hand", when the market is being so blatantly thwarted and bypassed. It's like complaining a technology is unsafe because someone died after going through considerable trouble to remove the safeguards on the technology.
If you're charging someone $15000 for a 10 week course, and promising jobs at companies "like Facebook and Google," you probably need to fall under some sort of regulation and compliance.
I'm echoing what's already been said here. But regulation and compliance already exists. Fraud didn't become legal just because. If fraud and similar crimes are not being prosecuted, then it is an enforcement problem not a lack of regulation problem.
You are aware the constitution is not the only piece of legislation the regulates societal affairs, right?
You are apparently unaware that both the US and California state constitutions are not pieces of legislation.
Incidentally, the US Constitution does give the state of California the ability to regulate such "bootcamps" via the Ninth Amendment. The real issue is whether California's constitution does.
The Invisible Hand of the market at work, not God! Except when it is not.
All these companies bleat and cry every time they might get regulated even a little, yet will lobby for these sort of laws to increase their profitability.
Summary: businesses are hypocritical and yet another bit of evidence that markets work better than regulated rent seeking. It's amazing what you can learn on Slashdot./sarcasm
When I said we're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans ten times faster than before the Great Dying, you accused me of posting something so hysterical and unsubstantiated and not based on evidence, then asked if I was shilling for the Koch brothers.
[...]
Can we at least agree that there is evidence that we're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans ~10 to ~100 times substantiated published estimates of the rate before the Great Dying?
No. Those rates are not substantiated nor are they actually rates in the sense of an instantaneous change versus time. They have the right dimension values (a quantity per unit time), but they aren't actually measuring what you think they are.
but first I need to see that you're capable of agreeing that this evidence exists
You have a strange idea of what evidence means. Evidence distinguishes between relevant hypotheses (here, between the hypotheses that current CO2 levels are rising faster than during the Great Dying era or that they are not). The study you cite has a number of areas of ignorance, but the critical one for the claim you're trying to make is that they don't actually know the chemistry of climate over the periods in question on short time scales, particularly, the concentration of CO2.
As it currently stands, the primary driver of the Great Dying is thought to be volcanic, mostly due to the basalt flood eruptions that formed the Siberian Traps (a remnant of that activity which currently covers roughly a third of Siberia). What we can observe now about volcanoes is that they are not constant in nature. Even the more steady ones like the Hawaii volcanoes have episodes of higher and lower activity.
So I think it's likely that CO2 emissions (and other chemical emissions such as SO2, H2S, HCl, and HF) during that period of time varied wildly by many orders of magnitude. IMHO that was the global chemical input that life struggled and often failed to adapt to.
That leads to a very different and far harsher climate than today.
Thus, I think it is foolish to claim that this input and its effects can be determined completely merely by estimating the concentration of CO2 before the Great Dying and the concentration after the Great Dying, and drawing a line through those two points.
But from the point of view of providing yet another propaganda story from which to advocate the AGW theory, one doesn't need or want to look any closer at the Great Dying than this superficial analysis.
The Equlilibrium Charney Sensitivity range in the IPCC 2013 report of [1.5, 4.5] C/doubling is identical to that from the 2001, 1995, 1990 IPCC reports
But not more recent reports since.
The Earth System Sensitivity also hasn't changed significantly.
There's a big difference between a measurable quantity and the measurement of that quantity.
Of course, none of that applies to the marine extinction pattern I was trying to get you to recognize, because ocean acidification doesn't depend on climate sensitivity at all.
A "pattern" based on two out of three or more events, let us note. Going back to that Honisch et al. paper, I see a couple of illuminating parts.
They mention the Cretaceous asteroid impact. That should have generated a similar ocean acidification event due to the release of large quantities of SO2 from impact with gypsum. But they saw a different marine extinction pattern. Similarly, I see at the top of page 1062 that there is no direct evidence for pH changes at the Permian-Triassic extinction. That weakens your argument a lot when you don't even know if ocean acidification was a relevant factor in one of the two extinctions that are being used as an argument for the danger of ocean acidification.
This paper and your arguments to this point indicate to me that someone has a need to shoehorn the great extinctions of the past into the narrative of "climate change" in the present. I think that's real sloppy. It also fits as weak evidence for my theory that climate-related research is being deliberately biased in the direction of claiming worse AGW effects than actually exist.
As I predicted, you found a slew of nonsensical reasons to dismiss Honisch et al. 2012.
You were wrong Those reasons weren't nonsensical and my post made it clear why. I don't get why you think quoting a paper which simply can't show what you want it to show somehow makes your argument. It's like the ritual is more important than the substance.
we can of course compare and find bad tactics in fighting drugs
Ok, a good tactic - education. A bad tactic - making it illegal to the point that your property can be seized and sold off even if you had nothing to do with the drug crime that led to the seizure.
I'd go as far as to say that legalization works. It worked for alcohol which is roughly as dangerous a drug as heroin is (both in terms of harm to user and difficulty of quitting the drug).
That's a of result of might makes right. The British government and her allies had more military might than China.
I ask again, did the ban actually improve China's position? No, because the fundamental problems never got addressed. It wasn't druggies that were ruining China's society, but a militarily superior economic monopoly which was doing so.
If instead, China had figured out how to grow opium locally, legalized it, and then initiated an education program about the dangers of opium use, I bet they would have gotten a lot further. They'd still have trouble with militarily powerful foreign powers, but at least those foreigners wouldn't be profiting (and funding their military) from an opium trade.
The reward of bringing back a species is relatively small, and the risk can be great.
Or the risk could be smaller than the reward. I think such would be the case for restoring other species in the homo genus, for example.
If we reintroduced a species that turned out to be a huge pest--or even a big threat to modern crops, humans, or other wildlife--the results could be devastating.
Well, we could figure that out before we create the species.
then the drug merchants force it further on your society, and steal some of your land
So the ban didn't get rid of the monopoly on opium production or the technology advantages of the opium dealers either.
again, i simply don't understand people who think the social reaction the drug addiction, however malformed, is somehow worse than the drug addiction itself
So why should we buy that "hard" drugs are bad enough to ban them, based on the experiences of the Opium war? Wouldn't instead the conclusion be that the harsh ban caused more problems and societal weakness than the drug use did?
Species adapt to climate change by migration and/or evolution, both of which have rate limits past which extinctions become more likely. In light of this, why should the total be more important than the rate?
Because otherwise we would have huge extinctions ever spring and fall when CO2 is shifted into and out of deciduous plant leaves in the Northern hemisphere.
And keep in mind that we don't know what the actual rate of change was from year to year for the various extinction events discussed. Those studies you cited discussed total changes, couching in the language of average rate of change.
My opinion is that the Great Dying involved huge variability, perhaps from year to year. When you take two CO2 estimates, one at the beginning and one at the end, and draw a line straight through that, you are missing completely the important details of what happened.
I think this is quite relevant because I don't actually see a significant amount of stress put on species diversity from current AGW. My view is that most species (including plants and corals) are mobile enough to adapt to the current and near future projected rates of change. Habitat destruction is a different story, but even then, we're not comparing as you put it, "apples and oranges" when we compare a modern species extinction event with a prehistorical one.
Just suppose the national academies are right to say that we should try to limit global warming to "only" 2C. All else being equal, warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions. Here are three different ways to achieve that. Notice that the longer we wait to address the CO2 problem, the steeper our emissions cuts will have to be.
Note that you actually present no way to achieve reduction of CO2 emissions since the graphs in question just describe what would happen, if you did manage to find a way to reduce CO2 by the rates specified.
They also completely ignore why CO2 emissions occur. I could come up with similar graphs while trying to lose weight. Cutting a few percent of my calorie intake each year sounds like a great idea, until you pass the point of starvation and die as a result. There are huge costs associated with attempting to reduce CO2 emissions - especially if it is not universally embraced and someone uses it as a means to surpass everyone else economically.
Also, I think the 2 C set point was deliberately chosen to sell the "we need to act now" story. If instead, you pick 10 C, the PETM level of temperature rise, you can wait significantly longer, especially if, as implied by the recent IPCC report, the temperature sensitivity of CO2 emissions is significantly lower than advertised.
My view is that CO2 emissions fundamentally happen because we are running advanced technological societies and moving billions more into these sorts of societies. That is more than a fair trade for a slightly adverse climate outcome.
If you really are concerned about species extinctions in raw numbers, whether from any sort of climate change or for any other reason, then you need to tackle the real obstacles - habitat destruction and invasive species. If you just care about maintaining viable ecosystems, then it really boils down to habitat destruction. My view is that actually addressing AGW would cause more environmental damage than it fixes. Impoverished people don't care about the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. This accuracy greatly exceeds any ICBM need. And Israel has already put things in orbit with six successful launches so far so any need for that bit of posturing has been satisfied.
Okay, so you're obviously not capable of agreeing that this evidence exists.
And I've stated clearly why.
I guess you've gone about as far as you're will to go for now. Till next time.
Again, I answer: that's a result of might makes right. China's position didn't improve because they lacked the might to resist the British, not because of the ban itself.
First, note you are saying that the ban didn't actually improve China's fundamental problem. I've been saying that all along.
And I already outlined a strategy of legalization and creation of a local opium industry that didn't require China to be militarily superior to the UK.
So the only way to ensure an entirely free market is to remove all possibility of a corporation using regulation for an unfair advantage?
I don't imply that an entirely free market is the goal. I just point out that the problem here has nothing to do with the market, regulated or not. Instead, it has everything to do with the regulators.
This would require a long process of slowly cleaving corporate and political power, something that Americans don't seem prepared to undertake.
I'm all for the cleaving. But instead, there seem to be people obsessed over imaginary free markets rather than stunted real ones. Fixing the latter will do more to cleave corporate and political power, since it'll provide non-political alternatives to gaming the political system.
The market is already regulated, and it did not prevent that.
The Kansas ISP market also didn't cure my acne or upgrade my basement-dwelling lifestyle. Use the right tool for the right job.
While discretion seems like a good idea, there are times where obligation is the better idea. Once a really powerful party has no moral obligation, they will gladly fuck with you, and it's all downhill from there.
I'll just note that if they aren't allowed to fuck with you, moral pretext or not, then that constraint is far more effective than obligation. And if they don't exist at all, then that's even more effective than an effective constraint.
Part of the reason that I wouldn't live in a deregulated environment. Which could include California, if you think of the Enron crisis.
The Enron crisis was not in itself significant. A business committed fraud and it fell. By mentioning California, you indicate you are actually speaking of the California electricity crisis which was far more than just a out of control business. There the California state government forced the three private electricity utilities to lose huge sums of money in a rigged market (where the utilities were forced to buy very expensive power well above the price that they were selling to their customers) while providing hugely profitable opportunities to Enron and other electricity traders.
It was a straightforward transfer of wealth from the private utilities to certain generators and electricity traders by the California government. This only stopped when the second of the three electricity utilities was about to go bankrupt. It wasn't a deregulated environment else California would not have been able to force the utilities to make such adverse and destructive choices.
The California electricity crisis is a demonstration that you can screw up deregulation in a really bad way. But it's not a demonstration that deregulation is inherently bad or problematic.
And of course, this pathetic attempt at deregulation happened in California. Maybe we ought to consider that aspect of things.
but it makes sense to crack down on the diploma mills and degree purchasing
I disagree. I don't see the sense of involving California in this process when there are accreditation bureaus. My feeling is that if there is someone who thinks that they should be able to get a certificate of education or other considerable effort just by spending money, then the diploma mill is doing society a service by taking the mark's money.
So if the Legislature wishes to encourage the promotion of such activity by preventing fraud and dishonesty in such endeavors, it's certainly a reasonable interpretation.
Sounds like it to me.
One might even take it as an obligation on their part to use all suitable means to do so.
My take on that is a bit different. Once a really powerful party has an moral obligation to fuck with me, it's just going to go downhill from there. Part of the reason, I don't live in California any more.
Note that this section is merely a "declaration" without any legal relevance unless it is referenced by enforcement provisions elsewhere or the courts decide to care about the "intent" of legislation. Further, it's legislation and is not a part of California's constitution. Legislation is not automatically constitutional.
Sorry, I thought the two amendments were reversed.
You are assuming that all regulation is the same.
The phrase "Regulated rent seeking" implies the shitty kind of regulation.
If however regulation was say, I don't know, made for say consumer protection, and for the citizens rather than bought and paid for by corporations, I think you would see regulation that works for the most part.
"If".
The market becomes skewed when one commercial interest gains leverage via regulation which is exactly what is happening in this story.
I agree. I just don't see the point of trying to make a dig at the "Invisible Hand", when the market is being so blatantly thwarted and bypassed. It's like complaining a technology is unsafe because someone died after going through considerable trouble to remove the safeguards on the technology.
If you're charging someone $15000 for a 10 week course, and promising jobs at companies "like Facebook and Google," you probably need to fall under some sort of regulation and compliance.
I'm echoing what's already been said here. But regulation and compliance already exists. Fraud didn't become legal just because. If fraud and similar crimes are not being prosecuted, then it is an enforcement problem not a lack of regulation problem.
You are aware the constitution is not the only piece of legislation the regulates societal affairs, right?
You are apparently unaware that both the US and California state constitutions are not pieces of legislation.
Incidentally, the US Constitution does give the state of California the ability to regulate such "bootcamps" via the Ninth Amendment. The real issue is whether California's constitution does.
The Invisible Hand of the market at work, not God! Except when it is not.
All these companies bleat and cry every time they might get regulated even a little, yet will lobby for these sort of laws to increase their profitability.
Summary: businesses are hypocritical and yet another bit of evidence that markets work better than regulated rent seeking. It's amazing what you can learn on Slashdot. /sarcasm
When I said we're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans ten times faster than before the Great Dying, you accused me of posting something so hysterical and unsubstantiated and not based on evidence, then asked if I was shilling for the Koch brothers.
[...]
Can we at least agree that there is evidence that we're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans ~10 to ~100 times substantiated published estimates of the rate before the Great Dying?
No. Those rates are not substantiated nor are they actually rates in the sense of an instantaneous change versus time. They have the right dimension values (a quantity per unit time), but they aren't actually measuring what you think they are.
but first I need to see that you're capable of agreeing that this evidence exists
You have a strange idea of what evidence means. Evidence distinguishes between relevant hypotheses (here, between the hypotheses that current CO2 levels are rising faster than during the Great Dying era or that they are not). The study you cite has a number of areas of ignorance, but the critical one for the claim you're trying to make is that they don't actually know the chemistry of climate over the periods in question on short time scales, particularly, the concentration of CO2.
As it currently stands, the primary driver of the Great Dying is thought to be volcanic, mostly due to the basalt flood eruptions that formed the Siberian Traps (a remnant of that activity which currently covers roughly a third of Siberia). What we can observe now about volcanoes is that they are not constant in nature. Even the more steady ones like the Hawaii volcanoes have episodes of higher and lower activity.
So I think it's likely that CO2 emissions (and other chemical emissions such as SO2, H2S, HCl, and HF) during that period of time varied wildly by many orders of magnitude. IMHO that was the global chemical input that life struggled and often failed to adapt to.
That leads to a very different and far harsher climate than today.
Thus, I think it is foolish to claim that this input and its effects can be determined completely merely by estimating the concentration of CO2 before the Great Dying and the concentration after the Great Dying, and drawing a line through those two points.
But from the point of view of providing yet another propaganda story from which to advocate the AGW theory, one doesn't need or want to look any closer at the Great Dying than this superficial analysis.
The Equlilibrium Charney Sensitivity range in the IPCC 2013 report of [1.5, 4.5] C/doubling is identical to that from the 2001, 1995, 1990 IPCC reports
But not more recent reports since.
The Earth System Sensitivity also hasn't changed significantly.
There's a big difference between a measurable quantity and the measurement of that quantity.
Of course, none of that applies to the marine extinction pattern I was trying to get you to recognize, because ocean acidification doesn't depend on climate sensitivity at all.
A "pattern" based on two out of three or more events, let us note. Going back to that Honisch et al. paper, I see a couple of illuminating parts. They mention the Cretaceous asteroid impact. That should have generated a similar ocean acidification event due to the release of large quantities of SO2 from impact with gypsum. But they saw a different marine extinction pattern. Similarly, I see at the top of page 1062 that there is no direct evidence for pH changes at the Permian-Triassic extinction. That weakens your argument a lot when you don't even know if ocean acidification was a relevant factor in one of the two extinctions that are being used as an argument for the danger of ocean acidification.
This paper and your arguments to this point indicate to me that someone has a need to shoehorn the great extinctions of the past into the narrative of "climate change" in the present. I think that's real sloppy. It also fits as weak evidence for my theory that climate-related research is being deliberately biased in the direction of claiming worse AGW effects than actually exist.
As I predicted, you found a slew of nonsensical reasons to dismiss Honisch et al. 2012.
You were wrong Those reasons weren't nonsensical and my post made it clear why. I don't get why you think quoting a paper which simply can't show what you want it to show somehow makes your argument. It's like the ritual is more important than the substance.
The brand, "Committee for State Security" is currently available.
we can of course compare and find bad tactics in fighting drugs
Ok, a good tactic - education. A bad tactic - making it illegal to the point that your property can be seized and sold off even if you had nothing to do with the drug crime that led to the seizure.
I'd go as far as to say that legalization works. It worked for alcohol which is roughly as dangerous a drug as heroin is (both in terms of harm to user and difficulty of quitting the drug).
That's a of result of might makes right. The British government and her allies had more military might than China.
I ask again, did the ban actually improve China's position? No, because the fundamental problems never got addressed. It wasn't druggies that were ruining China's society, but a militarily superior economic monopoly which was doing so.
If instead, China had figured out how to grow opium locally, legalized it, and then initiated an education program about the dangers of opium use, I bet they would have gotten a lot further. They'd still have trouble with militarily powerful foreign powers, but at least those foreigners wouldn't be profiting (and funding their military) from an opium trade.
The reward of bringing back a species is relatively small, and the risk can be great.
Or the risk could be smaller than the reward. I think such would be the case for restoring other species in the homo genus, for example.
If we reintroduced a species that turned out to be a huge pest--or even a big threat to modern crops, humans, or other wildlife--the results could be devastating.
Well, we could figure that out before we create the species.
then the drug merchants force it further on your society, and steal some of your land
So the ban didn't get rid of the monopoly on opium production or the technology advantages of the opium dealers either.
again, i simply don't understand people who think the social reaction the drug addiction, however malformed, is somehow worse than the drug addiction itself
It's simple. We can compare.
I learnt that the "normal" rate for money laundering in countries where corruption is minimal was 50-90 %
That 50-90% is revenue not profit.
So why should we buy that "hard" drugs are bad enough to ban them, based on the experiences of the Opium war? Wouldn't instead the conclusion be that the harsh ban caused more problems and societal weakness than the drug use did?
Species adapt to climate change by migration and/or evolution, both of which have rate limits past which extinctions become more likely. In light of this, why should the total be more important than the rate?
Because otherwise we would have huge extinctions ever spring and fall when CO2 is shifted into and out of deciduous plant leaves in the Northern hemisphere.
And keep in mind that we don't know what the actual rate of change was from year to year for the various extinction events discussed. Those studies you cited discussed total changes, couching in the language of average rate of change.
My opinion is that the Great Dying involved huge variability, perhaps from year to year. When you take two CO2 estimates, one at the beginning and one at the end, and draw a line straight through that, you are missing completely the important details of what happened.
I think this is quite relevant because I don't actually see a significant amount of stress put on species diversity from current AGW. My view is that most species (including plants and corals) are mobile enough to adapt to the current and near future projected rates of change. Habitat destruction is a different story, but even then, we're not comparing as you put it, "apples and oranges" when we compare a modern species extinction event with a prehistorical one.
Just suppose the national academies are right to say that we should try to limit global warming to "only" 2C. All else being equal, warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions. Here are three different ways to achieve that. Notice that the longer we wait to address the CO2 problem, the steeper our emissions cuts will have to be.
Note that you actually present no way to achieve reduction of CO2 emissions since the graphs in question just describe what would happen, if you did manage to find a way to reduce CO2 by the rates specified.
They also completely ignore why CO2 emissions occur. I could come up with similar graphs while trying to lose weight. Cutting a few percent of my calorie intake each year sounds like a great idea, until you pass the point of starvation and die as a result. There are huge costs associated with attempting to reduce CO2 emissions - especially if it is not universally embraced and someone uses it as a means to surpass everyone else economically.
Also, I think the 2 C set point was deliberately chosen to sell the "we need to act now" story. If instead, you pick 10 C, the PETM level of temperature rise, you can wait significantly longer, especially if, as implied by the recent IPCC report, the temperature sensitivity of CO2 emissions is significantly lower than advertised.
My view is that CO2 emissions fundamentally happen because we are running advanced technological societies and moving billions more into these sorts of societies. That is more than a fair trade for a slightly adverse climate outcome.
If you really are concerned about species extinctions in raw numbers, whether from any sort of climate change or for any other reason, then you need to tackle the real obstacles - habitat destruction and invasive species. If you just care about maintaining viable ecosystems, then it really boils down to habitat destruction. My view is that actually addressing AGW would cause more environmental damage than it fixes. Impoverished people don't care about the environment.