A newer angle on economic exploitation?

[Maxmars]

It seems to me that someone is always trying to "change humanity."

Not because we must (and we must, after all, to adapt and cope with reality;) but instead to exploit humanities existence for personal gain (however you define it.)

George Carlin was, besides being funny, quite correct when he said, "It's a club... and you ain't in it!"

The global propaganda enterprise of creating and maintaining "climate panic" is insidious.  One thing it does is reduce all individuals to fretting over things that are 'real' but discouraging changes by restricting anything to their "definitions" and "wisdom."

Here's an article that raises my hackles, so to speak...

 City sprawl is now large enough to sway global warming over land

Which paints a narrative about something, which I would have thought made perfect sense... but apparently some thought it a mystery.  The idea that cities create heat and since they are so very concentrated with human activity, that heat can affect the local temperature and 'perceived' global warming effect.  (Which I thought explained, at least to some measurable degree, why generational city-folk are much more likely to be "environment-obsessed.")

As it turns out, the math is there... 



The above graphic seems to bear out the assertion... and research data from around the world shows that the phenomenon of higher temperatures in and around cities are significantly prone to be higher... all things being equal.
 

---

...The effect is most dramatic in some of the world's most rapidly urbanizing areas. In the bustling Yangtze River Basin, for example, home to more than 480 million people (one third of China's total population), urban sprawl contributed nearly 40% of the area's increased warming between 2003 and 2019.
 In Japan, where close to 10% of total land is developed, urbanization contributed a quarter of the added warming observed during the study period. The urban signal was less pronounced in Europe and North America, where urbanization boosted roughly 2–3% of warming. That's likely because much of the development there happened before the study period, and proportionally, there is still a great deal of undeveloped land compared to other smaller regions and countries.
...

---

(Bold lettering is mine)

In truth, It seems to make sense... and perhaps a marketing effort (I call it propaganda) will be implemented to try and convince people that living in a megacity isn't really "good for the environment" in the first place...  and that would mean encouraging people to 'migrate' out of the cities...  but then where would they go?  Houses are at record prices... and there is really only one "owner of note" in the housing market here in America (that would be Vanguard)... 

Oh yeah.. there's money to be extracted from the population there... housing...

I hope I'm wrong...  I wonder where the WEF is on this?  The media often tells us "they matter."

Plans within plans.

[Byrd]

Here's an article that raises my hackles, so to speak...

 City sprawl is now large enough to sway global warming over land

Which paints a narrative about something, which I would have thought made perfect sense... but apparently some thought it a mystery.  The idea that cities create heat and since they are so very concentrated with human activity, that heat can affect the local temperature and 'perceived' global warming effect.  (Which I thought explained, at least to some measurable degree, why generational city-folk are much more likely to be "environment-obsessed.")

As it turns out, the math is there... 



The above graphic seems to bear out the assertion... and research data from around the world shows that the phenomenon of higher temperatures in and around cities are significantly prone to be higher... all things being equal.
 

---

...The effect is most dramatic in some of the world's most rapidly urbanizing areas. In the bustling Yangtze River Basin, for example, home to more than 480 million people (one third of China's total population), urban sprawl contributed nearly 40% of the area's increased warming between 2003 and 2019.
 In Japan, where close to 10% of total land is developed, urbanization contributed a quarter of the added warming observed during the study period. The urban signal was less pronounced in Europe and North America, where urbanization boosted roughly 2–3% of warming. That's likely because much of the development there happened before the study period, and proportionally, there is still a great deal of undeveloped land compared to other smaller regions and countries.
...

---

(Bold lettering is mine)

In truth, It seems to make sense... and perhaps a marketing effort (I call it propaganda) will be implemented to try and convince people that living in a megacity isn't really "good for the environment" in the first place...  and that would mean encouraging people to 'migrate' out of the cities...  but then where would they go?  Houses are at record prices... and there is really only one "owner of note" in the housing market here in America (that would be Vanguard)... 

Oh yeah.. there's money to be extracted from the population there... housing...

I hope I'm wrong...  I wonder where the WEF is on this?  The media often tells us "they matter."

Plans within plans.

It's good data.  I've done some measuring (and talking about) the urban heat island here in Dallas because it's REALLY apparent.

No, the solution isn't to move people to the country -- do you really want a 2 hour commute through heavy traffic from your country home to the place where you work?  Most people don't.

Solutions include things like planting more trees and making more green space available within the cities; preserving old forest areas and converting older areas (as is happening here in Texas' largest cities) to apartments with adjoining green spaces as well as adding water features.  

Like this: https://communityimpact.com/richardson/c...ichardson/
The City of Richardson started that in 2019, and it's been finished for quite some time.  The area is lovely; small restaurants and mom-and-pop shops that appear to be thriving and it's a good spot to walk or walk your dog even during days when it's 100 degrees (F) out.

Here's a photo from a news article:


It used to look like this:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/...8387/m1/1/ (sorry for the link, but the board seems to be determined to post text instead of picture)

I can tell you that the new style does indeed draw people in for the dining and shopping and entertainment venues (they're now able to do things like host the German Oktoberfest in this new area.)

And the shade and trees do a lot to reduce heat stress (and heat deaths.)  

What happens in an urban heat island is that you get this dome of polluted, hot air that hovers over a city and won't go away (walk outside and feel the difference between the temperature on the street and the temperature on the grass.)  Because of this, the rainfall pattern changes and when the rainfall changes, farmers will find that some of their crops fail (not enough water, too much water.)

So it impacts everyone.  And it's not the WEF... it's that cities have found out that these areas tend to generate income.  If you look at the "before" picture, it was an area that not a lot of people liked to travel to for goods and services.

My city followed that example and the downtown area has been revitalized and is much more comfortable (temperature-wise) and attractive (lovely outdoor beer garden, for example.)

The other thing that happens when these spaces are put in is an uptick in "neighborliness."  People will encounter their neighbors as they walk to the very close stores or restaurants and the socialization means less isolation.  Here in the suburbs, people drive places and seldom meet or know their neighbors.

So... life in the big city.  Needs improvement.  This "greener" idea turns out to be good for people, economy, and the landscape around the city.

---

Let's see if I can drop the "before" picture in this message: