¿Por que no los dos?

Killing Johnson soon after the election could have prevented Nazism, change my mind.

Not tongues, they have a weird air sac in their throat. It looks like their guts are spilling out. So sexy.

The Inca empire lasted just about a century. They stood on the shoulders of great previous civilizations.

I’m guessing it was a plane engine, but IT WOULD BE NICE IF THE POSTER HAD ADDED SOME CONTEXT.

4000K lighting is my sweet spot, but manufacturers tend to disagree slightly on what 4000K is. Can’t mismatch bulbs.

It does not. That’s OK.

To answer the why: because it’s a spectrometer and that’s the primary use for it. I hope this helps the journalist writing the headline.

He never returns my phone calls.

It’s actually the Gormans.

“Wilco” would have prevented it. What a world.

He could have surrendered. He could have Theoden’d himself. He had options, he just predictably chose the most coward one.

Don’t you hunger for human flesh after reading it?

Aaah…

Thank you, but that still doesn’t explain why he was even considered.

Why was he chosen?

I can roleplay any of these nationalities, does she want another round?

Which one is the meme depicting?

People get addicted to other forms of tobacco, cigarettes are a more practical, if rather disgusting, way to feed the addiction. Then the marketing and peer pressure kicks in and new addicts start coming in without going through other forms of tobacco.

While Protestant colonial powers would prefer to kill you via bureaucracy, Catholic ones wouldn’t hesitate to proceed straight to rape, murder, torture etc.

Which powers? The Brits, French, and Dutch? They were absolutely vile. Europeans were a very hateful boil on earth back then.

Sometimes gay facts too.

Triple cross posts often cause many clients to not display the inline text of the original. So I just followed the rabbit hole and copied it over here for the benefit of those affected.

from the OP:

Australia has the money to protect nature. It just isn’t spending it, expert says

Banner image of a koala by Bernard Spragg. NZ via Flickr (CC0).

Australia has the money to protect nature. It just isn’t spending it, expert says

“I think the international community really does need to put more pressure on Australia to do better,” says Euan Ritchie, a professor of wildlife ecology and conservation at Deakin University in Australia, in a recent episode of Mongabay’s Newscast.

From animals like kangaroos, koalas and platypuses, to plants like waratah, kangaroo paw and climbing heath, Australia has exceptionally high biodiversity, with a unique assemblage of wildlife found nowhere else on the planet.

The Australian government claims the country is on track to meet many of its targets under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the landmark agreement that aims to halt and reverse the decline of biodiversity, and ensure the sustainable use of biodiversity equitable sharing of benefits, among other goals, by 2050.

However, Ritchie, who’s also the president of the Australian Mammal Society and a councilor for the country’s Biodiversity Council, argues that “Australia is failing miserably” on all those measures. This is despite Australia being one of the wealthiest nations on Earth in terms of GDP per capita, with a “huge number of really knowledgeable scientists,” he tells Newscast host Mike DiGirolamo.

“If we look at the number of threatened species in Australia, it’s more than 2,200 now, and that list continues to increase,” Ritchie says. “We have ecosystems that are collapsing, 17 in total within Australia and two more further south into sub-Antarctic and Antarctic regions that are collapsing.”

The iconic koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) is also now endangered in the states of Queensland and New South Wales, and in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), he adds.

Ritchie and other researchers argue that just 1% of Australia’s annual federal budget, or about A$7 billion ($5 billion), would help save the country’s threatened species and protect ecosystems. However, Australia’s latest annual budget allocates only 0.06% to nature conservation — and this is expected to decline in the future.

At the same time, the government is estimated to spend more than A$26 billion ($19 billion) annually to support or subsidize harmful industries like fossil fuels, DiGirolamo says.

One of the government’s strategies to finance nature protection is to create a “nature repair market,” a voluntary biodiversity market, where industry and private players can earn biodiversity certificates.

A biodiversity market would be very complex to navigate and get right, Ritchie says. Instead, he says Australia should just pony up the money for conservation, which he says it can “afford to [at] a much larger degree today.”

Surveys by the Biodiversity Council also show that 95% of Australians polled support the increased government spending on the environment.

“Australia is a sovereign nation. It’s really rich. If we want to fund something that we think is really important, the government could literally do that today,” Ritchie says. “It’s just a case of whether they have the political appetite to do that.”

Listen to the full conversation with Euan Ritchie here.

Can’t help but remember this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oomlb9xm-YQ

Naming a species after someone living just doesn’t sit right with me.

Classic

Jars

I have an urge to pat it dry with a paper towel.

Don’t boop the snoot.