At least we got some space to build car centric suburbia, eh? /s
It depends what. Plastic recycling is mostly a scam/fraud and does not fix nor change much.
The industry has long known that plastics recycling is not economically or practically viable, the report shows. An internal 1986 report from the trade association the Vinyl Institute noted that “recycling cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution [to plastics], as it merely prolongs the time until an item is disposed of”.
In 1989, the founding director of the Vinyl Institute told attendees of a trade conference: “Recycling cannot go on indefinitely, and does not solve the solid waste problem.”
Despite this knowledge, the Society of the Plastics Industry established the Plastics Recycling Foundation in 1984, bringing together petrochemical companies and bottlers, and launched a campaign focused on the sector’s commitment to recycling.
In 1988, the trade group rolled out the “chasing arrows” – the widely recognized symbol for recyclable plastic – and began using it on packaging. Experts have long said the symbol is highly misleading, and recently federal regulators have echoed their concerns.
Cited article, and the report’s source
Recycling paper, metal and glass will help and make a difference, keeping in mind that we need to use less in the first place. However plastic recycling is broken by default, pretty much everywhere.
What time of year in each photo?
Is this Antarctica or the Arctic? The title said the Arctic, but you said Antarctica and the mountains do remind me more of the south than the north.
I assumed it was northern Canada, Russia, Iceland, or one of the other land masses at the edge of the Arctic Ocean.
Mountains of ice melt in the summer then the water refalls in the fall and winter as snow and freezing rain in truly apocalyptic amounts. Rebuilding the ice mountains to start the process over.
Given that the sun is up at roughly the same amount, and at the poles the sun remains consistently up or down according to the season, I think we can rightly assume these two photos are taken at least approximately at similar times of the year.
Also, are you trying to insinuate that 100+ foot tall glaciers are somehow “seasonal?” Because they aren’t.
Glaciers actually do retreat and advance seasonally or on even longer cycles. Some have terminuses that move back and forth literal miles. One of the key indicators of climate change is the fact that globally, glaciers are retreating more than they’re advancing on average.
Did you think my question was a veiled attempt at climate change denial, lol?
I’m not your thread’s OP but I want to know the same question (what were the seasons) because no, I don’t know how fast glaciers reach that height either. Nothing about that implies denial of the validity, it’s a question to help quantify the change. Varying 10ft between seasons means this is a massive change regardless of season. Varying 100ft, not so much. No, I don’t beleive it’d actually be 100fr of change in 6 months, but I could see it being more than 10ft.
Well that’s fuckin depressing
A reverse image search revealed to me that there are a hell of a lot of copies of this image around the internet, but I can’t seem to find any papers that provide background. I’m going to have to look again later, but if there’s any other internet sleuths out there interested in figuring out the origins of these photos with reputable explainers, I would love to know more about this.
I’m always afraid of things like this that seem to confirm my biases without associated information to back it…
I just did reverse image search and found this article from 2002
The Guardian article nailed it, thanks!
It doesn’t cite exactly where they got the Greenpeace photo from, but I found it here: https://media.greenpeace.org/archive/Climate-Impact-Documentation-in-Norway--Svalbard-27MZIF4WNED.html
Climate Impact Documentation in Norway, Svalbard Greenpeace documentation showing that glacier “Blomstrandbreen” has retreated nearly 2 km since 1928, with an accelerated rate of 35 metres lost per year since 1960 and even higher in the past decade. In the image, view of climate campaigner Truls Gulowsen on a speed boat going to a mine in Longyearbyen.
Unique identifier: GP0STSCL6 Shoot date: 03/08/2002 Locations: Norway, Scandinavia, Svalbard Credit line: © Greenpeace / Christian Åslund
A bit more from the Guardian article:
Greenpeace activists visited the glacier last weekend on the Rainbow Warrior taking pictures from the same locations to highlight the effects of global warming, which the group says is a threat to the future of the planet.
The Blomstrandbreen glacier has retreated by one and a quarter miles since 1928, according to Greenpeace. It was shrinking by 115ft a year in the 1960s, a rate which has risen.
Recent studies carried out by US researchers and reported in Science last month said that 85% of the glaciers they examined had lost vast portions of their mass in the last 40 years.
Keith Echelmayer of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, who has carried out research into Alaska’s ice streams and checked glacier thickness, said: “Most glaciers have thinned several hundred feet at low elevation in the last 40 years and about 60 feet at higher elevations.”
There’s a couple similar photos from 2022 posted to Reddit by the same photographer (meaning the same person posted these two, not that it’s necessarily the same person who posted the one above):
people 107 years ago loved sepia filters.
