im not a prepper. i just use common sense and run scenario's.
what you will find interesting is those on low income usually live paycheck to pay check. meaning if they miss a payment their life changes drastically. in some places people can be made homeless in under a couple weeks to a couple months.
richmond virginia actually has laws where if someone misses a rent payment by 1 week and has not sorted it by the end of the week. 'taking possession' orders can be filed. and people are out on the streets in a couple weeks.

its stuff like this that makes people end up doing crazy things to survive.
yep be more worried about neighbours losing jobs than a nuclear bomb.
basically try to have enough food you to survive a few months. just incase you lose your job or where new expenses need to be paid, you can easily survive without going to the grocery store for a month or two without it affecting your life

the thing i hate about media when they just aggregate stories or just do opinion pieces is that they have no editorial integrity. they just let anything print as long as it clickbaits people in.

true journalism should be a reporter writes a story and then that story gets fact checked.
its kind of like law. in the UK there is the crown prosecution which fact checks accusations and see's if there is any merit in taking it further
in america there is a district attorney

media have lost their spine and removed the editorial/fact checking ability they once had. and it makes me even more sad when i see tv news media just repeat the same teleprompted stories word for word without even knowing/caring about what they are saying
https://youtu.be/TM8L7bdwVaA?t=20
https://youtu.be/6PlTDeTrELk?t=23
https://youtu.be/dAkxR9T01pw?t=16

just some fun facts
"The average carbon absorbtion was 88 pounds per tree per year. (By contrast, the average American is responsible for emitting about 44,000 pounds of carbon annually."

that means each person needs 500 tree's.
a family of 4 ends up needing 2000 tree's. im not sure people actually have roofspace for 2000 trees

as for the topics 1m tree's.that only offsets about 2,000 people.
new yorks 8mill population =4,000,000,000.. yep 4 billion tree's needed just for new york.

with a 2 metre square space per tree, requires 8000km² offset space
new york living area is only 800km²

meaning it needs 10x more land then the land people live on just to offset new york

.. in short for the lung health risk. its easier to let the oil/coal reserves deplete(as they will anyway in this century) and shift to renewables and use electric cars to bring down the carbon used.. rather than it is to find enough land to plant tree's

..
i personally think trees are great. but more for thewildlife and water cycle arena. climate change should concentrate on water cycle for the climate and as a separate project reducing emissions for the lung health. planting trees will never offset emissions at this level. and carbon is not a big player in the temperature arena. water is. so planting tree's projects need to actually understand why a rainforest is called a rain forest and not a carbon forest. and truly understand some of the numbers needed to even make a change

by the way. tree's in urban area's dont help the water cycle.

1. global averaged temperatures.
however different latitudes vary when not averaged. funny part is some area's are getting colder and some hotter and the average then cancels most of the differences out

2. markedly?? 0.9 degrees over many decades is not a remarkable amount. infact on the 15^o previous makes the 0.9^o not even a 7% change.
its a fear of a future 2.5^o change not an actual 2.5^o already occuring.

3. adding to that the whole hype of carbon as a greenhouse gas which affects the reflection in the upper atmosphere is an empty debate. the upper atmosphere is showing cooling not warming.

4. the temperature fear is land temperature change not upper atmosphere change. and do you know what helps reflect heat up and away from land..... WATER

carbon is just the excuse to make the running out of coal/oil be switched from the fault of oil farming to be a citizens are to blame for using so much electric from coal and so much fuel from their cars. yep the petroleum companies are not getting the blame. but while citizens feel guilty and agree to pay 'carbon taxes' that money then goes towards changing the technology at no cost to the energy sector and keep them in business

take many people on this forum blaming bitcoin miners for co2. instead of blaming the energy sector for using carbon based sources to make electric.
take the banking crisis caused by private banks... but now suddenly its a public debt and figure show estimates of how much debt people are into by quantifying the debt vs population.. instead of just making it private debt as it should be where the banks owe people money

its like people blaming fir coat customers for buying fir. when it should be the manufacturers for making coats using animal fir

but hey. while we pay for new electric plants, the change of temperatures wont get affected because the greenhouse gas of the upper atmosphere is not showing the effects they are fearmongering.. i said this before elsewhere but. the truth is in the next 50 years we will run out of oil/coal anyway.. its not in unlimited supply

.. better efforts can be made by desalinating sea water and letting it irrigate over land to stop it drying out.

1. mining is already becoming more sustainable. the hashrate/watt is getting more efficient all the time. imagine hashing 100exahash using GPU and you will see that if we didnt develop ASICS the electric use would be much much much much(not exaggerating) higher
take for instance 9GPU rig vs a antminer s9 . (same electric use)
900mhash(gpu) vs 14thash
yep ASIC is 15,555x more efficient than GPU

2. bushfires are not caused by mining... if it was then china and georgia would be on fire. not the amazon/australia.
the reason the amazon and australia burn is due to the lack of water. carbon is a lung health issue because the 'greenhousegas' actually shows the upper atmosphere is cooling. yep its cooling. heat rises and more is getting released into the atmosphere rather than being reflected back in.. because the greenhouse affect is not reflecting much back.... at ground level the reason why not as much heat is getting evaporated into the air is lack of water. yep the water cycle has more problems than carbon.

3. snow at christmas... i think you have been watching too much cocacola adverts and fairy tale books making people think they remember snow at christmas every year.. truth is snow is more of a february period.
in england we have historical data that in the last 60 years we only had 9 times of a white christmas but many more of a white february. even things like the london 'frost fair' in the 1800's was in february.
what you find out is things like the cartoon 'the snowman' (nothing to do with christmas the author says) is featured on tv at christmas. even things like the movies 'frozen' 1&2.(again nothing to do with christmas) are released around the november/december period.
did you know most christmas movies are not filmed at christmas. but filmed using fake snow and people celebrating christ while outside the studio its summer. yep snow on TV is usually fake snow.. paper mache

...
summary. dont take media's opinion on how things are. actually do the math find the stats and actually really think about whats being presented to you

cryptocurrencies are dependant on an-arc-key (elliptic curve)

cryptocurrency is just a tool. do guns lead to anarchy. or do nutters who have no morals use guns to create anarchy

a UK flight company Ryan air done a study. they realised to offset their carbon emissions they would need to make the UK 12% forest.

by this i do not mean ryan air are some massive aviation company. infact they are a small company. if you add in all other flights around the UK by other flight companies the UK would need to be over 100% forest (more trees than land available
and thats just for flights.
cars and trucks actually combine to produce more co2 than aviation. so to ofset UK numbers forrests would need to be several layers of the land mass of the uk.

but what people keep forgetting is that climate science is about land temperatures. which water vaper controls land temperatures. not carbon.

carbon science on climate is about the percent of heat kept in at the upper atmosphere.. HEAT RISES not falls.
but guess what

carbon is not causing it to get warmer up there


its the ground level temperature control that is the 'risk' and water has more effect n the ground to cloud area

carbon at ground level is not a temperature of ground level killer. its a lung health killer.. water (ice or drought) is the concern of ground level

at the moment its like feeding ai images of parrots and then giving it a 50-50 example of parrots vs humans and it being 99% predictable. but the fed in images of parrots where only one breed of parrot. so the occassional other bread dont get recognised as a parrot.

eventually AI will be fed more info and become more accurate. all it just needs is more info

this AI technique is not new.
back in my child hood i had a games system that used a device called a 'game shark cheat code system' what it basically done was get you to perform a series of tasks where one element stays the same and a series of tasks where just the element changed. and it worked out the memory area that was sensative to that element. so that if you changed the memory locations data you changed the element. thus able to get unlimited lives or unlimited ammo.

AI does the same thing. if you give it enough info of negative and positives it can work out the element it needs to concentrate on. the more data its given the more accurate it gets

things can move alot faster by comparing blood results too to find similar characteristics of certain enzymes to know if someone is at risk of something.

same with DNA. feed it enough dna where a known characteristic is known it can then identify where that characteristic exists in the dna. thus then able to identify characteristics when supplied a fresh sample with no pre-briefed characteristics

things will get better and faster and not reqire human eyes needing to look at scans. but just getting the answer as soon as the sample is scanned

elon musks priority is public utility.
by this i mean space transport
human transport
goods transport
electric generation

seems elon musk wants to make peoples living costs cheaper.
less taxes because gov aint paying large sums to service the international space station
less electric bills
less fuel bills
less travel costs

though quantum is a new industry. its not something thats gonna be consumer ready any time soon
the equipment needed to sheild a QC from light, heat and magnatism to remove as much interference to get a good measure of the things involved in QC makes it not a small object to have on a desk
(your grandkids wont have a quantum smartphone)

so i dont see elon getting in on the QC game just like he hasnt got into the 'cloud storage' computing game
he isnt into the science of terraforming mars. he is interested in the taxi to mars industry.
so i dont see him caring for the utility of QC for sciences. unless QC becomes expensive to lease hours of remote use. .. then he might just buy a few and sell time on it cheaper

bitcoins value is not about nodes. nor about investment.
for instance.

if 10 people bought 1btc at $7k. that does not mean that bitcoin holds $70k value.
bitcoin is not backed by dollars. the market price is fluid based on the current sale price of a single coin.

someone could sell a coin for $1 and instantly make the price $1.. and them other 10 people have just lost. and they had no way to intervene

..
nodes have no value. they do not build up a cost. infact millions of people use lite wallets and custodial services.

what does actually build up price support to keep some value is the mining cost. yep mining is the skin in the game. not nodes.

if it cost $6.5k and the market was $7k. miners are making profit and continue mining. when the price levels out to $6.5k they can mine AND buy and have the same costs but grab coins faster instead of waiting to solve blocks to get coin. thus they help push up the price. they also refuse to sell when its not making profit.

the amount of user nodes has no correlation. but the hashrate has more correlation to the baseline value
so thinking that just running a node stabilises the price is a foolish notion. true ski in the game is where its costing you something to be part of it. and the biggest cost is mining

based on your comments on many topics

badecker. try to get out the house now and again. experience a bit of the world. learn some stuff
because at the moment, your lung health is more at risk from inhaling too much dust from the house your cooped up in.

i know the world seems a scary place, i know you fear working because you think its slavery
i know you fear socialising because you think its communism to interact with others. you also fear they might be terrorists. and yes you fear climate will torture you. and of course you fear police will arrest you because you dont want to get a licence to drive a car.

but please just get out the house once and a while and realise what the world is really like. yes you might find new threats to fear but atleast you might learn what the real problems are too

many towns plant tree's in urban area's for the whole co2 mindset.

the only issue is that it only sorts out co2 in that area. so a parking lot with loads of trees wont really affect co2 levels 2 miles away.

tree's planted alongside roads help more.
the example in OP is not in a densely driven area of new york so its not really a good location anyway

however trees in this situation are not helping climate change. its just improving lung health

oh and by the way. most scientists are more worried about the nitrogen issues of lung health which tree's dont help with. so even the lung health issue is not solved by trees.

the forest and co2 o2 is not about climate change. its about lung health

however forests do have another function the keep the land like a sponge due to the root system and tree foliage.

in africa they are planting tree's to turn deserts back to green. only problem is big-agri are destroying other forests just as fast. thus just shifting one desert area to another. thus making water sources and the water table underground move.

just remember forests are called rain forests not carbon forests for a reason

funny part of climate change is how much wood and plastic is used for their placards

i laugh when climate change activists complain how much resourses are wasted on powering computers. if only they knew how much resources were wasted if all data on computers was actually printed out on paper and couriered out between businesses. then they would truly be crying
imagine a world witout computers. and we went back to VHS tapes.think of how many plastic VHS tapes would be needed to record all the videos on youtube. vs the plastic of a memory stick using todays tech
imagine the paper of every media story if media had to go back to print.
all them contracts, documents and letters instead of emails

that greta girl screaming about how global warming is going to kill her grandkids. well. with an attitude like that i dont think she will be able to find a man to get her pregnant when she is older. and secondly her hometown gets 8 months a year of winter so i dont see her suffering from drought any time.

i personally would have prefered to see an african kid do the global WARMING advocacy and greta doing the global cooling advocacy..

i think climate activists need to up their game and truly find the real path of what they are opposing and what solutions they feel will solve it. the simple "do something or i will scowl at you" is just empty of any plan

elon musk wants to make things that are better priced to be used more often. if you look at the cost involved to make the euro tunnel between france and the UK, using elon musks method will make it cheaper for a similar tunnel to be made.

at the moment the US pay millions to russia to service the international space station. elons space x wants to make it cheap to take on that contract.
yes he wants some historic recognition to tell his grandkids. but he also wants to be a government contractor taking on huge projects at competitive prices... and its working.

he is getting alot of R&D money from science and eco-grants for his promises of helping science. to fund the projects that will then make profits fromm less science purposes.
he isnt interested in terraforming mars. he just wants to be the transport company of the government both above the atmosphere and below ground and on the road

the UK has never really had a white christmas stereotype.

for instance in the UK
out of the last 58 years the uk has only had 17 snow falls on christmas. and out of those 17 only 9 actually resulted on snow remaining on the ground for it to be an actual white christmas.
yep 9 out of 58.. 1/6 chance

alot of people think that england used to be a regular cold spot due to media portrayal of the thames freezing over and people thought it was a regular accurance that has been lost.. however the reality is
But between 1309 and 1814, the Thames froze at least 23 times and on five of these occasions -1683-4, 1716, 1739-40, 1789 and 1814 - the ice was thick enough to hold a fair.
yep 23 times in 500 years. and the 1814 thames frost fair was not a early occurance

oh and by the way. the 'frost fair' was in the first week of february.. not christmas


most 'white christmas' comes from the old stories of the nordic/germany regions narrative of santa clause. where ofcorse in the nordic region they actually do experience snow at winter. thus snow on christmas

kind of funny how it became westernised by coca-cola.. not the met-office. yep cola spread the message of snowy christmas in their adverts in the previous century
before the narrative. most christmases were where people went to church and celebrated the birth of christ.. the whole desire for snowballs and making snowmen/snowangels is just a media craze trying to make it look like a thing to expect to do each year.
other things like the movie 'the snowman' had actually nothing to do with christmas. even the author said so. yet media used it as a christmas tale by always broadcasting it every christmas.

also funny. how things like 'frozen' a movie about a cartoon character with super powers to make ice. turns into a subliminal winter movie about christmas by being released in the november/december season.. yep frozen isnt about christmas. but makes kids want to see snow and play with snowmen

yes us humans have caused damage. but when the industry that causes damage are not making profit and need to shift to another sector. they exaggerate the risks they caused to purely get good tax reliefs to cover the costs of the transition.

cabon ecosystem can sort itself out in 20-50 years anyway by just running out of coal/oil to burn. so its not a planet killer. infact plants love carbon. its generational lung health is at risk over then next 20-50 years thats feared most. ofcourse our decendants in 100 years wont have that problem.
other industries want a taste of the government treasury pie.. ofcourse again. with oil depletions .. the plastics companies need to transition to plastics cleanup and plastic recycling to stay in profit

big-agri will transition to vertical farming and using the spare land to get paid to plant poplar tree's and every 5 years cut down the wood and replant for a 5 year profit. while all sounding green(green economy as in the colour of american banknotes and the eco system)
(china love their bamboo industry and america will love their poplar tree industry)

we are even seeing the vegan movement as part of the issue. most countries already have quota's for animal farming control. and surprisingly farms get paid grants not to farm and just have empty fields or convert fields into other purposes. this will continue and get more intense

sidenote. governement farming quota's is the reason for price competition on meat. not the human population growth. some have propaganda'd that there just aint enough meat to feed 10billion in the future.. well increase the quota by 50% so the meat for 7bill can increase to meat for 10bill.
gov didnt set the rule for their own reasons.. they were lobbied by big agri to cause a demand rise. because previous farming grew so much surplus it was affecting the commodities price and was actually having soo much food it could actually feed the planet for pennies

politicians are not the problem. its the entities below them that have been allowed b politicians to do things.

for instance
government did not screw the economy themselves. .. but they stood back and let the banks screw the economy.
government did not start wars themselves. .. but they stood back and let the generals of 'defence' practice 'offence'

government does not send people into space. they just let companies like nasa, spacex, and such do it

this is how governments feel they are not the problem, because someone else holds the gun. not them themselves.

governments are not on a power trip of starting wars or putting people in prison. instead its the technical, defence, scientific advisers and lobby groups that have the power. and kiss gov ass to get allowed to do things. by wrding it in a way that sounds beneficial. but hiding the facts of what happens after the action is taken.
in short government are dumb and just agree to stories they are told that seem to benefit the majority

.. with all that said.
yes we will see agencies and corporations trying to make change for a profit

...
take african economic challenge 70 years ago. feign corporations convinced african government that selling land to foreign investors would make the forex exchange rate better and boost african economy, create jobs and such. so the government agreed.
next thing. rainforests destroyed, natives displaces and big-agri stepped in with industrial farming methods that didnt require huge labour. meaning those displaced didnt get jobs, lost their land, homes and ability to grow thei own food. the food big-agri grew was exported using the corps own forign internal network so the african economy didnt get the boost. and then unicef,redcross and other agencies had to step in to spoonfeed the displaced. and yes even the 'charities' stepping in got rich.

so although african gov didnt displace the natives themselves. by letting big agri do what they did. alot ofhate for the gov insued and civil wars began

..
i dont see big-industry doing cloud control in the form of the myth of spraying chem-trails in the sky. firstly the cost is huge and the results are small.. big-industry would be getting grants and tax reliefs to desalinate sea water and spray water onto land. to allow the cooling at ground level and also evaporation to cause clouds. for further cooling
i can see the proposed benefits of 'artificial mist' in fields. i can see all the possible positive spin of 'cheap water' 'desert to green' but i can see the after effects of all that excess water when it seeps back into rivers with its toxic chemicals from fertilisers and insecticides which would then cause a need for the next industry revolution

all that is happening is corporate industry finding ways to make money from 'feel good' projects that are aimed at helping the planet. which then cause issues of their own to chin react new industries to form to 'feel good' about cleaning up the mess of the last industry.
i see you might like your conspiracy theories so here is a trail for you to follow

saudi-star (african big-agri) ->american redcross(ceo linked to john hopins aramco(saudi aramco(oil+medical research))
when you look at all the things like what caused all the disease in africa due to the displaced people and then look at the medical profit to treat them. and then the big agri-oil-natural resouce grab from the displaced land. you see how the chain reactions link
(big agri cause a african disaster, then grow food.. ship it out of africa.. redcross/unicef buy it using charity money/tax grants. ship it back into africa)


.. now that was just from a land grab. image the cause and effect form a water grab

i see a couple decades of 'carbon' fundraising to cover 'carbon emission efforts'

next is things like desalinating water to use sea water for drinking/agriculture/ just wetting dry land. and ofcourse the 'microplastic' cleanup of ocean industry..

climate change is an apt term.. some places are heating up some are cooling.
though the average for the globe is just a degree and fears of a couple degree rise has been spouted as doomsday. the truth is that its multiple degrees higher in one area and multiple degrees cooler in another.

the other deflection of facts is whats the cause/reaction/ threat.
carbon is not the threat/cause/effect. water is.

so in the UK yes we are going to get colder winters. and because we only get a few weeks of proper summer. though those summers may be hotter then usual. overall because we dont see much of it. we will generally feel the bitter winter cold for a longer period and feel it as a colder climate average for just UK

where as africa who hardly get to see a winter. will feel the summer feel more intense.

the result is UK gets more storms and snow and wind. africa gets more droughts and bushfires and desertification.

any way. the whole carbon emissions need to drop in next 20-50 years will happen anyway no matter what environmental campaign is done. simply because there is no unlimited supply of fossil fuels. even in the 1990's they revealed oil/gas stores were being depleted. so carbon will not be an issue in a few decades anyway. the whole plastic tax(carrier bags) and carbon tax(emissions) is just to invest money into giving energy companies a free new power plant without affecting their profit line so they can move from coal to renewables totally cost free. because without these taxes and with depleting fossil fuels their share value would tank hard unless they shifted.

but that all doesnt solve the actual climate problem. carbon is the energy problem and human lung health problem.
the climate problem needs solutions related to controlling the water cycle