Climate Lockdown Coming?

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (67 posts)
  1. Ken Burgess profile image87
    Ken Burgessposted 12 months ago

    Yes we had a Pandemic Lockdown... is something worse on the Horizon?

    Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.

    In 2000, the Western U.S. entered the beginning of what scientists call a megadrought the worst in 1,200 years which they say is triggered by a combination of a natural dry cycle and human-caused climate change.

    Currently (2021) the U.S. Drought Monitor places 70% of the Central and South Western states under extreme or exceptional drought.

    More than 60 percent of the continental United States is in drought conditions, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has declared a disaster area in more than 1,000 counties countrywide.

    From California to Utah crops are failing, or not being planted, fisheries and lakes are going dry, the impact on the Nation's food supply will be severe.

    Days ago the Hoover Dam reservoir hit a record low, another sign of how extreme the western U.S. drought has become.

    A study published in the journal Science recently compared modern soil moisture data with historical records gleaned from tree rings, it found that when compared with all droughts seen since the year 800 across western North America, the 21-year drought that began in 2000 and continued through 2020 (this drought is still ongoing, though the study’s data is analyzed through 2018) was worse than all other megadroughts in this region.  And it only seems to be getting worse.

    1. peterstreep profile image80
      peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Yes we do have a big problem. Bigger than COVID.

      COVID was relatively easy to solve, although governments all over the world failed miserably. In the end we got COVID under control thanks to the private sector who made millions by selling countries' vaccines. And then there are still a lot of people not believing in science, distrusting vaccines.

      The Climate Crisis is a long way coming. But it is harder to fight as people do in general not make a profit by fighting the climate crisis. (think reducing meat production and fossil fuels...) This is in stark contrast of solving the problem of COVID and making money at the same time.

      I think Elon Musk is on the right track by saying, We have to produce ecological sound products that people want. Make an electric car sexier than fossil fuel cars.
      Same with plastic, eco-friendly plastic should be made more desirable than ordinary plastic.

      I'm afraid that the governments around the world have to make laws to prevent a catastrophe.
      To think that the free market will come up with a solution is an elusion. Just like imagine that smoking was allowed everywhere, the percentage of smoking-related health would be far bigger. (And so the costs) so yes, governments have to step in. (Something that is probably a difficult thing to accept in some countries)

      The Climate crisis is a huge problem. And I think it would be good to trust science for a change.
      I would make an independent team of international scientists who are at the top of their field and listen to their advice. And try to implement this on a world scale...
      The NATO should perhaps have a special section dedicated to fighting the climate crisis.
      And o boy, now countries have to work together and not be so bloody nationalistic (only thinking in their political interest.) That will be a tough cookie as we've seen the last 40 years.

      1. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 12 months agoin reply to this
        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          So you still think we live on a flat earth? In the center of the universe. You still think we get sick because there are bad spirits around...etc.
          No of course not. I hope you get my point.
          Science is one thing and this can be trusted. If a scientist says something and proves it then it is true, unless someone else disproves it with theories and practice.
          Politics is something else. Your article is about politics and opinions. It's not about science.

          1. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            It's from a late night comedy show, meant to be funny.....so never mind!

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              You try to back up an argument. Saying that you can't trust science with a comedy show!!! Doesn't work I'm afraid.

              1. abwilliams profile image68
                abwilliamsposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Not at all, I just had a momentary lapse in judgement, forgetting that having a sense of humor has been left behind with the dinosaurs.....along with common sense.
                We'll just agree to disagree, once again, how's that!

                1. peterstreep profile image80
                  peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  No I think we have to make a distinction.

                  We can trust science. But we can not trust mankind.

                  Can you agree on that one?


                  Or as Oppenheimer said: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

      2. Ken Burgess profile image87
        Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Elon Musk is by far doing more to help humanity than all the other billionaires and corporations combined.

        Most people have no clue just how many things he is pushing forward, a great many advancements we will see in technology related fields will be because of his efforts in the coming decade(s).

        The issue I have with both your points on NATO and Science is that they are both easily influenced and corruptable.

        You can't trust research on air pollution when it is funded by Exxon/Mobil for example, or when the tobacco companies funded all sorts of research into the safety of smoking cigarettes.

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          In a way, everything is corruptable as it gets more influence. That's difficult to avoid. I trust research by NASA more than from Shell for instance. So I guess there is a gradation of trust.
          But I think we should not point the finger at science itself that easily, but to the policymakers.

          Science can be used in many ways. You can make a nuclear bomb or nuclear energy... (not the same process I know, but based upon the same knowledge and understanding of the connection between energy and matter.)

          Climate Change is a tough one as there are so many interconnected problems and you have to coordinate it on a worldwide scale. So you have to make a lot of agreements...which takes years...
          I don't know what's the best approach to be honest.

          Sometimes I'm suspicious about the anti-science attitude. Using this to show that climate change is a hoax and only a political way for getting money...etc.
          I think this attitude is dangerous. The hostility against scientists, intellectuals, and art is a sign of a degradation of democratic values and freedom of speech.
          That's why I prefer to defend science.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image87
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            That is understandable.

            Politicians are not trustworthy.  Science funded by those with questionable motives is suspect.

            It is why when someone comes along like Musk, I do what little I can to support his efforts, his goals and motivations are far clearer to discern than the agendas of a political party trying to push a Green New Deal on the Nation.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
              Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              The Green New Deal. Yeah, right.  Like politicians really care about true green-ness for the earth.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image87
                Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Its stated goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuels in a decade and greatly reducing carbon emissions while phasing out the largest source of non-carbon energy we currently have, nuclear power.

                That would be awesome, except for a couple of things not considered, for instance...

                The economic fact that if the United States were to eliminate its reliance on fossil fuels, this would drive the price of oil down, thereby allowing developing countries to use more of it in their drive to modernize.

                Exactly what is going to replace Oil, Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear Power?

                The Green New Deal really didn't have the answer for that.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Ken, isn´t the main eliminator for fossile fuels to use less?
                  With this context, the US has a lot do acomplish if they even want to catch up to the rest of the world.

                  The USA is by far (almost double compared to Europe and China) the most generous user of energy (in terms of energy use per GDP). With the energy mix (fossiles, nuclear, renewable) that also almost applies to CO2 emission per GDP.

                  So why not start with getting more energy efficient? This includes all areas of energy use, from industry to household. And it should be easy prey, Europe and to some extent China are ahead and give examples of how to do.

                  There will be a lot more renewables needed. But one first step is to bypass the thermodynamic efficiency (of combustion engines and convential and nuclear power plants) by directly fetching and supplying electricity with renewables. Will cut primary energy demand by factor 2 to 3. Actually this is what hydroelectric systems do for almost a century already (Hoover dam!!).

                  Only - if there is more of drought in the US, then more of the hydroelectric (green) energy source will simply dry out. Better look for alternatives and do it fast.

                  Exxon, Russia, Saudi Arabia .. won´t like it, but yes - demand for fossiles will eventually drop, but not to the extent that developing countries get a free ride. These countries are still developing, because they didn´t take their opportunity when fossiles were cheap. Why now or in the near future?

                2. crankalicious profile image92
                  crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Eliminating fossil fuels is just not realistic, but it would be nice if the Green New Deal at least produced a discussion about changes to our society that would reduce pollution and greenhouse gases.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image87
                    Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    I believe the focus on fossil emissions has a lot more to do with politics and the ability to tax corporations and nations than it does addressing the problem.

                    The good ol' Carbon Tax.

                    If there were an honest concern over saving the planet and averting climate change, we would be ending the record breaking clear-cutting of rainforests in Brazil and various nations in Africa. 

                    We would be turning grazing lands here in the states back into forested areas... I have to give much credit to China, they have worked to turn a vast desert into a forest, if our government put in half that effort to reclaim areas of now depleted farmland and grazeland, who knows how much that would help mitigate what we see transpiring in the West today.

        2. crankalicious profile image92
          crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Ken,

          I presume you take the drought seriously? Do you believe it's due to man-made climate change or something else. If it's not climate change, why should we worry? Maybe just wait for things to cool off?

          1. Ken Burgess profile image87
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            The evidence of man's impact on planet earth is now undeniable.

            https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-l … #gs.3xfuxf

            https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMI … ed-in-2020

            https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/originals/t … ed/videos/

            Fascinating stuff, ultimately Humans are having a major impact, but there are cyclical forces in play as well, and I am not sure how much we can mitigate them...

            So long as we allow other countries to do things like this:

            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55130304

            https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/ … -palm-oil/

            It doesn't matter what we do here, as one article says, the lungs of the earth are being destroyed at such a rapid pace, there is no hope for the future of humanity if it is allowed to continue.

            We could stop all transportation globally, cars, planes, ships, etc.  it matters not one bit, if the rainforests in Africa and Brazil are destroyed.

            The earth, life, may survive, but we won't.

      3. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Do you think that vast numbers of people don't trust science, or that they don't trust scientists to be honest?  Recognizing that people often believe whatever they want to, it still seems likely that the greater distrust is of scientists with an axe to grind (or a salary to maintain) rather than facts.

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I worry about the tendency of anti-intellectualism. People dismaying the truth, coming with alternative truths... People becoming famous by proving that the world is flat. People stating that universities are no good as they are full of communist ideas etc.
          I think that's a dangerous route to follow.
          Alternative scientists stating that there is no climate crisis given more airtime because the channel broadcasting is political aligned with the fossil fuel industry.
          And here we have the problem.
          We have to distinguish science from politics and social media.
          But yes, science is often connected with lots of money. Especially in the pharma industry. Still, I think the science is ok. If the science is wrong it will be disputed by other scientists.
          But yes, money, power and politics are the culprits.
          Is the COVID patented for example? I think it shouldn't be, so poorer countries are able to make it themselves instead of relying on the rich countries. That's where ethics kicks in for example.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I hope you don't mind if I pop in Peterstreep. As Chris57 would say, just to add my 2 cents.

            Combining Wilderness' point with one of my own, I think a different terminology would add to the direction of this issue's, (not believing in science), discussion.

            You say you ". . . worry about the tendency of anti-intellectualism." I think the better description would be `anti-elitism'.

            My life experience has been that most folks like smart folks, but they don't like smart folks that think they are better because they are smarter.

            Of course, there may be some aspects of "intellectualism" whose behavior might not sit well with less-smart folks, but almost every aspect of elitism is not liked by the `non-elites/

            I think the difference changes the starting point. Instead of the context of anti-science and anti-intellectualism we now have a starting point of anti-behavior; whether it be snobbish elitism or the corruption of science, (Wilderness' examples).

            I have to add that I certainly do think there are some idiots that fit the context of your thought, but I would argue that they are the fringe of the group being labeled anti-science, I don't think they are the norm.

            I agree that this is an issue in our public mind right now, but we won't be able to address it correctly until we understand it correctly.

            GA

    2. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      The multimedia is all set up to push this environment issues too.
      A swing from Trumps extreme lack of environmental issues. To BIDEN

      I've said all along this is coming ten years ago. That's why my tiny houses and FOOD farming

    3. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      The drought in the western US suggests that associated climate change is real. A difficult topic to talk about, because it holds the political explosive of climate change being man made (or not). Imho the situation is clear: Climate change is real i don´t care if man made or not, it is obvious that our behavior can make a difference.

      Some anecdote: I was in China on business in 2014. At that time this Asian Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) was held in Beijing. I stopped over in Beijing and saw a miracle: Blue sky. Chinese government had shut down local factories for the period of the conference and clear blue sky reemerged, called APEC blue. Man can make a difference.

      However i expected another (more political) topic to pop up. The word lockdown is linked to the pandemic. With this pandemic lockdown governments anywhere on our planet were able to test how much personal freedom, human rights could be compromised without counterreaction of the populus.

      What a blueprint for anything related to climate change. When do people start an uprising because they can´t water their precious lawn?

      1. Ken Burgess profile image87
        Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Related to that, you should watch

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28

        I think you would find it interesting.

  2. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 12 months ago

    Probably, because we've gone MAD!!!

  3. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 12 months ago

    The U.S. Drought Monitor, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, the Journal of Science and on and on.....all nestled under the massive Climate Crisis Umbrella, we all know that umbrella has gone by many, many names over the decades, I remember tales of 'Global Freezing', 'The Coming Ice Age' when I was in high school in the mid-late 70's.
    Not too long after that, the bogus {yet massively popular} magazine cover of the poor, pitiful polar bear, with no ice to frolic on. Since the initial talk of global freezing (unless you go back to the 1800's when it was global warming) the doom and gloom crowd have blamed everything from fire to floods...

    It really is a shame that {since the 70's} so many people have lived their lives (some like young Greta Thunberg, their ENTIRE life )in fear over something they have absolutely no control over, because mere mortals have God-complexes, thinking they do...thinking everyone, but them, is causing it. For me, the worst part of all of this; children have been made to feel guilty for living, shamed for their mere existence which leaves a deadly carbon footprint behind. NOW, add to that... CRT, have them made to feel guilty, ashamed, inadequate, inferior....because of the skin they are born in!
    In the meantime (though kids have it the worst) we are all made to suffer for it, so yeah, the myth is probably what will do us in, in the end, nothing surprises me any longer in this world gone mad.

    1. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Do you want to know what I really think....wink

      1. Castlepaloma profile image74
        Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I don't bother much any more on telling people what I really think.
        Only to the ones who are awake and doing something about it and by working and sharing.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I can certainly understand that viewpoint.

      I can also understand the distrust in certain reporting agencies.

      However, it is clear the West is suffering from drought and has been for years.

      The videos of dry lakebeds and failed farms are not so easy to falsify.

      Human Civilizations have suffered these catastrophes before, self inflicted as much as environmental and out of their control.

      The Mayan Civilization is a great example of this, they created a large and successful civilization, with huge cities and trade across the continents, but then they deforested the entire region of Central America, suffered drought on top of that and could no longer support their society.

      It collapsed and long before the Spanish arrived the cities were reclaimed by the jungles and civilization was a shadow of itself.

      You can see this here in this video, go to 40:30 for specifics.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9YwfTerAdA

      We may be doing the same on a global scale to ourselves, certainly seems like we are destroying the West Coast.

      1. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        The West, in particular, California, succumbed to Environmentalists, who wanted all trees and all vegetation and all {dangerous brush which starts forest fires} protected. Maybe they should get back to lumbering and reforesting, all while clearing out moisture-robbing, water-stealing vegetation, brush, tree stumps, undergrowth etc.....as they go!
        Of course we know, that will never happen.

    3. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      AMEN

  4. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 12 months ago
    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
      Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months ago

      "Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, de-industrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’)

      https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres … s109ih.pdf

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
      Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months ago

      Biden is proposing a climate plan, called "A Clean Energy Revolution,"  It has many of the same aims as the Green New Deal, but is less ambitious. The end date more distant and the cost is less expensive. While the Green New Deal proposes to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and utilize renewable energy sources by 2030, "A Clean Energy Revolution" targets 2050. The Green New Deal could cost up to nintety three trillion dollars. Biden's plan proposes investment by the Fed up to around a trillion dollars; investment from the private sector, state, and local buy-in, around five trillion dollars.

      ninety trillion vs 6 trillion.
      No trillion sound even better

      1. CHRIS57 profile image61
        CHRIS57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        The 93 trillion number came from a biased interest lobby group. I wouldn´t trust too much.

        But i had a look at the current energy mix for primary energy
        https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

        Doing a little interpretation of the figures i would assume that the total primary energy consumption of the US would be cut in half after making everything renewable (production and consumption). This would save some 1 Trillion per year. For a realistic 10 Trillion bill not too bad to get packpack within 10 years, and that is not even accounting for the climate stabilization (less storms, no droughts,...).

        Imho the GND or whatewer you call it will even have its commercial legitimacy if the price tag were 20 Trillion, just saying.

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
      Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months ago

      However, articles like this one are very convincing
      https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u … on-dioxide

      1. Ken Burgess profile image87
        Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        For certain, something should be done, that is why the initial post of this thread was why lock down's are possible in the near future.

        So long as we have a Dem controlled government, it will be probable.

        1. crankalicious profile image92
          crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          We already have rolling black and brown-outs.

          I can't tell by the above comment if you're advocating for government action or against it. It sounds like you assume Dems would advocate for a climate lockdown. Not sure how that would work. What should we advocate? Carbon tax? More penalties for companies that do damage?

          1. Ken Burgess profile image87
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            If we had a Congress that was truly serving the people what we would have is federal tax breaks for people who put in Solar Power systems with back-up battery storage, that covers 75% or more of the costs, making payments for the system deductable.

            We do not have that because the Power Companies & Oil Companies make sure no such incentives pass... they do not want people to be able to generate their own power, or lock in costs for 10-20 years.

            If Congress were really concerned about the Environment & Air pollution, they would be paying Farmers to re-forest unused and fallow lands, they would fund programs that plant forests in regions that were once forested but have been harvested and now lay bare.

            https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45688.pdf

            https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … ics-477620

            The focus on TAXING Carbon emissions/footprints...
            The focus on LOCKDOWNS and RESTRICTIONS on travel...
            These are control mechanisms, theft, and political power grabs...

            We agree there are major environmental issues to be concerned about.

            You make positive change by stopping nations from clearcutting rainforests; by incentivizing regular people to convert to Solar, to convert to EVs, Bike Riding; by funding reforestation efforts and renewable energy efforts NOT Biomass related.

            Lets see where the focus is in their efforts to solve the problem.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)