Better Than Eating Bugs I Guess

 At WUWT, Claim: Wear Old Clothes to Reduce our Climate Impact

Preparing the peasants for our glorious green future.

What to wear for a climate crisis

Published: October 27, 2023 2.47pm AEDT Rachael Wallis
Research Assistant, Youth Community Futures, University of Southern Queensland
…
The fashion industry contributes up to 10% of global emissions – more than international aviation and shipping combined. It also contributes to biodiversity loss, pollution, landfill issues, unsafe work practices and more.

If we are concerned about these issues, responding thoughtfully means we will live our lives according to our values. And that’s an important factor in living well, flourishing and being happy.

Lessons from wartime

It’s not the first time people have adapted their clothing in response to the demands of a crisis.

During the second world war, clothing styles changed in the United Kingdom and Australia. To conserve precious resources, shorter skirts, minimal detailing and a focus on utility became the norm.

This wartime response reflected the priorities and values of society as a whole as well as most people in that society. In other words, buying less (rationing meant this was not just a choice), mending and making do with what was already there was part of a value system that contributed to the Allied victory.
…
If we begin to shift away from our slavish devotion to newness and novelty – following the dictates of fashion – to a mindset of value-led sufficiency, we can appreciate more fully the feel of lived-in, mended or altered clothes. There is a feeling of comfort in pulling on an old garment that is soft with age and repeated washing. There is joy in extending a garment’s life through creative mending, especially when that aligns with our values.

 

…Read more: https://theconversation.com/what-to-wear-for-a-climate-crisis-214478

There is also the feeling of fresh air when putting on a worn out garment, when the fabric tears.

What can I say? If I wanted to live like a bum I’d find myself a cardboard box. I have no problem with other people feeling “virtuous” by wearing worn out rags, if that is their thing, but don’t try to inflict your absurd wearing rags virtue signalling on the rest of us.

Personally, I  wear my clothes until Georgia can't stand them anymore and throws them out. But it shouldn't be a matter of public policy.

The Wombat has Rule Five Sunday: O, Canada up on time and under budget at The Other McCain.

Some Wednesday Wetness

The Wombat has Late Night With Rule 5 Sunday: Sydney Sweeney ready for your Labor Day picnic.

Well, It Does Make a Weird Kind of Sense

T-Nation, New Research: Hot Women Don't Feel Cold?

"Ho's and polar bears are the only animals that don't feel the cold."

Don't forget sled dogs 

Maybe my niece is channeling rapper and empirical scientist Cardi B, who famously said, "A ho never gets cold."

Anyhow, neither my niece nor Cardi B were being disrespectful. Both were merely observing a fact: women who wear less on cold nights don't seem to get as cold. 

Surprisingly, a group of female graduate students from the psychology departments at the University of Florida and Colorado College decided to conduct a study on this phenomenon. What they found was that for many women, looking "hot" means not feeling cold.

The researchers, over the course of five cold February nights, surveyed 224 two-legged "polar bears" in a Southeast U.S. city known for its nightlife. The participants were asked how cold they felt on a six-point scale from "not cold at all" to "extremely cold." Naturally, the participants were also asked how many alcoholic drinks they'd had (a scale from 0 to 8 or more).

They also considered the amount of clothing the polar bears were wearing. Participants were coded based on whether the following body parts were exposed: chest, shoulders, back, legs, midriff, and toes (open-toed shoes). The researchers also noted whether the participants were wearing jeans with large cooling vents in them, aka rips, and whether, of course, they were wearing jackets.

The participants earned either a 1 or a 0, with 1 indicating the body part in question was exposed and a 0 indicating it wasn't. (Each participant received a glow-in-the-dark bracelet for their participation, which is nice.

The skimpy clothing scores were then compared to women's perceptions of coldness while also taking into consideration alcohol consumption.

The naked-er the women were, the less they felt the cold. Here's how the authors of the study explained it:

"...we found that women who are more highly focused on their appearance show no relationship between how little clothing they are wearing and their reported feelings of being cold on a cold night out. These findings suggest that to the extent women self-objectify, they increasingly lose access to their own physical experiences."

What they're saying is simply that women who are highly focused on the way they look become disconnected from their bodies. They're less aware of things like hunger, their heartbeat, and, case in point, whether they're cold or not.

Ain't science grand! 

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: McKenna Grace awaiting your digital pleasure at The Other McCain.

Surely, If Two are Better, Four is Best

I don't think that helps

 Victory Girls, Fauci Says Two Masks, CNBC Says Why Not More?

Remember how President Trump was the worst president ever whenever he contra
dicted Dr. Fauci, and then when Team Biden put out their amazingly huge whopper that they were “starting from scratch” on vaccine distribution and Fauci corrected them, the press scolded the Biden administration for not agreeing with the holy Fauci? Yeah, that didn’t happen.

Well, now Fauci is out with yet another brilliant solution to defeat COVID-19. The man who once said “don’t wear masks” because he was lying in order to make sure there were enough masks for front-line workers, is now saying that wearing TWO masks might be the most bestest idea EVAR.

Oh. Really.

And then CNBC took the inevitable next step. If TWO masks are better than one, then why not THREE?

Here's the full CNBC report from former Fox News host Shep Smith and former CBS/MSNBC/NBC correspondent and host Contessa Brewer about the greatness of not just double-masking, but triple-masking.

h/t: @Justin_Hart pic.twitter.com/DgOhHuzUS5

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 27, 2021

The Wombat has Rule Five Sunday: Jane Russell up and at 'em at The Other McCain. 

More examples of mask abuse:

Another Day Ending in "Y"

 How about Yoga pants?

The Wombat has a double stuffed Late Night Double Scoop Rule Five Sunday: Babes In Choppers up at The Other McCain.

Not Your Mother's Latex Paint

Taking it off, NSFW

It's not often I get my morning inspiration from the Volokh Conspiracy, but, via the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 08.24.20, Is Solidified Pour-On Liquid Latex "Clothing"? "A Texas agency could concluded that it is not, says the Texas Court of Appeals."

From Hegar v. Texas BLC, Inc., decided Tuesday (written by Justice Peter Kelly and joined by Justices Hightower and Countiss):

Texas BLC, Inc. is an association of "bikini/latex clubs"—businesses that authorize consumption of alcohol on their premises but deny that their entertainers are topless because they cover themselves with opaque latex applied in a liquid or semi-liquid state.
The Comptroller of Public Accounts adopted a rule that set forth its interpretation of "clothing" for the purpose of determining which businesses are sexually oriented and subject to the statutory fee. Under this rule, Texas BLC's members' businesses would be considered sexually oriented businesses and liable to pay the fee. Texas BLC sought a declaratory judgment under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") to declare the Comptroller's rule invalid. It argued that the rule does not comport with and imposes burdens in excess of the sexually oriented business fee statute. The trial court held that the rule was invalid, and the Comptroller appealed, challenging that ruling in a single issue….

We reverse the trial court's declaratory judgment and render judgment that the Comptroller's rule is valid under the [Administrative Procedure Act]….
The facts in this case are not in dispute. The parties agree that the entertainers in Texas BLC's member businesses wear "opaque latex cover-up that covers" their "breasts below the top of the areola (and the dancers' buttocks to the extent not completely covered up by the bikini bathing suit bottoms)." …
An "agency's interpretation of a statute is entitled to 'serious consideration.'" But we defer to the agency's construction of a statute "only when the statutory language is ambiguous." If the statute is unambiguous, agency deference "has no place." …

The [Sexually Oriented Business Fee] statute defines "nude" as "(A) entirely unclothed" or "(B) clothed in a manner that leaves uncovered or visible through less than fully opaque clothing any portion of the breasts below the top of the areola of the breasts, if the person is female, or any portion of the genitals or buttocks." Neither party argues that the statute is ambiguous. We likewise do not find that the statutory language yields "more than one reasonable interpretation."
Instead the parties dispute the meaning of the undefined terms "unclothed," "clothed," "uncovered," and "clothing," to which we accord their ordinary meanings. "Clothe" means "to cover with or as if with cloth or clothing: dress" or "to provide with clothes." "Clothing" means "garments in general; also: COVERING." "Uncovered" means "not covered" or "not supplied with a covering." "Covering" is defined as "something that covers or conceals."

Although the dictionary definition of clothing includes the word "covering," our interpretation of the SOBF statute must take into consideration the context in which the words are used and must not render any word meaningless. The statute requires specified body parts to be covered by "fully opaque clothing" for the business to escape payment of the SOB fee. Construing "clothing" to mean any "covering" would ignore the Legislature's semantic choice, which we must presume is intentional….
Our task in this appeal, however, is not to formulate a precise definition of clothing but to determine whether the Comptroller's rule contravenes the statute. The challenged SOBF Rule defined "clothing" as a "garment used to cover the body, or a part of the body, typically consisting of cloth or a cloth-like material." This is consistent with the SOBF statute. The second sentence states the Comptroller's interpretation of what is not clothing: "Paint, latex, wax, gel, foam, film, coatings, and other substances applied to the body in a liquid or semi-liquid state are not clothing." This is also consistent with the SOBF statute, which requires entertainers to be covered by clothing, such as a tangible garment or an item designed and used to cover the body and commonly regarded as an article of dress….

Texas BLC argues that the SOBF statute is about the visibility of certain body parts and that the test for whether a business is subject to the SOB fee is "whether certain body areas are sufficiently covered." But that formulation of the test ignores the statute's requirement that the entertainer be covered by clothing….
Texas BLC … argues that liquid latex is more modest than clothing, which can be pulled or brushed aside. It therefore contends that liquid latex use better effectuates the purpose of the SOBF Rule. Our task, however, is to construe the language in the statute. That language does not concern whether the covering is modest or demure, rather it requires that the entertainers be covered by clothing. {Moreover, although the entertainers' bodies may be covered by latex, liquid latex can be used to cover an entertainer's body in a manner that simulates nudity, which would not necessarily further the objective of the SOBF statute.}

 and one for the ladies...

The Wombat has Early Morning Rule 5 Monday: Linda Ronstadt up at The Other McCain.

Masked for Monday

No Joke: Two Unmasked Women Walk Into a Store; Manager Locks Them in & Calls the Cops

Hat Tip to Ace's Sunday Overnight Open Thread (8/16/20). The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Kim Klacik up on time and under budget at The Other McCain.

Another Day Ending in "Y"

So, how about Yoga Pants?

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Marina Watanabe out on time and under budget.

Palm Sunday

Memorial weekend edition:

Linked at Pirate's Cove in the weekly Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup and linkfest. The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Carol Alt out on time and within budget.

Wet Wednesday

The Wombat has Rule 5 Monday: Hayley Atwell out on time.

Safe At Last!

At least if you live or travel to Anne Arundel County: Anne Arundel County foam food container ban takes effect

The law was passed after concerns came up about plastic foam impacting the local environment.

"Well, they say a lot of the recyclable stuff they got now, they're not recycling. It's just piling up. So I guess that's just more stuff piling up. Every time you look around that's all you see," said Robert Wilson, a resident.

The ban includes single-use food-product containers like cups, plates, bowls or other products used for selling or serving food.

"It almost brings a tear to my eye because I really enjoy fishing when I get an opportunity to get out and do it," said Edward Mason, a resident.

I can't honestly say a foamed food or beverage container has ever detracted from my fishing experience.

Many people said the law is the right move to make in order to protect the environment, especially the Chesapeake Bay.

"I'm a fisherman of some type, and I've noticed how things have changed in the bay area over the years that I've been there, so I think it would be a good thing as far as the quality of the bay," Mason said.

The move comes after Annapolis put into effect a similar ban in September 2019. The new law in the county does not ban food or drinks placed in plastic foam containers outside of the county, but if restaurants in Anne Arundel County get caught using plastic foam containers, they could face fines ranging from $50 to $500.

I spend a lot of time walking the beach, and I rarely notice or encounter a foam container.

Stream Restoration: But Beavers are Free!

A shaved Beaver coat

Besides, you can eat them, and get nice furs for fur coats, and top hats if you want. WaPoo, Polluted, damaged streams in Chesapeake region at center of debate over cleanup

. . .Since 2010, when the Obama administration enacted federal water quality requirements for the bay, 142 miles of streams have been repaired in its watershed, with about half of that work occurring in the District, Virginia and Maryland, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

A billion-dollar industry has emerged as local governments work to stay below EPA limits for urban runoff that allow them to qualify for storm water permits and that help determine federal funding to states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

But environmental scientists say it is unclear whether the high-cost projects are worth the investment. The work typically uses heavy machinery to clear old trees and plant new ones around re-engineered streams that contain boulders, wood and vegetation meant to absorb harmful pollutants.

In some cases, such projects may be hurting surrounding wildlife unnecessarily, some experts say.

“You modify the system so much that you risk transforming a stream ecosystem into something else. And the question becomes: Is that good?” said Solange Filoso, an aquatic biologist at the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science who advocates for smarter stream restoration designs and a greater focus on the sources of urban runoff.

“These restorations are not so reliable that they justify changing a stream ecosystem so dramatically for a result that is not 100 percent guaranteed,” Filoso said. “I think that we may be losing a lot more than we’re gaining.”

Most stream restorations are geared toward state and federal mandates for reducing the amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments — byproducts of urban runoff — draining into the bay every year.

Filoso said there has been a tendency for projects to be done near the bottom of watersheds, based on the assumption that they will filter out greater quantities of pollutants, allowing local agencies to claim they are closer to meeting those mandates.

Some of the “wetland complexes” created by the restorations appear to be successful at absorbing nitrogen, she said, but are not as effective at keeping phosphorus and small particulates of solid waste from entering the bay.

“They’re trying to create little filters at the end that can solve all the problems in the watershed,” Filoso said. “It’s not happening.”

Thomas Jordan, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, said a fair amount of guesswork is involved in the effort. He cited a $1 million project on his center’s property in Anne Arundel County that initially caused the water to turn a rusty color — because of iron leaching out of rehydrated soil — and, later, appeared to be no more effective at removing pollutants than a beaver dam farther downstream.

“And the beavers do that free,” he said.

Jordan said growing urgency about the bay has allowed projects to go forward without conclusive evidence as to the best approach.

“They’re going to try some stuff, where it looks like it might work,” he said. “The rationale is: ‘We need to do something now.’ ”

For what it's worth, Tom is a former coworker, and still a friend (he plays harmonica in the band at my old work). I heard he got pretty significant push back on this article.

Indeed, beavers do a pretty good job on stream restoration, and the native state of streams in most of the country before colonization and the beaver felt top hat craze was a series of beaver ponds, but they make lousy neighbors. They really don't care if the pond they make floods your street or yard. And once a group gets started in an area, they progressively cut down and eat all the edible (and they have a generous idea of edible) woody vegetation starting near their den, and eventually reaching out about as far as they feel comfortable walking, about a 1/4 mile in all directions, before they move to an area with closer food.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Monday: A Fine Pair up on time and under budget.

Another Wet Shirt Wednesday

On the mend, the Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Ayako Kawasumi out by its nominal due date.

Just Another Wet Shirt Wednesday

With Nina Agdal in the pole position:

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Bonnie Bedelia up and running on time and within budget.

Another Wet Shirt Wednesday

Celebrity edition, depending on your definition of celebrity:

Anais Zanotti

Another Wet Shirt Wednesday

Lauren Summer - "Brand Executive"

The Wombat is back in business, with Rule Five Sunday: Black Widow.