![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
Yeah, you can’t use austerity as evidence of economic problems when austerity is NP policy. Self-fulfilling prophesy.
And the only real reason for austerity is to make the rich richer and drive inequality even higher.
Yeah, you can’t use austerity as evidence of economic problems when austerity is NP policy. Self-fulfilling prophesy.
And the only real reason for austerity is to make the rich richer and drive inequality even higher.
Our country is less than 200 years old
Presence of Europeans in your country is less than 200 years old.
Almost as if certain governments and malefactors of great wealth were coordinating in promoting it.
That’s not the only way it might go.
Except that he’s the one who packed the court, he’ll do it more if elected, and they’ll be his dutiful toadies.
This is likely to become an issue with climate modeling as well, as interested parties attempt to poison the discourse with fake analysis and phony effects models. Perhaps, with the banks, the Fed should require the use of open, peer-reviewed models and reject the use of any closed-source model.
Millennials, if there’s anything an old guy can do to help…?
One of the low-hanging fruit in combating climate change is to shut down all the golf courses.
There is no one universally right way to do activism.
There are, however, many ways that are demonstrably wrong.
If you’re acting in a way that gives rise to credible speculation that you’re secretly funded by Big Oil, maybe it’s worth considering the possibility that you’re a counterproductive cosplaying fool.
We need a diversity of tactics.
Running unarmed at a machine-gun nest is a tactic. But a diversity of tactics is only a good thing when those tactics actually work.
They could also read The Monkey Wrench Gang and start taking direct action against the real perpetrators and their assets rather than random soft targets.
That’s the joy of nonlinearities. Every new threshold opens up a qualitatively new world of suckage.
Markets don’t wait for official announcements. They tend to react to facts, unlike politicians, since their money’s at risk.
Yead, I agree. I’d rather take a half-step forward than two steps back. A full step would be nicer yet, but we can’t let the best be the enemy of the almost good enough.
I’m an engineer, so I don’t agree with the despair, but also believe that what we’ll have is a number of partial and not entirely satisfactory solutions that mitigate the problem but don’t fully solve it. And we’ll adapt because we have to. But it’s foolish to underestimate the intertia of the present way of doing things. It’s going to be a long slog, and the legacy indstries are going to fight and foot-drag until they’re driven out of business.
This is a situation where the conclusion you can draw is based on the metric you choose. If you instead choose GHG per unit GDP, they’re far worse than the US. That’s a measure that’s less diluted by their vast population.
I’m increasingly convinced that Just Stop Oil is paid by the oil companies to discredit pro-environment protest.
Stopping emissions at source and improving energy efficiency should be the top priorities. The laws of thermodynamics and atmospheric physics are strongly unfavorable towards after-the-fact cleanup attempts. Every large-scale engineering project has side-effects, and one of such massive proportions is likely to have proportionately massive side-effects.
Geoengineering has also been used by polluters as an excuse to continue polluting. This isn’t a problem with the proposed solutions, but more with the political use to which those solutions are put.
Spain is also super hot.
Parts of Spain are hot. Coastal areas are mostly mild. Galicia’s climate is nearly British. The hottest bits (such as the Extremadura) are thinly populated. But rather than standing up energy-intensive infrastructure, it’d make more sense to invest in storage, or to export the energy to other countries that don’t get so much sun.
or in worst case run a few bitcoin servers
There is no worst case that bad. We should be putting a forceful halt to squandering of energy on dodgy get-rich-quick schemes.
What’s the basis of the lawsuit, that they’re entitled to continue earning profit by killing us all?
So you don’t need as many buses to achieve the same coverage. Public transport infrastructure costs are not fixed for a certain land area, they are also proportional to potential ridership.