Deme

Sure, but as if the politicians in charge could think that far ahead :D

Israel needs that insecurity. They need enemies to unite against so that the country doesn’t fracture along the liberal/orthodox divide.

From the article:

In the last major heatwave in the region, in 2018, 750 people died early in Sweden alone, and scientists anticipate a similar toll once the data is processed.

Adhering to the treaty would result in there only being half as much anti-personel mines for civilians to step onto after the war, so it would still be doing something very positive. That being said, I do understand the reasons for withdrawing from the treaty. I miss the optimistic world where the treaty was drafted up, when it briefly seemed that most issues could be solved with multilateral international cooperation :(

The lander most probably made it down in one piece. It was designed to survive an atmospheric entry on Venus and from interplanetary speeds. It almost certainly survived a reentry into Earth from a low orbit. That being said, it probably shattered in the splashdown due to the parachute not deploying.

The war is bound to happen at the latest when the Himalayan mountain glaciers melt away and a sufficiently bad drought hits the region. We’ll see if they have the patience to wait that long though…

I think someone is just utterly clueless about how any of this works, and decided to wipe the slate clean and try again.

Trump is probably too old to survive a proper sauna. I hope he goes into one.

For the sake of clarity I will say that I was referring to the hegemonic position the US has within NATO. This is the result of them simply being a trusted ally with the largest military on the planet. The latter isn’t about to change soon and the former would require very little effor, but the Trump adminstration seems to be doing it’s best to demolish the trust between the US and its allies. (Soft power protip #1: Don’t threaten your allies with invasion!)

No I do not believe that. I was talking about NATO troops in Russia, which could in theory also happen through a coup and a new government more alligned with the west. Even then I find it hard to believe that there would be “NATO troops on the Amur” as you put it.

Greenland and Canada aren’t about countering a Russian military threat. Both are NATO members with US bases in them. The Russian threat to the US was much larger during the cold war and yet the US didn’t annex them back then. This is about force projection in the arctic. Control of both the NW passage and the Panama canal would increase US leverage on the world stage, including on their so-called allies. Local resources are most likely of interst as well. Even then, I suspect that a large portion is just rhetoric to stoke up visions of grandeur and might among his supporters, since that would track pretty closely with how fascist regiemes have operated in the past.

I admit that “current de facto US ally #1” might be a bit strongly put, but it’s not like the bar would be too high at this point. They do get along well enough. Putin isn’t dumb enough to antagonize the US president who is more useful than any of his predesecors in a long time.

A NATO occupation of Russia, be that through overt means or a friendly coup, would still be incredibly expensive and thus politically unpopular across the board. Also Trump is all about pretending to be the peacemaker when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, so this would never go forward barring a major restructuring of NATO where the US is booted out or at least knocked down a peg from their current hegemonic position. Both seem unlikely to say the least.

The way I see it, China is just trying to position itself as a force for reason and making the most out of recent US shortcomings in soft power projection by exercising its own to fill that vacum.

Why would they wish to stabilize the current de facto US ally #1?

I think they should have a duel and the loser has to resign

Carbon capture is needed in the long term, so it’s good that technologies for it are already being developed. Ending emissions isn’t enough, we need to also remove the GHG’s that are already up in the air. But that comes later. The most pressing thing currently is to remove emissions, or to stop shitting on the floor, as Adam put it.

Even then, I am sceptical about the scalability of DAC solutions. Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR) seems more scalable, like building huge platforms for seaweeds to grow on, and then sinking them and their stored carbon into the depths of the ocean.

Obligatory Adam Something video on these things.

It would be more effective to just move location agnostic, power consuming stuff like data centres to Iceland to run on the green energy instead of sucking up power from grids with fossil fuels in them.

A good video by Adam Something on the subject.

Yeah they’re public info, ironically exactly to prevent “accidents” like this.

The ingress displays perfectly how pathetic Orpo is. “Yeah uhh racism is like, bad and stuff, but I can’t make them angry or my government with a lot of racists in it would collapse and that would be bad for the stockholders!”

I’m not sure how you managed to misunderstand, but by disruptions I was referring to precisely the kind of disruptions of the lives of ordinary people that - and I’m sure we can at least agree on this - they have quite successfully caused.

Our two parallel discussions are about the methods of protesting against the use of fossil fuels. Our discussions here exists because of JSO. It got you thinking about what should be done to get rid of the use of fossil fuels, even if this was just for the purposes of making counterarguments.

You do realize that you replied to a comment just now that raised the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, and the effect those have on the price and thus consumption of oil? Just ending those subsidies would already have a dramatic effect.

It’s true that the discussion is currently centered on freedom of speech, most notably because of the most recent developments, but the issue that is being protested is constantly present in the background. I’m betting that after the criminalization of protests stops being news, that issue gets back into the limelight.

Direct action against fossil fuel infrastructure would be less in the public due to a less central location. Sitting on a street works because it’s a nuisance to many, thus generating a lot of interest among the press and that way the message gets amplified. Gaining publicity via industrial sabotage would be difficult unless they did somehting very drastic, which would only turn them from a mere “nuicanse” into actual villains in the press. Especially so if some such drastic measure leads to the unintended death or injury of a worker at a refinery etc. This would also turn the fossil fuel companies from crooks into victims and I’m betting that they’d also try to frame it as sabotage hurting the blue collar workers they employ. All this while affecting the actual price of oil in a miniscule way at most and alienating the majority of their members who don’t accept these acts. Nonviolence is held in high regard.