Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AT
Posts
7
Comments
181
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • This, I have to pay a small extra fee to my utility but in return they must buy 100% of the energy I use from wind. It's not the most impactful arraignment, but it's a small way I can encourage my utility to invest in wind.

    Some have community solar too that you can "buy" panels and in return the energy they produce is deducted from your bill, minus a fee for them to host and maintain the equipment of course.

  • It's all 'whataboutism' without ever looking inward. I remember when Impossible and Beyond meat started becoming readily available and I read a news article that discussed how healthy they were. Their conclusion that was they were safe and healthy in moderation, but you shouldn't eat them every day....like, yeah, you shouldn't eat a fucking hamburger daily either, what's your point?

    They just have to plant the tiniest seed of doubt for many consumers who will never compare the two and only want a reason to justify their consumption.

  • "The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

    -Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

  • Nuclear powered ships like the US Navy has used safely for decades. Wind/solar powered ships that have test beds in operation now. Global shipping emissions standards so they can't switch to bunker oil the second they hit international waters.

  • You're right, I based the math off a week, not a month. My mistake. You're absolutely right though, witout a much stronger focus on public transit, many people are stuck living far away from work due to housing costs. An EV is better than an ICE. But WFH or integrated quality mass transit systems are far superior. I wish more Americans had that luxury.

  • The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm. That's why the court loosing it's credibility is kind of a big deal for Roberts.

    As racist as this obviously is, it's good to see a red state be the test case for ignoring the court. It might give blue states more energy to ignore the next 40 years of authoritarian and climate denial rulings.

  • Ah, okay. Absolutely valid point. 'Alliance' is not a good choice of words here. Germany's green anti-nuclear party inadvertently jumping into bed with coal and natural gas was not an alliance, just a circumstance.

  • Johnny Harris and Big If True have a great video discussing fear and actual nuclear impacts. The only factor it lacks mentioning is how much land fossil fuels takes up. Each year, fossil fuels infrastructure distroys more land than Chernobyl and fukushima combined.

  • Basing on the US since that is where my MS studies in environment policy were focused. Conservative republicanans poll highest in believing climate change is fake or not caused by human activity

    From the same article, you can see that support for expanding nuclear energy is stronger among liberal republicans and strongest with conservative republicans.

    *Pew research is not a scholarly source on its own, but scores center for media bias making it optimal for readers without academic library access

  • I mean, you picked a great source because that spells out why the administration made that agreement. Oil and gas doesn't want the land. It is not profitable for them to use and they already leased more than they'll ever need.

    What you're talking about is politics. The headline says "OIL FIRST!" And it gives the conservatives something to take home to their voters. They can go say "yea, so Biden got the IRA with climate spending, but we got oil first pick baby!!!"

    Meanwhile, it's nothing of substance and the emission reductions as a whole are far more impsctful. It makes no difference because the land leases aren't going to oil anyway, they don't want it. The article you link has multiple experts saying that....