Even in petrostates? But most petrostates are not run by the people or for their people, so petrostates will keep being petrostates until demand for oil in EU/China/India dries up.
I guess it's "I don't want to use fossil fuels but I don't have an alternative. Give me an alternative! Don't have one? Then I'll keep using fossil fuels"
In fairness though not using fossil fuels it's something of a luxury at present. EVs are more expensive that non EVs. Maybe this will change but slowly.
Home solar is very expensive and still doesn't get you self sufficient in most cases. Power companies need to make the grid renewable to make it accessible to the average person for home power.
I find it funny when people associate fossil fuels with cars ONLY.
Almost everything you have on you right now, and in your home, was made using oil.
That's why I asked what I did; I'm all for not using oil and moving to a cleaner approach, but no good solution has been proposed yet, and people that want to do it cold turkey are fools that don't know any better.
Most people are talking about fossil fuels in terms of electricity and transport, which can and should be transitioned to renewable energy and electric vehicles as fast as possible (ideally with some people moving away from cars altogether).
And the poll itself is specifically talking about renewable energy, so it's not like the article is confused on that point.
Yes, manufacturing is a harder problem, especially when it's not just used as an energy source. But the easier problems need to be attacked as quickly as possible to reduce the risk of runaway climate change.
Sunak’s (official)reasoning when he gave the go ahead for more fossil fuel production was that we aren’t losing our dependence on fossil fuels any time soon and it was better for the environment to produce the energy locally rather than importing it.
Are you stupid or what? The line needs to go up, up and up!!!!! Your problem is the fucking line not having the greatest boner your moms bottom will ever see.
Daddy needs to see numbers climb to FeEL aLiVe.
Dont you get wat injustice are done to us?
Only today some hippy weirdos took the spot in the news that i could have used to give an adverview about buy our product.
Trow the scum in jail i tell you. That will teach them to destroy our beautiful heritage. Fossil fueled electric chairs for all of them.
I call shenanigans. We've had bullying when I was a kid in the 70s. Has anything been done about it? No. Why? Because dominance hierarchy is in among our school districts and administrators, and they like sports team lettermen over science nerds. This hadn't changed in the aughts. It's still the same, today. Even when kids come in with proof of violence (e.g. phone camera video) the question is why did you have a phone in school? not can we identify the dude curb-stomping kids three times smaller than him?
We had hungry kids in the 70s. Have we done anything about it? No. We try to set up school lunches, but then the programs get cancelled because socialism bad! So kids are going hungry thanks to ideology.
Are we yet teaching sexual consent (or how about consent in other places like work and TOS?) No. We're teaching abstinence-only education in 26 states with comprehensive sex ed mandated in three (the west coast). We're teaching girls they're like chewing gum, that is, one-use, and a sexual assault destroys their value. And we're teaching boys their sexuality isn't welcome until they can afford to put a ring on it and have a salary in place, driving them to become alt-right war boys for Immorten Joe. ( WITNESS ME! )
So how about dealing with kids who are homeless? In poverty? In the abusive foster-care system? Dealing with DV at home? Not a god damn thing. Kids need food, shelter, basic needs like clothing, playtime, time to bond with their family, time to socialize, stability at home. Until they have these things, any energy we spend not arranging to providing these things is failure of society to serve basic child welfare for the public.
Warning labels on social media will not feed hungry kids, or assure their place to sleep is safe and warm, and we have an outrageous number of kids for whom the latter set are the problem, not dangers of social media. Also warning labels that are not congruent with current scientific consensus only weaken the veracity of tobacco product labels.
ETA: That's not the best link. This search leads to a wider array of stories, and TD is pretty good about including sources within each article.
I don't get why people think this idea is equivalent to stuff like internet access bans or COPPA, it's a warning label, not an "enter your ID" to access page.
They never banned cigarettes, but putting a giant warning on the box did help in vilifying cigarettes as very unhealthy and wrong.
I doubt it'll go anywhere in this age of government, but its exactly the type of thing I would have gone for if I were tasked with solving a societal issue. It's smart because it has no real effect on access, so social media companies would have a harder time fighting it, but it also gives a big bloody warning which does have a substantial psychological impact on users.
iirc someone did something similar with a very simple "are you sure?" app that gave a prompt asking if you were sure you wanted to post something or send a text. Just having a single prompt was enough for many people to reconsider their stupid text or comment.
Probably yeah. The modern world is designed to hurt your mental health. Is that the fault of social media or simply the price of being aware? If I learned that many groups of people are being genocided from reading Wikipedia and that makes me depressed would you say Wikipedia causes mental issues?
That is apples and oranges. Clicking through rabbit holes isn't the result of an aggressive algorithm designed to prime you for products being advertised. The motivation for the content being hosted is the major issue and exploitation of younger people in service of that motivation.
Advertising may be your problem, but I know the government's not taking the "we dont allow kids to be served ads", so then what, they're mad it's the Chinese in the lead? The Kids aren't gonna be better off playing COD and watching action movies both of which are lightly disguised military recruitment propaganda aimed at them. You may be mad about it but based on their actions it's not the fact kids are getting exploited that made the Surgeon General speak out, it's that's kids are getting exploited and someone else is benefiting.
The mental health isn't going to get better even if social media didn't exist in general. People would just find a different outlet to develop maladaptive coping strategies with. Treating the symptoms isn't gonna cure the root issue, but the root issue is expensive so we all know they're not going to touch that.
The advertising was an easy and obvious example. I set you up for a straw man but whatever. If you don't understand the harmful effects social media has on mental health and how it's different from other forms of media/content, I'm not going to hold your hand through that. The sophistication of engagement algorithms should be obvious. The purpose of a surgeons general warning would be to raise awareness of those specific mental health issues that can be aggravated by excessive social media use. Raising the awareness of an issue is step in the right direction. Fine to call it a band aid but there's no need to shit on progress of any type.
“Childrens advocates “ have been backing the most egregiously unconstitutional, paternalistic, data broker friendly, moral panic, privacy dystopia bullshit bills around the country. “Childs advocates” are why we have anti pornography pearl clutching panopticon laws that require you to scan a government ID to jerk off. Fuck off with that.
No, this is old as dirt shits upset that kids exist issue. Sorry Grandpa I won't turn the music down. Now go fuck off to Florida and play bingo until you die
But this is none of that. This is informing people that the evidence says that excessive social media use does harm, because most people genuinely don't understand the risks.
Pretty much the entirety of the Zionist propaganda follows the same ethno-Fascist lines as the Nazis stuff, from the "chosen people" and them claiming to represent a whole ethnicity to their claims that their agressive murderous violence along ethnic lines is "defense" and even calling anybody who criticizes their violence as being against their race, in the case of Zionists by calling the "anti-semites" whilst the Nazis would say that such critics were "against the Arian Race".
Most of what the Zionists say is just Nazi propaganda with "Arian Race" replaced by "Jewish People" and "against the Arian Race" replaced by "anti-semite".
So one kind a member of an ethno-Fascist ideology - a Zionist - directly quoting the leader of another ethno-Fascist ideology such as Hiltler, is not at all surprising.
when i read the title i thought he said something identical or very similar to something Hitler said maybe without knowing... all fascism leads to the same destination after all, you don't need to be deliberate about it. (remember how people said TFG was quoting hitler and he said, and i paraphrase, "i didn't know he said it i just came up with the same conclusion on my own" as if that doesn't make it worse... kinda like that)
but NO! he literally quotes Hitler by attributing the quote to Hitler without a modicum of irony. dude the israeli government has gone do far deep into fascism that they can't even use the thinnest veils as cover.
Coming from a country which had a Fascist dictatorship until the 70s, I've started calling Zionism ethno-Facism, because it's a far more rabidly racist strain than most Fascist dictatorships and unlike almost all of the others which were mainly Nationalist, claims to represent an entire ethnicity and justifies even their used of the most extreme violence as some kind life or death fight for the defense of their ethnicity.
Fascism as seens in places like Spain, Portugal, Greece or even Italy was mainly Nationalist (still authocratic, repressive and violent) and never anywhere as racist or violent as the kind of Fascism that includes claims of racial superiority and representing a whole ethnicity.
Amongst Fascists in Europe it's only the Nazis that claimed, like the Zionists do, that they represented an entire ethnicity, who similarly committed extreme genocidal violence against specific ethnicities whilst claiming it was all in defense of their own ethnicity and who in the same way claimed than critci
sm of their acts was being against that ethnicity.
Any Fascism is bad, but ethno-Fascism adds to it the whole layer of ethnicity and hence is far more cold, calously violent and genocidal when it comes to other ethnicities - think Ku-Klux-Klan crossed with Fascism.
commondreams.org
Hot