The Arizona Senate has passed a bill intended to address “anti-God, pro-Marxist ideology” by banning the use of public funds to combat climate change. The bill would also allow Arizona residents to sue any town, city, institution, or public university they believe has violated the provisions of the bill, even if they are not affiliated with it.
Apparently anything they do not like is anti-God and pro-Marxist. Not sure how being green is anti-God since it means you are being the keeper of the domain left to us. Not sure how preventing companies from getting a free ride by not allowing them to pollute everyone else’s air is pro-Marxist.
As we all know, the Catholic Church is a famously anti-God institution, what with all their talk about combating climate change and not destroying the planet God left for us./s
Well just like usual, republicans sat in their daily “how can we make the US a worse place to live in” meeting and came up with this shithole of an idea.
It’s brain damage. Lead, lack of oxygen, microplastics, what have you. Mix that with fear, anxiety, narcissism, etc and you have the perfect right-wing voter. A “do as your told” voter.
It’s not brain damage. That’s another form of the perennial “it’ll be fine once the oldies are dead” fantasy. It’s just regular not-too-smartness plus selfishness and the fear and personality issues you identify. If nothing changes there will be plenty of people like this in the lead-free generations too.
Most of the water-born microplastics are tire dust. Byproducts of car-dependent modern life.
And, as someone else in the thread quoted, another requirement of the law is a full ban of any policies designed to increase walkability or access to transit, which would be the way to fight back against those microplastics.
The most important rule for conservatives: they do not want to turn over a better world to their children. They want their children to suffer in all the same ways they did. They believe progress is inherently bad and must be resisted. And I mean, of course they do... that's the definition of "conservative".
And I mean, of course they do... that's the definition of "conservative"
That was the definition a long time ago. Nowadays it's not about resisting progress or conserving anything. They actually fight hard now for progression... into the wrong direction.
the amount of industrial sabotage you can do with a drone is astounding, but nobody is willing to do it because it’s illegal and they’d get in trouble.
Well, just a reminder:
It was illegal to harbor escaped slaves and render aid to them in the early 19th century united states, and people got in trouble.
It was illegal to harbor persons of Semitic descent and render aid to them in 1930s germany, and people got in trouble.
What is legal does not define what is morally right.
This might appall some people, but someday I’m going to gain access to a drone, and subsequently the insurance premiums on various Amazon and Walmart properties would be about to experience a drastic rate hike…
What he is doing is not illegal. He just makes coal more expensive, by helping enforce enviromental legislation, by documenting violations with his drone. Given the current economic enviroment, in which coal is more expensive then natural gas and much more expensive the renewables, that is a good strategy.
This might appall some people, but someday I’m going to gain access to a drone, and subsequently the insurance premiums on various Amazon and Walmart properties would be about to experience a drastic rate hike…
The hell? There’s a stark difference between uncovering illegal activities with a camera drone and literal terrorism against retailers you dislike. You should legitimately be put in prison, which you will be, if you were to follow through on your insinuated threats.
I don’t even need to check your comment history to conclude you’d be some sort of radical leftie.
It’s obvious when your response to me critizing literal threats of a drone attack is met with you stalking my profile to post a worthless personal attack. This is about as stupid as it sounds.
You see a lot, Doctor. But can you point that high-powered perception at yourself?
The only one whose mind went to terrorism is the righty, go figure; watching "your neighbors bad" porn all day on every news outlet, and regurgitating it all over social media sites has deluded your poor little mind.
Funny, considering you idiots not only started the pointless personal attacks but you also end your comment in some absurd projection.
“Poor little mind”, mhm. Honestly, go fuck yourself, moron. No one needs you or your kind here. This was a civil discussion until you showed up, thinking I’d take abuse from an idiot like you.
If I worked at a warehouse and saw a drone flying around, 100% my first thought would be oh that’s corporate trying to find shrink. And if anyone told me it was actually a journalist trying to find dirt in the company, my next thought would be they’re lying and it’s really corporate trying to find shrink.
Well, if this wasn’t a threat of terrorism, then do enlighten me what the user meant by getting his hands on a drone to bring up insurance premiums for retailers. I understood it to be arson.
I’m guessing since he uses the drone to see violations with the coal mines that he will use the drone to record violations with retailers which could raise the insurance in some way
Ah, well, that would make sense. I guess it was the weird wording starting with the “this might appall some people” that let me to believe they had something more sinister in mind.
There are hundreds of things that could impact their insurance rates. Really anything that could result in a workers comp claim, on film, would make their insurer pause.
Sadly it’s not very unbelievable if you have watched the Republican policy agenda for any amount of time. What is surprising is that any voters still support these criminals despite the obvious and terrifying climate disasters unfolding around us.
We’ve unfortunately entered an era where the Republican agenda is so dangerous that we must do everything in our power to exclude them from every form of government. This will be a difficult task and is very distracting from other important work that needs doing, but we see the consequences of the midterm every day. They already control the courts and if they gain complete control of another branch of government it will be truly disastrous.
WE are scared. The government and the media are beholden to corporate interests that benefit from keeping us docile. It doesn’t help that some of the biggest polluters spend vast amounts on disinformation campaigns in an attempt to deflect blame.
Not “forcing”, no. Nobody has shown up at my home with a gun, and demanded that I buy a new car. It’s “only” strongly encouraged by the consumerism that corporate interests have made sure is prevalent in society.
Corporations could have invested more in fuel efficiency, alternate fuels, and electric vehicles, but haven’t. They could stop lobbying in favor of policies that are against the public interest. The government could take a much tougher stance on this, but it’s too corrupt.
Maybe they haven’t “forced” us. They’ve just gone out of their way to reduce our choices.
I think you can have cultures, cities and places built to encourage non car use. We have a lot more of it here in the UK, especially with public transport. It doesn't seem quite so simple with the sheer distances in a lot of America.
We do need to build lives that are compatible with a healthy environment and life.
I own a Volt. But let’s stop saying that EVs are going to stop global warming. Do they help after years of being on the road? Sure a little. But until China stops burning coal, Saudi Arabia quits drilling for oil, factory dairy farms shut down.
People over paying for a car isn’t doing a damn thing.
Are they fun to drive? Yes. Can you save a few bucks on gas? Yep sort of. (Thanks new registration taxes) But other than that EVs are not saving the world. That’s not even thinking about the mining required to make batteries, or the copper needed for the motors.
We need to hold these super polluters accountable, and stop expecting the little guy to bail us out of the problems they created.
And you don’t see any link between ditching your ICE car and “Saudi Arabia quits drilling for oil”? Better to ditch your ICE car for no car, of course, but if you HAVE to have one, the smallest EV you can get away with is a step towards stopping that oil drilling. If everyone did it, that drilling would change dramatically
More people driving EVs won’t make (oil-based) fuel cheaper. Every person getting off oil makes producing oil-based fuels more expensive, as the economies of scale are reduced.
Go to extremes if that helps picture it: imagine you’re suddenly the only person on Earth driving an ICE car. How much would you be paying for a fill-up, which now involves finding, extracting, shipping and refining fuel just for you: more than today or less than today?
Yeah but nobody retired a marginally profitable fuel refinery that became unprofitable during covid because they knew demand would return soon. The effect isn’t instantaneous, but all the infrastructure has operation and maintenance costs. With fewer overall consumers all the overhead has to go somewhere eventually.
Yeah, but I think you might be waiting longer than you imagine.
There might be a long tail of barely profitable wells with low output, but I suspect the vast majority of current production can sustain a significant reduction in retail price and still be more profitable than simply capping the well.
Every person that switches to an EV increases the demand for electricity and reduces the demand for fuel.
You’re totally right I just want to mention one of their benefit which is the markedly decreased emissions from a smog standpoint! Some cities really struggle with this problem.
But from a climate change perspective you’re right.
That’s not even thinking about the mining required to make batteries, or the copper needed for the motors.
Yeah, but… that stuff isn’t going away. In a couple decades when an EV’s worn out, all the materials will still be there ready for recycling. It’s not like coal and oil where we dig them up and then set them on fire and they’re gone.
While clearly biased and theres some wording and cherrypicking of studies (that isn’t very egregious, to be clear!) that I’d take issue with in a more formal setting, the content of the article thru to point two are really quite an alright summary of the issues and raises some very valid questions the industry has yet to answer.
However it throws itself off the credibility cliff riiiiiight around this point:
In any event, regulators are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features. For example, the NRC has approved rules and procedures in recent years that provide regulatory pathways for exempting new reactors, including SMRs, from many of the protective measures that it requires for operating plants, such as a physical containment structure, an offsite emergency evacuation plan, and an exclusion zone that separates the plant from densely populated areas. It is also considering further changes that could allow SMRs to reduce the numbers of armed security personnel to protect them from terrorist attacks and highly trained operators to run them. Reducing security at SMRs is particularly worrisome, because even the safest reactors could effectively become dangerous radiological weapons if they are sabotaged by skilled attackers. Even passive safety mechanisms could be deliberately disabled.
What in the fearmongering fuck is this? "Oh no, terrorists!" And it’s debunked on the first page of one of its own sources. Regulators have NOT put any pathways in place to “exempt SMRs from many of the protective measures.” If you read the sources, what they have done is put in place guidelines for the evaluation of the current measures, to judge if those measures merit being re-evaluated. Its a path for a path to judge if maybe we should have a path.
And fucking hell, yes of course they would have smaller security contingents, the installations are physically smaller! There’s less to guard! Thats in no small part the point!
Look there are a lot of problems with SMRs and even more questions we just don’t have answers for yet. Those questions need answers before any progress can be made with SMRs. The benefits of lower transmission losses, dedicated power generation for industrial complexes being at all beneficial, or remotely finalized designs for the reactor technology needed here are all MASSIVE outstanding issues that have yet to be solved.
But this shit? "we cant have this source of green energy because terrorists!!!"
Fuck off with that.
There are more than enough issues with SMRs to justify extreme skepticism, hell microsoft wanting a bunch is probably reason enough to abandon the whole concept. We dont need to stoop to disinformation and blatant lies, what the fuck. This is why “nuclear bros” (Which great idea, lets “other” the critics, that’s not a red flag at all…) get so much traction, because they dont stoop to conspiracy theory tropes to support their arguments.
There are plenty of good arguments against SMRs: none of them include terrorism.
The theory was always that you could get economies of scale if you were building the same reactor every time in a factory and transporting it to install somewhere else. In practice those economies never materialized (did they even exist?)
Meanwhile solar, wind, and batteries have plummeted in cost. There is no need for base load power generation if we have sufficient battery storage and an oversupply of generators - which is entirely feasible for wind and solar.
I’m sorry, I think you may not be using ‘baseload’ correctly. We will absolutely always have to meet the requirements for baseload power generation, otherwise we aren’t making enough power and we will have brownouts.
If what you meant was that a grid relying on solar and wind for primary generation and supplemented with battery facilities can make up the deficit at night/on calm days, then while that would be ideal it is extremely unlikely to happen in the next several decades. Battery technology is not anywhere near ready for this solution, and while ESS are making extremely impressive advances, they are such a new technology that it would be intellectually dishonest for me to list their shortcomings here. They are simply too new to know which problems are inherent to the concept, and which are due simply to flawed engineering of a new technology.
For matters of logistics, a few large generating sources linked together are much more desirable than a distributed network. In fact the issue with economies of scale in power generation is one of the arguments against SMRs made by the above linked article’s author. One of the biggest concerns with truly distributed power generation is safety - namely, how can you safely work on a downed line when every single house has the independent capacity to energize the lines? But those large power generating stations run into the same issue that SMRs are in vogue to solve; what do we do about crypto miners besides grinding them all up into dog food, which gets my vote. Their drain, and those of industry and data centers and so on, on local power infrastructure remains despite the source of the power in the system.
At temperate latitudes, you can actually get something like 95% of the way there using wind, solar, and reasonable amounts of storage in addition to existing hydropower.
This leaves a fairly small chunk which needs either long-duration storage or firm generation. Nuclear might be able to fill part of that, but only if it comes in at a lower price than currently seems likely. Other technologies, such as induced geothermal and sodium-ion flow batteries are a lot more likely-looking right now.
Yes, exactly! Err, but I’m not sure where the ‘actually’ comes in. It looks like we’re agreeing. Am I misunderstanding? I can try to be a little bit more belligerent if that would help! This is internet commenting, we’re supposed to be at each other’s throats by this point in the comment chain…
While battery technology is making grand strides, it’s my understanding that we’re not to a point where we can even speculate on how to renovate our entire grid with them for a vast host of reasons. Using them to cover while switching to other higher-capacity ESSs seems to be the role they are best suited for, and outside of a few experimental exceptions that looks like the role they’re stepping into in the current industry. I have high hopes for the future, but we still have a long way to go, especially in longevity. I’m not advocating for SMRs nor expansion of nuclear, solar or wind, just that we should not limit ourselves to considering a subset of our options because of ideological beliefs.
(And I’m sorry, but I have no idea what induced geothermal is. Sounds potentially volcano-y though, so that’s always a plus in my book.)
(I don’t really see any possible downsides to giving IBM a small nuclear reactor. They seem so nice.)
There’s so many people paranoid about the remote possibility of dirty bombs. Meanwhile, Norfolk Southern is actually spilling tankers full of toxic chemicals that get set on fire by being incredibly negligent.
If terrorists did want to poison an area, there’s plenty of insanely toxic and commercially available compounds to choose from. The fixation on nuclear fuel is an indicator of someone who is just repeating a ghost story and doesn’t actually know/care what the biggest sources of danger are.
Because fascist conservative domination of society depends on a constant stream of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about an ever changing cultural opponent that unifies the dazed and confused in outrage against said real or fantasized other. Thus making them unaware of how much they’re being abused and exploited while also mobilizing them to fight in defense of the same oppressors who constantly propagandizes them.
Efficient of inefficient, polluting or non-polluting, exploitative (for both land and people) or not, agriculture is still the basis of a large part of the world’s economy.
If it were to collapse, I don’t dare to imagine how many angry jobless people there would be and what they could do. If people in IT get laid off, no one cares, but farmers scary./s
Don’t get so teary eyed. Farmers have been fucked by capitalism since the dawn of time. This is about corporate pockets, not about farmers. Farmers don’t get laid off, they just die and nobody cares.
it’s both and more. nothing is as simple as a soundbite.
the people in those states are afraid of “the liberal agenda”. they’re being told that the Democrats are gonna take their meat and force them to eat bugs and lab grown slop. naturally, they’re completely unwilling to ever Even try any of this stuff they hate, but that’s neither here nor there. this constant cycle of fear and outrage gets their votes. who should they vote for? the guy that promises he’ll stop the other guy from force feeding you bugs, or the one that never Even mentions this clearly important election issue?
this particular fear cycle was likely created and pushed by the beef industry that is large and strong in those states. cattle farming is by far the most environmentally inefficient way to produce protein. it’s like 10x worse than chickens which are like 10x worse than the worst plant. this is a common leftist talking point these days. it’s part of the rhetoric. so the idea that liberals are going to come after beef isn’t entirely just based on media lies. if they go out and try to find opposing ideas they’ll find that the left hates their cows and wants them to become vegan.
and i mean, there are people on the left who would force that kind of thing on them. look at lemmygrad and the tankies. that’s my key ideological difference with communism. the state shouldn’t force these practices, but i also don’t think it’s realistic to believe that America is anywhere close to ever doing that. the only states that would ever use the law to force someone’s eating habits for cultural reasons are currently using that to ban lab grown meet.
I, as a leftist in America, genuinely hope that one day lab grown meat will be as cheap, good, and available as regular beef while being more environmentally friendly. i hope that this gets some hardcore beef eaters to realize that flavor is more important than whether something died to make it. lab meat is already outperforming natural steaks in flavor because it’s literally designed to have perfect marbling. if we just let this play its course, we could probably expect many of them to eventually switch over. it may take a generation or two, people are very stubborn, but it could be very good for many things in the long run.
this sentiment alone is enough to scare conservatives. they don’t even need the media or big beef to scare them. we’re doing that on our own.
just like ever issue, the reality of it is nuanced and gray. most people aren’t willing to read that much or think that hard about their feelings. they’d prefer a string of tiktoks or political tweets that dumb it all down to one sentence.
if you ever find yourself saying “it’s not that complicated it’s just…” you probably need to read more into that subject. it’s always at least that complicated.
edit: lol, literally in this thread someone pointed out another angle that i didn’t. these states are full of people that work in the cattle industry. no one wants to see their town become Detroit.
As the article notes the largest meat packers are at least somewhat against this and are themselves investing in cell grown meat. The National Cattleman’s Association stance on the issue, also noted in the article, boils down to “It’s fine, it just needs to be labelled so consumers know what they’re getting.”
I think the only “they” we can define here are the Florida and Alabama State Legislatures.
If I was a Rancher, and I’m not terribly far removed from that, I wouldn’t want cell grown or cultivated meat banned. I’d stand up a production center for it on my ranch right next to my cattle and sell both.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
I don’t mean to downplay the situation at all but doesn’t that description pretty much match the world as it exists today? If anything I would expect their predictions to be more dire than that. The global south seems to have more than it’s fair share of pain and suffering already.
Oh I know. I’m just saying I don’t think this particular quote really communicates that fact. It could just as easily be describing any point in the last 200 years as a future impacted by climate change.
In Córdoba Argentina weather has been getting crazy these last few years. We’ve been constantly getting 40°C+ temperatures in summer, an even in winter we’ve hit the 40°C mark (in the middle of July, mind you). Last year we only had like two days in the whole year where we managed to get minus 0°C temperatures
Almost 9 fucking months of summer here in Perth, with about 3 of those months being 30C and clear every single day. Forests and bushland are dying as a result, and water is scarce. I've never seen anything like it.
He doesn’t want his party to fight against climate change, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. The whole article is about coal and oil jobs, thinly veiled threats that anyone who isn’t a conservative wants those jobs gone.
You know what?
He’s fucking right.
I want those jobs gone. I want a homeless crisis of hundreds of thousands of coal miners without jobs. You know why? Because in 100 years the world will be healthier for future generations. I’m sorry that your job of choice is killing the planet, but I’m not willing to sacrifice the world for your fucking paycheck. Even though the bit about Biden telling miners to learn to code was twisted, I agree with the twisted message, too. Fucking find something better to do with your lives. I really don’t give a shit what it is, just fucking do it. Suck it up, sacrifice and learn a new trade, and maybe your grandkids won’t die of lung cancer at 45. I’m tired of waiting around for someone to have the stones to take action. I don’t really give a shit any more, and if that makes me an asshole, I’ll live with it, but fuck, this shit is getting old. If we move towards annihilation at 1mph or 100, it doesn’t matter, we’ll get there eventually. It’s time to stop the ride. The warning signs have been there for decades. Your blessed Grand Ol’ Party obscured the facts, and if you want to blame someone for you not having a job when the mine shuts down, blame them. They lied to you and told you that it was a hoax. The democrats just need to rip the bandaid off.
You know what really irks me though? Even if we didn't go green. Those 40,000 jobs are going to vanish. Coal doesn't grow like trees. That mine will empty one day and it's going to get shut down without warning, without any severance packages, the company is just going to run. There will even still be coal in the mine, it's just no longer cheap enough to mine it.
Historically, that's how it happens. Even in this day and age the moment a better mine opportunity is found, they're gone. They make the town dependent on them, they use the town in every way they can, they donate to the schools and municipal water supply, and then they vanish without warning leaving the town in the lurch. Happens with copper, happens with gas, happens with silver and it happens with coal.
At least the green movement will give you a date, a head start, and at least an iota of sympathy.
In US, more people line up for the employment queue every week simply by turning old enough to work than those 36000 employed in the coal industry. Coal jobs is a total non issue.
3 million children are being born every year. We never hear anyone complaining about that? A lot of them will need to work 2 jobs, so that’s 6 million jobs missing every year! The coal jobs is not even one percentage of that.
There are still some edge cases where a grid-powered, air-source heat pump system MAY have slightly higher carbon emissions than a high efficiency furnace RIGHT NOW. This will happen in very cold climates (which means a lower effective seasonal COP) where the grid is very dirty. That might be an argument for not immediately electrifying.
But these systems also ought to last, with proper maintenance, something like a decade. And we should expect there to be no grids dirty enough to make that same calculus happen a decade from now. If you are replacing right now anyway, there's nearly no cases where a heat pump isn't the right choice.
Any if your primary goal is reducing emissions and you can afford it, getting a heat pump system installed in parallel to a traditional furnace (and then only using the furnace on the most brutal days where the COP for the heat pump at its nadir) will still absolutely lower your overall emissions, and probably significantly.
The thing that's keeping me from buying a new EV - apart from price - isn't the electric. It's everything else about the car. I don't like how they look, I don't like the giant touch screens, I don't like the gimmicky features that do nothing but add cost.
Then again, I found out today that I'm a "Harbinger of Failure" so maybe it's a good thing that I'm not buying an EV.
The only Subaru EV I can find is the Solterra, and it has all the same problems: I don't like the way it looks, I don't like the giant touch screen, and I don't want or need the driver assist features.
Can they just put an EV drivetrain into an 2003 WRX bugeye hatchback for me? And keep the stickshift.
What giant screen? It’s got the same sized screen as every other Subaru and they also have the exact same driving assists. Those aren’t EV features, they’re new car features. Sorry to break it to you, but the WRX has the exact same equipment list.
Coal, oil, gasoline, propane, natural gas, biodiesel, wood fired stoves, candles, its all the same; molecules made up of a bunch of carbon bonded together. Add heat and oxygen and the bonds break in order to bond with oxygen, creating co2 or carbon monoxide and releasing heat. Its always gonna emit a shit ton of greenhouse gases, the entirety of the fuel is being turned into one.
The carbon in the ground took atmospheric carbon too. Ancient plants and animals eating those plants. All of it is a matter of carbon being sequestered in a solid state or burned into a gaseous state.
Sure but the issue is that sequestered carbon from millions of years ago is being released. In the short term carbon from trees is comparatively neutral. There could be an issue if you start using firewood in a non sustainable way, however at the current scale it doesn’t seem to be the issue.
Is burning trees part of it? This is like eating a bunch of pizza to lose weight, because you can exercise it off. The pizza is only hurting your ability to lose weight, and burning trees is only hurting our ability to reduce greenhouse gases. You can grow trees without burning any.
No point. Its the diversified old-growth forests we need to protect. Planting more trees without achieving that is pointless. There is not enough wood-burning for heat and/or fuel happening to make a difference vs what we do grow though, as the vast majority of what we do grow goes into construction.
You want to stop indigenous peoples burning wood for heat and cooking? How about we stop paying them to burn down rainforests for farms and ranches first. If we can accomplish that, cracking down on campfires becomes a pointless endeavor.
The carbon footprint of the average person in Sub-Saharan Africa is nothing close to yours or mine. The idea that that article recommends eliminating wood-burning entirely is … not born-out in its text.
What do you think the biomass in “Efficient Biomass Cooking” is? Its wood. The carbon footprint of the transportation of any other fuel to these people alone would more than offset any criteria by which wood-burning falls short, until we can electrify the entire world, and/or get everyone using solar ovens for cooking.
Cop29 will be the second year in a row that the UN’s most important climate talks will be hosted by a petrostate heavily reliant on fossil fuel production, after Cop28 was held in the United Arab Emirates.
Dang what a coincidence.
The head of Azerbaijan’s state gas distribution network is also on the committee.
How weird that this happened, what are the chances?
The Cop29 president-designate, who will be responsible for bringing together countries to drive climate action, is Mukhtar Babayev, the minister of ecology and natural resources.
Babayev previously spent 26 years working for the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (Socar). Azerbaijan plans to increase its fossil fuel production by a third over the next decade, the Guardian revealed recently.
Huh, wow. These crazy coincidences just keep happening.
They happens because the location has to rotate across regions, and be agreed upon by consensus. Petrostates (most recently Russia) block non-petrostates from hosting.
Here’s what happened with the most recent one. Russia was vetoing every possibility, and then (after the article was published) said ‘yes’ to Azerbaijan
He literally foiled government plans to create high speed rail in America. In favor of building tunnels for more cars. How can anyone think for a second he’s any kind of hero?
Matt Rosendale, a Montana Republican serving in the House of Representatives, responded to the Held v. Montana decision with the worst sort of condescending bluster. “This is not a school project,” he insisted. “It’s a courtroom. . . . Judge Seeley did a huge disservice to the courts and to these youths by allowing them to be used as pawns in the Left’s poorly thought-out plan to ruin our power grid and compromise our national security in the name of their Green New Fantasy.”
The only fantasy, however, was Rosendale’s characterization of the proceedings. The plaintiffs’ case was overwhelmingly persuasive, with extensive testimony from climate and pediatric health experts showing that people younger than twenty-five were going to be especially vulnerable to the many impacts climate change is going to have on physical and psychological health. In her ruling, Seeley summarized some of the damages to which the plaintiffs had testified.
I think it’s crazy that there are still so many out there that still just don’t get how fucked we are.
It’s not that they don’t “get it” - it’s tat they actively want to fuck other people, even if that means fucking themselves. They have the mentality of suicide-bombers, willing to sacrifice themselves to harm others.
Or alternatively they’re paid by lobbyists to protect fossil fuels industry’s interests. And since they’re sociopaths they don’t care if they wreck the earth and drive humanity to extinction as long as they get their proverbial 30 pieces of silver.
climate
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.