I wish people would stop going on about Brexit. It was what the people wanted. Literally every single brown “”“person”“” has left the country and we don’t have any EU overlords shoving their rules down our throats. Every other aspect of our life bring worse and facing food shortages is a small price to pay
“what the people wanted”? I’m going to assume you dropped the /s tag since the morning AFTER the vote the biggest Google searches in the UK were “What is the EU?” and “What is Brexit?”
There are people who actually believe what you had posted, so without additional cues that it’s intended as sarcasm (like starting with Hur Dur or ending with /s), it’s anyone’s guess what you actually meant. In person sarcasm works better because we can easily add physical cues, but on the internet it’s best made very obvious imo.
There are people who actually believe what you had posted
No they don’t. No racist person would ever say that “literally every single brown ““person”” has left the country”. If you’re not neutron star level dense, it’s pretty obviously sarcasm.
A recurring theme with hard brexiteers was that making “short term” sacrifices was worth it for “reclaiming sovereignty”, which would magically lead to more prosperity in the “long term”. To some, (others) being worse off than before, is a price they’d gladly (let others) pay if it would allow “their team” to score a victory.
In the Usa there’s people cheering for Russia, for the downfall of USA democracy and for Trump to be king. These are such extreme standpoints that it’s hard to believe that they would be serious, but when you see them on camera, then it’s obvious that they are true believers and that they’re not being sarcastic. If those people are real, then I can easily imagine some spiteful british person saying unironically that being worse off now, is a sacrifice that they’re willing to make for “reclaiming sovereignty”. Especially if it’s online and they actually live and work in Sint-Petersburg.
In a world where The Onion cannot make up news that is crazier than the actual news, irony is always going to have hard time.
That’s a really interesting article. I didn’t know there were so many benefits to solar panels over crops.
However, I don’t see how growing crops under panels could become widespread.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimate that if just 1 million acres of farmland was covered in solar panels, the nation would meet its renewable energy goals.
For reference, Iowa alone has over 35 million acres of farmland. Solar panels are almost too efficient to cover a meaningful amount of farmland.
This entire concept has been studied extensively in China, and the conclusion has been that the yield is vastly overclaimed when solar panels are deployed on productive soil.
Your claim is that… China has incentive to reduce deployments of solar panels by criticizing the deployment of solar panels over agricultural land? We’re talking about the same China, right? World leader in solar panel production, being criticized by American and European leaders for overcapacity in solar panel production? I just want to make sure we’re on the same page here.
Jeez my bad the government responsive for legislating the sale of my broadcast rights has no oversight into the operations of my media company. Silly me.
Mr Stanley said farms were facing “an existential moment” because of the changing climate, which could put many out of business, reducing UK food security.
“The problem that we’re facing is that weather is becoming so extreme that it is overwhelming our ability as farmers to continue to grow crops at all in some places,” he said.
Yes, but let’s not lose sight of what’s really important, by sacrificing the planet we’ve successfully prevented a few billionaires from having to sell their yachts.
While I’m not saying the farmer quote shares this belief but it’s hard to take when there have been so many “farmers protests” about changes to subsidies linked to reducing emissions and planting more trees
There was a Climate Town video that explains how the US tried to institute strict emissions standards in the mid to late 90s. Exceptions were given to all work trucks because it would make them too expensive for small farms. This led to car companies leaning into that form factor, and now the Yank Tanks are ubiquitous and infecting the rest of the world.
Vehicles over a certain weight can be exempt for a farm vehicle like a suburban. Also the longer the wheelbase the less fuel economy the vehicle has to have, which is why manufacturers are making larger SUVs that can’t even pass the moose test.
Yeah we just had a huge protest here in France, except for a smaller union they all agreed that the pesky ecologists were to blame for their problems. And the government was more than willing to agree with them, better kill our remaining farming land for short term profit than reign in their buddies at Nestlé and Danone.
I’m with you, but it’s not even about having to sell their yachts. These leeches have so much goddamn money that they could lose most of it with no materiel impact to their lifestyle. They just horde it out of a combination of addiction and lust for power.
Can you provide evidence that billionaires yachts cause more environmental damage than say average people using their car.
I’d be really interested to to how billionaires are solely responsible for this mess.
Edit: Congratulations everyone. The oil and gas industries do not want individuals to feel responsible for climate change and want them to push the blame elsewhere so everyone keeps consuming. You’re doing what they want. This is bang out of the oil and gas playbook.
Of course not, but it’s a wildly disproportionate rate of consumption for an individual, which you’re well aware of. I agree that the ultra-wealthy are something of a totem when it comes to eco-rhetoric, but the fact is they perfectly represent human overconsumption, and acknowledging this as abhorrent and in need of curbing is the first step towards moderation in general. Also, telling the working classes they need to reduce their carbon footprint while tolerating this behaviour from the ownership class is not a coherent message. The vanishingly small kernel of a point you think you have is not contributing anything to the discussion, and I say this as a committed troll.
Billionaires should absoultely reduce their consumption and I never said anything to disagree with that point.
The issue is people are looking for any and every excuse not to do anything. That is an issue and it’s a bigger issue than overconsumption from billionaires.
Corporations directly try to convince people that there is nothing the individual can do to change the environment so they might as well just use as much oil and gas as they like.
It’s a direct play out of the oil and gas PR system and people are doing it for free. Billionaires want people to not blame the individual and it’s working.
All because people want to absolve themselves of all responsibility.
Billionaires are wasteful. But the damage to the world is coming more from the average person than from the billionaires. Misleading people on that fact is going to to more damage to the environment than anything billionaires do.
roughly 447 times the entire annual carbon footprint of your average American
So now back to my question does the number average Americans outnumber the billionare more than 447 times?
There are 333,300,000 people in America so that means there needs to be more than 745,637 billionaires living in America for billionaire yatchs to to more damage than the average person. There are only 756.
So the claim is wrong. People don’t like it but average people in the world do more damage to the environment than billionaires. People have no interest in changing but if they want to save the world they must change.
You know, I don’t disagree with your ultimate point. But if you look through this comment chain you should recognize that the way you chose to make it is:
Needlessly antagonistic, and (therefore)
Not very effective
If you wanted to convince anyone or provoke interesting discussion I think you failed.
In the future, you should just make your argument/statement instead of asking “clever” bad faith questions.
Yes, but let’s not lose sight of what’s really important, by sacrificing the planet we’ve successfully prevented a few billionaires from having to sell their yachts.
This “joke” is more damaging than anything I have said and should be called out as such. Corporations directly try to convince people that there is nothing the individual can do to change the environment so they might as well just use as much oil and gas as they like.
It’s a direct play out of the oil and gas PR system and people are doing it for free. Billionaires want people to not blame themselves and it’s working.
All because people want to absolve themselves of all responsibility.
Billionaires are wasteful. But the damage to the world is coming more from the average person than from the Billionaires.
by sacrificing the planet we’ve successfully prevented a few billionaires from having to sell their yachts
They are directly saying that we sacrificed the planet to allow billionaires to have yachts. It’s right there.
There is a huge danger in this world that nobody is taking action for the damage they are doing to the world. If billionaires have done no damage to the world then what? Everything is fine and we can go on living the way we are? No. The world’s fucked because of everyday people.
The average person needs to change and consume less and pollute less. Blaming billionaires for everything and acting like the everyday person is innocent is exactly what the billionaires want because then you just consume the stuff they sell and they get richer and the world gets worse.
The only way to fix this world is if everyone consumes less. Deflecting isn’t helping the planet.
Your really out of line here. I’m not the average person, but I’ll compare with myself. Taylor Swift consumed more than 16000 gallons a month (or more than 70000 litres) for at least the first 7 months of 2022, and that’s after selling one of her jets due to public exposure. Compare to me, I work from home and made 3000 kms in 2 years, for an average of 23 litres a month. So she consumed 3000 times more than me. Even if the average person does 10 times my mileage, she would still be 300x the average.
People underestimate how few billionaires there are and how many average people there are.
Average people do more damage than billionaires.
Do your calculations but times it by number of average people and number of billionaires. Which is the point I have directly mentioned in each and every post.
No. First of all there are a lot of billionaires and orders of magnitude more almost-billionaires with the means to do that kind of damage. In second place this is just jets which are used to go straight from a place to another, but yatches are way less efficient and are used to roam freely so overall they pollute much more. And these are only two of the thousand things the rich do that create infinite pollution. But of course let’s focus on straws.
Yachts, on average, burn 20-50 gallons of fuel an hour.
Super yachts and mega yachts have fuel capacities of 10k-50k gallons and burn 100-500 gallons per hour.
Before I had a PEV, I would run through about 10 gallons a week. I had that car for 10 years, meaning I used less fuel in a decade than a mega yacht does in a day. I traveled around 130k miles on around 5200 gallons of gas and that car had pretty shit MPG of 25.
Cruising speed for yachts varies quite a bit, but assuming a speed of 50 mph means a super yacht gets between 0.5 and 0.1 MPG.
Then there’s the private jets, the 30k sq ft houses, and the fact that 80% of emissions can be tracked back to 57 atate-owned or private companies…none of which are owned or run by the poor or working class. All of that is only considering the western world and it’s definition of poor, the poorest 100 nations only account for around 3% of total emissions…so yes, its the rich people.
Add comment