I’ve seen lots of them which I found very very amusing. That seems good enough for me. Think about it: there are channels on YouTube and on the telly that are there just to amuse you. So a system that creates amusing videos is a net positive for the world.
I doubt this cost them 1.5M out of their real budget, lol. My guess is these are not legal tender in some way, e.g. worn-out bills that would otherwise be destroyed.
Beef is dense in some nutrients but it certainly is not more nutrient dense in general. Plugging food into cronometer.com should be mandatory in HN nutrition discussions.
How do you define "the same people"? Everyone who publishes weather data?
What agenda do you think people have that are long dead?
If you distrust everything you can measure it yourself. I am still in youth and even I can see changes myself. There used to be snow in the winter and now it's rare for example. Yes that is weather not climate; I don't live long enough to see climate changes. But there are oil paintings from 300 years ago. Are these fake?
Genuine question: How do you know, that people who know climate change is made-up are trustworthy and don't have their own agenda?
I have no idea if they have their own agenda, but their ends (such as supporting private transportation and meat consumption) I support. Even if I didn’t trust them, and I don’t trust them either, the ends justify the means.
My God the radicalisation funnel produces some utter brain rot. Unsubstantiated accusations, slippery positions designed to distance your moral culpability in the consequences of your actions. Seriously, read yourself sometime.
Do you despise public transport as a concept or just the current subpar implementation?
I think climate research is orthogonal to any political agenda, i.e. opposing private transportation and meat consumption doesn't follow from accepting that the climate is getting warmer and the validity of political agendas has no effect on the authenticity of climate research data.
Depends. English first language countries remain mostly monolingual. But the rest divides into:
- educated people are expected to learn English in school and end up consuming English media anyway (where you'd expect >50% multilingual, but not everyone)
- country has many official languages (many people are multilingual, but not necessarily in English; e.g. India, Indonesia, possibly China)
- country has literacy problems (not so many left now, maybe in sub-Saharan Africa)
- proud monoglots of a language that isn't English: Japan, France (but even here a lot of people consume English media anyway)
Belgium has 3 languages but my guess would be that each region speaks English better. The French, pardon, Walloniers scarcely speak Dutch and while the Flemish area speaks better French it's usually not great (unsure whether most people would qualify as fluent). Afaik Flanders has mandatory French in school but Wallonia doesn't need to take Dutch, even though 60% of the population is Dutch-speaking. The German-speaking region is mostly forgotten about and they either integrate with the French-speaking part or work in Germany with Belgium as a cheap place to live
The Netherlands has Papiamento as the native language of most people in a part of the country. They're overseas but they vote for the same government and live by the same law. I literally didn't know this until a few years ago (I'm 30). I assume they don't want independence due to things like getting defence and other benefits from a much larger economy (and we're right to feel the need to pay such repairs) but man, this feels really 1800s slave trade levels of wrong. Not a soul speaks Papiamento in the european Netherlands, it's not even an option in school — let alone compulsory!
In Luxembourg it's hit or miss whether someone speaks the national language (Luxembourgish), French (an administrative language), or German (another administrative language). Many will speak at least two, but many also only one (French in particular)
Very eurocentric perhaps but that's my experience with countries that have more than one official language: nearly nobody bothers learning the other if there is no direct necessity
Maybe you can argue why it's not most countries? It seems obvious to me that it is, but I also come from a country where everyone is bilingual.
Many former European colonies are mostly bilingual, e.g. Africa is highly multilingual out of necessity. Much of Europe itself is also mostly bilingual. If you want to communicate outside your own little region and your native language isn't a lingua franca, you need to be bilingual in this world.
The main holdouts when it comes to bilingualism are former imperial powers who managed to both kill domestic language diversity (e.g. France, UK, Russia) while also spreading their national language as a lingua Franca. Another group of holdouts are settler colonies such as the US, which didn't have a dominant native population after the arrival of Europeans.
But even if e.g. Russia itself isn't super bilingual, the rest of the former Soviet Union certainly is, since that is just the reality if you live in a small and/or formerly colonised country.
Contribute more data points of your own then, or even just one. Maybe eventually we'll get to know whether it's most or not rather than dismissing someone who's helping
Don't know what rich assholes have to do with it, when all things I've seen proposed hurt poor people the most. Make meat unaffordable, make private transportation unaffordable, make travelling by plane unaffordable, make new clothes unaffordable, and the list goes on forever.
That's exactly what rich assholes have to do with it. Why do you believe all the consequence falls onto the working class and the poorest, when the richest have per capita the largest emissions, by whole orders of magnitude?
Yeah, the changes required are systemic and go from the top all the way to the bottom, and the things you mention are part of that process, but pricing people out of everything without offering an off-ramp is sadistic bullshit, and the only reason it's a thing is because rich people and stock prices have more representation in politics than the poor and the environment.
Who cares about per capita emissions? Billionaires could have 1000x the emissions as normal people, but there are so few of them, cutting their emissions down to zero would have absolutely no impact on climate change.
You could cut the emissions of the top 1% in half, or reduce the emissions of the bottom 4 billion to 0. Same result.
Which do you believe is likely the lower hanging fruit, has a higher return per dollar spent and is likely to be more ethical and less invasive?
So yeah. I care about per capita emissions on the grounds that things need to change fast, and adjusting the lifestyle of a few million is radically easier than wiping half the planet off the emissions map.
You're not actually looking at per capita emissions, you're looking at overall emissions. It isn't that the 1% to .1% are the biggest emitters, it's their emission levels multiplied by the size of the class.
Billionaires aren't the 1%, they're the 0.00003%.
Top 1% globally is basically anyone making more than $100k/yr.
If you deleted all billionaires from existence, it would make no impact on climate change. If you deleted all 1% ers and left the billionaires, there will be a huge improvement in climate changing emissions
Do you consider the factories, farms, etc that they own to be part of the equation? I do, and so if you were to “cut the emissions down to zero” of the owner of a large chicken processing company, all those factory farms disappear and that’s not peanuts for climate change.
Yes. Poorer people buy things made overseas that requires a lot of shipping, and are lower quality that require more frequent replacement. They tend to have more children. They usually have more polluting energy sources. And there are many orders of magnitude more of them than rich people.
None of this is their fault, but ignoring it isn't good either.
All aircraft emissions are just 3% of US total. If all rich people (either the top 1% or 10%) reduced their emissions to zero tomorrow we would still not reach reduction targets needed to avoid catastrophic warming.
>Yes. Poorer people buy things made overseas that requires a lot of shipping, and are lower quality that require more frequent replacement. They tend to have more children. They usually have more polluting energy sources. And there are many orders of magnitude more of them than rich people.
A few cheap gadgets are dwarfed by a flight to Bali, new SUV or large house.
Aircraft emissions are 3% of the global total, for the US it is much higher (~9%)[1] and for the richest 10% it is higher again.
You can't get away from the fact that emissions are going to be reasonably well correlated with spending [2] and the poor don't spend very much.
>Everyone needs to contribute.
If we get a real handle on our carbon emissions then the lives of the poor will improve.
Besides anything else although the birth rate varies according to income the variation isn't that big. It's dwarfed by the difference in income and hence consumption.
Having a child is on of the most carbon intensive actions any given person can make.
The numbers are what they are. Rich people have much greater obligation to reduce their emissions. They benefit most from economic activity and they cause the most emissions per capita.
If there were zero rich people tomorrow we would still have an emissions problem for the climate.
I indelicately started a contentious topic that didn't have to exist. If I were given a fresh chance, I'd have just said that carbon emissions and the changes they are causing to the planet are a bigger problem than any single economic class or nation.
That might have caused some controversy, too, but is closer to what I meant. Your point is well taken, but maybe if I posted differently the ensuing discussion would have been less acrimonious.
I think you spoke directly to the room's elephant. The topic is contentious because it is less than zero sum. It isn't even that the pie cannot be grown larger, but some people have already eaten most of it and must continue to eat as more people decide they also want pie.
Human activity will have climatic impact. At a specific emission rate per capita, what is the number of humans that can exist? Who decides which humans continue to exist?
