There are a few alternative timelines. Some scholars extend the end date of the golden age to around 1350, including the Timurid Renaissance within it,[6][7] while others place the end of the Islamic Golden Age as late as the end of 15th to 16th centuries, including the rise of the Islamic gunpowder empires.
The Ottomans managed to siege Vienna centuries after the end of the Golden Age. They were not that behind in technology. Really the big change happened with the industrial revolution, which the islamic world mostly failed to implement. However at least the Ottomans managed to do a good enough job, to stand the ground against the Brits. Of the none Western world only Japan and depending on how you look at it Russia was better at adopting Western science and technology.
Russia could not even prevent Assad from falling to some militia with some training from Turkey, while Iran was also helping. What do you believe is going to happen, if they would try to fight another professional military? They are not even winning in Ukraine, which gets some support from Europe, while Russia has a full on war economy.
Right now nearly all aid to Ukraine comes from Europe and Russia is not able to win that war. At least not easily. That is with Russia in a war economy, whereas Europe half asses deliveries for the most part and obviously there are over a million professional European soldiers with some really good kit around as well.
The problem is that birth right citizenship is in the constitution. So if Trump can get rid of that, he can get ignore the Bill of Rights as well.
EDIT: Also basically every country has birthright citizenship usually be having a citizen as a parent. What is different in the Americas is jus soli, so being born in the country making you a citizen.
Why do you believe Rutte pushed through the 5% military spending target? It is needed to replace the US in Europe and be a working deterrent to both Russia and the US.
It also is a bad move to leave NATO, as this makes the EU the logical center to coordinate the defense of democracies.
See? Moving the goalposts. Moving from cumulative, the real important metric, to per capita current emissions during a renewable transition, because otherwise the data doesn’t fit your preconceived, chauvinistic anti-china views.
I initially just wanted to point out that China does in fact consume a lot more coal, then you claimed. If you want to have the moral discussion, we can have that. The fundamental problem with your logic, is that you presume future emissions do not matter. The fact of the matter is that we will emit much more in the coming decades. Higher current per capita emissions make it much more likely that future emissions will be higher as well. At the 2023 rate of emissions, China emits as much as the EU cumulative did until 2023 in 25 years. Last year China increased its emissions by 0.8%. Current UN forecast put the population of China 633million and the EU at 347million. I hate to say it, but it is very realistic to presume that China ends up just as guilty by your metric as say the EU.
It is also a metric China will not want to use. Per capita annual emissions are already higher in China then in many Western countries. More so UN population forecast shows Chinas population falling much more quickly then that of the West.
Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don’t matter anymore?
Do you think I am here to hate on China or something? Your inital claim was:
How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less.
And when you looked at the numbers and you were clearly wrong, you moved the goal poast again:
So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it’s already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.
Or 50% more to be at the level of the EU, using the Our World in Data numbers from 1900(thanks btw). Given current production, China would overtake the EU around 2040 in that metric.
Maybe that is because I have the elementary school education necessary to understand that burning coal and gas also causes emissions. So when I am looking at cummulative coal consumption, I have the very basic common sense to not look at CO2.
EDIT: Btw 2/3 of EU emissions happened in the last 60 years. So this very likely shows most of the EU coal consumption. Also if you happen to have actual coal numbers and want to share them, I am happy to have a look at them. But please no CO2 = coal bs.
Pollution per GDP is a bad measure. Mali has a high CO2 intensity, but the GDP per capita is low, so pollution is low. The best measures are emissions per capita in consumption and production terms. China is not a saint in either of those metrics, being rather close to the EU in both of them today.
Not so sure about that. China overtook the EU in 1987 in coal consumption, but today it is at 25,000TWh or so. In 1965 the current EU countries were at 4,500TWh. It certainly is not much less, if China has not overtaken the EU by cumulative coal consumption.
Iran really does not have a choice. They can not seriously attack Israel. Their missile launchers seem to be destroyed and they hit very little. Air force is not an option either. Hamaz is at war already, Hezbollah has been bombed hard and can hardly fight, much less supplied.
They could bomb some US military installations, but best case they kill some Americans.
Blocking the Persian Golf would fail as well and piss of pretty much the rest of the world.
MrMakabar @ MrMakabar @slrpnk.net Posts 16Comments 224Joined 2 yr. ago
Never heared of Israel....