Ah. Even so, that's less than the trash output of 1000 citizens. The quantity of waste is not very worrisome to me at all, especially considering all the other possible hazardous wastes from other industrial processes.
Yes I know that because it's absurd. But here you and others are arguing that the article needs to be comprehensive.
"I want to see studies on how substantial of an impact this has" is a reasonable critique.
"The author didn't address every possible contributing factor and so I'm going to ignore any possible thoughts the article presents immediately" not so much.
"How mouse farts contribute to climate change" is a hilarious article idea. There are lots of fun directions it could go from serious discussion of how to analyze climate impact from different animals and industries to the mocking of green washing.
article seems to suggest that social media itself is a driver or homicides rather than the context and content of whatever is in these communications which appear on social media that result in violence.
A wild misrepresentation of the article. It is strange to take "impersonal communications make aggression easier combined with physical isolation has an effect on violence" to be "Twitter is killing people"
To focus exclusively on the incomplete sociological perspective
Every perspective is incomplete. That's impossible to avoid, just because in this specific case you've decided to care about that fact doesn't make their article wrong.
would be to totally ignore the much more significant and empirically supported factors at play which go unmentione
They don't even to unmentioned.
OK so you're really at this point just looking for reasons to talk about rhetoric and complain they didn't write the entire article about xyz problem that's easier to discuss since it's already been sound bitten to oblivion. This isn't productive. Cheers.
So you want every article on any subject to cover the entire issue holistically? Don't put the focus of the article in the title? Your response doesn't make any sense.
So an article talking about one specific factor talks about one specific factor. I'm not sure you really responded to my comment here. Quotes from the article.
Smartphones and social platforms existed long before the homicide spike; they are obviously not its singular cause.
When the pandemic led officials to close civic hubs such as schools, libraries and rec centers for more than a year, people — especially young people — were pushed even further into virtual space.
The current spike in violence isn’t a return to ’90s-era murder rates — it’s something else entirely. In many cities, the violence has been especially concentrated among the young
Yes this article focuses on violence in black communities and I have no doubt there's a bias at play there both on the authors part and a lot of the audience. But the actual point of the article isn't incorrect, though it wades into rap music as some building arguments it's pulling specific examples and making specific arguments about them. To engage with the article in a reasonable way you'd need to actually respond to those points.
The article isn't trying to scapegoat social media, I didn't get that impression at all and it seems king outrage manufacturing to be focusing on that interpretation.
Maybe read the article. What you said doesn't need to be said again in this articles context, because the issue is more complex and that exact point is addressed as a cause.
People should really read the article. It feels like I'm reading broken records in these discussions because people take a headline, refuse to read what the article has to say, and then say "but what about x?" When the article has a section literally dedicated to say, how social media can contribute to rising violence in the presence of easy gun access. Like that's literally a component of the thesis here.
"Social problems can't possibly be exacerbated by socially manipulative systems because I demand that every article discussing anything must be a whole systems view of every possible system contributing to every possible problem."
That's what your comment reads like to me. Let's be a little more nuanced shall we? Maybe the world has many possible inter dependent variables and when someone writes an essay they might focus on just one possible factor.
Yes there are archaeological sites which have been forgotten and rediscovered.
Nothing you're saying is a strong argument about self sealing deep storage waste burial sites. I don't think you realize just how little waste nuclear reactors produce, they're not pyramids, they're a few barrels across years.
You asked what the difference was and claimed that biofuels aren't carbon neutral and that both are equivalent. I explained why they are carbon neutral in theory and why they are very different from burning fossil fuels.
Carbon capture and biofuels are approaching two extremely different problems. Carbon capture is not mutually exclusive with biofuels, they aren't even close to alternatives. Framing them as alternatives is ridiculous. Literally different problems, carbon capture doesn't produce power (the opposite, in fact) and biofuels are extremely inefficient land use for carbon capture, and slow.
That just sounds like absurdly naive or bad faith black and white thinking, honestly. It doesn't make sense as a claim.
The dead reserves, coal and oil, are NOT currently greenhouse gases (GHG). They have no effect on global warming, they are essentially inert.
Growing and burning living reserves takes currently active GHG, literally they use carbon from the air to grow their biomass (I.e. leaves, stems, everything). That ghg is temporarily stored in the plants, then equally released into the atmosphere from exactly where it came from.
The carbon can't be created or destroyed in either process from nothing, it's coming from somewhere. When burning the fuel that carbon is released to the atmosphere in the form of co2 and other products. Fossil fuels, from inert carbon repositories that haven't been in the atmosphere for many millions, hundreds of millions, of years. For biofuel, it's carbon that may have been in the atmosphere at most like... A year ago. As soon as yesterday.
Does that help clear things up? I was intentionally repetitive in case one method was more effective than the other.
I'm saying they are fundamentally different and it is 100% true in theory that biofuel is carbon neutral. The plants scrub co2 from the atmosphere, then release that biomass out. It is physically not capable of releasing more than it scrubs except for conversion of co2 to higher co2 equivalent GHG.
Coal and oil are talking carbon from reserves which are currently not causing GHG effects and moving that carbon out to the atmosphere.
By that measure they're just as carbon neutral as coal.
Well no, because coal is deep deposits of carbon which have essentially left the carbon cycle. By digging it up and burning it we are adding carbon back which otherwise wasn't already an issue. Biofuels by definition rely on the carbon currently in the carbon cycle so they do not have this issue.
What do you mean hasn't been solved? Nuclear waste is being processed and stored constantly and with high safety. Not to mention reprocessing which could be done if not for being outlawed.
Right. Across eighty years. Our current methods are genuinely good, and can more than meet demand current and future.
Reprocessing is a more than viable solution, if you feel that demand can't be met.