I think when if it would have been evacuated in time there would still be news coverage
People just love reading and therefore clicking stories that tell them that electric cars are bad and they should just continue buying gas powered vehicles instead of considering a change
Same as with that tanker that burned out on the coast of the Netherlands with some EVs on board
A lot of stories where covering it in a way that implied the fire was because of those EVs when in the end the level where they were stored was among the very few that was still intact - but that didn't make the news...
I mean the effects of climate engineering as pretty much impossible to predict completely. I'm not sure you can even rule out for sure that it'd effect Africa if they did some climate engineering in Alaska.
Even if you have most of the factors - with those kinds of things there's always an off-chance that it interrupt bird migration and that fucks up something else and then suddenly it has an impact on air temperatures and a lot of stuff changes.
Relying on climate engineering instead of trying to prevent the catastrophe that's coming is just stupid...
The Venn diagram of "people that like Elon musk and want to support him with their money" and "people that consider buying an electric car for environmental reasons" is having very little overlap in recent years
The problem is that if a country treats money as unlimited and without a cost then inflation will mirror that and people in that country will lose their savings, their job will not pay for their bills anymore and so on
The problem is that "both" isn't a valid option unless a country has unlimited finances.
Otherwise you have to decide on what's the most feasible option and then renewables win big time
I sometimes feel as if the current push for atomic is from the fossil-lobby as they are aware that it either works and they get 10-20 more years to sell oil until the reactors are built - and even if it doesn't work out it still will slow down rollout of renewables
If you have 100 billion to spend on energy producing you have to choose if you want to go all-in with one source or split it up which would move the end of fossil fuels Back further
Not to mention having to buy the radioactive materials from dictatorships and having problems to cool down the reactors with rising temperatures and rivers running dry
I just don't see how atomic isn't a huge gamble that can backfire hard (and I'm not even talking about catastrophic events like Fukushima)
It weighs more and definitely could use a lot less space on the road and costume less fuel if it didn't grow to this size but stayed small and with less weight
The problem is that newspapers were kind of the only means to get the news in a concentrated form - now they are obsolete since everyone gets their news pretty much live and when the newspaper would be out the next morning it's already old
I don't think it's serious - they just know that they have their right wing supporters safe already and try to gain more votes in the center by looking more moderate
Yeah. Hamas is using the citizens of Gaza as human shield from day one. It was impossible to fight this way with 0 casualties. I was only asking how that person imagined an appropriate response if even a single dead person was too much.
Bibi should be gone today rather than tomorrow - but Israel clearly had a right to respond to what Hamas did and the fact that Hamas was playing dirty all the time makes it impossible to respond in a way that doesn't cause civil deaths.
I just wanted to make clear that if someone were to read this with malicious intentions to discredit this as not doing much for the climate at all that it's not as easy as just looking at this simplified pie-chart
TBF the "flying empty trains around the world" were different companies that only bought the planes and had to adhere to stupid laws that would void their plane spots if they didn't take off.
That's like making Toyota responsible if a Toyota fanclub decides that you need to make 100k kilometers a year to stay in the club
Both are horrible but in this case it's not useful to throw both in the same basket
I think when if it would have been evacuated in time there would still be news coverage
People just love reading and therefore clicking stories that tell them that electric cars are bad and they should just continue buying gas powered vehicles instead of considering a change
Same as with that tanker that burned out on the coast of the Netherlands with some EVs on board
A lot of stories where covering it in a way that implied the fire was because of those EVs when in the end the level where they were stored was among the very few that was still intact - but that didn't make the news...