Musk hacked vote tabulations

No he didn’t. Unfortunately, americans are just that stupid. Thats the same rhetoric conservatives were trying to use when they lied about dominion.

You should watch newer political debaters that invite average trump supports up on livestreams to argue on issues like this. A majority of them dont even understand due process.

Legislators? Sure. Constituents? Probably not.

Non paywalled version of article

Show me a single leftist calling to remove the middle class.

holy 5 months later batman…

I saw that I never posted a draft, lol.

It will always be more expensive to remove carbon from the atmosphere than to simply stop burning the fuels we have adequate replacements for.

Irrelevant, if companies and governments are willing/required to pay for it, then the cost does not matter. Also, pretending like the entire world can just not use fossil fuels is wishful thinking at best. If you think rationally for even a second, you would realize that is a nearly impossible task. Carbon capture will be one of many essential ways to offset emissions in areas where conversion to electric is infeasible

No one is suggesting we’ll have electric jets and shipping; but even industrial processes like steel foundries can go electric. Concrete too.

You are agreeing with my points here. My entire argument has been that shifting the onus to consumers for emissions is ridiculous. I have said multiple times that the manufacturing/energy production sectors are where we need to focus efforts rather than blaming inconsequential emitters like the consumers/ the FIA.

Furthermore, injection capture and other methods remain unproven for long periods - we don’t want a solution that blows up 200 years from now.

The problem with CC is not that it is unstable. It is that the current amount of capture is not sufficient for how much we emit.

You do you, but your sophistry about pets and killing all humans is unfounded and ridiculous. Akin to your premise.

It would be sophistic if you didn’t try to argue that anything that emits greenhouse gasses “needs to go.” I am simply pointing out how that logic is fundamentally flawed.

The realistic solution to all of this is a combination of everything. Transitioning away for fossil fuels where possible. Carbon capture can aid in sectors where that is infeasible. Offsets through companies like Wren have been proven to reduce emissions. (Yes, there are plenty of offset/credit programs that are not helpful, but that is a regulatory issue.) Increased public transportation options, more mixed use zoning, and more stringent manufacturing regulations, can also help. Change NEEDS to happen at a higher level before anything else can meaningfullly affect our course. And there a many intermediate steps we need to take before we can simply stop using fossil fuels altogether.

Carbon removal has been a viable solution for decades it just lacks the support necessary to scale. It has been proven to reduce the overall measued rate of c02 emissions here

Also, your entire argument is strangely pedantic. By your logic, anything that emits carbon needs to go, even if it’s neglible. We humans emit more carbon than we intake, so should we just kill everyone? The same goes for house pets. Should we just kill them all/make them illegal? Im genuinely asking because so far, your argument makes no logical sense.

That would hurt my feelings if I wasn’t a millennial lmao.

Seriously, though, your failure to even attempt to have a discussion tells me you have the discipline/intellect of a 14 y/o Ipad kid who learns everything from chatgpt.

Yes, because I have been an audio engineer for over two decades now. Show me someone who can reliably pass the iTunes test. Science does not care about your subjective personal experience.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/tax-the-rich-town-hall

I highly doubt that. Do a proper ABx test (such as the one on digitalfeed.net) I have yet to meet someone who can pass the tests with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

It’s all come down to over consumption.

You said it yourself… It has nothing to do with our use of personal vehicles.

Our reliance on vehicles is a result of horrible city design, lobbying from vehicle manufacturers, and lack of public transportation. All of which have nothing to do with people’s tendency to over-consume.

We all need fuel to drive the car, if the oil is stopped today, what are people gonna do? They still have to change their behaviour regardless.

When you start creating impossible hypotheticals to justify your reasoning, it is a sign that your argument doesn’t actually make sense.

Let’s look at energy production, the single worst contributor to emissions worldwide. The consumers’ propensity to overuse has no bearing on where the energy comes from. Switching to renewables comes from government intervention in the form of incentivizing/requiring green energy production. Unfortunately, due to utility monopolies (at least in the US), the consumer has no way of controlling that. So no, it’s not all a cycle, if it were that simple, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

obviously you are never going to comprehend IT ALL NEEDS TO GO

Except that’s not the case. There are plenty of ways to offset emissions, and that is exactly how formula plans to reach carbon-neutrality by 2030. When that happens, what, then? Do you think they still need to go? Even if they are doing no measurable harm to the atmoshpere? What if they had negative carbon production due to excess offsets?

It seems you are far too obsessed with the principles rather than approaching the situation rationally/pragmatically.

Also, I don’t even watch racing lmao.

Less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions (And by my rough math, it could be lower than even 0.5%)

While many of the engineering improvements from racing aren’t nearly as dramatic as they were previously (take the flappy paddle gearbox, for example). Nowadays, the improvements are lower level, think things like material science, manufacturing processes, and efficiency. But given the scale of the consumer vehicle market, these small changes add up very quickly.

Also, I dont think you understand what neglibility means. We would still be well on track for net zero carbon emissions even without sacrificing these culturally/socially significant activities.

The prime contributor to emissions by far and away is the industrial/power sector. Slight improvements there equate to decades if not hundreds of years of racing/football. A 5 percent decrease in either would easily account for thousands of years of both.

This is my problem with the “consumers need to do their part” rhetoric. We already are. The only reason things are as bad as they have been is entirely because of greedy mega corporations and governments who refuse to change due to corruption.

Their hobby is a feat of mechanichal engineering, and like I said, their prescence accounts for less than 1% of total emissions.The research and development that goes into these cars can also translate to consumer cars.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the improved aerodymics, engine efficiency, and reliability from pushing engineering practices significantly offset the emissions created by the sport

Here is an interesting read showcasing that f1 puts out one tenth of the emissions that the world cup does and also shows that the races themselves only cover 0.7% of the sport’s emissions. So that is 0.7% of <1% of global emissions, which is negligible.

I understand that off principle, it may seem like a waste, but thinking pragmatically for a second one can see that the benefits outweigh the environmental costs.

I think there’s a MASSIVE difference between Formula/GT/Rally guys and guys who roll coal. True racing cars count for less than 1% of global emissions. The real problem is all the flights and transport necessary to get to the venues. The vehicles themselves are a blip on the radar.

Guys who roll coal are deliberately harming the environment for the sake of making a really stupid point.

Not even remotely true. Most emissions are caused by factors completely indepedent from consumer vehicles. Nearly 60 percent comes from power generation, industrial processes, and goods transportation (Not to be confused with personal vehicle use)

Ah, yes, the old “consumers are the problem” rhetoric when, in actuality, they only account for 10% of emissions.

As someone who sells both the ecotanks are good, but you dont quite get the yield they promise upfront.

Because the ink has to travel all the way from the reservoir at the front of the printer to the print head, there is much more distance that the ink has to travel, giving it more opportunity to dry out. To combat this, ecotanks need to purge much more frequently than traditional inkjets that mount the cartridges next to the print head. This requires shooting a lot of the ink through the lines at high speed/pressure in turn wasting ink.

Also, once this cleaning cycle has been run enough times, you need to replace the ink pad that absorbs all the ink used to clean out the printer. (Only costs 10 bucks)

All of this said, I still recommend them to folks who need to print photos at home, as their color accuracy is impressive for a CMYK printer, and while the yield isn’t as high as they claim, it is still much cheaper per page than most other inkjets. But more often than not, I try to convince people to just get a monochrome Brother and use a printing service/shop that has a multi-thousand dollar photo printer when they need photos.