Ok, correct me if I’m wrong, but this guy doesn’t seem to have any credentials, which seems like a huge red flag to me. Especially since he spends a lot of this article shitting on mainstream climate science. I don’t know enough about climate science to know whether this is actually bunk, which is deeply distressing to me.

But either 1, its legit and we’re headed for the literal end of the world (not as we know it, like, all life goes extinct in the scenario he poses, there is nothing left).

Or 2, its not legit and we’re headed for the end of the world as we know it and the deaths of a distressingly large amount of the human population.

Either way, I’m going to be doing all the same things, and we all need to do all the things we’d do if we were heading for 6.5 as if we were heading for 3, this doesn’t change anything to me, and it certainly doesn’t change anything in the minds of the biggest polluters…

Absolutely

We’re probably not heading into over 4.8 though. Probable outcomes are between 2.5 and 3.5 (both of which are horrific.)

Well, you’ve got to keep in mind that Native American societies (like Communist ones btw) faced constant cultural and physical genocide from Capitalists wherever the two systems touched. This is exactly like the “well, Communism lost so Capitalism is better” argument, when Capitalism was violently enforced (in favor of dictatorships, against democracy) wherever Communist revolutions took place.

Going vegan is a relatively small difference from going vegetarian, which is a small difference from just drastically cutting back on meat. The big thing is that our current systems are unsustainable for animal rights and the environment and everyone needs to cut back on meat drastically at the least. But I imagine that if you could stop driving a car entirely, that would be a bigger difference than losing a reasonable amount of meat from your diet. Though, cutting back on meat is an important step that all of us can take with much more ease.

Yeah, I agree that detached houses should be an option. But the degree to which they are the option is inane. We (in USAmerica at least) need to be building like a third the detached houses we are and like a hundred times the mid-density housing we are.

Yeah, this is my go to. Though, I’m not certain how the earlier ones stand up.

Yeah, banks aren’t amazing, but from what I’m seen, whatever bs they pull is like the thing least wrong with the American financial system. It at least makes sense.

I have had times when closing the application and reopening the project fixes the bug. But only on godot.

We is Canada here? Yeah, they probably should, but that’s not really relevant to this discussion, which is about Canada retaliating against US tariffs. This is not a discussion where China is relevant, because its about the US and Canada. I don’t disagree with you from a policy standpoint, so I won’t make any more responses, but relevance is important.

While I agree that we should be looking at other forms of pollution as well, I wonder why you’re bringing China up in a discussion about Canada imposing a carbon tariff on the USA?

/c/ease and desist

Absolutely

With you on that. I doubt that the data will do us much good rn, but its still good to see mega-corps getting called out on devwashing (economic development washing, IDK if there’s already a good term.)

This is why we can’t rely on large corporations to drive change, even though they’re the biggest polluters.