Labour had a bit more then a third of the votes, which is pretty close to were Reform is polling today. However Labour won a massive majority with those votes. If Labour wants to prevent a Reform victory they need to change the election system. It is even worse for the Tories. So long term Tory supporters will cheer them on.
We are heading into a feudal system of a sort. The wealth gap is absolutly massive and the only way to end up in the upper class is to inherit. As per usual the population feels that the system is unfair, but is unable to see the real problem. Media is really pushing far right talking points, as the upper class realizes that the system is broken and a real revolution is a problem. Thats how the US ended up with a de facto monarchy. The UK is moving towards that pretty quickly too.
The good news is that Labour might make some really usefull changes. Mainly end first past the post to prevent Reform from taking over. That might very well allow left wing parties like the LibDems and Greens to win more seats and change the narrative.
The gamble just doesn’t really seem worth it.
China is not invading Taiwan. However if it comes to a war with the US, then it really has to take out Taiwan. It is just too close to the mainland, allowing for easy bombing and missile attacks, while als being able to cut off shipping from the mainland. Obviously the US likes that a lot, as it makes war against the US much more costly for China.
At the same time leaders often make horrible decisions. Just look at the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan or Russia invading Ukraine. Clearly not good wars for the countries invading, but they still did it.
Why do you need me to come up with reasons justify your hate booner for China?
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.
First of all greenhouse gases not just CO2.
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.
It is a modified version of Mastodon, with a Soapbox front end. It does not have ActivityPub enabled and lacks a bunch of features.
Thankfully only DDos. Truth Social is Mastodon so a security flaw could have been a real problem.
Voyager is already cross platform for iOS, Android and web. It is also open source: https://github.com/aeharding/voyager
280 chars for the free version and 4000, when you gift money to the Technoking of Tesla(the real title of the Musk)
It would be number 17, but the list only goes to 15.
Because Twitter is a very different service to all the bigger ones. The limit on the length of tweets means, that the messages posted have to be to the point, hence they are easy to quote by news of all sorts. That attracts politicans, CEOs and somewhat celbreties to the site, who want to be in the news and it becomes a self enforcing cycle. The eleven larger ones focus either on direct messaging like WhatsApp, Telegram and so forth or have none text media as their dominant form of content like Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.
It does not even need to be a majority. Actually doing it makes you more believable when you promote any sort of action. It also works as a sort of promotion in itself. As in people can see you cycle, not eat meat or have solar panels on your roof. By doing it, you also create demand for the alternative, like for example solar panels, bicycles or vegan products. That makes those alternatives easier and cheaper to purchase. It also makes it politically easier to ban something, as part of the society is not impacted at all.
In the end calling somebody an idiot, for promoting individual action due it not being an attempt to change society is just dumb. After all anybody who does that promotion tries to bring other people to do something. At that point it really is no longer the action of an individual. Honestly it really is a simple way to lobby against such actions on a bigger scale.