I feel like the problem is that we're not addressing core problems. We point at CO2 and not to wasteful practices. We can point to capitalism, and money steers action which is heavily influenced by major corporations, but we're not addressing those companies (we talk about capitalism, but I'm not complaining about people being able to sell their own stuff and not government owned factories). Opposition to the climate crisis state people have been shouting the world will end for many many years now and they state people still buy beach property that would not exist if what they state in the media is true. If everyone is going to die you would hope everyone agrees to take actions, but covid showed the world doesn't always unite.
Seems sensible but we're late. No longer. Now we have to cut everything that's not mere survival. We don't have time to replace stuff with more sustainable stuff.
We have to survive first. No need to build millions of battery electric cars. Build thousands of trains and some electric busses and forbid cars, etc.
It sounds like we want the same thing, except think of different approaches. We can ban private jets to signal we're doing stuff, because most of use don't have jets anyways and they pollute, but that doesn't change much. Not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm stating other things have more impact. That's why I raised my 'free-fruit' example. Sure I can buy food myself, it's that they stopped doing it to reduce costs but didn't actually take any big steps to save money, they only have small once that don't really matter.
So we should stop pretending to do stuff and do stuff. Banning private jets without addressing the total CO2 issue is the same as doing nothing.
I don't know what do you mean by crop burning.
"Crop burning (3.5%): the burning of agricultural residues – leftover vegetation from crops such as rice, wheat, sugar cane, and other crops – releases carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. Farmers often burn crop residues after harvest to prepare land for the resowing of crops.", source:
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
I somehow might understand farmers doing it, but it also sounds like they could not do it without too much hassle.
IMF, FED, International Trade Dispute Resolution, Wagner, Blackwater, GAFAM, Cambridge Analytica,...
I was referring to this ongoing discussion where some politicians worry about the WHO having the capability to side-step the government to implement policy directly.
Quote: "The Committee also commented on the other amendments which might be seen as seeking to make WHO recommendations binding, and considered that these “would be incoherent with the existing Regulations, as it would render these recommendations mandatory, whereas they were intended to be non-binding.”"
Also see the attached PDF for the full document or download it from the source:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9550/CBP-9550.pdf
yewtu.be
yewtu.be
boingboing.net
yewtu.be
