Won't you come

Depends on from what pole you're starting, I imagine.

Not trying to say you need to change your behaviors or that you're even in a position to. But this way of thinking is exactly why corporations will continue to destroy the environment for profit. Many people have the ability to become partially or completely self sufficient with produce. Livestock is a bit different.

Anyone with a lawn is choosing to use that space to grow an ornamental plant that requires constant care and maintenance instead of a beneficial food bearing plant that also requires care and maintenance.

If more people worked harder to become more self sufficient, instead of relying on the "trade labor for food" model....more of society would be insulated from damaging effects of a failed economy and would not become part of the "billions" that may die in an economic breakdown.

Obviously this is an overly simplistic argument and I understand there are many nuances to this that aren't being accounted for like those living in apartment complexes in densely packed urban areas....there are solutions there too....but simply being apathetic to "I'm completely dependent on the economic situation that's killing us and I have no capability or motivation to change that" is certainly not setting yourself up for success in a world where we can clearly see, decades in advance, what the consequences of that will be.

Menacing show of butthurt, you mean

Yep, they'll do that.

It is already happening, of course it is inevitable. But we can halt it.

[removed]

"Doing something" is a vague and nebulous term. People will have to give up tangible things they don't want to. Fighting climate change isn't all puppy dogs and rainbows. It's living in a walkup apartment instead of a house, it's trading a cheeseburger for a veggieburger, and it's riding an ebike in the rain instead of driving.

I already do most of those things. Most people I meet that promote "doing something" about climate change, suddenly say, "well not that!" when I start talking about the high GHG emissions from common everyday "necessities" they feel they can't or shouldn't have to part with.

"Advisory opinion". And the US is the biggest responsible for climate change. And has already established precedent of passing laws that directly threaten the Hague. This is just a token of goodwill. Which isn't nothing, mind you, since international relations are slow to build trust. But I wouldn't call it a win of epic proportions.

EDIT: I seem to have offended some nationalists?

I would assume tomatoes were actually chosen partially due to this. They are nightshades, so if something goes wrong they will be incredibly and obviously poisonous, rather than leaving anyone guessing.

Assuming this is a sincere question:

Geopolitical claims gain/lose legitimacy if they're not refuted. In this case, China's crossing of the Median Line (established in 1955) is to challenge its legitimacy and assert the strait is their waters. If no one challenges that by sailing through the international waters between China & Taiwan then, in the future, they can assert "We did X back in Y and nobody complained then".

America responds to China's patrols with their own patrols on the Taiwan side of the line so such a claim can't be made without refutation.

Yeah, it’s a littler more difficult when people hide their infections. Thank goodness it’s not airborne but it can still spreed pretty damn quick if people aren’t wanting to self identify.

Truly horrific way to die.

Finally someone says it. The climate is being super disrespectful.

Putin is entering the murder/suicide phase now…

Just finished reading Hot Spot so this is pretty terrifying.

[deleted]

ohhh !!!tiniest faces!

The economy would greatly benefit from doing something about climate change.

Well of cause certain impactful people do benefit short term from not doing much about it...

The reality is, no matter what hardlines they claim, the only actual hardline would be a direct military assault on the entirety of moscow. Anything less will never inspire a nuclear strike, because, so long as moscow isn't under attack, Russia will still have far more to lose by firing the nuke than whatever they gain.

According to Discovery magazine in the late 80's, the Eastern Seaboard was supposed to be flooded by 2015, and the Obama's recently bought prime ocean front property on Martha's Vineyard. I wouldn't be too worried

So using the well documented math of drastically underestimated climate timelines we should see evidence of this pretty soon.

The problem is that the press keeps reporting the Russian claims without explicitly stating that they are lies.

[removed]

Damn. As an Ian, I was excited that my name was used and I fucked shit up. Was hoping for more, but cat 4 will have to do.

I know. It's hard problem, primarily a coordination problem, but also a problem of energy. It's solvable, but when push comes to shove, people don't want to change.

I live in liberal SF and people won't even increase density, much less give up their precious automobiles to cut their carbon footprint. It's a much more difficult problem to solve. Most of the people who say they care about climate change won't even give up beef, much less ride an ebike.