They said it was orange corn flour all along, and they have a history of not actually damaging anything but using the appearance of “damage” to make a point. Corn flour is a very simple, inert substance. You’re actually demonstrating the hypocrisy that this group is trying to highlight - more concern over something like corn flour damaging these rocks than the damage done by millions of barrels of crude oil extracted every day. Where’s your outrage over acid/micro plastic in rain that falls on these stone every week? There will be new species of moss that grow on these rocks, or pollen that blows on them from invasive species, possibly damaging them as the climate heats up - are you worried about that? Why can folks summon outrage over something inert that touched a famous rock, but not for destruction of the actual biosphere? If Stonehenge is that fragile, why are people allowed anywhere near it? You’re more than welcome to disagree with them, but if you spend more energy complaining about Just Stop Oil than you do complaining about actual oil companies, you’re actually just supporting the oil companies.

https://professortorberts.com/shop/

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know it wasn’t permanent from the get go.

We’re a lot better at standing, walking, and running long distances. Not sure if I’d say objectively worse, just better at different things (but objectively way less cool than peeling a banana and eating it with your feet).

What kind of ice are you riding on? Snow, even packed snow it usually ok, but turning/braking on ice is a disaster without studded tires. Source - I’ve crashed on ice several times despite being a very competent rider in all conditions for 3 decades.

That’s just the reality of allowing presidents to serve two terms though. There’s an incumbent advantage, so to forgo that for the sake of choice every 4 years for both parties vs 4-8 years for both parties is a tradeoff. It’s just part of the reality of the framework.

I disagree, a vote for Biden is a vote for his whole apparatus - appointments, advisors, the people at EPA trying to regulate PFAS and carbon, etc. I’m happy to support the majority of this coalition because they are doing some good stuff. I don’t understand the need to try and paint Biden voters exclusively as anti-Trumpers, it just serves to gloss over the good that is going on.

How is it underrated? I’ve heard nothing but accolades from social media, the press, and owners themselves.

There are lots of folks working on maritime (and aviation) decarbonization, it’s not being ignored. It’s just harder than decarbonozing other sectors because they can’t just electrify like you and I can do with our cars and homes. The solution is likely to be synthetic fuels of some sort, ammonia, hydrogen, biodiesel, etc. We’re seeing sails come back, there have been innovation hull designs, etc. You could even call tarrifs a partial solution here because building locally reduces shipping needs. It’s just not as cheap/easy as installing solar panels/wind/batteries though. We need policy to drive change here, which puts it on a different level than the personal responsibility measures. I absolutely agree we need to do all of the above though.

As to the source, I don’t know but it’s cited in government records everywhere. They have a good handle of how much fuel is produced everywhere, we know exactly what ships exist and where they go in real time globally, we know how efficient they are, so it doesn’t seem nebulous enough to me to have any real doubt in. NASA can probably track all their emissions from space too.

Yes. Use stainless steel, cast iron, and carbon steel. You can cook everything with these just as easily once you learn some basic cooking skills.

I don’t think the issue is whether it’s effective in isolation (clearly we can alter the environment), it’s the fact that it’s likely to be used as a shitty band aid to continue emitting carbon and it’s likely to have unforseen consequences. We need to stop burning fossil fuels, all of them, immediately.

Shiping represents about 10% of the 25% of global carbon emissions from transportation, so 2.5%, similar to aviation. Yes, it’s a problem but it’s not the boogeyman you seem to think it is.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport

You seem to supporting the concept though. More people didn’t keep voting left, they voted center/left which sounds like has been moving right, so things stayed the same/went right. Who you vote for matters too - we have multiple opportunities to vote between “dems”. To me OPs comment is a simple truism - we can’t move left by not electing leftist individuals (and parties by extension). Any other strategy is some pie in the sky game theory.

Is that why pedestrian deaths are increasing in the US and are at an all time high, while decreasing everywhere else? Pay attention to the data instead of pretending that everyone proving your wrong is a European urbanite (I’m American btw, not that it fucking matters). US vehicles are way too big and they are fucking dangerous, period.

https://www.vox.com/23784549/pedestrian-deaths-traffic-safety-fatalities-governors-association

I thought you were talking about GM for a second. Tell us more about how US truck/SUVs are so great for pedestrian safety, the child labor at the Hyundai plant in the south, the relentless spyware and horrible data privacy practices, the US auto bailouts, and their “innovation”. I have no love for Chinese EVs, but the US domestic market has plenty of problems on their own.

Whoa let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves, I’m sure they still use arch.

That makes sense. My understanding is that it’s quite common for cars to end up in poorer countries as they age, so that all checks out. The point is on average, cars get used, so we want to prevent the worst ones from being made moving forward (ICE). And yes, to me the system is the atmosphere since I’m primarily concerned with an overabundance of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The problem with all of these analyses is nobody can agree where to draw the system boundaries. I prefer to draw very large system boundaries (societal level), e.g. your car will enter the secondary market when you sell it and someone else will typically drive it somewhere approaching the end of useful life. So to me, any ICE (or EV) has sort of a “fixed” carbon cost consisting of production, fueling, maintenance, etc. over its lifetime. At this point, what matters is that as many new new cars as posible are EV so that they can enter the secondary market and replace the fleet. Amortizing or sunk cost fallacying the use of ICE doesn’t make sense because reality doesn’t care about amortization, it just counts the carbon dioxide ppm in the atmosphere as it occurs. The secondary and tertiary markets are driven by economics, so we need a combination of (a) wealthy people eating the depreciation as soon as possible and (b) much cheaper new EVs. Our goal should be to eliminate the production of ICE. Applying to an individual level, if you sell your older ICE truck to someone that was about to buy a new gas F150, and you buy an EV, that’s a win and you shouldn’t do some weird math that results in you burning a bunch of gasoline to get to some amortized level for that vehicle before moving on.

And how does Idaho vote exactly? Is it different than OR, WA, CO, CA? Do you think the way these states vote might have something to do with it? You’re disproving your own point.

And who’s to blame here? Have you considered blaming the invading force, or does it have to be the west for your sensibilities? Everything would be great if we all just rolled over when invaders arrive at the gates!

“Pennies on the dollar” refers more to the fact that we have mostly sent old equipment that’s already paid for and would otherwise never see the light of day, while also avoiding the use of any US/NATO manpower to massively undermine an adversary. It’s a great deal, i.e. pennies on the dollar.

I guess it’s edifer to just call everything a “narrative” though than try and understand current events.