![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/h1ChnLuBHr.png)
It depends on what the publishers publish for. If it’s money then Peertube is probably not attractive.
It depends on what the publishers publish for. If it’s money then Peertube is probably not attractive.
They always say how good, important, necessary they are without any mention of the pain and suffering that they have caused in the past and the chaos that they bequeath to our kids. Definitely ban them advertising!
Most of everyone else would agree that it is a lack of political will.
Thanks for the article. Your thoughts are probably similar to mine in that carbon capture probably is part of the solution but it’s hard to see how the volume of CO2 captured can be ramped up enough to be meaningful. It is certainly meaningless if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels.
36,000 tons a year and how energy is needed to sequester this piddling mount of CO2? Leaving the pre-sequestered stuff on n the ground is definitely cheaper. Bring on the carbon tax.
Well it makes sense as the people banning abortion are also making sure everyone has a gun.
There are ads on the radio in Perth that are spruiking how essential methane is to industry. What’s most annoying is no mention of the devastating effects on the climate crisis. Greenwashing at its finest.
Here I am, surprised that the US has troops in Chad.
I suppose that once you have laws that allow blocking one type of site then other sites will be pretty easy to be added. A precedent sort of thing. Done once then others will follow.
Pretty amazing that piracy is such a hot topic such that freedoms can be curtailed but everyone’s right to an AR15 must be protected.
Oil bosses say that the world will suffer climate calamity because we won’t give up burning oil. Or is it that they are addicted to the money and can’t give it up?
It’s a big problem and I don’t know if the science behind this has been tested. Still, every little helps!
Do we know how much there is and how much we will need? Seems like a huge problem. Maybe electrify everything and transition the economy to low carbon is a safer bet.
Is a radical idea that has insufficient study to give us confidence that it will work as intended. Research is necessary.
Certainly the major effort behind this as a solution is the fossil fuels industry as it smacks of a tech solution that deflects from the fact that we aren’t focused on rapidly reducing greenhouse emissions. There is a lot of these and the underlying problem is that CO2 pollution is continuing unabated. Greenwashing until emissions reduce.
Sounds reasonable if you think of the country as big. Attracting migrants is necessary as the birth rate in most educated countries is negative so the population, if left to itself, is declining. Migrants will mostly want to live in cities and probably the bigger ones with more opportunities. The infrastructure will mostly be needed to expand the big cities which will make them a lot less inviting. That might be less of an issue as everything electrified on the way to a low carbon economy, the smog will reduce as will some of the noise.
Isn’t the world’s population supposed to peak by 2070 and then decline? Sounds like a capitalist going on about the need for endless growth to make him billions. Has anyone thought about what Canada would be like to live in if there were 70 million extra people?
Thanks. It was not obvious. I wonder how well the distinction is appreciated by the target young audience? I know that the young seem to simplify their use of language.
I thought Russians referred to motherland not the fatherland. Is this a Putin shift?
Sounds like more shooting between Chinese and Indian soldiers with little to show for it.
Isn’t Trump supposed to be a billionaire? Surely a billionaire can pay his own bills! Maybe he isn’t the billionaire he claims to be.
Well it looks like he owes Putin, big time, so it’s payback time.