I’m really sorry that this is what you got from what I wrote. I definitely don’t think we should keep using fossil fuel. On the contrary, I am all in for phasing out extractions and usage.

Cuz the US strategic oil reserve isn’t earmarked for the federal government

According to a factcheck site it looks like the U.S. Oil Reserve Created for Supply Disruptions, Not Strictly Military Use. So maybe your statement is wrong? Otherwise could you share the source you got this from?

the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil consumption of the US economy

I don’t understand what you are saying, could you please explain and/or share a relevant link? Btw maybe I should clarify that by talking about “consumption” I was not talking in economic terms, just in the sense of “utilizing”.

I have watched only a few minutes of this vid so far, as well as the timestamps and I must admit I don’t agree with this approach because of something I learned today.

He says around 2 m something like: the strategic US reserve of oil even tho the number of barrels sounds huge, they could sustain the US only a month of our current use. From the context my understanding is that he implies that this is due to casual, everyday-people consumption.

Well, it looks like the Department of Defense is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer, accounting for between 77% and 80% of all federal government energy consumption since 2001. So why is this huge percentage missing from this long analysis?

Anyways, if he talks about the US military petroleum consumption, please let me know. Or if I got something wrong with this new info I got about the US military, let me know too.

I tend to agree with several things you talk about, but I have the impression we see things differently. For example, on one hand I agree with you when you say that we cannot let the Rich-Super Rich Economic Classes/Owners to just produce even a single new piece of plastic, but on the other hand for me the root of the problem is that the extraction of oil worldwide is still expanding instead of phasing out. Meaning that, as long as this is the case, more and more plastic will be produced.

Apart from that, of course bacteria eating plastics sound like a great option, but they are not the only way to get rid of plastics. Some alternatives would be fungi that “eat” plastic, or mycelium that replace plastics. Here are some relevant articles.

There is also the option of Session and similar apps that don’t use mail or phone number. From my experience with it, it was super easy to use and even tho at first it was quite buggy, but the devs were constantly improving it. I haven’t used it for a couple of years now, and was great then for the way we used it - but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is even better now. I mean, I hope!

https://getsession.org/

Thank you for the info!

Just a reminder that Signal is not 100% open source since 2021. This means that we can no longer verify if what they say about privacy, security, etc, is true.

To my understanding the backdoor was opened in 2021.

we must depart from our totally-open posture and develop one piece of the server in private

[source: Signal]

It looks like this is a new (to me) feature I was not aware of and this is why I deleted the comment you replied to.

Since I consider this super important I would like to ask Smookey4444@anarchist.nexus to change the post description and ask for those who want to participate to follow the necessary steps as indicated by Signal (see here), before joining this group. Otherwise, it’s a problematic situation on so many levels imo.

deleted by creator

Please reconsider. You can join a group like that without giving away your phone number to a person you don’t know, asking for it online. See relevant comment in this comment section.

I will repeat stuff that are already present in this conversation because I consider this super important.

With Signal one has to share their phone number. Please don’t share your phone number with random people you meet online.

I am not an expert on bees, but I’ve had long discussions on the topic with friends who are beekeepers. The more we talked the more I understood I knew nothing on the topic.

I can’t say I remember too many details from these conversations. Still, there is one thing that stuck with me: the fact that we say they have a Queen, tells more about us observing them and our frame of reference, than about the way they actually organise. In a way, it’s more about projecting a belief system, on what we see, instead of just observing and trying to describe it. Something like that.

The scientific community is not a unified body, so having scientists questioning any scientific model does not seem like a “wow” moment. But, when the discourse starts including strong vocabulary, admittedly I start questioning/researching claims. And I appreciate it when studies conclude by saying things like: cautious of interpretation is needed, or further studies are warranted, etc.

Apart from that, sure, maybe the LNT model needs some re-evaluation, maybe not - I dunno, time will tell. Still, to my understanding, one problem with ionising radiation is that the dosage received by people is not always as tightly controlled as needed for it to be safe, despite all efforts. Not even in work environments.

- If I got this right, from in table 1, p3 one could get to the conclusion that to decommission photovoltaics creates 7 times more CO₂ (more precisely g CO2e/kWh), than decommissionning a nuclear plant for decades, as shown above. It made me wonder how they arrived to these measurements. But the link to the study for the nuclear is dead (see Heath, Garvin A., and Margaret K. Mann. 2012). So this cannot be verified.

• Having a potential solution in the works for nuclear waste is very different from what you said, which was: Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

Bye-bye now

Edit: The strikethrough, because it looks like the decommissioning of nuclear power plants was not reliably assessed after all. To be more precise, this is the 2012 meta study that is used for the g CO2e/kWh from nuclear decommissioning, and that I had difficulty finding. It clearly states:

Decommissioning was not usually described in detail; when described, most seem to closely resemble only “immediate dismantling,” not full decommissioning (see the Downstream Processes section of the supporting information on the Web).

The lifecycle emissions of nuclear plants are similar to (…)

The link you provided talks about something more specific than what you just said. It’s about the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation. This means that the decommissioning of a nuclear plant for example is not taken into account for these emissions, and it is well known that decommissioning a nuclear power station can easily take several decades (example from world nuclear news)

Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

The links I added above about France tell another story.

Edit: I looked a bit more into decommissioning and found the following from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and thought of sharing for easier visualisation

In terms of cleanness it is also incredibly clean.

I believe nowadays it would make more sense to compare nuclear to renewable energy, not coal. Apart from that it’s important to keep in mind the nuclear waste problem.

• France seeks strategy as nuclear waste site risks saturation point | Reuters
• Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia | Greenpeace

Thanks for this, it’s the first time I hear about this and it certainly sounds very interesting. I’m gonna look more into this as soon as I find the time. In the meantime, if you know more about them and feel like sharing about your experience using them, or anything actually, I’ll be glad to have your input.

May I also suggest something? Perhaps add in the post title something like anti-marketplace or anything like that, so that it is a bit clearer what they are for those of us who don’t know. (English is not my first language and just woke up, but still silly me, by reading the title I thought they were currency exchange apps. And now my coffee is ready!)

Bill Gates is a notorious capitalist. As mentioned in this article:

Gates sees nuclear power as a way to provide data centers with the power they need as well as to lower electricity costs.

He only cares about his projects and money, definitely not about people. See:

Tell Bill Gates: Stop Microsoft’s partnerships with the Israeli Military and ICE

“Fast action” in what sense? It looks like the nuclear phase-out in Germany started decades ago.

The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out

The nuclear phase-out is as much part of the Energiewende (energy transition) as the move towards a low-carbon economy. (…) a majority of Germans is still in favour of putting an end to nuclear power.

after 1989 no new commercial nuclear power stations were built

It looks like we see this differently. I would share this blame if we shared the profits, not because I’d rather live under a roof. Apart from that, the consumers in this case are often other companies that demolish houses to make malls and other commercial stuff.