Just so we all remember, Mass Extinctions usually don’t mean anything like all species on earth dying. Like, even the big ones killed max like 75% of genera. We won’t end life on earth unless we do a very impressive nuclear war or hit a runaway heating threshold that turns Earth basically into Venus, neither of which is even remotely likely. Possibly more sadly, all signs appear to be pointing towards most stuff staying alive and just suffering.

Only four Republican Senators need to vote no in order to kill the bill. With two—Tillis and Paul—already saying they will oppose it, that leaves just two more Senators. Murkowski and Curtis are considered the most likely to oppose the anti-renewable provisions, according to one Senate staffer we spoke to.

They had better not pass this…

No?

I’m sorry, but if that’s the only route you can imagine, I’m sorry to say that if collapse is the answer, we’re gonna get into the runaway heating zone first and take everyone else out with us.

I don’t think that’s what’s gonna happen. I think we might get close, but I think that at the rate we’re going, we avoid that. Not that we don’t have some civilization collapse, but not total.

I assume you don’t know what the original joke is? The original is, in fact, a graph, this is a joke from a movie called Crocodile Dundee, where a guy pulls a knife on the main character, who proceeds to go “that’s not a knife” and pull out the largest bladed weapon that could still be considered a knife and says “this, is a knife.”

Hope this was helpful and that I’m not explaining something you already know.

Not quite a full 20%, but yeah, in your situation, that’s a big longevity problem. This data is obviously better for people not living in very hot climates. It looks like the first graph (which the 1.8% average is pulled from) is keeping climate constant (and probably temperate.)

That’s insane. No company should be allowed to produce that much waste. Yes, I mean that they should be responsible for the fact that all their clothes get thrown away.

This is great

I attended my local no kings protest as well. Glad to be part of it, somewhat disturbed by the amount of pro military messaging I saw though.

Epic! I hope to be able to ditch my car in the next two years, and I’ve mostly stopped eating meat too, and I haven’t turned my AC/Heat on since February (and then not for long.) I feel like taking the kind of steps needed to drastically reduce your share of emissions is easier than a lot of people make it out to be. (Though obviously it depends on life circumstances.)

Yeah, obviously you can’t blame one individual. Only a ton of individuals in aggregate. That’s why its important to change the behavior of large swathes of people.

Hah, imagine a corner store…

TBH, I think we need to bring this back for more remote/low density construction. It sounds awesome and I bet it would be a really good insulator

No, but the beef which enters a person’s body won’t be harmful to them (the person) at all.

I may be misunderstanding you. Are you talking about the harm caused in its production? As in pound for pound the harm caused by the production process? Because I would like to emphasize that I don’t think beef production is less harmful, the additional harm caused to the planet in industrial grade beef far outweighs the difference in animal welfare. It seems slightly weird to me to talk about the meat itself being harmful as it enters the person’s body when the harm is in the production.

I also don’t understand what you mean by separating “material” vs “psychological” conditions. If you’re talking about the psychological state the animals are in while they are alive, as far as I know, the statement stands, industrial cattle live slightly better lives (more space and such,) which results as far as I know, in a better psychological state*.

That’s not to say that beef is ok while chicken is not, if chicken is off the table for you, beef definitely should be as well.

*Though it is now occurring to me that comparing the psychological states of chickens and cows may not be an activity with a point.

Go India! I hope to see more of this.

I agree, mass transit should only ever use diesel if its actively being established for the first time (for now still cheaper per bus/train, if you’re establishing a new grid, its critical to start with as many buses/trains as possible) and once its gotten established and is being used by a segment of the population it should be switched as quickly as possible.

Ok, but also, unless you’ve got time travel, talking about when we needed to start doesn’t help anyone. Talking about what we need to do now, maybe.

Insignificant, but cool. I didn’t know about the anti-greenwashing legislation they mentioned until now, that’s probably more significant.

Yeah, I agree here, they do supply all the data and methodology (though obviously some of it is paywalled) and I see how the way they presented it is probably the best for the LCD consumer, but I would have liked a decent concise summary of just the sustainability data.

You could just sit back and enjoy it instead of commenting like that.

Yes, not good, but better. I’ve worked in industrial chicken and been fairly close to industrial beef, industrial cows are treated mildly better because it is literally impossible for a cow to survive in the conditions chickens are kept in.

Also, their comment said that they wouldn’t eat chicken either, not that they wouldn’t eat chicken but would eat beef.