Both the Israeli government and Hamas are wrong and bad. The Israeli people and Palestinians are both indigenous to the land they share, and both have the right to live there. The median age of Palestine is under 20, the people many people in this thread are justifying the genocide of are majority children, because their parents have been killed by the Israel government in an apartheid state. The solution Netanyahu will take will be genocide of Palestinian people, when Hamas is to blame.
Since Israel was founded there never had been a chance of a happy outcome. The claim on the land was tenuous at best then and neither Israel nor Palestine ever wanted to peacefully mingle. The fact that Israel is governed by far right religious nuts and Palestine by terrorists also adds to the problem, but hey! whatever works to assuage the “western world” guilt for the Shoah, right?
In the 90’s, the Oslo Accords was a step forward between Israel (Yitzhak Rabin, and his opponent Shimon Peres) and Palestine Liberation Organization (Yasser Arafat) to find a way to live peacefully together.
They shared the Nobel Peace Prize for that. And it cost Yitzhak Rabin his life, as he was murdered by a far-right terrorist who wanted to stop the peace process.
True but since then Israel has done nigh to nothing to stop the creation of kibbutz in Palestine, and the occupation of land both in Gaza and in the West Bank, and Hamas has grown to pretty much erase any other political faction in Palestine. The PLO shrunk out of any international relevance since the death of Arafat and Israel is actually governed by the far-right. Alas! Everything went very wrong since the 90s.
Now, I am in no way expert in the subtleties of the political situation in Israel and Palestine, but it seems that the peace process in that region will always be doomed to fail.
You’re right, the situation has deteriorated over the last 30 years.
But what I don’t agree with is the idea that it’s impossible to establish lasting peace in the region.
Otherwise, we have to accept that their only conceivable future is permanent conflict until genocide arrives. That’s morally unacceptable to me; we can’t settle for horror.
Also, the whole "illegally annexing land, destroying people's homes, propping up Hamas to delegitimize Palestinian political groups, and attempting to slow walk a genocide against the previous people" thing probably didn't help Israel's situation either.
Honestly it’s sound more and more like Netanyahu let this happen, if not created the circumstances for it to happen, just to create a rally round the flag effect because his goose was cooked legally and electorally
WARN applies to companies with 100 or more full time employees, so they could potentially be just shy of the number. There are also some exceptions that could apply. I worked at a place that from the layman’s reading you would think had an exception, they were sued in a class action and ended up having to pay some (although a tiny amount to most of us). It seems like the exceptions might be a pretty high standard to meet.
The motive was clear, and that was to delegitemise other more balanced political groups from Palestine. He basically propped up Hamas because he knew what their intentions were.
It’s politics. Newfound Allies have expectations. I highly doubt Zelenskyj really wants to get involved with Israels ever ongoing conflict at this point in time.
I’m just pointing out the most likely explanation.
But I have no doubt he’s more concerned with own people and that if he wants to keep receiving aid for the war in Ukraine he has to “play ball.”
It’s a shitty situation to be in.
However I don’t think he’s going to divert any resources to Israel anytime soon, regardless of the sincerity of his statement. So at least there’s that.
Focusing on passenger cars never will be, as their co2 output is only around 15% of the total in the EU. Every little bit helps, sure, but even getting completely rid of cars wouldn’t be enough.
Except that 15% isn’t nearly enough to even really make a dent into climate change as a whole, and there is no way in the near foreseeable future to get anywhere near “nobody uses cars or anything that causes co2 emissions to move around.”
Even if everyone swapped to electric cars or alternative methods of transport asap, which would cause a huge spike in emissions from their manufacturing (~twice of an ICE car) and all the infrastructure work required to handle their charging and all the extra maintenance of roads required from having vehicles two to three times as heavy as most ICE cars run on them, let’s assume we’d get a reduction of 50% for personal transport - you’ve just spend an absurd amount of money and effort to reduce the overall emissions by 7.5%.
If 7.5% reduction is the goal that would be much cheaper, easier and faster to carve out of the energy sector, which currently accounts for around 70% of total co2 because majority of it is still made using fossil fuels.
We need to do it eventually, sure, and everyone who can afford to get an electric car should do so, but it’s like tackling plastic pollution by removing disposable straws and forks instead of concentrating on the massive amounts used by manufacturing sector - visible and gives everyone a nice fuzzy feeling they are doing something, while not actually achieving much. A good cause, but not the most pressing one by far.
Principally agree. If we want to make a dent we need to be going into carbon capture mode - as most likely we’re already seeing cascading effects from the emissions already caused. Permafrost melting and releasing methane, the ocean warming up and holding less CO2.
But the numbers you use are horrid.
The average EV weighs maybe around 300 kg more than a comparable fossil car. Sure, the Hummer EV weighs a fuckton, but a regular Hummer ICE isn’t exactly a Lotus either.
The other negative trend in weight is the SUV-ification of society, and if you swap a Civic for an iX you get double padding.
Lifetime emissions cast a much bigger shadow than production emissions and most EV’s are climate positive one year in (average driving length, average electricity mix).
All of that said; don’t buy an EV to save the planet. Buy an EV because it’s a better car and better for your wallet. Depending on a multitude of factors these may not hold true for you yet, and you should probably just keep driving what you drive.
People focus way too much on the downsides of EV’s like charging infrastructure issues or waiting to charge.
All vehicles have tradeoffs and just because you’re used to filling petrol doesn’t mean it’s a pleasant activity. I’ve spent way too much time freezing at the petrol pump in the winter.
I actually did the math and found I’ve been spending way too much time at the petrol pumps. Driving electric I plug in at home. Takes a few seconds just like plugging in your phone.
Going out for petrol takes ten minutes. Driving on trips my bladder is still the weakest link, but every now and then charging adds a few minutes here and there, sometimes more.
Estimated net average time savings per year over the last four years is about 3-4 hours driving electric instead of ICE. That includes an hour less filling in freezing conditions.
But I digress.
TLDR; Climate is fucked, but EV’s can be good fun. Don’t feel obliged to buy one just yet, wait until it makes sense.
15% is a significant dent. It's 15%! Even half of that is significant. And I'd sooner say we transition to encouraging just about any other kind of transit via our city and infrastructure design (efforts are ongoing, so it's not like no progress has been made) rather than just encouraging everyone to switch to an electric vehicle, but there are all kinds of benefits to restricting vehicle traffic in city centers besides climate change too, probably helping them to sell this policy. It's still a reduction that helps climate change, but it's one of those ones like straws and plastic bags that are much easier to legislate even if it's not the largest reduction that could be made. I guess I just disagree that anything other than the largest slices of the pie are worth putting any focus on, because if it was easy to reduce those large slices of the pie, we'd have done it. Even those large slices can probably be broken up into smaller slices, of which some may be easy to deal with.
At first I thought this was about a terrorist attack that killed more than a thousand denying their human right to live. Then I remembered those didn’t have the right to exist in the first place.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.