and he only made cagey statements about seeing himself as the transition between generations

What the fuck else do you think it means to “signal” something in politics?

Whatever the fuck they want. Both American parties are pro-genocide, and their voters are either too stupid or too scared to demand otherwise. Its relevant because Israel could be doing absolutely none of this without US backing. US voters had (and somewhat still have) an opportunity to demand from their candidates but as I said, either too stupid or too scared to demand it.

Now Israel has carte blanc.

No. It was his words. His words he said. With his mouth.

Remember when Biden “signaled” he would be a one term president in his first campaign, then proceeded to put the entire country at risk by running again?

Damn, I thought it was going to end up being Kowalski from Nebraska.

You are validating bad faith criticisms by engaging with them. You give them substance by addressing them. These are the exact kinds of things that the fossil fuel industry has been funding for literally decades to create confusion/ uncertainty around renewables. By engaging with and sharing content like this, you are doing their work for them. By asking and then answering non-issues like this, it validates the idea that there was a problem with renewables to begin with. Content like this is the result of 80 years of fossil fuel company psyops campaigns.

On Thursday, House Democrats will look into what they describe as the oil industry’s decades of disinformation and misrepresentation to delay climate action. They have called executives from Exxon Mobil, BP America, Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil to testify. The meeting, Democrats say, is modeled on a historic hearing more than 25 years ago that held the tobacco industry to account for misleading the public about the harmful effects of smoking.

Two names likely to come up at the hearing are Charles and David Koch, the conservative petrochemical magnates. They have poured millions of dollars into efforts to discredit the science of climate change. The brothers have given over $145 million to climate-change-denying think tanks and advocacy groups between 1997 and 2018. The Kochs were joined in their efforts by Exxon, which has given nearly $37 million over the same time to spread climate misinformation.

A senior Exxon lobbyist in Washington was caught on tape in June describing the company’s campaign to cloud the science. “Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes,” said Keith McCoy in a sting operation by Greenpeace U.K. “Did we hide our science? Absolutely not. Did we join some of these ‘shadow groups’ to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that’s true. But there’s nothing illegal about that. You know, we were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders.”

The primary goal of these campaigns is to create confusion/ uncertainty; to elevate non-issues into concerns: precisely what this content does.

Yeah if you dont harvest it while its practically just emerged, you are just eating wood.

Democrats have failed on this for 40 years at a federal level. If they’ve been waiting for puns to come around… that’s an been greater failing.

good for getting a stick or two, or for growing seed asparagus, but asparagus gets big. real big.

The problem is that it validates the claim to offer a “solution” (it isn’t) to the “problem” (it isn’t). It’s counter productive to validate the claim by offering this retort. It’s also not even the second time I’ve seen this being trotted out. It’s at least the third, maybe fourth.

I’d be more than happy with seeing these things repurposed into something useful. If we’re in a position where windmill blades are littering the landscape because we have a preponderance of cheap/ free/ non polluting energy, that’s a good thing.

improvement is improvement

Yeah I don’t agree with that. It’s a complete distraction and irrelevant, it adds confusion to a ley audience by implying this was something that needed addressing.

We’ve got some real problems; a preponderance of windmill blades sounds like a made up rw talking point: responding to or producing articles like this offers a validation that the counterfactual doesn’t warrant.

It is actually problematic to spend time, effort, and other people’s attention and understanding making weird defensive claims to non issues.

ahh yes because wm blades are just piling up.

non solution to a non problem.

Some people are considering time. Also these fine folks.

Once you put time into the equation, the highlights the absurdity of valuing any form of sequestration while not valuing avoided emissions.

Think about it like this:

The current price for a megagram of forest carbon is about 25 bucks. The contract for that is 25 years. So about a buck per year per megagram.The average megagram of fossil fuels CO2 was laid down in the Carboniferous. So call it 100 mya for dipshit math. Average temperate forest might do 2 megagrams per hectare per year. So to sequester a megagram of forest carbon for the time equivalent of fossil fuels carbon, you would need to set aside apx 50 million hectares for the time equivalent sequestration benefit. Which would mean that to get the time equivalent sequestration benefit from forest carbon, you need to set aside 50 million hectares. Per megagram. Which is just preposterous. It also implied that the stored value of a non-emitted megagram of fossil fuels carbon is about 50 million dollars. Which is to say if we believe that a megagram of forest carbon stored for 25 years is worth 25 bucks, we should by extension believe that keeping a megagram of carbon from being emitted from fossil fuels is worth 50 million bucks. Obviously none of this is really true but it points to the absurdity of sequestration and the importance of not emitting more carbon from fossil fuels, in any manner. Right now solar and bev are the most obvious, straight forward, And demonstrated to be effective ways to get there. We might literally be in a path to a world of practically free electricity in some places at certain times of day.

Also big electric truck go bzzzz.

*(these are all approx numbers and math; I’m in the shitter and not looking up anything for the haters)

The future is very clearly electric.

How do I vote for this.

Waterville

To be fair, it was right in the name.

Nope. Its genera in this context because they are discussing it as species.

They are pluralizing genus. Its a reference to it being a new “species” of image.

Your assumption of the word they are pluralizing was wrong.

Monarchists didn’t really support Capitalism

Tell that to literally any monarchy in history.

Communists

Did I say communist? Did I stutter?