You should watch newer political debaters that invite average trump supports up on livestreams to argue on issues like this. A majority of them dont even understand due process.

Legislators? Sure. Constituents? Probably not.

Non paywalled version of article

Show me a single leftist calling to remove the middle class.

holy 5 months later batman…

I saw that I never posted a draft, lol.

It will always be more expensive to remove carbon from the atmosphere than to simply stop burning the fuels we have adequate replacements for.

Irrelevant, if companies and governments are willing/required to pay for it, then the cost does not matter. Also, pretending like the entire world can just not use fossil fuels is wishful thinking at best. If you think rationally for even a second, you would realize that is a nearly impossible task. Carbon capture will be one of many essential ways to offset emissions in areas where conversion to electric is infeasible

No one is suggesting we’ll have electric jets and shipping; but even industrial processes like steel foundries can go electric. Concrete too.

You are agreeing with my points here. My entire argument has been that shifting the onus to consumers for emissions is ridiculous. I have said multiple times that the manufacturing/energy production sectors are where we need to focus efforts rather than blaming inconsequential emitters like the consumers/ the FIA.

Furthermore, injection capture and other methods remain unproven for long periods - we don’t want a solution that blows up 200 years from now.

The problem with CC is not that it is unstable. It is that the current amount of capture is not sufficient for how much we emit.

You do you, but your sophistry about pets and killing all humans is unfounded and ridiculous. Akin to your premise.

It would be sophistic if you didn’t try to argue that anything that emits greenhouse gasses “needs to go.” I am simply pointing out how that logic is fundamentally flawed.

The realistic solution to all of this is a combination of everything. Transitioning away for fossil fuels where possible. Carbon capture can aid in sectors where that is infeasible. Offsets through companies like Wren have been proven to reduce emissions. (Yes, there are plenty of offset/credit programs that are not helpful, but that is a regulatory issue.) Increased public transportation options, more mixed use zoning, and more stringent manufacturing regulations, can also help. Change NEEDS to happen at a higher level before anything else can meaningfullly affect our course. And there a many intermediate steps we need to take before we can simply stop using fossil fuels altogether.

Carbon removal has been a viable solution for decades it just lacks the support necessary to scale. It has been proven to reduce the overall measued rate of c02 emissions here

Also, your entire argument is strangely pedantic. By your logic, anything that emits carbon needs to go, even if it’s neglible. We humans emit more carbon than we intake, so should we just kill everyone? The same goes for house pets. Should we just kill them all/make them illegal? Im genuinely asking because so far, your argument makes no logical sense.

That would hurt my feelings if I wasn’t a millennial lmao.

Seriously, though, your failure to even attempt to have a discussion tells me you have the discipline/intellect of a 14 y/o Ipad kid who learns everything from chatgpt.

Yes, because I have been an audio engineer for over two decades now. Show me someone who can reliably pass the iTunes test. Science does not care about your subjective personal experience.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/tax-the-rich-town-hall

Please elaborate

I highly doubt that. Do a proper ABx test (such as the one on digitalfeed.net) I have yet to meet someone who can pass the tests with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

If you have poe on the output end, there are repeaters that you could have buried along with the cable. Not a big enough signal difference in your case to be worth it probably but worth noting for other folks.

In swing states, yes. But for the majority of americans not in a swing state, their gripes are at least somewhat valid thanks to gerrymandering.

10 minutes. That’s one every 3 seconds…

Over the course of 10 minutes. That means she said it about every 3 seconds…

As someone who has walked around this mall many times, it may as well be a dungeon lmao

And Colorado proposition 131

Its satire…

Seriously. $100,000 watches? Who the fuck is the target audience for this?

Trump fanatics with a lot of money. Which if even one person buys one (And Im sure someone has) The entire charade becomes worth it.

the graph is clearly just fitted to the data

That’s the problem. It’s heavily skewed when compared to the greater overall engagement statistics.

Care to elaborate?