Pot this to the urbanism subreddits too. People don’t understand how toxic suburban sprawl is.

According to the commission, the federal government should develop a climate resilience star rating system that potential buyers could use to identify homes at risk of climate-related damage.

!uninsurable@lemmy.world

Herders creating deserts: a tale as old as the Holocene.

The first goal is usually to privatize it.

I will believe it when I see the fossil fuels go down: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution

“Decoupling” is a weak indicator and it’s a reversible phenomenon. Don’t rely on it.

Yes and no. How popular do you think ending oil extraction is in those areas? Whatever the percent, that’s also a level of consent.

Are you joking?

If this is the new Olympics Games, what are the games?

Anything helps.

“Cutting methane is the single most important strategy to slow near-term warming,” says Durwood Zaelke, the president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, and a longtime advocate of action on methane. “In fact, it’s the only strategy that has a chance of working. Cutting carbon dioxide is a marathon, but methane is a sprint.”

Cutting methane emissions is much more in the realm of cutting the more optional activity, so it’s a great low hanging fruit. This also applies to the meat industry.

The carbon footprint, like the ecological footprint, is an average proxy for wealth. Wealth is political.

How are we to win the hearts and minds of these people by saying we intend to take their solid livelihoods?

Yes, that is a good question. Here’s another:

How are we to win the hearts and minds of these people by lying about their responsibility in the predicament? “Oh, it’s not you, it’s just this small group of billionaires which you admire want to replace!”

You don’t work with the people who want in on the suicidal game. The optimists need to be brought into reality, that’s something to work on. But for the psychos, you work around them, you around against them, not with them.

How could it not be political?

It’s a shame that I can’t downvote you across this federated connection.

deleted by creator

Can’t say that the next dark age was accidental.

“Environment for me, but not for thee.”

In a sense, it’s an older mentality related to taking over territory. The “eco” is tied to “cleansing” the territory for the added reason of having some park or sustainable looking agriculture or animal farming [for the master race]. A lot of the focus is on population and how great it would be if there were only a few (but “superior”) humans around. Not them, of course, it’s the others who “need to go”. This links effortlessly to the Nazis’ Lebensraum idea.

Good. The Sierra Club needed to dump its ecofash faction. I’m not going to read NYT, they’ve been complicit in horrible shit for a century, I have zero respect for them.

Your point was carnist apologetics.

You’re providing no references, no context, no phrasing. Whoever gave you an upvote must’ve been high on something.

This is incorrect, a common “gotcha” from carnists.

Sugar as a product is mainly of two types: (sugar)cane sugar and beet sugar. Beet sugar doesn’t use bones during refining. The US also has an USDA Organic label for cane sugar which should be bone free.

For Americans: https://ordinaryvegan.net/nutrition/vegansugar/ and https://www.peta.org/faq/are-animal-ingredients-included-in-white-sugar/

And, yes, there are plant-based alternatives for cow bones in that process.

There are also other sugars, perhaps more heavy on the fructose side, from other plants. Famously for the US: corn syrup.

It’s the same way we feel about sweatshops or slave labor or child labor or the general exploitation of workers. The vast majority of humans don’t want other humans to suffer, and most humans are at least aware that a child died to bring them that chocolate bar. That doesn’t stop people from buying chocolate or fast fashion or bacon cheeseburgers.

No, it’s not the same. Simple difference that even you can grasp: