A buddhist vegan goth with questionable humour.
This is btw one main reason why milk is murder, because many of those calves are often killed for their meat. The other reason is that cows stop beeing productive and are killed way before their natural death, since the replacement calves are rdy to go (I think it was something like after 5 years with their natural life span beeing around 25, but I’m not sure if I remember correctly).
A bit oversimplified, but just to add a bit more context why vegans don’t drink milk.
They don’t call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?
After several days of what I can only describe as ill-informed pro crab propaganda posts all over lemmy I realy needed this. Thank you.
Great question! The reason why I was using the 2017 report is that the Guardian arrival you originally referred to was from 2017, so I looked at the report they were working off of.
That is sensible, yes.
I regards to the graph you posted, it shows how emissions from private comps is have fallen and emissions from nations and nation owned companies have rissen. I think this is a relevant distinction to make, because the meme and the report as they are show a one sided picture (capitalism is the sole drive of climate change) whilst, looking at the complete data, a more nuanced picture emerges (like the role of nations in upholding the capitals system).
Looking at the numbers you should maybe include Chinas Coal Industry in there, since it is responsible for about 25 % of global emissions alone, according to the up to date report.
And the people at Gazprom also deserve a prominent spot in that line.
Why are you using data from the 2017 report?
You are referring to page 15, which shows emissions in 2015. In the up to date 2024 report this has been replaced with emissions after the Paris climate agreement, so 2016 till 2022.
As you can see, the same picture emerges as I stated in my first post: the top actors are Nations or state owned producers. The contribution to global Co2 emissions is listet, but still only refers to fossil fuel and cement Co 2 emissions.
https://mander.xyz/comment/15166141
I’ll refer to this comment where I showed why the article quoted here is very missleading.
This meme is not true and missleading. I know it fits the narrative of “companies bad”. But it’s not based on fact.
It’s based on an article by the guardian.
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
The article is based on the Carbon Major Report.
It describes itself like this:
Carbon Majors is a database of historical production data from 122 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers. This data is used to quantify the direct operational emissions and emissions from the combustion of marketed products that can be attributed to these entities.
As you can see, they speak about “entities”, not companies. Who are said entities?
75 Investor-owned Companies, 36 State-owned Companies, 11 Nation States, 82 Oil Producing Entities, 81 Gas Entities, 49 Coal Entities, 6 Cement Entities
As one might realize, only 75 are Companies. Most of them are either States, or producers of Oil, Gas, Coal and Cement.
The 71 % is not at all about global emissions. This is wrong.
72% of Global Fossil Fuel & Cement CO2 Emissions
So it’s 100 entities that are responsible for 72 % of the world’s fossil and cement Co2 emission.
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/05dfb9e1-ace2-4072-9fc5-7ed6f6eddfb2.png
Looking at them you can see how the top emitter are very much not companies. Also, it’s historical Co2, a fact made prominent by the former Soviet union beeing the top emitter.
Let’s look at some more findings:
The Carbon Majors database finds that most state- and investor-owned companies have expanded their production operations since the Paris Agreement. 58 out of the 100 companies were linked to higher emissions in the seven years after the Paris Agreement than in the same period before. This increase is most pronounced in Asia, where 13 out of 15 (87%) assessed companies are connected to higher emissions in 2016–2022 than in 2009–2015, and in the Middle East, where this number is 7 out of 10 companies (70%). In Europe, 13 of 23 companies (57%), in South America, 3 of 5 (60%) companies, and in Australia, 3 out of 4 (75%) companies were linked to increased emissions, as were 3 of 6 (50%) African companies. North America is the only region where a minority of companies, 16 of 37 (43%), were linked to rising emissions.
Here the report mixes state and private companies. The rise is most prominent in countries with state owned companies. Privote companies, as seen in Europe and North America, haven’t increased that much.
So, all in all: The idea that 100 companies are responsible for the destruction of earth is plain wrong.
I know the ideas that companies are responsible and to blaim for the current state of affairs fits our world view (it fits mine!!), but please don’t run into the trap of believing everything you read just because it does.
Im not a native English speaker and I thought “lost my legs” was an idome of some sort, especially because you wrote it in the same sentence as beeing a single father.
But no. You lost your legs. Litarly.
In regards to the rest of your post, absolutely 100 % on your side. I met my wife 2 years ago and it is the most beautiful relationship I ever had, mainly because we treat each other with the same amount of respect.
I just saw a video about this some days ago.
Sort of, ay.
The judge said Kurtaj’s skills and desire to commit cyber-crime meant he remained a high risk to the public.
He will remain at a secure hospital for life unless doctors deem him no longer a danger.
The court heard that Kurtaj had been violent while in custody with dozens of reports of injury or property damage.
Doctors deemed Kurtaj unfit to stand trial due to his severe autism so the jury was asked to determine whether or not he committed the alleged acts - not if he did so with criminal intent.
I agree, if you feel it is affecting your mental health you should by all means take care of yourself and avoid it. I can understand how this is sensible.
But why the block? Why not disagree and move on with your life?
0
I won’t block different perspectives. If I disagree I disagree and move on, but why block somebody? I think it is important to have your believes challenged.
Shhh. Let Linus Finnish.
Would accessibility be a solution here? I am speaking about public transport that has dedicated spaces for wheelchairs, has ramps to get on and off etc., as well as sidewalks that are accesibil by wheelchairs, with a smith surface and ramps to get on and off to. Maybe combine that with lifts to access pedestrian subways and overbrides.
Possibly it could also mean the ability to rent, best case for free and at a place reachable by public transport with very little or no walking, a wheelchair or a simiiular solution that let’s one drive rather then walk.
I’m just thinking loud, but maybe such solutions should be considered in every walkable city.
What’s cake day?
deleted by creator
I disagree. When I make Ai images I create like 1000 versions of a promt and chose the one that comes closest to what I want it to convey and work from there.
The again, I do this offline and have no limits to work with, so there is that.
Yes, but that is because there is a power imbalance at play here. It makes sence to avoid such situations to prevent sexual violence in institutions.
You can normalise beeing naked without shame beeing involved and keep children safe in a situation that could be potentialy abused. In my opinion that’s not mutually exclusive.
Ironically not making parts of our body a taboo best not even to talk about is what helps children speak out if they have been molestered. Same with knowing what is appropriate and what not. Sex-Ed is just so important to prevent sexual violence against children. Which is, just to make the clear, still not their responsibility. It’s just something that helps a lot, you still need systems of protection in institutions.
/rant I guess.