Is this advocating voting third party? Because that isn’t how first past the post works, third parties won’t win.

Carbon capture is useful for making aviation fuel, and hopefully eventually plastic. But I’m guessing these people were suggesting carbon capture from polluting power plants?

I’m familiar with the BBC, but I don’t know about their Russian service. Is it the same coverage, or an independent branch? I’ve seen articles by the investigator I think, but same thing, is this their Russian branch? I’ve never heard of the first one.

So which ones are those two? I’m not familiar with them.

Meaning one’s that didn’t agree with Russia’s official stance, or ones claiming to be independent but still funded by Russia? Those would be very different things.

Poor thing starved to death

We need ranked choice voting so people can vote for who they actually want without throwing away they vote. The problem is opposing ranked choice voting is one of very few issues both parties agree on, since it hurts both of them.

Don’t worry, that rocket is new shepherd, so you can eat him when it comes back down in 30 min. New shepherd doesn’t get to orbit, it just does 100km hops straight up.

You’re saying it was not targeted at combatants, or that there was a lot of collateral damage?

With how small feature sizes are on chips, I wonder what sort of easter eggs the designer have hidden in them.

My phone still keeps apps open after a restart, idk how. Maybe it catches them somehow?

Yeah, my parents actually close all their apps regularly, whereas I have dozens of apps not doing anything in the background since it doesn’t really make a difference.

Almost all of these emissions in the headline are from the businesses they own shares in. So this is saying business emissions, just in a non-intuitive roundabout way.

You could assign company emissions to the consumers, the employees, or the owners. Without any one of those the company wouldn’t emit. I just wanted to make it clear that this study assigns it to the owners.

If you don’t include investment emissions, they’d emit more in 22 days than the average person does in their life.

Here’s the actual study

https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621656/bp-carbon-inequality-kills-281024-en.pdf?sequence=1

This number is almost entirely investment emissions, how much the companies they own emit.

Oxfam’s analysis found that investment emissions are the most significant part of a billionaire’s carbon footprint. The average investment emissions of 50 of the world’s richest billionaires were around 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) each. That is around 340 times their emissions from private jets and superyachts combined. Each billionaire’s investment emissions are equivalent to almost 400,000 years of consumption emissions by the average person, or 2.6 million years of consumption emissions by someone in the poorest 50% of the world.44

I guess C4 is a WMD in Nashville? With that title I thought he was using nerve gas or a dirty bomb or something.

Removed by mod

It’s kinda crazy that another county just joined the war on the ground for Russia and there hasn’t been a huge response. I hope Ukraine’s allies can really step up the support, maybe even responding in kind by sending engineering forces.

Their recent launches have been using field Russia more commonly uses, so they might be getting Russian engines.