Linechecker

Look, a nation looking to expand its territory due to oil. Where's all the anti American Lemmy users to say how imperialistic they are?

My realizations over the years:

Even if we make our cars less carbon-polluting by 25%, if we end up driving more, we could still end up polluting more.

Even if the western nations pollute less, developing nations will still pollute a lot more and will get us to tipping points anyway, albeit perhaps slightly slower.

Global warming effects are scary, but what's worse is global cooling and Ice Age. Once the ocean's balance is messed up by diluted salinity due to melted ice caps, who knows where this can go.

Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical strategist, says Ukrainians need to kill 10 Russians for every Ukrainian. And that the only realistic way of doing that is causing famine in the Donbass and Crimea. That's the harsh reality.

So, the rebels are turning the Red Sea into a war zone. This will make freight insurance either sky rocket or be non existent. Very very bad news. Many economies depend on this area for freight shipments for trade.

I remember seeing a documentary about starving children and famine in Yemen. Have things changed?

I consider them a chemical company as well.

Yeah? That water is produced by the sweat of children in sweatshops.

It's not that simple to electrify with renewable. We'd need to mine wayyyy more copper for wiring. We'd need to produce wayyy more rubber for insulated coatings of all those wires. We'd need wayyy more transformers. And if every garage in America has a car charging in it, then we'll need wayyy more batteries and We'd have a lot more load on our electric infrastructure. In the end, we'd still need fossil fuel infrastructure to account for when the sun's not shining and wind isn't blowing.

Thanks for noticing haha

IMO, that government has already been stomped, but it's propped up somehow. Venezuela has lost about 10% of its population over last few years and it's currency is inflated badly. It just doesn't make sense how that man is still in power.

Speaking from experience since I looked into it, there's scammers peddling solar panels and overall, from a financial point of view, they are just a bad deal - Too much cost, with little upside with extra risk. In addition it certainly does not increase home values at all.

However, in southern California and deserts, it would make sense to get solar since the sun shines more.

Also wind turbine industry needs to start making recyclable blades cuz used blades take up a lot of space in landfills.

Then why is it over $35k to get them installed on a house's roof? And still I'd need to be plugged into the grid.

That's great for them, I hope it was worth it in the end. And that would work great in a desert and southern California, but it won't work to well in most of the USA due to weather.

Gotcha. Asking questions is the new wild accusation these days. It's a good way to avoid critical thought.

Sure. With that logic, you can win every argument. Done talking to you now, thanks

Answering that question is a whole rabbit hole I will not go down. Just wanted to point out that comparing Hamas with any other terrorist organization is imo not really possible.

I'll agree israel is worse in hindsight, but Hamas kicked this off with this sneak attack that has led to this situation, so I'd say that is worse. Hamas was so successful in causing an Israeli intelligence disaster, which I feel like caused their military to lash out. All militaries do is destroy, they are not nation builders. Surgical special force operations can take a long time to plan and wouldn't work since there were so many hostages and they kept moving them around.

It's interesting how just asking critical questions of Hamas entails that I support Israel's response.

Point taken. However Hamas isn't just a terrorist organization, they are the elected political party of Gaza. They are the government. So not really apples to apples.

What? I was asking questions and they are not rhetorical.

Before I answer your questions, you answer mine. Which is less acceptable?

Thanks for clarifying for me. Didn't realize it was such a simple scenario like a bank robbery.

So, which is less acceptable:

Hamas, a military threat to Israel who hides behind children.

Or

Israel, a country with a military who is responding to military threats in a way a military would.

BTW, my original post is asking questions, but you Lemmy Users just keep making it seem I'm pro Israel just for asking.

Things just dont make sense. Hamas, a very weak power, sneak attacks Israel, a relatively strong power, then hides amongst the civilian population with military targets scattered throughout neighborhoods and municipalities.

Is Hamas surprised by the mass civilian casualties or are you (the reader) the one who is surprised? Is Hamas actually weaponizing their civilians by showing the world how many are dying and being an agent of change in the UN?

Is Hamas considering these civilian deaths as martyrs? Because martyrdom is not the same as innocent death.