There will always be people who do not act with regard to the safety of others. I would rather those people be on bikes than in cars.
I’m not discussing the morality of this action in a vacuum. I’m discussing it in comparison to the same person behaving equally as unsafely in a car.
And yet had you collided, it’s very unlikely that anyone would have died.
Those three scenarios you mentioned are all only dangerous because of cars.
We won’t be abandoning the tropics. The people who live there will be. And, based on current prevailing attitudes of temperate democracies, those fleeing the uninhabitable zones will be told to simply pound sand. It will be genocide by omission.
The democracy I live under now keeps ignoring or delaying action on climate change in favor of things that are less important than the comfortable survival of our species. If it’s trying to convince me it’s worth saving it’s doing a bad job.
My ideological concerns are secondary to my ecological concerns.
I’m asking you what you think would be different if China was the largest global superpower?
If this is some great fear we’re all supposed to have to the point that we’ll forestall making progress on decarbonizing then it should be easy to clearly articulate what we’re afraid of happening.
The Opium Wars involved armed conflict on Chinese soil. That’s the sort of thing nukes deter.
Did worse than that to, like, China in the 19th c. But I thought you were talking about like France and Spain.
they’d treat us like we (the British empire) treated lesser foreign powers
How’s that? Disadvantageous trade agreements? You already have those.
What would “direct power” look like? China invades Canada, a country defended by US nukes, with the PLA? There’s a reason Iran and North Korea are still around despite open animus from the US.
My point is largely that these nebulous fears of “Chinese hegemony” are just that–nebulous. Asking people to drill down into what they’re really afraid of either reveals the status quo or impossible scenarios.
Yeah but I’m still not clear on what the fear is exactly.
Like how do you envision it changing your life having China “in charge” vs the US?
Control it how? The US is as close as anyone has come to being a global hegemon and even then they can only do so much to nuclear states.
What could it mean? What’s the “nightmare scenario” here? The US has had a significant trade deficit with China for decades.
Kneecapping decarbonization efforts in the name of “jobs” and “the economy” is just straight up Republican policy. I do not care how many jobs are preserved on my rapidly warming planet.
It’s an opinion piece. This isn’t reporting. It says “Commentary” up at the top of the article.
I think you can “trust” when someone tells you that their opinion is actually their opinion. That’s the only question of “trust” here.
There’s an op-ed in the NYT right now titled At the Met Gala, Celebrities Are Nearly Nude. Are We Not Aroused? Do you trust that?
It’s wild that Bogota, a city with a public transit system nowhere near as robust as Singapore’s, has been doing this every Sunday for like twenty years.
Can’t wait to see how Eric Adams kills it.
This report, funded by the UK government, takes the forced labor as a given. Their “research” is essentially, “we couldn’t trace supply lines, so we assume all green tech is tied to Xinjiang, and that anything made in Xinjiang has forced labor in the chain”. In fact the “report” is actually “investor advice”, and not purporting to be factual reporting of any kind.
I’m sure all the people who “worked” on this are enjoying their six figure e-mail jobs.
Toyota’s announced they’ll be using solid state batteries in their production EVs before the end of the decade.
If you take it at face value, which you should really never do when conservatives are involved.
By my estimation, this (and bills like it) are intended to do two things:
This is their advice? Make the technology for the green transition more expensive rather than enact your own subsidies?
Capitalists are going to burn this planet.