So what do you think will happen when China finds itself unable to fulfill its citizens expectations? And what do you think will happen with Afghanistan, Pakistan? I don't expect it possible to fulfill 'the American dream' anyway, but finding competition and geopolitics turning ugly in its own close terrtory, introducing nuclear subs etc, do you really think China will accept it? And what about Russia, also a neighbor.
then you can add droughts, floods, glaciers disappearance, starvation's, topsoil, water and groundwater. They will matter too.
It's not impossible that our richest industrial winners, sorry, nations will put under themselves a lot of those assets needed for keeping their current infra structures. Which means that they can pretend that it is 'business as usual'. And you can see the current geopolitics and f.ex the Arctic as preparations for that kind of behavior.
We have to remember that it also depends on infra structures, type of heavy industries, assets as f.ex hydro etc etc. And even about the statistics used. IPCC used statista as I understands it and so does the one about Sweden. =
Funny, you can't insert images any longer?
I'll let it be in the text, and see if it comes back. I'll just cite this instead. " At 4.5t CO2 per person, the average UK resident’s emissions are now roughly in line with the global average, as the chart below shows."
As well as the chart places used by Carbonbrief places Spain just under 4t per capita.
We can put it like this. The more you pollute the less you will need to do to make it count. So for those countries being comparatively 'clean' due to local assets, infra structures etc, a change will be a lot less noticeable.
Wind farms, without batteries, electrical cars replacing fossil driven, without batteries. Assets as ocean floors? Congo? Afghanistan? Peru? And what is more. Fossils have its energy stored already, your batteries will need it filled by those power plants, wind farms, methane, etc.
" Only one industrialized nation—the United Kingdom—is even close to doing what it should to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases and finance clean energy for poorer nations, the Climate Action Tracker reported Wednesday. "
" UK CO2 emissions are 38% lower than they were in 1990. ..... The largest driver has been a cleaner electricity mix based on gas and renewables instead of coal. This was responsible for 36% of the emissions reduction in 2017. "
Okay. so it has decreased due to a different energy mix, and changing industrial infra structures . And it's a very tricky article Carbonbrief has produced here. Take f.ex " UK and international emissions accounting practice counts bioenergy as zero-carbon at the point of use, a convention followed in this article. "
what do we find here? A situation in where you, in the end, won't be able to refuse to pick a side. 'Fundamentalists' putting you in it. Western or Eastern, behaving in much the same way, it doesn't really matter what they claim to stand for as their behavior is like a mirror. Where UK already picked one. Europe and EU, then UK, Australia and USA, then Russia and China, Then India, Pakistan, North Korea. then one can add other variables as Japan, Taiwan, China etc.
forget about global warming, you're not gonna do sh* about it.
So " Paris regards itself as a significant power in the Indo-Pacific, with Pacific territories such as New Caledonia and French Polynesia giving it a strategic and military foothold unrivalled by any other European country.
“If Australia can alienate the major advocate for an EU Indo-Pacific strategy, what hope have we got in convincing Indonesia or other regional middle powers of the inclusiveness of the concept?” Lemahieu said. Indonesia has already indicated its disquiet with Australia’s decision, saying it “is deeply concerned over the continuing arms race and power projection in the region”.
Prof John Blaxland, senior fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at ANU’s College of Asia and the Pacific, said Australia needed to be working to repair the relationship with France. “We owe them probably about $3bn in penalties over the broken deal,” he told the ABC, and suggested Australia could propose leasing from France some of its Barracuda submarines to cover the capability gap before the new nuclear submarines arrive. what is it worth, to that Australian government? "
$3bn in penalties, yeah, and then some more. And the UK? with its new hidden stockpile of nuclear armaments? Low yield and limited nuclear warfare, that's the way, am I correct USA?
And then we have that new clown, Australia. Feeling their 'super power status' now confirmed. Readying themselves for a military showdown with 'Fu Manchu', well, as they seem to think of it? Presenting one of the most conservative governments I have had the unlucky opportunity to watch the last decade. And let's not forget, supported by most European countries, although that might be changing.
" The US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, said the US and Australia would continue to explore “greater and more frequent engagement … with our air capabilities, more training opportunities for our ground forces, and increasing our logistical footprint in Australia as well”. But Austin played down suggestions that in return for the new highly sensitive submarine technology, the US might want Australia to accept proposes it has previously rejected, such as intermediate-range missiles hosted on Australian soil.
“We certainly didn’t go into this with a quid pro quo mindset, and we’ve not outlined any specific reciprocal requirements,” Austin said. Payne said the Ausmin talks “discussed the competition of China at a number of levels that requires us to respond and to increase resilience”.
“This does not mean that there are not constructive areas for engagement with China. Australia continues to seek dialogue with China without preconditions.” The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said the previous day’s defence cooperation pact was “not aimed at any country – it’s certainly not aimed at holding anyone back”.
Blinken said the alliance between the US and Australia was “unshakeable”. "
" There was a record rise in emissions of methane last year, according to the UN, coming mainly from the fossil fuel industry, cattle and rotting waste. But the UN also found that methane emissions could be almost halved by 2030 using existing technology and at reasonable cost. A significant proportion of the actions would actually make money, such as capturing methane gas leaks at fossil fuel sites. "
Well, I do enjoy online gaming, so, what can I say? =
Better warn you though. The game exists, didn't know that when I first found it, so one might see it as a shamelessly directed commercial product / anime. Then again, that's life, isn't it? As for the game itself? I doubt it, but the anime was okay even if the constant fight scenes got a little boring after a while
I stand corrected. There was something to write about.
The conveyor belt principle, and profits.
" the source of much of the world’s food – seeds – is mostly in the control of just four corporations; half of all the world’s cheeses are produced with bacteria or enzymes manufactured by a single company; one in four beers drunk around the world is the product of one brewer; from the US to China, most global pork production is based around the genetics of a single breed of pig; and, perhaps most famously, although there are more than 1,500 different varieties of banana, global trade is dominated by just one, the Cavendish. "