World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I'd even make the argument that these companies are directly contributing to the deaths of billions through climate change, the extinction of entire species... It's not hyperbole. As such, if they refuse to stop what they're doing, rather than let a relatively small number of people effectively decide the fate of everyone, isn't it our ('our' as in 'everyone else's') moral obligation to stop them, through whatever means necessary?
If they were threatening to launch nuclear missiles or something, we'd agree that without a doubt they should be stopped and no methods were too extreme, so why is it any different just because the method they're using is slower?
This is a flawed take. The fossil firms sell because everyone wants to buy, and everyone wants to buy because the world is still absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. Stuff won't move without diesel and most of the calories humankind grows needs nitrogen from the Haber-Bosch process.
This is also a s flawed take. Why does everyone want to buy? Years of propaganda and lobbying eliminated any possible alternatives. The USA was covered in rail and tram tracks in urban areas, most of which was removed and replaced with automobile infrastructure.
Without haber bosch 70% of food production would be gone. People buy food, as food is essential for survival.
Plastics are made from fossil fuels. Plastics are used, for example, in waterproofing houses, vapor barriers, etc. People use houses for shelter from the cold, rain, heat, ...
I only picked the two biggest things I could think of that require fossil fuels, but you're right. Plastics are used for everything because they are a wonder material. And so are fluorocarbons by the way, that's why they're also everywhere.
Plastics need a minimal amount of oil compared to what's burnt for fuel.
I can recommend the book "How the World Really Works" by Vaclav Smil for an approacheable way to learn about this without over simplification.
Thanks, looks interesting.
What's your proposal - let them just keep drilling, keep pumping, and keep polluting? It's "legal" for them to do it, so there should be no guardrails, no accountability? They've been pushing back heavily on even legislation to make them pay a considerable amount towards cleanup efforts. The article states:
What would you have us do?
Regulating the companies would at least be better than just pulling the plug on fossil fuels (that would in the current situation basically stop the world and cause untold amounts of famine and misery).
I don't think anyone's suggesting we just immediately pull the plug on fossil fuels entirely, that's not at all realistic, but heavily taxing them and using the revenue from those taxes to go towards cleanup and green energy would be a step in the right direction. The reliance on fossil fuels might drop considerably if the price of gas increased heavily. To your point, it's an industry because people buy it, and people buy it because it's the most cost effective solution in many cases. If it was no longer cost effective, people would gravitate towards green alternatives where possible.
Personally I'd give them a fixed timescale to stop production. Your don't pull the plug tomorrow. You just say when the plug will be pulled.
The world will pivot.
Yeah, that's completely reasonable. Or mandate reductions on a fixed schedule, e.g. 50% of today's numbers in 3 years, 0% in 6.
Increasing fuel prices would increase the cost of everything else too, lowering living standards globally. It would effectively be a flat tax for the whole humankind. I agree this would accelerate the green transition, but there's currently no direct replacement for diesel/heavy fuel oil (which container ships, heavy trucks and tractors require) and natural gas. Well there is biodiesel but that requires turning fields from growing food to growing oil plants needed for the fuel. Current battery tech is still only satisfactory for personal transportation.
How much do you think extreme climate change is going to lower living standards globally?
If personal transport and home heating and whatnot were transitioned fully to green energy, and fossil fuels were used exclusively for large-scale shipping, it would be a huge net gain.