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
That’ll definitely save the world.
Considering aviation is 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, you could get rid of all the aviation emissions and still be very far off from saving anything.
And yet they are part of the obvious low hanging fruit for reducing emissions
Are they obvious? If they account for 2.5%, shouldn't the focus be on something that doesn't produce an emotional response (i.e. planes burn so much fuel! They bad for environment!) But is a bigger contributor to polution?
Ships come to mind. Biggest 5 polute as much as all cars on earth. Yet car electrification is brough on constantly in the discourse, when using bunker fuel on ships is met wirh silence
They are obvious because they are rarely irreplaceable. We can live without mass tourism and fast deliveries.
I mean, we can also live with the 2.5% polution they cause
Not really. People in developed countries need to divide their emissions by approximately ten times. Every little bit helps. And we should start with the easy ones.
Oh no, it's such a low reduction! Might as well do nothing then.
I’m not saying “do nothing”. I’m saying efforts are better spent elsewhere as they’ll have much more dramatic effect.
Air travel should be addressed after massive emitters like industrial sources. Otherwise we’re going to greatly disrupt the lives of normal people trying to see their grandma for very little benefit.
They keep drip feeding us those reductions… as if that would change anything. This is just to pretend that they are doing something, in reality they don’t care if the temperature increases 3 degrees Celsius or more
That should do it! Pack it up, boys.
Doubt
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Nov 24 (Reuters) - A meeting of more than 100 countries on Friday agreed to an interim goal for emissions reductions from global aviation by 2030 by using less-polluting fuels, but China, Russia and some others aired concerns about the impact on their economies.
The United States told the closing session of the meeting, which was held ahead of next week's COP28 climate summit, that the goal sent a "clear and positive signal" to the financial community, which must invest in new clean energy projects.
"Now it is up to the finance community and energy sector to support the necessary infrastructure and start delivering SAF in ever increasing quantities,” said Haldane Dodd, executive director of the Air Transport Action Group, which represents airframe and engine makers, among others.
Aviation is not directly covered by the Paris Agreement on combating climate change, but the air transport sector has previously pledged to align itself with global goals by setting an "aspirational" target of net zero emissions by 2050.
China, which has agreed to aim for carbon neutrality by 2060 rather than 2050, said the goal would "enormously increase" airline operating costs and discriminate against developing countries by posing a threat to energy and food security.
Francis Mwangi, senior planning officer at Kenya's Civil Aviation Authority, said his country needs financing to study the economic benefits of domestic SAF production and for using an old Mombasa-based refinery to produce the fuel.
The original article contains 571 words, the summary contains 238 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!