So you waste your time trying to get 100% of the worlds population to change their individual carbon footprint.
That is the plan. How else are you going to get to zero, but to change the everybodies carbon footprint.
Instead of focusing on getting the majority of voters to protest and vote.
To do what? Ban combustion engines to force everybody to change their individual carbon footprint? Any sort of actually massive climate legislation is going to impact a lot of peoples life directly.
I have both been able to work and get food without using a car.
$7trillion is three times the GDP if Brazil. It is bigger then the US federal budget. Seriously it is insane.
They had 700 tanks in decent shape in storage in about July. However tanks will be in factories being refurbished and obviously a lot more tanks are on the front line. That are very likely a few thousand tanks.
So they probably will start to have problems replacing losses soonish. They might buy some from North Korea or Iran though.
Even a Trump victory would not mean an end of the fighting though. Europe is supplying more weapons then the US and Ukraine also has arms production. So no overruning Ukraine.
How do people die from not having a car? It must be a lot of them, given that most can not afford them, but depend on them...
That includes downstream emissions. So if your car runs on BP oil, those emissions would be part of BPs emissions.
There is a reason BP is not advertising people to drop their cars. BP wants two things in its campaign. First of all to make clear that it is your lifestyles fault and secondly that besides munor changes you do not have to change that at all.
The line is reduce, reuse and then recycle for a reason. Not buying something and buying second hand are affordable for everybody. Unfortunatly the later takes more time.
Right now the Houthis in practise blockade the Bab-el-Mandeb for everybody. The first ship they sunk Rubymar, was Belize flagged and Lebanese operated and ultimatly owned. It also caused a massive enviromental disaster in the region, due to carrying fertilizer.
What I am saying, is that an act of war against Lebanon, is not a moral response to actions of the state of Israel.
However you clearly disagree with that and consider any and all action justified as long as somebody labels them anti Israel.
Lenin ended any oppurtunity for none CPSU members to be elected to the Soviets and banned factions in the CPSU in 1921. He then eliminated opposition with the Cheka. Even before that the Communists acted under "war communism", which meant killing anybody not 100% in line. That very much included Machnos work in setting up a Soviet Democracy in Ukraine, due to them being Anarchists. Stalin then abolished the Soviets in 1936.
The Soviet Union had a bit of it, in the very beginning, but it failed and turned into a statist dictatorship. That is why Stalin ordered the Anarchists to be killed in Spain as well, the Prague Spring got crushed due to moving into a more democratic direction as well as many other movements of worker uprisings.
Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production. The issue with the Soviet Union was that all means of production were controlled by the state. However there was no way in which the people controlled the state, since at least 1936 and argueably earlier then that.
Half of Alaskas population lives in Anchorage and gas is expensive.
Yes, if the Houthis would act differently, I would judge them differently.
But they do not.