"Each side" is the issue - this party is going to let the conversation be driven by existing parties rather than any objective thinking. It's leaving the conversation to be defined by the hegemonic political machines. So I expect nothing new. Another party of business as usual.
Sure, Canada's doing great but we're driving off a cliff in many respects. Once the ground gives out we're gonna have a bad time.
What Canada needs: yet another party jostling to get to the center as quickly as possible. Another party whose platform is the Overton Window. The most average party possible.
Yep it looks like the report only takes into account emissions from consumption, not from wildfires etc.
Does this include emissions from tar sands oil or fossil gas when it's burned abroad? Usually these numbers only include stuff burned in the country. But Canada's a oil-exporting petrostate, so it would look way worse if the tar we dug up was all included, no matter who burns it.
Sky burial for me please.
I've been trying to find clothing made in my overdeveloped country. Though the only textile we make here is wool, maybe linen, it's a way to support labour practices that are not sweatshops.
Still learning more names of species that live here. I'm starting to spot some trees quicker. ID'd all the trees around my apartment.
Edit: also found local farms to get a good chunk of produce from. Food miles don't matter as much as people believe, but strong rural economies do: less likely to turn into exurbs, and less of my money going to supermarket extortionists.
It's a dictatorship that just did some ethnic cleansing. COP29 is going to be an absolute joke.
As are the Dems. Well, they at least slap a rainbow sticker on the oil rigs.
Hydrogen: the crypto of green energy.
Thank you for this.
Note that the population peak happens earlier in this UN model revision.
However there is a plausible case for population to peak much earlier (2040):
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/06/peak-population-projections/
I = PAT
Impact is equal to population times affluence times technology.
Decreasing human population can help to decrease impact, as long as the smaller population doesn't disproportionately increase its resource use (affluence x technology)