Ok, help me understand it then.

1. I never said the solution was full-blown communism. God, have the barest capability of nuance.

2. You clearly aren’t smoking responsibly if you genuinely believe that to be true.

Capitalism creates an environment of fear and danger and promotes of level of individual responsibility that alienates people from everyone else. Even people who are well off today are afraid of losing advantages and being hung out to dry by the very same uncaring system they keep supporting.

They care because people that haven’t bought it should know that these issues don’t seem to be getting better. They should know that their money would be going to that asshole’s pockets. This shit matters and you wanting to plug your ears to discomfort doesn’t change that.

As I understand it, BL3 didn’t use the same writers as BL2. The DLC for BL3 did, though, which is why it’s of a very high quality. BL1-2 are some of my favourite games and as someone who doesn’t replay/reread/rewatch I’ve replayed those games a lot, but Pitchford was a huge douche about BL4 and its pricing so I decided hey, I’ll solve that problem by just not buying it.

As if they’d be counted appropriately.

Speaking of consoles, if you buy a game for PC then boom, it’s also on your Steam Deck.

“Other assorted stuff”? The palm oil probably isn’t great, of course it’s simple existence is causing the intentional destruction of important forests and it, and the people who use it, can fuck right off, but otherwise I dunno, that doesn’t sound like the end of the world.

As if I could afford any to begin with.

Anyway.

To make aure I understand, you mean that if you reverse the vote of every district the state should see the opposite party winning?

So, CO2 production does not immediately mean oil is required for production of something. Literally further down that article is “mitigation” and it points out the chemical process has nothing to do fossil fuels, directly, but with the creation of alite. The other part of it, burning fuel, can be changed for other stuff.

Plastic requires oil because it is made of the stuff. Powering a car does not because it doesn’t actually matter where the power comes from. These are important differences. You can make concrete without fossil fuels.

You’re right, we can’t bridge this gap because you are so beyond stupid that your own source even tells you that you’re wrong. It’d be funny if it was fiction but somehow you’re a real person and that just makes it terrifying.

I’m mostly commenting on the fact that people are so concerned with the cost of nuclear plants yet they seem to not care about the cost of the damage that rampant fossil fuel production comes with. This has been the shitty argument for long before renewables became viable and nuclear would have been a much better stepping stone. There are also always going to be places where renewable energy won’t work or be enough.

It’s never going to be a single solution problem.

You understand that without those wind and water mills that oil couldn’t have become a thing, right? Like I said, oil was a great way to bridge the gap because it is relatively easy to use but it shouldn’t be our end-goal. Having oil for producing things made of it is certainly important but we’d have a lot more to go around for those purposes if we stopped using it for inefficient things like so many personal vehicles, wasteful plastic packaging, and a myriad other things that we just don’t need it for. It’s done its time, it’s time we scaled back and moved on.

We didn’t give up water or wind mills, either. Canada has so many hydro-electric dams that we literally call home electricity “hydro” and wind farms are only getting bigger and better.

We don’t need oil to make concrete. It’s portland cement(limestone powder), water, and variously sized aggregates and it’s been around for a loooooong time in one form or another. The machinery used to create it does not need to run on fossil fuels. You may be thinking of asphalt, but even then maybe if we didn’t unnecessarily obliterate our roads with constant heavy vehicle traffic we’d be able to keep them for longer and not need to constantly pour resources into barely keeping them alive or refreshing them far too often.

For someone with such a raging erection for oil you’d think you’d be more concerned about reducing our dependency on it so that we don’t waste this precious, finite resource.

Yea, better burn the world down instead.

The ancient romans also didn’t have solar panels, and actually hydro and wind were totally used in these little things called watermills and windmills. I wouldn’t be surprised if they figured out geothermal heating, too. The difference is that you can simply light oil on fire and that’s easy when you otherwise have a lower level of technology and aren’t ready for better, more advanced ways of generating power.

You’re none too bright, huh?

Europe isn’t making enemies with Russia, bud. Russia literally attacked them, it’s not “making enemies” to engage in self-defense and to not fund the people attacking you.

Why wait? Cops are already shooting rubber bullets at journalists during protests and doing all kinds of illegal things to them for the crime of-well there is no crime, actually, except for what’s being committed by the cops.

And what problems would you have them solving? There are billions of us, we can have some people handling the less intense stuff. Yea, if there was one guy scrambling to fix the world that’s a weird place to start but that is so, so far from the reality of the situation.

This helped people and that is a good thing.