thefluffiest

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Liz losing hers would be gold too

update July 5th 0700h: oh happy day

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Well, he can sell out Ukraine in one day…

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Good thing nothing will happen until 2049

/s

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Well it could’ve been worse. They could’ve planned to off Jack instead

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 months ago (9 children)

4 in 5 people want more action on climate, as long as:

  • they need not change anything themselves
  • someone else pays for it
  • it’s not in their way
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Of het was niet de daadwerkelijke reden

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Well in that case, the writings of Zarathustra (10th century BC) might be a good starting point

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Remember, it’s only for six months

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I agree with you on principle, but this chart is economics-based, like it or not. And many people do think like that.

My point here is for them: this chart is not realistic. For example, it almost equates lentils with chicken. Even though chicken involves a lot more costs, including in animal welfare, societal, etc.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Monetary cost is the wrong y-axis here, as it optimkzes only for mega-scale farming without taking its real costs in consideration. It should be ‘true cost’, which also accounts for environmental-, animal- and climate mitigation cost. And subsidies.

view more: ‹ prev next ›