This sounds like a very usefull tool for mods!

This is one of the recent reasons why the US supports the state of Israel, but it is on top of many more historical reasons. Don’t get me wrong I don’t mean justifiable ones.

For instance: Zionism, British imperial rule exercising its power and then loosing it, wanting a foot in west Asia because the were trying to establish democratic institutions in the 60’s-70’s, to name just a few

I see things differently. Condemning genocide is not an arbitrary test related moral purity.

And like Jewish Voice for Peace say:

Never Again For Anyone

as well as

Not in our name

Whitout doubting what you say, from this last tweet it looks like the narrative (at least in this instance) has shifted? In the sense that this text seems pretty clear to me.

No matter what, I hope the protest goes incredibly well!!

Just found a relevant site for the US, called:

Methane Risk Map

Tracking methane-linked health risks to communities.

Dammit, you are totally correct. Deleting this post

Of course the carbon footprint of the billionaires is nothing compaired to what the industry sector emits. My point was in relation to how the per capita emissions are used, not in comparison to the economy as a whole. While keeping in mind that it’s big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed, so that we focus on personnal choices, instead of collective action.

I would be interested in seeing the methodology behind that figure

If you click on the relevant link above, you will find the report itself. You can even download the methodology note seperately.

I have major issues with Hannah Ritchie’s approach because imo green capitalism cannot be a solution to the Triple Planetary Crisis, and this is what she’s actually advocating for. Instead of writing a lengthy comment, I will use an article that talks mainly about her approach on degrowth, which is just one of my objections to her views.

A response to Hannah Ritchie: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Economic Growth

The super rich are (…) a vast minority

It seems to me that the math in this is overwhelming. If a single person in this minority emits in 90min more than an average person in their lifetime, we should take into consideration that their lifetime is made of many, many, many 90min slots.

Apart from that of course I’m all in for sustainable living and redistribution of wealth for lower classes. Preferably abolish the class-system all together, of course.

Emissions per capita are a distraction that makes us focus on a us, everyday people, instead of the major polluters: the super wealthy and their toxic coorporations. Don’t fall for it!

• Billionaires emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime
• 36 Fossil Fuel Giants Responsible For Half of World’s CO2 Emissions: Report

The Nordic model’s approach is relevant in imo, because this article is about Sweden, and because this path proved not be safe from capitalism taking over. This does not contradict what you said, that the entire world is electing right wing populists right now. It is a reminder that this is a mechanism that capitalism traditionaly uses to resolve its crises.

Yep. To my understanding, in the Nordic model, capitalism continues to devour all socialist tendencies.

It looks like there is an expansion of the oil industry in the whole continent lately.

(Naively, I started writing the previous sentence with the word Unfortunately just to realise mid-sentence it’s not a matter of fortune, but of planning.)

Africa’s new oil frontier: Exploration hotspots across the continent

I think it’s non-binding, after all.

Dammit, I am confused.

In this article from BBC, it says:

The ruling is non-binding

In another article from the Guardian, it says the opposite:

Countries are now bound under international law

Which one is it?

I’m afraid you’re totally right.

Edit: The strikethrought. Now that I think about it, all this destruction is part of the ethnic cleansing. It’s a way to forcefully displace Palestinians. By making Gaza unlivable, it’s also a way to prevent them to return there.

I don’t see effective regulations being put into place to restrict capitalist exploitation. On the contrary, the regulations are in favor of capitalism, and capitalism is ferosiously distructive.

So, what I mean by saying organise is that due to the fact that neoliberalism has bought off politicians (political systems I should say) worldwide, it is important to organise ourselves in order to get rid of its eternal growth model, which is destroying life on this planet.

The Rojava example is one of my favorite approaches.

I have only lived in europe and these are the conclusions I’ve made so far.

Ok, you say the following

Regulation is just how we make that choice as a collective.

For me, the answer is

Organize.

I suppose it depends on one’s perspective.

To dislike (or worse) an article and its author, it’s one thing. From that to draw conclusions about all americans seems like a stretch to me.

Nevertheless, I would appreciate some clarification on the following statement, if you don’t mind.

Americans being unable to understand the public space as a concept

What do you believe you understand about public space as a concept that americans don’t?

Edit: Looks like the author is Bolivian, not american
Edit2: Sorry my bad. That’s another Ana Flores. This one is

Ana Karen Flores is a first-generation Latina communications strategist who commands the narrative and drives real political change. She’s a Public Voices fellow with The OpEd Project and works alongside the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice and the Every Page Foundation.