In part it might be trying to head off trouble during and after the election with Republican state officials interfering with the election process—they might be more hesitant if they see other Republican leaders supporting Harris.
hubzilla! its privacy controls are unparalleled, can be used as a webapp on any platform, can be used for individual profiles, forums or for building our website. (https://hubzilla.org/page/info/discover)
I've been using it since a year and i am not disappointed.
I got a bag of lion’s mane powder that I sprinkle in dishes I prepare. Pretty much doesn’t change the flavor of anything and you get all the mental benefits.
Sometimes people will say “That person’s name!” or “Those group of people!” in anger. “That Donald Trump! How dare he claim immigrants are eating pets?” to give you a current example.
When spoken of a family member or mutual acquaintance with a chuckle, it means more like “That person has some strange quirk but what can you do? We still love him.”
For example, you might hear “That dog! Always chasing his own tail.” So I think this is likely what you were getting from that conversation? It’s certainly not a criticism of your use of the word “people”.
If only international companies who produce the most issues for the climate made significant changes to their business first.
We should all “play our part”. But assuming everyone in the world got rid of their cars and solely relied on bicycles, for example, how much impact would that really have? Compared to huge lorries on the road and shipping companies burning bunker oil?
The bikes would still be shipped from india because it’s cheaper. So the OPs question stays the same. Would you be willing to buy a bike that’s 3 times the price because it’s been built locally. Statistics show that most people wouldn’t. So no, most people wouldn’t change their lifestyle to combat climate change. Should they? Obviously, since living a modest life is better than burning alive or drowning. Although in all fairness, people might be more willing to spend money to combat climate change if corpocrats wouldn’t be gobbling up every bit of wealth like fucking ghouls.
It would have a massive effect. Transport (car) emissions are one of the larger - and growing - sources of emissions.
And we can’t hide behind “But the corporations…” because ultimately what they produce gets used by us.
So to answer your question: riding a bike when Global Capital wants you to keep buying cars and pumping oil into them is one of the best acts of defiance you can make
It would have a massive effect. Transport (car) emissions are one of the larger - and growing - sources of emissions.
I call that bullshit. Newer ICE cars are more efficient and EVs are all the rage now… and you’re claming cars are larger sources? Compared to trucks? Container ships? Diesel trains? Airplanes? For real?!
the problem with blaming companies is none of them do this out of desire to hurt the environment. they do it to meet customer demand.
as an example imagine if we all stopped buying gas from Shell. their environmental impact would plummet…and their competitors impact would go up as we continue to buy the same amount of gas from other companies
Companies only do things for their bottom line, not for customer demand. Also, if nobody would buy gas from Shell anymore, their gas stations would just have to be rebranded to something else. Behind the scenes the oil companies are all trading with each other.
They all suck anymore. Google fell the furthest though.
And it seems like it completely disregards search modifiers like quotes or the minus sign at this point. The modifiers are overridden by the algorithms pushing preferred sites, or Google just gives few or no returns as if there are no sites featuring your search criteria, which is completely false because it’s perfectly happy to return paid sites with the same but incorrect search term.
kbin.life
Oldest