Germany actually has a stricter domestic law already than what the EU is doing here.
But reality of course never matters. As long as Europeans can tell themselves the fairy tale of how they successfully fought those bad Germans for every slightly positive achievement, they are happy. Even if it’s actually too little or meaningless or just virtue-signaling. Or several of those things combined…
Nope, it needs governmental regulations.
Financing-wise renewable energy has long surpassed fossil fuels. It’s not capitalists in general blocking the change as they would make a lot of money. This is very specifically about a small amount of individuals making their money in fossil fuels and spending a lot on lobbying to slow the transition down as they try to squeeze as much out of their business model as possible before it runs against a wall they can already see (but try to hide from the consumer).
The same is true in other sectors, for example in traffic where totally insane bullshit gets pushed (hyper-loops, air taxis etc.) as magical alternatives to actually working public transport. That’s also not some business that will ever make money. It’s a diversion by people who want to keep making money in a very specific field (CE cars) before that whole sector also dies off. Also the scaling effect in EV production as well as improvements and development still have a massive potential with much money to be made by the people investing into a still developing and growing market. Unlike the dying market of combustion engines that competes on miniscule optimisations of the status quo still possible. Yet the very same companies knowing that combustion engines are dead and not even working on developing a next line but instead focusing on electric drives, still do marketing like the opposite would be true so they can sell that trash with no future perspective as long as possible.
There is quiet a lot to say against capitalism, but at the moment we don’t have a capitalism problem (at least not where climate action is involved) but one of corruption that helps a few people to keep failing businesses alive a bit longer at the expense of everyone including capitalists in the future businesses that will replace them.
Obviously the emissions are the controllable. Blaming this on El Niño […]
Nobody is actually blaming anything on El Niño. El Niño simply covered up how bad it was already for some time.
Which also means those emissions are indeed not controllable. Because they have happened years ago and we still can’t do time travel. That’s the whole actual point of talking about El Niño here.
Congratulations. You are part of the problem.
Actual statistics and basically every poll show that the vast majority of people agrees and wants to do much more to address climate change on a personal and government level. And just like you most of them are suffering from propaganda-induced brain rot and believe that they are totally alone with that opinion so it unfortunately has no sense to even try. So they don’t.
So… Getting better while China doesn’t creates the effect of reducing emmissions by… let’s say 40%.
The effect of crying about China as an excuse to not do anything yourself however is 0!
Which on will you chose?
It’s also the leader in building up renewables instead while everyone else sits lazily on their ass crying “why should we do anything when China exists?”
How about we do better than China first and then cry about them, instead of using them as an excuse to fail even harder than them?
Correct. There are however a lot of solutions that a) don’t produce co2 and b) are more efficient and cheaper already, very much more so once they are properly scaled up.
So you could in fact throw money at the problem… And even those who refuse to follow the change will simply go bunkrupt over it because fossil fuels aren’t even economically viable in comparison.
Also should they win it’s probably not the prison labor that will change but the constitution *sigh*
I always thought sociopaths need to learn how to fake it well to operate in society. But I guess that requirement goes out fo the window when you replace society with GOP.
He is accidently right. There should not be a narrative in the first place.
But people eat up Israel and Hamas propaganda like crazy.
And what gets lost is an actually nuanced discussion where people can criticise Israel’s actions without questioning if the country has a right to exist and defend itself in the frist place and being grouped with antisemites amplifying the same message but for the completely wrong reasons. And where people can criticise Hamas without instantly being in the same camp with those supporting genocidal actions against Palestinian civilians.
Thanks to social media this has instead devolved into a brain-dead team sport only build on narratives. With facts and common sense being lost and one side pushing narratives helping the other to do the same, when there is no actual right side, only degrees of wrong.
Have you forgotten what you wrote like 24 hours ago?
No, I remember how I quoted your fucking bullshit.
condemned by Israel, the USA, Germany, the UK etc. for being the wrong kind of Jew
It’s right there. In your own post for everyone to see. Why are you lying?
No, I’m saying that you with your polemics of “condemned by Israel, the USA, Germany, the UK etc. for being the wrong kind of Jew” are the problem.
Nobody is actually condemning people for being the wrong kind of Jew or having the wrong opinion. That’s just your strawman because -in your “that’s my team, so they are always right!!!”-delusion- you are not able to understand that there are indeed a lot of people on what you perceive as your side who should be condemned for actual well-documented antisemitism.
People like you with a stupid team mentality are the problem, not a solution.
I don’t support Hamas and it makes no sense/is unfair that you’d jump to the conclusion that I do.
It indeed makes sense to jump to that conclusion, when your first instinct is a random and unprompted attack on several countries, justified by a strawman. Because this shows very well that every sense of reality is lost to you and the only thing you can perceive anymore is people who agree with you 100% and those who are wrong.
Arguing as if I had chosen Hamas or anti-Semites as my “team” because I criticize Israel is putting completely unfounded words in my mouth.
That’s absolutely not what I said. You have chosen your team not by criticising Israel but by blindly attacking everyone you even expect to disagree. People like you constantly demonstrate they will defend actual antisemites as long as they agree with your opinion. The next step then is usually falling for Hamas propaganda because it sounds so logical… after all they are on the correct anti-Israel side…
PS: Also very funny to write about “what I call the wrong kind of Jew” when I actually just quoted that term from your poor strawman. Cognitive dissonance must be strong in you.
Nope, the actual reasonable way would be not simplifying your dissent to a point where it’s idiotic.
In a situation with two insane sides trying to kill the other it is not enough to disagree with one side. You also need to clearly distance yourself from the other madmen that agree with you, but for the completely wrong reason.
So yes, there are indeed wrong kind of Jews: Those who criticize Israel from a distance but are unable to distance themselves from actual anti-semites, often -even worse- using the same media channels to amplify their message, are indeed wrong.
Just like criticising Hamas but actually just repeating Israeli propaganda alongside idiots arguing for are Palestinian genocide are wrong.
You and your black-and-white arguments are a part of the problem and not the solution. This isn’t a team sport. Both sides in that conflict are wrong. And by pretending otherwise you are discrediting valid opinions as well as actually helping propaganda bullshit like Netanyahu’s… because it’s much easier to pretend that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic when those critics constantly stand right beside actual anti-semites and are unable to express an actual nuanced opinion beyond having chosen a side.
The main union for its plants there has a seat on the company’s board.
Which is basically mandatory in Germany as a company’s works council has co-determination rights by law and usually votes some of their own to join the board (union membership not required but often the default).
Now I am suddnely afraid what his replacement might look like…
Removed by mod
No, only peasants on foot trying to annoy our wheeled overlords and their owners.
On the contrary… anyone able do bridge interstellar distances will agree that the near orbit belongs to the planet.
Basically every historic precedent works here. The turn of the 19th to 20th century can be mainly characterized by the results of a rapid technological advancement via industrialisation in which the workers were left behind while the control sat in higher-up circles, partly made up from remaining aristocracy and partly from rich high education citizens who accumulated mnost of the produced wealth. This basically slowly eliminated a general middle-class, provoking clashes between left wing worker movements representing the majority but not having the power and an established rich upper class trying to exploit them for more wealth. (To no one’s surprise this is exactly the time when capitalism was defined in details: Karl Marx - Das Kapital (volume 1 to 3, 1867-1894 ))
That scenario can only (and usually has) resulted in either revolution or focusing that (poor, and usually less educated) majority’s anger into another direction. The latter resulted in nationalist populist movements all throughout Europe. The only thing in doubt is if it would have won everywhere over time (as in some countries there still was a stable enough middle-class to delay that development at least fo a time). I assume so, but we will never know, as the countries where this development won faster (usually because the pre-conditions for the poorer population were already worse) changed the course of history for all.
If you want to call it a rise of fascism (the original one in Italy), nazis (in Germany) or a definitely fascistic military dictatorship based on “popular front” politics -with some support by monarchists realizing the risk they were in- (Spain) doesn’t make a huge difference in the big picture.
Also: for a less historic and more “today” point of view look at Russia. Contrary to people still associating them with communism their form of oligarchy is definitely a variant of late-stage capitalism. In fact the risk of the US’ capitalism developing even further into a pure wealth-based oligarchy is a discussion topic for at least two decades. And look were Russia is taking pointers from right now… straight from the nazi playbook.
(And now that I have mentioned it… and the discussed risk of the US moving into the same oligarchy direction: Isn’t there a certain guy leaning heavily into far-right nationalism while using fascist and nazi rhetorics at times, who wants to become president again?)
Behind closed doors in the actual workings of the EU things are different.
But there is an universal law that you can always dress unpopular but neccessary EU decisions or compromises as “Germany made us do it” at home and can always get bonus points if you tell the story how you bravely fought Germany to push through a popular EU decision.
Basically the same propaganda for domestic a audience in slightly modified form that Orban has made an art form in Hungary.