Keir Starmer has a worse PM job rating than all of his recent predecessors by this point in their tenure (*except for Liz Truss, who didn't last this long)
Starmer: 26% well vs 58% badly Sunak: 29% vs 53% Truss*: 11% vs 71% Johnson: 40% vs 49% May: 46% vs 22% Cameron: 59% vs 32% Brown: 59% vs 29% https://x.com/YouGov/status/1849441038030500073
"In 1971, the BIOT commissioner and governor of the Seychelles, Sir Bruce Greatbatch,[71] enacted an Immigration Ordinance that made it unlawful for any person to enter or remain in the Chagos Archipelago without a permit.[72] This law did not apply to members of the British armed forces or UK government officials.[73]
The same year, Greatbatch ordered all the dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed, an order that was carried out by company manager Marcel Moulinie. Moulinie described later how he first tried shooting the dogs, then poisoning them. Eventually more than 1,000 dogs, including pets, were gassed with exhaust fumes, from pipes attached to the exhaust pipes of US military vehicles.[74] Talate Louis said her family’s dog was killed; they felt it was done to make them leave."
I think you must be mistaken. The British Empire was a wise and noble endeavour, that brought civilisation to primitive savages, or so PB consensus insists.
Western medicine created vaccines. How many lives have been saved by vaccines, often given free to third-world countries? For polio alone, 1.5 million.
That's just one contrary point on the ledger.
Indeed. A worthy bit of reparations, and good use of our technological advantage. It doesn't pay the whole bill of debts we owe, but is a step in the right direction.
Who are "we" in this sentence? Are you making a distinction between Britons of British heritage and Britons descended from elsewhere?
The people who are alive today do not "owe" anything to a foreign people who are no longer alive. It is a ludicrous concept. This is very similar to the antisemitic idea that Jews should be constantly harassed because "they" as a people are guilty for the death of Jesus Christ. And what of the slave sellers? Should the wealthy Arab states or the Turks not pay reparations for the crimes of their ancestors? Of course not. It is all bonkers.
Quite a head of steam (!) building up here on slavery. I sense we're close to being able to argue that it was beneficial for all. Can we get there? I think we can.
"In 1971, the BIOT commissioner and governor of the Seychelles, Sir Bruce Greatbatch,[71] enacted an Immigration Ordinance that made it unlawful for any person to enter or remain in the Chagos Archipelago without a permit.[72] This law did not apply to members of the British armed forces or UK government officials.[73]
The same year, Greatbatch ordered all the dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed, an order that was carried out by company manager Marcel Moulinie. Moulinie described later how he first tried shooting the dogs, then poisoning them. Eventually more than 1,000 dogs, including pets, were gassed with exhaust fumes, from pipes attached to the exhaust pipes of US military vehicles.[74] Talate Louis said her family’s dog was killed; they felt it was done to make them leave."
I think you must be mistaken. The British Empire was a wise and noble endeavour, that brought civilisation to primitive savages, or so PB consensus insists.
What pb consensus? Didn't the whole pro Empire narrative go out of fashion sometime in the 1970s? This is such a strawman.
Quite a head of steam (!) building up here on slavery. I sense we're close to being able to argue that it was beneficial for all. Can we get there? I think we can.
Quite a head of steam (!) building up here on slavery. I sense we're close to being able to argue that it was beneficial for all. Can we get there? I think we can.
Don't be fucking stupid. Arguing against paying reparations for something that had absolutely nothing to do with anyone alive in these islands today is not the same as being OK with an inhumane and barbaric practice.
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
2040 - The Guardian
"The atmospheric carbon extraction industry is another example of the rich world helping itself to the commons of all mankind without responsibility. Originally fostered to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it has become a juggernaught - using solar power to create fossil fuel replacements without consideration of the effects.
The ongoing famine and civil war in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. With CO2 levels now falling, Third World countries are now exposed to climate change - but in reverse....."
I think it's probably more likely a 2050 story than a 2040 one... but still, wonderfully believable.
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
The key thing to understand is that the damage caused by carbon emissions rises exponentially. Even if we miss these targets, every additional tonne of carbon we emit makes things more and more worse.
This idea that nature will simply do what it's wants to do is performative impotence.
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
2040 - The Guardian
"The atmospheric carbon extraction industry is another example of the rich world helping itself to the commons of all mankind without responsibility. Originally fostered to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it has become a juggernaught - using solar power to create fossil fuel replacements without consideration of the effects.
The ongoing famine and civil war in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. With CO2 levels now falling, Third World countries are now exposed to climate change - but in reverse....."
I think it's probably more likely a 2050 story than a 2040 one... but still, wonderfully believable.
Though surely the Saudis will be the ones with a country covered in solar panels and the fossil fuel replacement plants...
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
2040 - The Guardian
"The atmospheric carbon extraction industry is another example of the rich world helping itself to the commons of all mankind without responsibility. Originally fostered to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it has become a juggernaught - using solar power to create fossil fuel replacements without consideration of the effects.
The ongoing famine and civil war in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. With CO2 levels now falling, Third World countries are now exposed to climate change - but in reverse....."
I think it's probably more likely a 2050 story than a 2040 one... but still, wonderfully believable.
I have to dig it out, but came across a company that was looking at atmospheric carbon capture to methane (and methanol). The CEO argued that when solar power dropped to 12% of the cost of oil power generation, the business case would close for generating bio-fuel(s).
The other interesting thing was that they were designing their process to be intermittent - run when the sun is up, rather than use battery storage.
From a Democrat poll analyst who has done strong work in previous cycles particularly on Florida.
umichvoter 🏳️🌈 @umichvoter Washoe mail is only going d+12 It's simply not big enough the math too much
I think that Nevada is lost for the Democrats (at Presidential level, at least), which would almost certainly mean that Arizona is, as well.
The average polling lead on RCP is now down to 0.2% (on 538, it's 1.7%).
If she wins North Carolina the net loss of Nevada and Arizona is only 1 EC vote. Then down to Pennsylvania.
She's still going to win.
Or she could win with Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Ne02 even without North Carolina, Nevada and Arizona
It is worth remembering just that: if she holds the rust belt (MI, WI and PA), then she can lose the sunbelt in its entirety.
Trump has to win the sunbelt and at least one of the rust belt. And while I'd make him current favorite to do just that, it requires only the smallest of winds in the other direction to push Harris over the line.
Keir Starmer has a worse PM job rating than all of his recent predecessors by this point in their tenure (*except for Liz Truss, who didn't last this long)
Starmer: 26% well vs 58% badly Sunak: 29% vs 53% Truss*: 11% vs 71% Johnson: 40% vs 49% May: 46% vs 22% Cameron: 59% vs 32% Brown: 59% vs 29% https://x.com/YouGov/status/1849441038030500073
May's numbers are quite remarkable.
Last gasp of society giving a new PM the benefit of the doubt, at least for a bit. I don't know how we get back to that.
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
2040 - The Guardian
"The atmospheric carbon extraction industry is another example of the rich world helping itself to the commons of all mankind without responsibility. Originally fostered to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it has become a juggernaught - using solar power to create fossil fuel replacements without consideration of the effects.
The ongoing famine and civil war in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. With CO2 levels now falling, Third World countries are now exposed to climate change - but in reverse....."
I think it's probably more likely a 2050 story than a 2040 one... but still, wonderfully believable.
I have to dig it out, but came across a company that was looking at atmospheric carbon capture to methane (and methanol). The CEO argued that when solar power dropped to 12% of the cost of oil power generation, the business case would close for generating bio-fuel(s).
The other interesting thing was that they were designing their process to be intermittent - run when the sun is up, rather than use battery storage.
Oh; I can completely believe it; it is - after all - simple math.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
Interesting from the article. @Leon Starmer is buckling, as you said he would.
"Keir Starmer is open to discussing non-cash forms of reparatory justice for Britain’s former colonies, the Guardian understands.
The prime minister is under pressure to open the door to reparations at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa this week.
Caribbean countries have been pushing for the issue to be discussed at the summit, despite resistance from the UK government.
No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for the UK’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and this uncompromising tone has irritated some Commonwealth countries.
But a Downing Street source indicated that the UK could support some forms of reparatory justice, such restructuring financial institutions and providing debt relief. The source said:
There is a general sense that these multilateral institutions give out loans to developing countries then charge large interest rates for repayments.
They added that reforming financial situations was something the UK often took a lead on and was a form of reparatory justice that would not come at a cost to UK taxpayers.
Other proposed forms of restorative justice include making a formal apology, running educational programmes, establishing cultural institutions and providing economic and public health support.
A draft of the CHOGM communique leaked to the BBC said that governments, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
According to the broadcaster the communique sought to broaden the issue to include the slave trade not just across the Atlantic but in the Pacific, by saying that a majority of Commonwealth countries “share common historical experiences”."
So a document conveniently leaked to, and recycled by, the Beeb now has them looking to expand the shakedown to Pacific nations too.
Trebles all round.
Next we will be paying USA and China reparations
I am strongly of the opinion that any spare money should be going towards freeing those who are currently enslaved.
Quite a head of steam (!) building up here on slavery. I sense we're close to being able to argue that it was beneficial for all. Can we get there? I think we can.
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
2040 - The Guardian
"The atmospheric carbon extraction industry is another example of the rich world helping itself to the commons of all mankind without responsibility. Originally fostered to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it has become a juggernaught - using solar power to create fossil fuel replacements without consideration of the effects.
The ongoing famine and civil war in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. With CO2 levels now falling, Third World countries are now exposed to climate change - but in reverse....."
I think it's probably more likely a 2050 story than a 2040 one... but still, wonderfully believable.
Though surely the Saudis will be the ones with a country covered in solar panels and the fossil fuel replacement plants...
Given the Saudi shenanigans around the export of fundamentalist Islam and their long-standing use of OPEC as a cudgel, why would any sensible nation not take the opportunity to develop a Saudi-free supply chain?
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
2040 - The Guardian
"The atmospheric carbon extraction industry is another example of the rich world helping itself to the commons of all mankind without responsibility. Originally fostered to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it has become a juggernaught - using solar power to create fossil fuel replacements without consideration of the effects.
The ongoing famine and civil war in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. With CO2 levels now falling, Third World countries are now exposed to climate change - but in reverse....."
I think it's probably more likely a 2050 story than a 2040 one... but still, wonderfully believable.
I have to dig it out, but came across a company that was looking at atmospheric carbon capture to methane (and methanol). The CEO argued that when solar power dropped to 12% of the cost of oil power generation, the business case would close for generating bio-fuel(s).
The other interesting thing was that they were designing their process to be intermittent - run when the sun is up, rather than use battery storage.
Oh; I can completely believe it; it is - after all - simple math.
Breaking in NV: The state GOP is having observers fill out checklists at polling sites that include this: "NO VOTING MACHINES HAD VISIBLE INTERNET CONNECTIVITY"
Really? For the love of God.
Outrageous, insane and it's obvious what they are doing.
That's not terrible though. If countries can raise the ambition of their current pledges by a bit, and meet those, then we should be able to limit warming to 2.5C. That then gives us a bit of a safety cushion under 3C, and the world would have successfully avoided the very worst effects of global warming that would come from 3C or 4C of warming.
Obviously keeping under 2C or 1.5C would be better, but this isn't a binary pass/fail situation. These sorts of stories should be presented much more optimistically. The world could do a lot worse than 2.6-2.8C of warming.
Sky's climate reporter considers it would be armageddon if we do not keep it below 1.5 !!!!
This marks our third "flip" since Democrats opened early voting with a slight lead; Republicans were able to net nearly 15,000 raw votes yesterday and look primed to build on their lead over the next two days.
It's the same story here in NC as in other states (and specifically Georgia). Compared to the last handful of general elections, this early-vote electorate is more Republican and white.
The daily Tip[p Insights has fluctuated the last 5 days, starting with Harris up 49 -46, then down suddenly Trump at 49- 47, then steady drift back to Harris, Trump 49-48, Harris 49-48, today Harris 50 -47. Heaven knows what tomorrow will bring the Harris roll continue or another false dawn.
Quite a head of steam (!) building up here on slavery. I sense we're close to being able to argue that it was beneficial for all. Can we get there? I think we can.
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
2040 - The Guardian
"The atmospheric carbon extraction industry is another example of the rich world helping itself to the commons of all mankind without responsibility. Originally fostered to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it has become a juggernaught - using solar power to create fossil fuel replacements without consideration of the effects.
The ongoing famine and civil war in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. With CO2 levels now falling, Third World countries are now exposed to climate change - but in reverse....."
I think it's probably more likely a 2050 story than a 2040 one... but still, wonderfully believable.
Though surely the Saudis will be the ones with a country covered in solar panels and the fossil fuel replacement plants...
They will probably have been treated to some US "democracy" prior to that so it may not be theirs.
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
The key thing to understand is that the damage caused by carbon emissions rises exponentially. Even if we miss these targets, every additional tonne of carbon we emit makes things more and more worse.
This idea that nature will simply do what it's wants to do is performative impotence.
Until you can persuade mankind to act as one, and invest the trillions even to try to mitigate the earth warming, then it is not performative impotence - just the reality of the problem
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
2040 - The Guardian
"The atmospheric carbon extraction industry is another example of the rich world helping itself to the commons of all mankind without responsibility. Originally fostered to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it has become a juggernaught - using solar power to create fossil fuel replacements without consideration of the effects.
The ongoing famine and civil war in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. With CO2 levels now falling, Third World countries are now exposed to climate change - but in reverse....."
I think it's probably more likely a 2050 story than a 2040 one... but still, wonderfully believable.
Though surely the Saudis will be the ones with a country covered in solar panels and the fossil fuel replacement plants...
It's possible.
However, my base thesis is that panels will be so cheap, that the cost of getting things from A to B will overwhelm any savings from increased insolation.
Of course, that doesn't mean there won't be a period - which could easily be 10 to 20 years - when that isn't true. That's the window when things like Xlinks Morocco works - which is a 10.5GW solar plan that would be connected via a 3,800km HVDC line to the UK.
Quite a head of steam (!) building up here on slavery. I sense we're close to being able to argue that it was beneficial for all. Can we get there? I think we can.
Don't be fucking stupid. Arguing against paying reparations for something that had absolutely nothing to do with anyone alive in these islands today is not the same as being OK with an inhumane and barbaric practice.
Who's saying opposing (the impractical and not happening) reparations equates to that? Of course it doesn't.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
I believe some of the PB Trump Arse-Lickers consider Harris “the worst candidate ever” ?
Surely on the World stage that glittering prize goes to candidate Starmer. Check out the Trumpsters / Johnsonian Conservatives Venn diagram .
Quite a head of steam (!) building up here on slavery. I sense we're close to being able to argue that it was beneficial for all. Can we get there? I think we can.
I don't see anyone saying that.
I do see shits saying that we can give our money away to third-world despots so they can starve and torture their populations.
That's not terrible though. If countries can raise the ambition of their current pledges by a bit, and meet those, then we should be able to limit warming to 2.5C. That then gives us a bit of a safety cushion under 3C, and the world would have successfully avoided the very worst effects of global warming that would come from 3C or 4C of warming.
Obviously keeping under 2C or 1.5C would be better, but this isn't a binary pass/fail situation. These sorts of stories should be presented much more optimistically. The world could do a lot worse than 2.6-2.8C of warming.
Sky's climate reporter considers it would be armageddon if we do not keep it below 1.5 !!!!
I won't lie to you. It won't be great. It would be a lot better if we had done so.
But it doesn't stop getting worse the higher the temperatures go.
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
The key thing to understand is that the damage caused by carbon emissions rises exponentially. Even if we miss these targets, every additional tonne of carbon we emit makes things more and more worse.
This idea that nature will simply do what it's wants to do is performative impotence.
Until you can persuade mankind to act as one, and invest the trillions even to try to mitigate the earth warming, then it is not performative impotence - just the reality of the problem
That's not true. The world has made a lot of progress already. We've avoided several tenths of a degree of warming that would have happened - to date - if we hadn't acted.
The story should be that we've made a good start and there's a great opportunity to reinforce success.
That's not terrible though. If countries can raise the ambition of their current pledges by a bit, and meet those, then we should be able to limit warming to 2.5C. That then gives us a bit of a safety cushion under 3C, and the world would have successfully avoided the very worst effects of global warming that would come from 3C or 4C of warming.
Obviously keeping under 2C or 1.5C would be better, but this isn't a binary pass/fail situation. These sorts of stories should be presented much more optimistically. The world could do a lot worse than 2.6-2.8C of warming.
That's the difference between the average temperature of Bristol and the average temperature of Manchester.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
Interesting from the article. @Leon Starmer is buckling, as you said he would...
He's a lawyer and a civilised man. He plays by the rules. He does not realise at a gut level that at his level there are no rules: you do what you can get away with. One of an endless stream of people in Government who have never/rarely been punched in the face.
On current trends the world, even if countries meet all their carbon pledges, is heading to 2.6 and 2.8 degrees of warming
I look forward to owning a beachfront property on the new Humber Sea.
It just seems that nature is far more powerful than mankind, and certainly the trillions suggested to mitigate the rate of increase and the lack of will by many countries means that nature will ultimately do what it always has
The key thing to understand is that the damage caused by carbon emissions rises exponentially. Even if we miss these targets, every additional tonne of carbon we emit makes things more and more worse.
This idea that nature will simply do what it's wants to do is performative impotence.
Until you can persuade mankind to act as one, and invest the trillions even to try to mitigate the earth warming, then it is not performative impotence - just the reality of the problem
That's not true. The world has made a lot of progress already. We've avoided several tenths of a degree of warming that would have happened - to date - if we hadn't acted.
The story should be that we've made a good start and there's a great opportunity to reinforce success.
The idea that continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at rate similar to previous years counts as success and a good start is odd. Very like successive governments' plan to reduce debt by borrowing more and reducing migration by having lots more migrants. We are being conned.
Comments
This idea that nature will simply do what it's wants to do is performative impotence.
The other interesting thing was that they were designing their process to be intermittent - run when the sun is up, rather than use battery storage.
Trump has to win the sunbelt and at least one of the rust belt. And while I'd make him current favorite to do just that, it requires only the smallest of winds in the other direction to push Harris over the line.
Found them. These guys - https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2023/01/09/terraform-industries-whitepaper-2-0/
I need to do a deep dive into the numbers... lots of woo merchants in this space, though.
@RalstonReports
Breaking in NV: The state GOP is having observers fill out checklists at polling sites that include this: "NO VOTING MACHINES HAD VISIBLE INTERNET CONNECTIVITY"
Really? For the love of God.
Outrageous, insane and it's obvious what they are doing.
https://x.com/RalstonReports/status/1849443471448486342
Michael Pruser
@MichaelPruser
North Carolina has completed one week of early in-person voting, and we have a new party leader in overall turnout.
🔴Republicans - 686,624
🔵Democrats - 683,301
🟡Others - 638,268
This marks our third "flip" since Democrats opened early voting with a slight lead; Republicans were able to net nearly 15,000 raw votes yesterday and look primed to build on their lead over the next two days.
It's the same story here in NC as in other states (and specifically Georgia). Compared to the last handful of general elections, this early-vote electorate is more Republican and white.
NEW THREAD
However, my base thesis is that panels will be so cheap, that the cost of getting things from A to B will overwhelm any savings from increased insolation.
Of course, that doesn't mean there won't be a period - which could easily be 10 to 20 years - when that isn't true. That's the window when things like Xlinks Morocco works - which is a 10.5GW solar plan that would be connected via a 3,800km HVDC line to the UK.
I do see shits saying that we can give our money away to third-world despots so they can starve and torture their populations.
But it doesn't stop getting worse the higher the temperatures go.
The story should be that we've made a good start and there's a great opportunity to reinforce success.