The premise here is that you lose access to a European bank's mobile app because the US government compels Apple or Google to disable your app store accounts. Not that your relationship with the bank is frozen.
They contribute to GDP spend, but from the fiscal point of view they are a drag. As for actual percentages per country, I think it heavily varies. In EU i think family spending is like 3% of GDP.
The hope is that this drag will either generate higher cash flows later (i.e money spent on education now will allow them to create value for economy later) or reduce outflows later (i.e a child that gets braces and dental health care now won't spend their whole adult life dealing with teeth issues on taxpayer's dime).
The curtailed windfarms are in the north of Scotland. There is currently not enough transmission capacity to export electricity from there to the south of England where the demand is highest. New transmission lines are under construction, but they wont be ready until 2029.
That's production, not consumption. The US exports huge amounts of oil and gas now. The EU/Russia sanctions and the Red Sea blockade are a huge gravy train for American oil and gas companies.
No it doesn't make sense. Every photon that hits the Earth is eventually either absorbed as heat, reflected back into space or both (eg. partially absorbed and partially re-emitted as lower energy photons.) There is no net global increase in heat from a wind turbine or solar panel. (There might be slight local shifts.)
The only way this could change net heat if it significantly altered the reflectivity of the surface, and in practice the affected area is too small to matter. As an exaggerated example, I found an article [1] that calculated the area that would need to be covered by solar panels to generate power equal the total global electricity consumption to be 115,625 square miles, approximately equal to the state of New Mexico.
It would actually be much better than nuclear. Remember, for every kWh of electrical energy delivered from a nuclear plant, 2 kWh of waste heat goes up those cooling towers. This is not the case with solar, particularly if it were built on ground that was already fairly dark.
Direct thermal pollution like this is not yet globally significant, but if demand increased to the point that land constraints actually applied then it would become important.
Yep. It's not just oil rigs in the desert. Chevron in Ecuador destroyed the Amazonian rainforest. Oil pipelines and open pit mines destroying Canadian primordial forests. Probably tons of untold stories.
Similar to the idea that electric cars are net worse for the environment because some of the materials used to make them. Worse than 20 years of burning gasoline in an ICE car? It's so ridiculous.
it depends where your electricity comes from actually. In west Virginia it comes from coal so is worse than a hybrid but still better than non-hybrid gas cars (in terms of CO2)
No it's not. The efficiency of an EV Motor > efficiency of ICEV motor. Even with 100% black coal. The carbon is reduced by about 30% IIRC (that number can and does improve as the grid greens).
It’s so interesting seeing some of the comments about this. The sentence I wrote after that blames war and global devastation on fossil fuels. I was expecting to get flak for being too harsh to fossil fuels but somehow it swung the other direction. Which, as someone who shouts at the radio when the greenwashing oil ads play on NPR, is heartening.
I figured that was the semantic game he (and you apparently) are playing.
1. The Democratic Party represents the left in the US, so the left is in power when they are in power.
2. In other parts of the world, parties and individuals who are further left on the political spectrum than the US Democratic Party (either nationally or in any location under discussion here) obtain power. As those are generally repressive regimes, their media is generally highly biased in their direction, making them biased towards both the left and the people on power.
If you want to have a meaningful discussion, feel free to stop being coy.
What you're demonstrating is that "left" and "right" are not useful terms for this sort of conversation. If you mean Dems, say Dems. If you mean "they don't agree with me on xyz", say that.
Saying "they're biased towards the left" is bereft of actual meaning, with such a wide range of interpretation that it's not useful for discussion.
They absolutely are useful terms, as defined by the vast majority of the US population.
Dems = left in the US. They are interchangeable in nearly all situations, including this one where the meaning of the original comment was extraordinarily clear to anyone who isn't trying to prove a point.
What's a "centrist" in a "Dem/repub" context, though? A non-voter?
Obscuring what one actually means makes it harder to figure out what one takes issue with.
It's genuinely unclear what this person is actually criticizing when they've draped it under so much indirection. They're biased towards... dems, or the left, or something, in some way that's not made clear, but we must know they're a Reasonable Judge of that bias because they've declared themselves a centrist..? It's all signalling, no signal.
And, of course, there's the whole rest of the planet to contend with, with a much broader view of the political spectrum...
> What's a "centrist" in a "Dem/repub" context, though? A non-voter?
An independent? A moderate Dem/repub? Those are two (or three) options and there are others.
> Obscuring what one actually means makes it harder to figure out what one takes issue with.
What they meant was very clear. The bias in their reporting is heavily left leaning in their opinion.
> It's genuinely unclear what this person is actually criticizing when they've draped it under so much indirection.
There's zero indirection in their statement.
> They're biased towards... dems, or the left, or something, in some way that's not made clear, but we must know they're a Reasonable Judge of that bias because they've declared themselves a centrist..? It's all signalling, no signal.
Again, this is extremely clear to anyone who isn't ignorant of politics in his location or being intentionally obtuse.
He didn't provide any links, and I'm not going to waste the time to track some down, but the content in question (in the opinion of the parent poster) almost certainly is in support of the progressive part of the Democratic Party, which does have some representation in local (in his area), state (in his state), and national government, and therefore has some power.
> And, of course, there's the whole rest of the planet to contend with, with a much broader view of the political spectrum...
The topic of this discussion is local journalism, and the parent poster provided his location (central NJ), so that's not the issue either.
According to TFA LE already offers a "shortlived" profile that issues 6-day certs if you want to stress test your automation, or just gain the security advantages of rapid certificate turnover immediately.
The goal is to move to short lived certs to make the fragile system of revocation lists and public certificate logs unnecessary.
reply