Archived link of the article

Take a look at the links I shared above. You might find them interesting.

Edit: @dumnezero to answer your question, the key words would be phasing out fossil fuels, and this could not take place in a week. So the answer is no.

Third, we need new ways to remove (…) carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year, and store it safely in the ground.

No, we don’t. Fossil fuel companies do.

• Reactionary Decarbonization | On Carbon Capture and Techno-Utopianism
• How the role of carbon storage has been hugely overestimated | Carbon Brief

Industrial manufacturing is declining in Europe for sure, but not because of complying to climate policies, as you claimed. Industrial production is falling in most European Union countries, largely due to a lack of competitiveness with China and the US.

Also, the article you linked about the EU loosing manufacturing jobs does not back your claim. On the contrary it says: The move to a sustainable economy is an opportunity to turn the situation around. Towards the end, it also mentions that the EU should make sure that industry jobs are not lost and that Europe’s industrial sectors and their workers are fundamental to delivering the climate solutions Europe needs, which are very different things to what you said.

The leading countries in addressing climate change appear to have prioritized their efforts at the expense of industrial growth,

Personaly, I would be glad if this were the case. Honestly, I wonder how you came to this conclusion

Archived link of the article

Carbon dioxide from Google’s power plant will be injected into the same geological storage formations already used by ADM’s ethanol facility. The site is the location of the first long-term CO2 storage well in the U.S.

Typically, around 2,000 metric tons of CO2 are sent into the well every day. But injections there were halted in 2024 when salty brine, which stores dissolved CO2 deep underground, was found to have migrated into “unauthorized zones,” according to the EPA. ADM said the leak was the result of corrosion at a monitoring well, E&E News reported, and they’ve since resumed injections.

A recent study of 13 CCS facilities representing 55% of all captured carbon shows that most aren’t living up to expectations.

I don’t think it’s a misleading title because leaks are considered emissions.

The leaks from oil & gas are huge to begin with, and some of them are even called super-emitting methane leaks. From another article:

About 40% of human-caused methane emissions come from leaks from fossil fuel exploration, production and transportation. These rose by almost 50% between 2000 and 2019. Another 40% comes from agriculture(…) All are forecast to rise.

Not only that these leaks and are not visible to the naked eye, so

the big challenge is knowing exactly how much methane is being emitted, where it is being emitted and for how long it has been emitted. [source UN environment program]

The waste part, for some reason, I thought it was kinda implied. Thanks, anyways.

The part that you say more or less that coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants even if we take into account nuclear accidents, is the one that made me wonder tbh.

Btw, perhaps, one of the most famous papers about this topic was written in 1978 [abstract, [full pdf](file:///home/myname/Downloads/9362611%20(1).pdf) ], but it doesn’t mention accidents. Actually, in the abstract they say that the study does not even assess, the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy. This one, from 2021, doesn’t talk about accidents, either.

I thought you might have a relevant article or something to share about the accident part you mentionned?

Sorry, I don’t understand why you say this. Can you explain?

Edit: Maybe it’s the “skeptical” thing. Well this site is about the following

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Global warming is real and human-caused. It is leading to large-scale climate change. Under the guise of climate “skepticism”, the public is bombarded with misinformation that casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming “skepticism”.

Our mission is simple: debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial, discourses of climate delay, and climate solutions denial.

Coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants, even if you take all the accidents into account.

In a way yes, but only in the sense that nuclear waste is supposed to be well contained and stored for disposal. Still, the accidents are not taken into account, at least in the studies I took a look at. If you have any that says otherwise, please share.

If I got you right, it’s kinda the other way around.

Regardless of the last femicide, the government decided to promote these restrictive mesures on sex ed. That is because preventing gender-based violence and promoting consent are not notions that fascists care to advance, on the contrary.

You might be interested in taking a look at the following video.

The Dead Internet Theory is WRONG (but its worse than you thought) [16:56]

Ok, I think I understand better what you meant. It looks like we see things very differently.

For example, in a conversation about ultra-processed foods I don’t see what you mention: it’s always been intended to target poor people’s food. Instead, I see capitalist/neoliberal/etc economic incentives and neglect for anything or anyone else. What do I mean by that?

For me, the capitalists that are in the food industry are there because they just care about the economic value, not the nutritional one. So in order to maximise their profit these capitalists/industrialists/etc, they say something like: “if I buy 1 potato I can make 1 potato chips packet, but if I turn this potato into powder then I can mix it with this other powders and get 5 packs of crisps that I can sell cheaper than the competitor with the real potato crisps”

So poor people are affected by UPFs not because there is a conspiracy targeting them, but because UPFs have almost zero nutritional value, while being in the price range they can afford to consume.

I’m convinced ‘ultra-processed food’ is a bullshit term used bully poor people for their lifestyle.

Not too sure what you mean. Ultra-processed food has a pretty standard definition. Briefly, it’s food that has been highly processed by some industrial methods.

What about the environmental cost of expensive air shipped food like lobster or the very fancy single origin coffees?

That’s a tricky question, but there is a section in this post called What we don’t know, where you could partially find some answers. They explain how difficult it is to track everything down: Getting an exact measure of the environmental toll of UPFs [Ultra-Processed Foods] is nearly impossible, given that, definitionally, UPFs consist of many ingredients and a high volume of opaque processes.

I think this depends on the locality. Where I come from one could argue that burning a forest is a form of deforastation anyways, because in order to be able to get a building permit, it must not be in a forest zone. So this is a typical practice: burn forest, buy land, build villa/hotel/etc.

In this context tho, I believe what is meant by deforastation is cutting down trees, clear-cut style, for some commercial purpose.

Corruption is definately part of this. For me tho, the main problem is that it’s the system that is corrupted, not just some politicians or officials. Since lobbying is allowed and legal, big corps lobby to make sure that they continue doing business as usual…legally.

Btw, this is a great site for EU lobbying info: https://www.lobbyfacts.eu

This press release from 15 min ago from the european parlianent, unfortunately confirms what is said in the article.

Press conference: simplified sustainability reporting and due diligence rules

To boost competitiveness and cut red tape, existing sustainability reporting and due diligence rules are being simplified. The aim is to ease reporting requirements and cut social and environmental obligations for companies.

deleted by creator

I think you are right, but we also need to factor in that the west has been exporting its industrial production to other countries (cheaper labor, cheaper taxes etc). So it seems to be a tricky thing to see this by country.

The way I see things, it’s more that the prevelant economic system dictates this kind of behavior, more than any one country. In the sense that the countries in power change, but they all follow some sort of capitalist model, which is also a form of neo-collonialism imo, at least when it comes from western countries . China is another story imo, that follows the economic model.