laughs in LineageOS

Odd to see Papua New Guinea referred to as an “Island Nation” as if it were like a microstate in the Pacific. It’s half of New Guinea and bunch of other islands besides, and it’s bigger than Sweden.

Under pressure from Nazis and tankies.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/14th-waffen-grenadier-division-of-the-ss-nazi-monument-oakville

Can we also bulldoze the Nazi SS cemetery in Oakville and for good measure, flood it with piss?

Apparently the monument is gone “for repairs”.

Is your timeline set in the past for that site? It shows the present day for me when I check.

Most climate scientists say we need to make changes to our personal lives and changes to the system. If one lives in the overdeveloped world, one’s impact is potentially huge. There are basic things that make a difference: eat less meat from ruminants (beef, mutton), don’t fly, have fewer or no kids. Those are low hanging fruit, take little effort, and still leave time and energy for whatever system change tactic one wants to do.

I’ve encountered the term “Imperial mode of living” cited by Kohei Salto. Thanks for posting this interview.

On the theft of resources for the affluent lifestyle, I recommend Cobalt Red, about mining in the DRC. It’s a brutal read. Kids digging with hand tools in toxic pits for $1 a day.

May 1st colour being red is a nice subtle touch.

https://proton.me/blog/proton-scribe-writing-assistant

All profit is stolen wages.

The commute itself? Hard to say. But according to the article, a billionaire produces emissions equivalent to a million average people.

There are 3,311 billionaires.

Once they are eliminated, that’s the emissions of 3.3 billion people taken care of.

Or, proper running water systems vs having to buy plastic jugs of water.

Certainly the formula can be sharpened but it’s a decent heuristic for thinking about impact.

I = PAT

Impact is equal to population times affluence times technology.

Decreasing human population can help to decrease impact, as long as the smaller population doesn’t disproportionately increase its resource use (affluence x technology)

“Each side” is the issue - this party is going to let the conversation be driven by existing parties rather than any objective thinking. It’s leaving the conversation to be defined by the hegemonic political machines. So I expect nothing new. Another party of business as usual.

Sure, Canada’s doing great but we’re driving off a cliff in many respects. Once the ground gives out we’re gonna have a bad time.

What Canada needs: yet another party jostling to get to the center as quickly as possible. Another party whose platform is the Overton Window. The most average party possible.

Yep it looks like the report only takes into account emissions from consumption, not from wildfires etc.

Does this include emissions from tar sands oil or fossil gas when it’s burned abroad? Usually these numbers only include stuff burned in the country. But Canada’s a oil-exporting petrostate, so it would look way worse if the tar we dug up was all included, no matter who burns it.

Sky burial for me please.

I’ve been trying to find clothing made in my overdeveloped country. Though the only textile we make here is wool, maybe linen, it’s a way to support labour practices that are not sweatshops.

Still learning more names of species that live here. I’m starting to spot some trees quicker. ID’d all the trees around my apartment.

Edit: also found local farms to get a good chunk of produce from. Food miles don’t matter as much as people believe, but strong rural economies do: less likely to turn into exurbs, and less of my money going to supermarket extortionists.