i don't remember if this article was posted here but i feel like it intersects well on how the public sector subsidises energy projects without further thought into impact

Yeah. I feel that plenty of progressives neglect the role of the state and international institutions that aren't multinational corporations in environmental predicament. In a sense this is a conservative reform, but merely stopping subsidies (except those funding restoration work) for forestry would be a clear improvement since it would remove marginal forestland from production, that is, no-one will bother maintaining roads for logging access. It would also decrease clear cutting since a lot of the labor tasks only useful for clear cutting are presently subsidized by governments. Now a near total ban on clear cutting would be pretty awesome, all things considered, but a lot of trouble has to do with what public sector enthusiastically encourages rather than merely fails to curtail in the private sector. This doubly so when public bodies own natural resources, like oil and forests.

i don't disagree! i read the 'wood as not sustainable building material' article posted here only recently and there are more factors at play than i previously thought

I think that's reductive. NGOs, states and basic normies were all pretty into afforestration as a strategy, when we degrowth permie environmentalists were already into simply cutting down fewer forests and lengthening the cutting cycle; agroforestry, coppicing and pollarding; wetland and grassland restoration; and beaver ponds and other water cycle restoration; biocarbon as soil amendment. Like beaver ponds soak up 2-3 times as much carbon per area as a boreal forest does, but they do a lot more besides.

It's a complicated set of interests even on the site of capitalists, imho. Extractive industries especially in forestry and mining and landowners in general on the one hand and other capitalists probably don't exactly have the same interests on this topic.

i find i agree with you, especially with the outsize influence his blog held/holds. the underlying point about successful suicide rates linked with gun ownership is something that stays on my mind though

i dont want to be overly cold about a story where a man commits suicide but i want to emphasise that at the end of the day, this guy who crafted his identity about being a emotionally stoic defender of his family completely succumbed to his emotions and left his daughters without a father and his wife without a husband in what sounds like a time of financial stress. he never used his guns to protect his family or community. it was all just an affectation in order to distance himself from the "pink" people he resented so much

the org the writer collaborated with has a good primer on how to speak with survivors of gun violence (speaking as someone's who lost a loved one to gun violence)

i remember reading about this!! when the london eye first opened. i think my cousins went

Personal gun ownership (ie me owning a gun) freaks me out for the reasons in this article.

Like... probably I wouldn't I suppose? But the call to the void is much more frightening when the void is right there.

It's too much for me, that's the primary reason I don't own a gun

My deepest respect towards these innovators.

that uae minister on the same side as corporations

something that's real and something corporations will take as fact are often completely unrelated

"Crowther, who says his message was misinterpreted, put out a more nuanced paper last month, which shows that preserving existing forests can have a greater climate impact than planting trees."

i think it was an easy buy-in for big corps

I'm gonna read this article fully later but I thought that this was common knowledge among environmentalists and permies (I hangout with them a bunch) in 2019! Carbon offsets seemed like an obvious scam back in 2010.

thinking further on this, beyoncé is paralleling tina turner, her idol, at sun city :c that just sucks

"pickleball is a astroturfed, venture capital-backed parasite on public space." apparently

tennis adherent just because

this article was surprisingly enthralling. pickleball people seem like tech bros demanding that cities immediately change their existing park infrastructure to suit their whims while tennis and other sport people seem like nimbys who are afraid of change and are unwilling to share. unfortunately i am a fence sitter on the pickleball issue

i like that they gave us pictures and also a dog was in the picture for those of us who can't read

(good article and thank you for sharing, i would not have seen it otherwise)

jesus have you ever heard of paragraphs buddy?

i do NOT understand these advertisements. WHO is in the market for this

advertise boner pills or fuck games like a normal spambot

i was at and went past -1.00 at 10 :c

yay let's go outside and play some volley ball and what not

wayback link for free article-less folks

did play outside until, like, undergrad college lmao honest. got glasses at age 13, after a bout of eye itchiness made me rub my eyes really, really roughly, which seemingly (hhhh) made my eyesight worse overnight; i was unable to read from the whiteboard the next day. only a -0.75 prescription, though. i do think that it's been quickly worsening through the past three years, though? idk i haven't gotten my eyes retested yet. more comfortable with a -1.00 prescription glasses nowadays

i think it might be too late for me to stop my prescription from being bad, but i guess i can slow it down :/

got glasses at 9 and it did get worse as i spent less time playing outside to hit the books

Tbh I never understood why tree-based products were considered environment-friendly in the first place when one of the problems is... deforestation? It's just so silly