They are also producing 65% of their power from fossil fuel. China generates more carbon than US, EU and India combined. They are adding another 263 GW of coal power.

It could very well be that the scam was non-violent and looking to score an immediate haul. If you opened the door and looked around the house together (for the phone that’s actually in the backpack outside), they grab what they can while you are distracted. Maybe even your car keys if you leave them out in the open like most people do.

The reality is most individuals will have very little influence in the larger picture. I think the most important thing you can do as an individual is become a better educated consumer. As a simple rule of thumb, the less money you spend, the lower your carbon footprint will be. But also understand that buying something because it is cheap is likely cheap because it was not made in a sustainable manner. It’s really about reducing consumption overall and understanding more about how things are made.

In evaluating what you are consuming your carbon footprint is going to come from 3 primary sources: electricity, transportation and food. So at the very least turn things off when you are not using them. Don’t drive when you can walk, bike or take public transportation. Minimize consumption of beef and the over consumption of calories In general.

If you have an ability to do so, choose to pay a bit more for renewable energy sources, drive an electric vehicle (plug in hybrids are the best way IMHO), eat more vegetables and less meat and carbs.

People had a different opinion about showing skin and modesty back then.

Also clothes were a lot more expensive and people only had a few outfits. So you’re not going to spring for a special piece of clothing for something you did only a couple times in your lifetime. Few people knew how to swim so what’s the point? You might go as far as to put your feet in.

Lastly, there was no air conditioning back then. The biggest appeal was the cool sea breeze.

I just started playing so maybe it’s in there already, but sanitation as a factor to manage. Disease was a constant issue in this period. Especially as density increases. Hence the limitations on larger cities and population growth.

The EU can’t even agree on tax policy within member states. Forget about a global agreement. US especially will not cede autonomy to set its own rules. If the US won’t do it no one else will.

Beef cattle are different from dairy cattle. Each are distinctly optimised for their respective output. Most of the deforestation is related to cattle grown in Brazil for meat.

Greenfield expansion of palm oil production has fallen sharply in recent years. Yield increases and brown field expansion will allow production to continue to grow. Demand for edible oil is only going to continue to increase. Rightly or wrongly, there’s also growing demand for biofuels and SAF. If it isn’t palm oil it’ll be soy in Brazil which will be even more destructive.

Lower prices lead to higher consumption you mean. Demand for edible oils, like many soft commodities, has been growing due to rising global per capita income. It’s going to be supplied from somewhere.

Resource efficiency is only one variable that determines price. Deforestation rates in Indonesia and Malaysia (where most palm oil comes from) have already come down significantly, specifically due to palm oil and RSPO requirements. (Other commodities driving deforestation in the region are timber and rubber) Real-time satellite imagery is helping pinpoint transgressions and several large plantation owners have been found out, even behind layers of fake corporate entities.

Coupled with few new replanting means the average tree age is increasing and the gross tonnage is going to decrease all else equal. Closing the yield gap between actual and potential is the best way to avoid price spikes.

From a land use prospective palm oil is the most efficient. It isn’t even close versus any other edible oils. Palm oil produces an average of 3 tons of oil per hectare and the next closest is rapeseed at 0.72 tons per hectare. However palm oil production is still highly inefficient. With best practices it’s possible to get up to 5-6 tons per hectare.

Depends on where you live. Hawaii 30% ROI is common. In general the closer you are to the equator the higher the returns and places that have to import fossil fuels have very high rates.

Also depends on when you had them installed. Price has fallen over 50% in the last decade and have yet to plateau.

But commercial installations such as utility run solar farms are significantly cheaper to operate than individual buildings. Longer term it doesn’t make much sense for everyone to produce their own power unless you are in a remote area where the distribution cost is higher and less reliable.

I’m originally from rural Northern Wisconsin. I’ve had plenty of outdoor time. Relative to other places I’ve been over the years Boundary Waters was on the low end of wildlife sightings when I was there.

Early July. I stayed on the US side, headed East about 30 miles and looped back. My routine was pack up by 6am and go until noon. Once I set up camp and had lunch I’d do a little hike around the area if it looked worth exploring, read, try some fishing, etc.

I’m coming back in a couple months and I was just going through my gear today. I’m an avid bird watcher and was just thinking if it’s worth packing my binoculars given how I didn’t have much of an opportunity to use them last time.

I called them this morning. Of course it’s a call center in the Philippines where they don’t know anything because they are just reading off a script. I tried to get them to let me talk to one of the master repair techs the field guys get access to but no go. So I guess I’ll have to spend another $150 for a second opinion.

So your point is that because a book broadly about the efforts people are making to save birds in general isn’t having a specific effect on a program to cull an invasive species, and despite mentioning a book that clearly did have a significant impact on environmental policy, we therefore must conclude that all books will have no effect on environmental policy?

I don’t disagree that Bill Gates’ book isn’t going be a catalyst for change, but you’re using a lot of logical fallacies here which isn’t helping your case.

So only books that save humanity can be considered books that affect change?

What you are referring to is scope 3 emissions; the emissions that come from the use of the product a company sells. Clearly not something Shell has much control over. One Dutch company could reduce production but it’s not going to do anything about the total amount of petroleum consumed in the world. If it’s not Shell it’s Exxon, Petrobras, Petrochina, Lukoil, etc. that will fill in the gap.

Shell has a goal of reducing scope 1 and 2 emissions. That’s the emissions created in the production process (1) and the emissions generated by the electricity they use (2). Shell, as a Dutch company is required to disclose their emissions under a specific audited methodology. So it’s possible they could misreport but it’s not that easy and there are repercussions if caught.

The only thing that will significantly reduce the use of oil and gas is the conversion to electric vehicles and the elimination of natural gas power plants.

What you are referring to is scope 3 emissions; the emissions that come from the use of the product a company sells. Clearly not something Shell has much control over. One Dutch company could reduce production but it’s not going to do anything about the total amount of petroleum consumed in the world. If it’s not Shell it’s Exxon, Petrobras, Petrochina, Lukoil, etc. that will fill in the gap.

Shell has a goal of reducing scope 1 and 2 emissions. That’s the emissions created in the production process (1) and the emissions generated by the electricity they use (2). Shell, as a Dutch company is required to disclose their emissions under a specific audited methodology. So it’s possible they could misreport but it’s not that easy and there are repercussions if caught.

The only thing that will significantly reduce the use of oil and gas is the conversion to electric vehicles and the elimination of natural gas power plants.

Signatures are primarily from low level IFAs from crap firms like Ameriprise.

Homes prices are not set by a broker. They can give you their own opinion but it’s up to the home owner to decide what price they want to offer it at. Homes are sold in an auction price model. Initial offer price is usually determined based on comparable sales in the neighborhood. But homes are all unique so you are still making an educated guess.

Think of it from the perspective of the homeowner. Why would I sell you my house for $800k when someone else is willing to pay me $900k? I’m going to sell it to whoever is willing to give me the most money. This is effectively how prices go up or down on a broader scale. Same with the stock market or even cars in the last few years.

Qattara Depression in Egypt is a lot more viable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project

Lost sales and fines have already added up to more than all the dividends and share buybacks for the last decade, with more to come. So your wish has come true.