leicsmac

The global issues are where most people are sleepwalking in the name of lack of foresight either spatially or temporally. Focusing inward just means the UK falls shortly after a few others or last anyway.

Interesting analysis of a reasonably complex TMO decision there.

It's possible, but I guess we'll never be sure either way.

It's just unfortunate that the US are far too busy selling out all the values they (supposedly) had to properly negotiate on this one.

... and Putin is likewise delusional if he thinks the other side will agree to the terms he's put forward too. So I guess now it's up to the diplomats to sort all of that out towards a middle ground as best they can.

On the topic of people who don't agree with him... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmj8ky3rvno The US is expelling South Africa's ambassador to Washington, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying he is "no longer welcome in our great country". In a post on X, Rubio accused Ebrahim Rasool of hating America and President Donald Trump and described him as a "race-baiting politician". It's good to see that the US does care about (allegedly) oppressed populations... they just have to be white, apparently. NB. Interesting that Rubio apparently makes zero distinction between a nation and the elected leader of that nation, as if they are by definition the very embodiment of that nations values. Very North Korean.

And the British that went over the waves to found the thirteen American colonies carried on and so their descendants (as well as, funnily enough, some that would be considered "foreigners" a while back) carry on that proud tradition too. Like you said, a lot of it is not about conserving anything but some values like women and "foreigners" having second or lower tier places in society.

I hope that you're right, but I fear that if you were, they would have recognised this a long time before now. Yes. Because deep down, that's actually what they want.

Realpolitik. Apparently it's "worth it".

He's aiming for executive capture of that and all other federal agencies for that exact reason. Fanatical loyalists to him at the top will allow him to do as he wishes.

On the above, this was posted almost 6 years ago now but is becoming more pertinent than ever. https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20190109-the-perils-of-short-termism-civilisations-greatest-threat

We are living in a time where the advance of tech has made it viable enough for style to surpass substance much more often than not. The truly depressing thing is knowing what that valuing of con artistry and short-termism over competence inevitably leads to. I wish that I didn't.

Pretty much, yes. It would be hilarious if the consequences for so many people weren't so incredibly dire.

It would be, wouldn't it.

I express doubt that many on that side of the spectrum are really interested in either biodiversity or sustainability when profit is available (or sometimes even when it's not), but appreciate the explanation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgw118nlkeo First Minister John Swinney has met US President Donald Trump's son Eric at Bute House in Edinburgh. Eric Trump is a senior executive in his father's business - the Trump Organization - which owns golf resorts in Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire. The meeting took place over tea and biscuits, is understood to have lasted about 50 minutes and solely focused on Trump's golf resorts, according to his son. It comes after the first minister said he did not think it would be appropriate for Donald Trump to be offered a second state visit to the UK. Jr coming over to bitch about someone redecorating his dad's ego courses, how lovely.

If this is true, why would the prevailing Tory attitude be to criticise it, beyond contrarianism?

I wonder what NATO members would do - or are obliged to do - if one of their own number commits an act that would normally trigger article 5?

I guess a large part of the debate around NHS reform comes down to whether or not one views the life and health of a human being as more than the proper position of a full stop in an expenses spreadsheet.

It is a systemic problem that doesn't have a simple solution, yes. That and the (currently) abstract nature of it could perhaps explain why there's still nowhere near enough action taken regarding it.

I honestly don't know what the best way forward is on that one. In terms of causing damage to biodiversity, I reckon it certainly has the potential to be hugely damaging.

If the nature of reality really is that nasty, brutish and short, then fair enough. Speaking personally, I'm rather thinking as a species we can do better. Sigh - exhibit A for your case right there. How sadly pointless.

From what I glean, it wouldn't take long at all through more careful application of existing plastic mitigation strategies. In all honesty, I think the second line here is an excuse that should not be bought now and, should this and other problems result in catastrophe, certainly won't be bought by those who are left. "Our attention was elsewhere" isn't a great justifying line for the history books (if anyone is still thinking to write them), especially when everything about that "elsewhere" can and will sound incredibly petty and trivial compared to the magnitude of the problems that the Earth is going to give (and is already giving) our species.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2423957122 Our study presents a global assessment of microplastic pollution’s impact on food security. By analyzing a comprehensive dataset of 3,286 records, we quantify the reduction in photosynthesis caused by microplastics across various ecosystems. This reduction is estimated to cause an annual loss of 109.73 to 360.87 million metric tons (MT) for crop production and 1.05 to 24.33 MT for seafood production. By reducing current environmental microplastic levels by 13%, these losses could be mitigated by 14.26 to 46.91 MT in crops and 0.14 to 3.16 MT in seafood. These findings underscore the urgency for effective plastic mitigation strategies and provide insights for international researchers and policymakers to safeguard global food supplies in the face of the growing plastic crisis. And all the while people who think food "just happens" don't even stop to consider how the drop in biodiversity caused by this and other sources might affect them.

What @Bilo said, with the addendum that environment-conscious left wingers know very well that cutting into Teslas market share pales in comparison to other related policy decisions on the same issue.