leicsmac

Or simply if they wanted to, from how it appears now. It's certainly a matter of debate, hence me using the word "if" there. The point there though being that the UK could possibly (only possibly, mind you) do more than sit on their hands while a "friend" (really really heavy on the quotation marks there) acts like a bullying douchebag.

All the more reason for Starmer to do what @StanSP suggested above. It's deeply frustrating that, if the UK really is that well respected, that they're not using some of that diplomatic capital to tell the US that, quite frankly, that they're a bunch of fvcknuts right now.

I'd laugh if the situation wasn't so absurdly consequential for all of us.

Maybe Greenland, probably Cuba. Will be somewhere. What was it I said about our species being a disappointment again?

Yes, and yes is the answer to those two statements and IMO it's as obvious as the force of gravity. Their aims, both conceived and blatantly stated, are pretty clear so there's not really much need for nuance here.

Would it really matter if there was or wasn't? Or that the current administration would bother with such justifications instead of simply doing what they want in the name of their own self interest again and again? I'm not sure where the idea that they are interested in any kind of facts and evidence when they can and do make up both on the regular to suit themselves comes from here.

And now he's intimating that he wants to do it again because "no one can stop us'. Presume Cuba is what he's thinking of first up?

I wish I was as sure about that as you are. Does anyone really think that the current US administration really cares about any kind of opinion or backlash outside of their own self interest right now? What, exactly, do they have to fear? This is what happens when sociopaths have more power than anyone else. Very true. The rather dark comfort though is that those self interested pricks cannot conquer forever, because their way if thinking is incompatible with the survival of human civilisation and our species itself. The problem the rest of us face is neutralising them before they take everyone else with them, in a world that seems very beholden to the loudmouths and the self interested, as you say. Can't disagree here, he's taken the wrong line on Trump from the start. That being said, I don't see either Badenoch or Farage taking anything near a better line on him either, given they both actually seem to want closer ties with that repugnant administration.

Good start, would be nice if this team could actually make the most of it tomorrow.

Yeah, only sometimes. There's still decency, and still folks there who act to value something beyond their own line of sight both in space and time. It's just that the voice of the short term self interested destructive is very loud right now.

Additionally, now this has been done, I fear that this won't be the last such intervention in the near future. Trump may try for Greenland or similar, Putin will be emboldened even more in Ukraine and possibly elsewhere, Xi may figure the US won't bother to hassle him on Taiwan. Sometimes, our species really is disappointing.

It's just unfortunate that rather a lot of people aren't making their takes as nuanced as this and stating the above as fact rather than merely opinion. It's also unfortunate that such perception is surpassing fact in the democratic process and therefore policymaking on this matter, as well.

I don't see how anyone stops him other than himself in the longer format matches now, at least for the moment. Both his scoring and his finishing are a class apart, and no situation appears to faze him. Double world champion at the age of 18.

There's always a Tweet.

Moving into ominous form now.

And, of course, the US oil companies will make bank, as they always do when the US engages in extracurricular activity like this. Shame about the future for everyone but them short term and everyone including them long term.

Think the first 6-7 sets will be close and mostly shared and then Littler will up his level as he normally does in such situations and come through.

Yep. Another reason for progressive change, in a lot of ways, across a lot of places.

No disagreement there, the point was that population size doesn't always have relevance when it comes to what a nation does or doesn't do regarding their cleaner energy infrastructure.

You may well be on the money with that, mon ami. Like I said above, I hope that you are.

For the sake of the future of practically everyone, let us hope so. He's certainly got more smarts about him than Trump, which means he could make the whole abuse of power mechanism work more efficiently.

India now have a comparable population figure, but sadly nowhere near the same degree of infrastructure production in that regard. Vance almost certainly will be the Repub nominee in 2028, but the midterms later this year will likely tell us a lot about whether he'll win or not.

The whole aspect of consumerism and how that plays into sustainability is a whole other discussion. Lots to be said, too.

From the article itself: "Coal currently accounts for half of China's energy production, down from three-quarters in 2016. China, the world's second-largest economy, is also the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter. This spike in coal construction and commissioned projects comes as China massively expands its renewable capacity, which now covers growth in electricity demand. Solar capacity, for instance, jumped by 212 GW in the first six months of 2025. This year alone, the country is on track to install enough new renewable energy to cover the energy needs of Germany and the UK combined. Germany, according to its Federal Network Agency, added roughly 20 GW of renewables to its grid in 2024, bringing its total to 190. China will add 500 GW in new wind and solar power in 2025 alone. Beijing's push has led to a 1% drop in six-month emissions year-on-year, according to the UK-based climate and energy website Carbon Brief, yet China's increased reliance on coal threatens to derail its pursuit of gas emissions reductions." Are any of the other players doing anywhere near that much in terms of getting themselves off non-renewable reliance? The US certainly aren't, they don't appear to care at all in terms of policy on the matter. FWIW that's a pretty good article highlighting the progress while still rightly saying there's a fair way to go, but they're catching up fast. So yes, they are taking the problem seriously.

"Questionable" is certainly one word to describe it, yes. And this is another example of how this administration find the words "due process" dirty, too. But yes, like similar figures from similar autocratic top-heavy regimes since time immemorial, they certainly don't "muck around". Whether or not that's actually a good thing for the present or the future is clearly a matter of debate.