This is often the justification but in many countries agriculture systems are not oriented towards food security: they produce a large share of export crops/products and thus also rely on imports. If they were an actual national security tool, they would be more focus on not relying on imports and not helping exports, right?
The main thing that irked me is that the book focuses on technical solutions as if that's what we're missing (carbon coin! pumping water from under ice sheets! etc.) but completly glosses over the actual consequences.
To piggyback on the rest of this thread, people like meat and don't want to stop eating lots of meat. People are not going to like things that make them stop eating meats, whether it's governement buying out producers, a carbon tax, a carbon quota, whatever.
"Ministry of the Future" is full of stuff like "and the central bankers could reshape the economy, so they did by doing XYZ" as if "XYZ" was important but barely discusses the fact that "reshaping the economy" might upset lots of people. How were they convinced to give up air travel, cars, etc?
> People are not going to like things that make them stop eating meats, whether it's governement buying out producers, a carbon tax, a carbon quota, whatever.
I think the point of the book is that when the consequences are serious enough, it pushes significant social and behavioral change that people would not consider or accept otherwise. It's hard for us to imagine how society could actually change so drastically, but when people have been through a crisis of immense proportions, they think differently. India completely transforming its governance structure seems implausible but only because we haven't experienced 20M people dying at once from a preventable cause. These kind of events are triggers for social revolutions. We've seen this in history.
Sure, but then the story is about 1. the Indian heatwave and 2. the transformation; whether the transformation came about through carbon coins or carbon quotas or whatever is a detail. But it's the focus of the book.
I think in the book those people were convinced to give up air travel by the eco-terrorists known as the Children of Kali shooting commercial airliners out of the sky, and not shooting down cleaner alternatives like airships. A persuasive argument, to be sure.
Note that China has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either.
Let’s split China population in k Denmark-sized groups, plus one smaller-than-Denmark reminder.
None of the k groups has any ability to impact global CO2 emissions (same as Denmark).
We can reasonably assume that a smaller group has even less ability to impact global CO2 emissions than a bigger group. Hence the smaller-than-Denmark reminder has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either.
Thus China is made of groups that have no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. And therefore China as a whole has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions. (Otherwise at least one group within China would have to impact global emissions and we just saw that it isn’t possible).
This is known as the CO2 impossibility theorem, loosely based on Arrow’s concept of “(in)decisive” set.
Your logic is wrong - a Denmark sized group of Chinese people is probably all it takes to operate their solar panel producing factories.
The reason Denmark can't do anything isn't because there are few of them, it is because Denmark isn't a significant industrial cluster for energy technology and innovation. For example, India has more people than China and they aren't in a position to do much unless there is some sort of tech breakthrough that hasn't made it to my notice.
Fair enough, but the major point still stands - Denamrk's industrial policies that enable Vestas are the only way they can have a significant impact on climate change. Farmland conversion does nothing; it isn't moving the needle on what is economic and industrially scaleable. Everyone still needs to eat.
His math is x ~ 0, hence x / 10 = 0, hence x = NaN.
The starting point is just wrong that Denmark can't play a role when it comes to climate change. Denmark can make a change. It is like saying that when voting that no individual vote or county matters, when the opposite is true: every vote matters in the same way.
Every kg CO2 saved is good... (obviously we should strive for the most economic way to save CO2).
Low carbon farms balance would be: "low carbon" profit + subsidy - small carbon tax
High carbon farms balance would be: "high carbon" profit + subsidy - high carbon tax
If ["low carbon" profit - small carbon tax] > ["high carbon" profit - high carbon tax] (e.g. if the carbon tax is high enough), farms have an incentive to lower their carbon emissions.
The subsidy is here to make sure ["low carbon" profit + subsidy - small carbon tax] > 0
Note that's it's not civil matters but matters related to government action (from say, basic rights to labor disputes for State employees or citizenship issues).
They are judges in that they make decisions, but they are not magistrates; they are civil servants. The way it works is also quite different from the cour de cassation. There is not really a prosecution, a defense, or parties civiles. It’s its own thing, partly for philosophical reasons related to separation of powers, and partly for practical reasons under the Ancien Régime. The kings did not want magistrates to interfere with the State, so they created a different judicial branch. Napoléon modernised it but kept the same principle.
I don't think we should be missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, because of historical reasons, _technically_ "magistrat" refers specifically to magistrates from the judicial branch and not all judges [0]. This is surely interesting yet administrative judges do the same job of presiding over court proceedings before them and being independent from the political authorities.
Procedure is different between the two branches, but there are also differences of procedures within each branch - for instance between penal vs civil cases.
The Constitutionnal council has ruled that the independance of administrative judges is a constitutional principle in the same way as the judicial judge [1, see point 6].
[0] of course if we need to be really technical, administrative judges are magistrates see: 'Les membres des tribunaux administratifs et des cours administratives d'appel sont des magistrats [...]' https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000... ; but members of the Conseil d'Etat, an administrative court, are not administrative judges - they're conseillers d'Etat.
> This is surely interesting yet administrative judges do the same job of presiding over court proceedings before them and being independent from the political authorities.
Not really. The fact that members of the Council of State are not magistrates comes up regularly, because it does limit their independence. It works so far because everyone behaves, but this would cause a serious crisis if France one days ends up with someone like Trump or Boris Johnson, who is willing to stop doing the right thing and just use any weapon they can find. To add insult to injury in this case, the supreme body deciding on disciplinary actions in public institutions is the Council of State itself.
> of course if we need to be really technical, administrative judges are magistrates see: 'Les membres des tribunaux administratifs et des cours administratives d'appel sont des magistrats [...]'
This is about the tribunaux administratifs (lower courts) and cours administrative d’appel (appellate courts, the 2nd layer). The conseil d’État sits on top and is different.
"Probability of experiencing a heatwave at least X degrees, during at least Y days in a given place any given day" is increasing rapidly in many places (as far as I understand) and is climate, not weather. Sure, any specific instance "is weather" but that's missing the forest for the trees.
In the documentary it includes credible witness testimonies such as politicians including a previous Minister of Defense for Canada; multiple states in the US have ban the spraying now - with more to follow, and the testimony and data provided there will be arguably be the most recent.
Here's a video on a "comedy" show from 5 years ago - there is a more recent appearance but I can't find it - in attempt to make light of it, without having an actual discussion with critical thinking or debate so people can be enlightened with the actual problems and potential problems and harms it can cause, to keep them none the wiser - it's just propaganda while trying to minimize: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOfm5xYgiK0
A few of the problems cloud seeding will cause:
- flooding in regions due to rain pattern changes
- drought in areas due to rain pattern changes
- cloud cover (amount of sun) changes crop yields
- this harms local economies of farmers, impacting smaller farming operations more who's risk isn't spread out - potentially forcing them to sell or go into savings or go bankrupt, etc.
There are also very serious concerns/claims made of what exactly they are spraying - which includes aluminium nanoparticles, which can/would mean:
- at a certain soil concentration of aluminium plants stop bearing fruit,
- aluminium is a fire accelerant and so forest fires will then 1) more easily catch, and 2) more easily-quickly spread due to their increased intensity
Of course discussion on this is heavily suppressed in the mainstream, instead of having deep-thorough conversation with actual experts to present their cases - the label of conspiracy theorists or the idea of "detached from reality" are people's knee-jerk reactions often; and where propaganda can convince them of the "save the planet" narrative, which could also be a cover story for those toeing the line following orders supporting potentially very nefarious plans - doing it blindly because they think they're helping fight "climate change."
There are plenty of accounts on social media that are keeping track of and posting daily of the cloud seeding operations: https://www.instagram.com/p/CjNjAROPFs0/ - a couple testimonies.
Real question: Is aluminum a practical danger in this way, or is it more like the Manhattan Project team not sure if they would set the atmosphere on fire? Is aluminum the best option?
It's in part a fire accelerant, it wouldn't turn the atmosphere on fire.
If there is a top secret Manhattan Project for "climate change" - then someone's very likely pulling a fast one over everyone toeing that line, someone who has ulterior motives, misleading people to do their bidding.
But sure, fair question - a public discussion would allow actual experts to discuss the merits of what they're doing, and perhaps find a better solution than what has gained traction.
Teaching ressources (i.e. prof/TA time) are limited.
The question is therefore not whether lecturing is useful or where does it fit in the overall learning process, but whether those limited hours of prof/TA time are better spent lecturing vs doing something else (e.g. active learning).
There is a trade off between lecturing and active learning, even if you perfectly understand what lecturing is supposed to do.
The whole problem is that a college program tries to fit in a ton of stuff side-by-side, which mostly end up being introductions to deeper academic fields. (Which is not surprising as profs and TAs are academics, the usually are passionate about that field, and so on.)
Which is not bad, but compared to a more coherent program which inspires and empowers students to get interested in the industry and/or maybe in research would be much much much better.
And yes, of course, obviously, of-fucking-course, every year every every stakeholder in this huge circus parrots about this.
And nothing happens. Credentialism and perverse incentives just continue to rob everyone involved of their passions and joy of learning. (Okay, not everyone, but there's a reason that colleges/universities become "easier" https://www.slowboring.com/p/college-students-should-study-m... )
