I don’t know why other people downvoted it, the reason why I did can be found here:

https://slrpnk.net/post/40650941/23482875

I could have murdered your entire family yesterday, but I only killed one of them instead. […]

RCP8.5 was not about yesterday. It was about tomorrow.

Ok, ok thank you for your input. I will definately check this channel then!

It crossed my mind (after writting the comment), but how can you be sure of that? I mean, is it an assumption or you could share a link to back this claim?

I can’t manage to watch past his smiling midleage face announcing about being fired from a botanical garden for:

sleazing on young women [0:18]

Maybe. The important thing is to participate in this boycott. After that, it’s ok do all the silly things in the world!

I have noticed that The Conversation has articles that I consider to be great and others that I find to be the opposite. Unfortunately, for me, this one is in the later category.

In this one, mainly they talk about how the technologies will work, about money and the urgency to use this tech. The real urgency is to start phasing out fossil fuel globally. Also, they don’t talk about the unintended consequences, the too many known unknowns, and let’s keep in mind there are uncountable unknown unknowns in geoengineering.

More info:

• Key reasons to oppose geoengineering | Geoengineering Monitor
• geoengineering@slrpnk.net

According to this article, it looks like most emissions come from Israel’s IDF

Over 99% of the almost 1.89m tCO2e estimated to have been generated between the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack and the temporary ceasefire in January 2025 is attributed to Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza.

Please, stop using the tactic of whataboutism. Meaning, this paper is specifically about Israel’s war on Palestine, so let’s talk about this post, and not everything else instead.

Edit: I need to correct my comment, since this paper is about

• Israel - Palestine
• Israel - Iran
• Israel - Lebanon
• Israel - Yemen

I don’t see any bickering over who has it worst.

I see a need for active solidarity and inclusion, because oppressions intersect.

Sorry, but what are you talking about? Who is he? What jets?

Maybe take a look at the article?

Yes, I see many parallels between your example and Suriname’s. And I don’t see how the people can benefit from this drilling. Even if he keeps his “vow” to give some money to the people, the local environmental devastation will be too vast for a country that is quite small. Meaning, I cannot see a scenario in which people would actually benefit from the drilling activities.

I think the rest of the article (just below the graph you added) gives a decent overvue on how the situation is, and includes some equaly decent projections. It looks like there is a possibility that they have peaked, and will plateau or hopefully will diminish emittions. Still, no certainty that this is a trend, or that it will continue.

And June is a month to keep an eye out to see how its new electricity pricing policy for renewable energy will be.

Economic growth makes us all better,

No. Economic growth under capitalism is the problem. Capitalism requires infinite growth on a finite planet, and this is what got us here in the first place. So this is not a sustainable economic system.

Let’s not forget an important factor: within the span of 30 years.

I spent too many hours yesterday trying to find the relevant info without taking this into consideration.

I totally tried and then decided to ask here.

The closest thing I managed to find was saying that 16.3% of adults worldwide have wealth of 100k to 1m, in 2023 [source: Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS, see The global wealth pyramid at p23] but this is not what the article says.

Somebody suggested the World Inequality Database but on this topic, the results come by country and/or stats.

I know that in the article they mentions €42,980 and I appreciate carbon brief. Still, I tried to find in the study itself how they calculated it, but somehow I didn’t manage to. This is why I asked for another link.

Do you have a decent link to corroborate that?

Do you have any decent link that supports this?

I didn’t manage to spot in the study itself, how they calculate this number. If anyone has, please share this part.

I don’t think so. I have the impression that the introduction part was talking in general, mainly because it says The amount varies by location and local wage trends, and then it talks about the US, specifically.

Appart from that, in page 23 of the Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS in The global weath pyramyd 2023 it also says saomething similar, that 16.3% of adults have wealth in USD of 100k to 1m.

Did I get something wrong?

Edit: At the bottom of the investopedia article, they have the sources and since they only have references about the US, I believe I can safely say that I my assumption that the intro was talking about the entire world was wrong.