fuzz4lyfe

If this is so inexpensive why not agree to pay producers the costs incurred for not engaging in the practice plus a small fee if they don't engage in deforestation? They would be stupid to turn down free money and given so many people are concerned and the total amount being so low this measure could be funded by donations easily. This could be handled in a few days if what you say is true.

c02 emissions per captia (metric tons):

France 4.57

United Kingdom 6.50

Germany 8.89

USA 16.49

Brazil 2.59

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map

>making environmentally sound decisions myself/encouraging others

It looks like the Brazilians are doing a better job at that than you are. All I'm trying to say here is we aren't really in a position to wag the finger at anyone. Least of all the people of Brazil.

Fair enough. I didn't look up Brazil specially but I am familiar with the rates in the region and assumed they were similar.

Western countries have not eliminated a quarter of their GDP to prevent climate change, shouldn't they do that before telling those much poorer than they to do so?

Easily said from your position. Are you willing to give up most of your luxury to make that happen globally? If so, why haven't you yet?

My bad, I'll blame autocorrect

Has Brazil fully industrialized? With a per capita GDP of less than ten thousand dollars and a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to 2% in the US) I'd say not yet. The west is trying to kick the ladder out from behind them.

A lot of hackers I read about have a great deal of bravo about things like this. Yeah sure you found a vulnerability in a companies API and got something for free. What I look forward to see is his next hack, where he somehow gets past the part where the company sends men with guns to his home to throw him in jail. Hopefully he can use the free rides to go someplace without a extradition treaty.

Really he only managed to hack a small portion of the system and ignored the societal safeguards that are far more robust.

I don't live in Texas in 2012, so that isn't part of my parties platform. I suppose you agree with every element of every state democrat platform ever published. Well post Jim Crow of course.

>The Democrat you're referring to never owned any Uranium to sell.

Yet millions flowed to her foundation upon the completion of that sale[0], getting paid for something you don't own is worse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton...

That article is from 2012 and is about the Texas GOP. It seems like this claim was not true.

I apologize, that was not my intent. I withdraw my comment.

Ever notice how management always think estimates have tons of wiggle room as if you are screwing around half the day?

That's because that is their experience in the workplace.

Rapidly moving lead will kill you faster than asbestos, there might be a few tactical uses for such a garment.

The price you advertise is the price it sells for, otherwise you have committed fraud. Seems clear to me.

Your source continues...

EPA estimates that the generation of clothing and footwear was 11.9 million tons in 2015 (4.5 percent of total MSW)

If 4.5% in the majority, they have too many categories.

A Democrat who sold uranium to Russians and whose husband is a womanizer and of a very good friend of Epistein no less.

That seems a little post hoc and doesn't mention teaching creationism in public schools. I get there are things in there that people disagree with but I was looking for the point made previously. Simply citing a large document and not having read it isn't arguing in good faith.

Care to quote the passage? Its 60 some odd pages long.

What party platform document are you referencing? I've never seen that.

Your view of modern republicans is outdated. Many Republicans are non-religious like myself and align themselves closer to the views of the founding fathers. We simply see the rampant corruption in government and propose it is a better solution to limit governmental power as opposed to increasing it.

If I were to paint democrats in a similar manner they would all be bike lock wielding liberal arts professors and that would be unfair.

So you desire that conservatives be victimized while proclaiming that they have no reason to feel like victims? Does your intent to victimize them not count?

You only do that if you care more about helping children than you care about clicks.

How can someone be a verb? I'm a eating. Doesn't make sense.

I like when people communicate in that manner. It let's me know I can safely tune out as the content will be devoid of information.

I agree with these "new rules" but isn't it odd how unelected DOJ officials get to effectively make new law out of whole cloth like this? I don't recall seeing anything in the constitution about the law making powers of the DOJ.

You forgot to mention that white nationalists are to blame.

Just an FYI. Every company talks about the great culture, work life balance, competitive pay and excellent benefits they offer. Jobseekers have to assume you are lying about those things, because most of your colleagues are. (this is why I suspect firms like new collage grads, they haven't learned that you have to give a price for a 50 - 70 hour week even though "overtime is rare") You can't really know how a company really is until you have spent some time and worked through a crisis or two. I used to think I worked at a great place, then the day my daughter was born I received dozens of slack messages and phone calls about testing environments and people were legitimately upset that I spent time with my daughter on her first day on earth rather than help them with their poor planning that could and did wait for me to get back.

Wanting me to jump through a bunch of performative hoops makes me assume you are in the "call you on the day of your daughters birth" camp.

Have you ever considered that classifying people who disagree with you as a race of subhuman monsters is "amplifying the negativity you find in this world"?

If a bored fourteen year old really offers a rhetorical threat to your argument, get new arguments.

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Vouch to the Death Your Right to Say It"

A large portion of unmarried men on are disability/work off the books I'd wager.