Nice of you to side-track with current emissions (per capita even), and not cumulative historical emissions, which were actually mentioned.

Feel free to compare different countries yourself: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics (I’m not sure why ourworldindata doesn’t just put all of this on one page instead of splitting it up. It’s always a hassle to find the right one it even is on the same page, I just didn’t look close enough) The more interesting comparison might be high-income vs low-income countries.

To get back to the discussion: Yes, Europes share is not as huge as it used to be, and it’s getting lower, but what can be seen from @Tehdastehdas@piefed.social graph is that that’s less due to Europe behaving better and rather due to other countries polluting more. Not a good argument for saying “Europe is doing better now”

Don’t blame everything on the data centers. Everything else is doing its part in contributing to climate change.

Apart from that data centers, at the scale at which we seem them pop up now, are way too young to have a considerable effect on the current heat wave. Which doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future. Climate change is, after all, a decades long project

Ich find das an sich eine witzige Idee, aber ich glaube dafür ist das Bild nicht chaotisch genug, es würde zu sehr herausstechen. Und es würde das Bild ziemlich eindeutig datieren.

Vom Stil her hat Katapult Wimmelbilder, in denen so etwas durchaus vorkommen könnte

I like the general concept of this, it reminds of Kants categorical imperative.

However I’d be cautious to mix general concepts/principles and laws. I already found a contradiction between the right to life for everyone, including “Mother Earth” (I share @Vicinus@piefed.zips reservations on this term), and the explicit inclusion of the right to bear firearms with the explicit mention of hunting. I think it’s obvious which of the two parts is not supposed to be in there.

Also the further one reads, the more it feels like the text adapts more and more to existing structures and problems, instead of getting rid of them. Why even include states and borders, if it explicitly mentions that they are to be ignored, and nationality and place of living can be chosen freely? In that case the concept of nationality and borders does not make sense any more

posting a drive.google .com link in an Anarchism and Social Ecology community

Sorry, but I’m not going to open that.

Did you know that slrpnk.net also hosts a collaboration platform?

https://pads.slrpnk.net/

What do you mean by

I’d been pretty skeptical that solar could ever cover its production costs

If you mean EROI, no one should be skeptical about that, unless you are constantly being fed misinformation. Solar panels quickly generate the energy required to produce them, in the worst cases it takes a few years.

And the good thing about solar panels is, they are incredibly durable, once they are put up they just keep on producing energy. Personally, I would argue that as long as not every roof is covered with them, recycling solar panels is bad. Why replace something that is still producing energy (and at that point for free, in EROI terms), when you could leave the old ones up and put the new panels on roofs that have none yet.

Luckily, companies are starting to see that as well, and refurbish solar panels instead of recycling them.

There’s a reason it goes reduce -> reuse -> recycle.