Yeah, obviously I'd much rather that R&D budgets got spent on things that might actually make a difference rather than new ways of kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
You're weirdly defensive about this idea. What's up with that? Daddy got some investments in the fossil fuel industry?
Because this "one trial" was the literal best-case scenario, and it still sprung a leak that would cost more to fix than they could gain by banking carbon sequestration credits.
This isn't just one leak, this is a leak that got so bad the EPA got involved.
After the election maybe? That seems rather late to me.
Hence this discussion where I made my intentions known well in advance of the election.
Direct action and building up third party alternatives seems to be the best long term courses of action.
Direct action is an easy way to end up in jail (even feeding the homeless is illegal now) and third-parties are useless due to our first-past-the-post electoral system.
The best long-term courses of action are mutual aid and the development of alternative structures of power that can serve human needs without being subject to the whims of the existing political establishment.
If I were american I would work towards unionizing as many people as possible, report that I won't vote democrat, and then vote democrat unless a third party has a chance of winning in my state.
This is acceptable.
I've seen people debate this endlessly, but I've never seen anyone on the side of not voting explain anything beyond "I don't want to support genocide" as if the republicans aren't just as gung ho about killing children. What is the utility in not participating in the election? What do you think not voting will achieve?
I'm already planning not to vote for Republicans.
I pay careful attention to local races and evaluate every candidate because I believe voting to be a civic rssponsibility.
But my fundamental principle when choosing who to vote for is not tactical, but moral. I will not vote in support of people that I believe will perpetuate injustice in the world.
You aren't sending a signal and you certainly aren't making the democrats commit less genocide.
Voting downballot but making no choice for president sends a very clear signal. The DNC just decided they didn't need the uncommitted vote and they're probably right.
Voting democrat is the lesser evil and will have actual positive results for people living in the US, and it isn't mutually exclusive with other ways of enacting change.
I disagree on principle. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting to perpetuate evil. At best, it maintains an intolerable status quo, and it comes from a fear of the radical change that we know is sorely needed. "Lesser evilism" is conservatism.
If Democrats want trans folks like me to vote for them then maybe they should stop helping Israel blow up children.
Seems like a really, really low bar but this is America so my expectations were already below sea level.
Women are
(I switched to a non-suggesting keyboard years ago)
Still could be if our leaders wanted to put in the effort..
Telling someone that you can't serve safely to eat elsewhere is being responsible...
It's food service, that responsibility has always come with the territory. Allergies aren't a new thing.
You've got that backwards.
Service jobs deserve much better wages and training so they can kill fewer people.
It's not new technology, for one. We've been using injection wells like landfills since the 1930's because it's cheaper than treating and disposing of wastewater safely.