Archived link of the article

Industrial manufacturing is declining in Europe for sure, but not because of complying to climate policies, as you claimed. Industrial production is falling in most European Union countries, largely due to a lack of competitiveness with China and the US.

Also, the article you linked about the EU loosing manufacturing jobs does not back your claim. On the contrary it says: The move to a sustainable economy is an opportunity to turn the situation around. Towards the end, it also mentions that the EU should make sure that industry jobs are not lost and that Europe’s industrial sectors and their workers are fundamental to delivering the climate solutions Europe needs, which are very different things to what you said.

The leading countries in addressing climate change appear to have prioritized their efforts at the expense of industrial growth,

Personaly, I would be glad if this were the case. Honestly, I wonder how you came to this conclusion

Archived link of the article

Carbon dioxide from Google’s power plant will be injected into the same geological storage formations already used by ADM’s ethanol facility. The site is the location of the first long-term CO2 storage well in the U.S.

Typically, around 2,000 metric tons of CO2 are sent into the well every day. But injections there were halted in 2024 when salty brine, which stores dissolved CO2 deep underground, was found to have migrated into “unauthorized zones,” according to the EPA. ADM said the leak was the result of corrosion at a monitoring well, E&E News reported, and they’ve since resumed injections.

A recent study of 13 CCS facilities representing 55% of all captured carbon shows that most aren’t living up to expectations.

The waste part, for some reason, I thought it was kinda implied. Thanks, anyways.

The part that you say more or less that coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants even if we take into account nuclear accidents, is the one that made me wonder tbh.

Btw, perhaps, one of the most famous papers about this topic was written in 1978 [abstract, [full pdf](file:///home/myname/Downloads/9362611%20(1).pdf) ], but it doesn’t mention accidents. Actually, in the abstract they say that the study does not even assess, the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy. This one, from 2021, doesn’t talk about accidents, either.

I thought you might have a relevant article or something to share about the accident part you mentionned?

Sorry, I don’t understand why you say this. Can you explain?

Edit: Maybe it’s the “skeptical” thing. Well this site is about the following

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Global warming is real and human-caused. It is leading to large-scale climate change. Under the guise of climate “skepticism”, the public is bombarded with misinformation that casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming “skepticism”.

Our mission is simple: debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial, discourses of climate delay, and climate solutions denial.

Coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants, even if you take all the accidents into account.

In a way yes, but only in the sense that nuclear waste is supposed to be well contained and stored for disposal. Still, the accidents are not taken into account, at least in the studies I took a look at. If you have any that says otherwise, please share.

I think this depends on the locality. Where I come from one could argue that burning a forest is a form of deforastation anyways, because in order to be able to get a building permit, it must not be in a forest zone. So this is a typical practice: burn forest, buy land, build villa/hotel/etc.

In this context tho, I believe what is meant by deforastation is cutting down trees, clear-cut style, for some commercial purpose.

About this article, one thing that I don’t like is that once more the focus is on personal decisions. This shifts the focus from a systemic problem to personal problem. It’s the industry that dictates regulations and policies through lobbying. Let’s keep our eyes on the goal.

Edit: Of course boycotting the industry would be a great solution, and this doesn’t even mean that someone needs to be vegan, or that they are loaded wth money. Or even avoiding bying these products would be great. Still, the most important thing imo is that industries stop doing what they do.

Great. Recognising Palestine is one part of the equation. Of course, this is done too many decades too late.

The other part of the equation is Israel. Practically, what will the UK do to stop its Genocide and when? It looks like the UK still supplies millions of pounds worth of arms to Israel

Edit: Freezing Israeli Zionist assets sounds like a great option too to stop a Genocide. And the UK knows how to do this since around £25 billion of Russian assets are held there (see article).

A relevant article from declassified uk:

Revealed: The British military college teaching Israeli soldiers

After months of secrecy from Labour, we expose where Israeli troops have trained in Britain during the Gaza genocide.

Israeli army officers have been allowed to study at a British military academy in central London throughout the Gaza genocide, Declassified can reveal.

At least two Israeli colonels have attended the prestigious Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) since 2023.

One of the soldiers, thought to be Elad Edri, only graduated a fortnight ago.

Another officer, Yeftah Norkin, completed the course in July 2024 and almost immediately led the army’s “Bang” division in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. (…)

So, the International Association of Genocide Scholars backed the resolution declaring Israel’s “policies and actions in Gaza” had met the legal definition set out in Article II of the 1948 UN convention on genocide.

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security has been calling it a genocide since 2023: Statement on Why We Call the Israeli Attack on Gaza Genocide. Btw Lemkin is the person who first quoted and defined the term Genocide.

And what Le Monde has to say on the topic is:

what his leftist government called “the genocide in Gaza.”

They are clearly supporting the Genocide in Palestine.

I don’t see anything surprising in what you describe. It is well known that Zionism uses Judaism as a tool for its settler colonialism for well over a century now. The Bund wrote anti-zionist songs at the time.

Clearly, Judaism and Zionism are not synonyms, nor have they ever been.

It is the Zionist state of Israel that tries to present Judaism and Zionism as synonyms. We shouldn’t fall for Zionist propaganda / Israeli propaganda / Hasbara, call it as you want, these are synonyms. And this is why we need to call out both Zionism and antisemitism.

Saying that Israel is a theocracy (…) because this is what the Jewish religion is, not only is an uniformed statement, it is also an antisemitic one. Israel is a settler collonial theocracy because of Zionist principals. (And the support from the West - meaning, the decendents of the christians and/or europeans that were procecuting Jewish populations for centuries. I won’t expand on this now.)

You conflate Judaism with Zionism, and this makes your comment antisemitic.

Edit: Being anti-zionist makes sense. See Jewish Voice for Peace - On Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism and Dangerous Conflations

I don’t know what to say, for me it works.

Thank you so much!! This is so exiting!!! PieFed and all of you are the very best <3

I have the impression there is some sort of confusion, most probably I need to explain things better.

In this post I had 2 questions, you reply in relation to the 1st one. To my understanding this one was solved. I am also wondering about the 2nd one.

Here is an example about the 2nd one: In the following post see the thread starting by the comment of user gedaliyah. Notice it is present in lemmy, but not present in PieFed. At least for me?

Hi again, and thank you for taking the time with this post. I was wondering about the 2nd question in this post. It seems to me it wasn’t mentionned in the comments? Copy-pasting it here to make things easier.

• If I got this right, when the first comment of a conversation is highly downvoted, all the conversation that follows disappears. In practice, this means that everybody else’s input is in a way erased, since at somr point it is not visible. I believe a bad initial comment that gets a thoughtful reply can be a great conversation starter with many participants. So I don’t understand this approach neither.

The way it is for lemmy seems fine to me. Everything is visible. Why make the whole thread disapear in PieFed?

Edit: I just noticed that the flair solved was added. Should I perhaps make a separate post for the 2nd point?

This sounds like a very usefull tool for mods!