- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- climate@slrpnk.net
This fucking sucks, the Great Satan needs to be forced to embrace the Great Seitan 
(so does the rest of the first world but Great Satan/Seitan was funnier)
You must log in or register to comment.
They successfully got the masses to somehow believe in “clean coal” so honestly people will eat it up. If you can believe burning coal is clean you can believe anything
Clean coal is fake as hell but China’s ultra-supercritical coal plants are legitimately about 15% more efficient than the overwhelming majority of western coal plants. It’s genuinely cool technology. If you make more energy per unit of coal, you can use less coal for the same energy.
It’s not-as-dirty coal. It’s also not really relevant for America. But it is neat
Yeah, totally irrelevant for the US and fossil fuel politics, I just wanted to talk about a cool thing.
So how does it work? Supercritical steam? Somehow it burns hotter? Have you seen the Douyin videos selling coal btw?
Basically, at supercritical pressures, the temperature drop converting it back to liquid water in the turbine results in a larger temperature drop, and thus more of the energy being translated into mechanical work. Ultra-supercritical means the temperature drop is even more dramatic than in other supercritical steam generators and thus even more efficient.
I have never seen a Douyin video, I don’t really do social media
Really interesting! Here’s a screenshot of the video https://twitter.com/pretentiouswhat/status/1668510500693614593
Oh, they’re just doing The Shopping Channel but for Business2Business sales
How did they justify that?
they just said “clean coal” a whole bunch of times until it became a term people know
Mostly they just lied about it. Same as it ever was.
leftism without veganism is incoherent and no amount of treat cope will make it otherwise
Before someone comes in calling this liberal idealism, here are your material reasons:
-
In a society that takes climate change and ecological destruction seriously, the land/food/water requirements for raising animals for food are totally untenable. This is literally just a constraint problem. Read Half Earth Socialism.
-
Capitalism requires the ability to dehumanize people in order to manufacture consent for their exploitation or destruction. This relies on creating a hierarchy where the lives of (white-male-cis-het) humans are important but anyone deemed sub-human or an animal can be maximally exploited or destroyed. This in turn requires a widespread acceptance that it is okay to do as we wish to nonhuman animals. Eating meat contributes to the maintenance of a line where, if you manage to push someone over it, you can do whatever you want to them. See israeli defense minister calling Palestinians animals. It’s an objective fact that humans are animals. So why is it bad to state an objective fact? Because what this really means is they’ve pushed Palestinians over the line you uphold every time you stuff your face with meat, and they can do to them what you did to that animal you’re eating.
By freeing nonhuman animals we free ourselves.
The part I’ve just never understood is why that is a necessary position to hold for a ‘leftist’ political project to be not derided as incoherent/inconsistent, given by the fact that many/a majority of leftist political projects both contain non-vegan comrades that contribute/have contributed greatly to building left politics and of which those projects have not/ are not making veganism a large priority in their political project.
Do vegans here and in other leftist places claim that the lack of their sufficient account for these two components is a factor contributing to why they have failed? Furthermore, do they believe that if current AES projects were to make veganism a priority, that this would weaken the influence of bourgeois thought and strengthen the revolutions occurring there? If so, that’s fine by me for vegans to hold that position, I just don’t really see then what distinguishes that from the same kinds of arguments that Ultra’s and Maoist’s make about past/current socialist projects and why it’s just veganism that can’t be derided for doing it.
Furthermore, do they believe that if current AES projects were to make veganism a priority, that this would weaken the influence of bourgeois thought and strengthen the revolutions occurring there?
There will have to be a lot of changing hearts & minds before this would strengthen the revolution instead of alienating people. Remember the party must not run too far ahead of the masses. However, the arguments are simply too strong for anybody seriously engaged in shaping the ideology of the party to ignore. There have been plenty of successful-ish leftist revolutions that had (from our modern perspective) glaring gaps in their attitude toward certain oppressed classes of people, whether from failure of party leadership or desire not to alienate the masses. I believe animal liberation is another of these instances.
Anyway, most leftist spaces I’ve inhabited are very tolerant of at least vegetarianism, and all potluck-style events will be heavily skewed toward vegetarian-friendly dishes (this also serves halal & kosher people by default). Vegetarians & vegans are very well represented in these spaces, often reaching 25-50% by informal count (groups of anarchist bent are often much higher). So things are heading in the right direction.
previous revolutions also held that queer people were acceptable targets.
And yet when I call for mass euthanasia of the domesticated livestock herd somehow I’m the monster.
yea this is one case where you/we (vegans) are obligated to do a bit. maybe not so far as to kill individual animals but definitely work to reduce their reproduction and therefore future population
Didn’t the mass euthanasia of muscrats in Finland due to covid basically kill the industry overnight?
Unless we’re going to somehow re-home millions of chattel animals, or release them to the wild where they’ll terrorize the local ecosystem I don’t really know that the solution is.
Maybe maintain the farm until they die? But if it’s a battery farm then that’s not a way to live.
Sterilizing them & keeping them on repurposed farms with basically decent standards of living until they die of natural causes is probably the most humane route. However, in this hypothetical scenario we would have to contend with the constraint problem of necessary land/food/water supporting these animals with their (often quite long) lifespans. In reality it will probably be a patchwork of euthanasia with isolated efforts to save as many as possible. The unfortunate aspect of creating enormous death machines is that even when you shut them off they take time to grind to a halt. At least we will not continue to bring billions of animal lives into existence for the purpose of suffering & slaughter.
Yeah, which was kinda why I mentioned the effect that mass euthanasia had on the fur industry. The death machines have a lot of momentum, and that works both ways. They’re really hard to start back up if they are stopped.
Theres 1.5 billion chickens in the United States. It’s hard to imagine.
E: now that I can type a little more, Just going by the free range guidelines from the usda (generally focused on production instead of quality of life), they would need 345 thousand acres of forage land and half that much in coop space.
-
We should start spreading more stuff online about how gross meat is. Because it is pretty gross. Like, imagine eating a dead animal’s butthole, because that’s literally what eating meat is all about.
that won’t work, everybody eats ass now
maybe it will work because people respect ass now
eating ass without consent is
The files show how the world’s largest meat company, JBS, is planning to come out in “full force” at the summit
Jesus, it’s JBS too. Deforest the Amazon for ranchers JBS. COP should be a list for the red guards.
👮28
as always, everyone associated with this should be executed right this instant
Will there be any mention of the 3 billion peasant farmers that constitute nearly half of the world’s population at Cop28? According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, “about two-thirds of the developing world’s 3 billion rural people live in about 475 million small farm households, working on land plots smaller than 2 hectares.” Are they all supposed to be condemned to a life of modern day peasantry before capital eventually comes and eliminates their livelihood?
The question raised here is precisely whether this trend will continue to operate with respect to the three billion human beings still producing and living in the framework of peasant societies, in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Indeed, what would happen henceforth, should ‘agriculture and food production’ be treated as any other form of production submitted to the rules of competition in an open–deregulated market, as decided in principle at the Doha conference (November 2001)? Would such principles foster the acceleration of production?
Indeed, one can imagine some 20 million new additional modern farmers producing whatever the three billion present peasants can offer on the market beyond their own (poor) subsistence. The conditions for the success of such an alternative would necessitate the transfer of important pieces of good land to the new agricultural producers (and these lands have to be taken out of the hands of present peasant societies), access to capital markets (to buy equipment) and access to the consumer markets. Such agriculturalists would indeed ‘compete’ successfully with the billions of present peasants. But what would happen to these peasants?
Under the circumstances, admitting the general principle of competition for agricultural products and foodstuff, as imposed by the WTO, means accepting that billions of ‘non-competitive’ producers be eliminated within the short historic time of a few decades. What would become of these billions of human beings, the majority of whom are already the poorest among the poor, but who feed themselves with great difficulty? Worse still, what would be the plight of one-third of this population (since three-quarters of the underfed population of the world are rural dwellers)? In 50 years’ time, no relatively competitive industrial development, even in the fanciful hypothesis of a continued growth of 7 per cent annually for three-quarters of humanity, could absorb even one third of this reserve…
What was always overlooked was that capitalism, while it solved the agrarian question in its centres, did so by creating a gigantic agrarian question in the peripheries, which it cannot solve but through the genocide of half of humankind.
- The Agrarian Question Beyond Neoliberalism: Essays on the Peasantry, Sovereignty and Socialism
applies here tooThink how many dignitaries you could take out if you went full
somebody tell israel there’s a hamas base under cop28
This bad-boy can fit so many khamas commanders under there
Save the planet, plant bombs under the cop summit
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
