Epa095
You can do expensive vacation or cheap vacation, and both are possible in Norway. You can get a cheap flight and sleep in a tent, or you can drive your car through Sweden.
Or you can fly in and stay on expensive hotels.
" Five members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. In his will, Alfred Nobel tasked the parliament of Norway with selecting the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite its members being appointed by Parliament, the committee is a private body tasked with awarding a private prize. In recent decades, most committee members were retired politicians. "
No. A bunch of kids are not going to be able to come in and improve a system they do not understand the least. Government can be improved, but its not a 1 or 2 year program, it will need deep, proper understanding. There is no lack of "smarts", these kids have nothing to contribute. There is lack of time and mandate.
Chesterton's Fence is no joke.
Why not? Is it just that you have not experienced it, or is there a more principled argument?
My personal experience is that democracy feels to work much better in smaller (sub 10 million people) than larger, but it could also just be correlation not causation.
Any power-source which can move its production has this feature, independently of renewability.
But if you have some points in time where all the energy is delivered by intermittent power-sources, and there is insufficient power lines to transport this power elsewhere, prices can to 0, and if too much power is offered, the price becomes negative, and power producers has to pay to push in power. This is not just theoretical, it has happened in the European power market. But the equilibrium still exists. And because there are some costs associated with turning them off, it does not actually drop immediately to 0 production at negative prices.
Electric production and transmission is interesting from an economic perspective, as the physical infrastructure is almost as perfect an example as it's possible to make for something which should be governmental (or under its direct control). You just can't get working competition there. While the power itself is the perfect example of the opposite, where the market should (according to theory at least) be perfect.
The world is angry, we live in the age of the predators. European youth are also disappointed, just as in north America, that higer education is no longer a highway to a better life than our parents. But ruined? No.
But I still get baited into a conversation! Note that if you instead of nr of deaths measured 'nr of life-years lost'(relative to average age of death) the magnitude would be flipped, as most of the heath-deaths were old people who died earlier than expected because of heath. These are still preventable deaths, and should not have their importance scoffed at. But at the same time, these stats does get a bit complicated at end-of-life. Its clear (to me at least) that if e.g. (philosophical thought-experiment incoming!) a single doctor is on duty, and has to choose between saving the life of an infant or prolonging the life of someone on palliative care with a day, the choice is clear. And if the doctor did the obvious choice, did she kill the old person? Should this death today be counted as a 'preventable death' which could be prevented if we just had more doctors?
There are many activities we as a society can do to lengthen life expectancy of old people, like creating social gathering spots, exercise groups, or installing more AC in their homes. In most cases you can't attribute any single death or extra day-of-life to any single cause, but you can see statistical differences in death-rate and attribute causes on a population level.
I have noticed that ACs has become part of some culturewar thingy. In reality it is one of many factors influencing life-expectancy, and in some cases it's the most effective solution to increase life-expectancy, but in many cases other things are far more efficient.
I still don't understand why you compare guns with air conditioning, but this might be a relevant point, depending on where you were going with it :P
Top 1% wage earners is not the top 1% wealthiest.
Canada has made it pretty clear that they do not want to be part of the big country south of it, so they will have to find a way to create large companies that stays. Doing this together with a market of 450 million people seems like a good idea.
There exists another page that will make everyone better off without making anyone worse off.
There exists another page that will make someone better off without making anyone worse off.
Gdp is not really a great measure of how well an economy works for it's inhabitants, if it was we should all spend our time breaking each others windows.
Anyway, feel free to make an actual argument. Both of the claims above of is contrary to established science, so you must say something more than 'you are wrong'.
Methane traps 81 to 84 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, but drops to 28 to 30 times more heat over a 100-year period.
Cows create methane (or rather the microbes in their bellies) from co2 and hydrogen, they do not 'capture' it from somewhere. More cows -> more methane, which heats the world more than the co2 used to create that methane would have heated the world.
Even ignoring methane gas releases the production of red meat causes higher emissions of co2 than comparable plant-based proteins. These emissions originate from feed crop production, synthetic and organic fertilizer application, manure storage, land-use changes like deforestation for pastures, on-farm energy use, and meat processing and transport. As you see most of these are 'running costs', and reducing global meat consumption would reduce emissions.
That most red meat is very co2 expensive compared to getting the proteins from other sources is a relevant argument for many of us, and not a particularly 'strange obsession' for those of us caring about reducing our co2 footprint.
I accept that psi is more intuitive in many cases than Pascals. But I remain unconvinced about Fahrenheit. I reside two places during the winter. One has temperatures around 0C, and the difference between -1C and +1C is much more important than the difference between -1F and +1F, it's the difference between rain or snow! The other place regularly sees temperatures around -25C. In both places -18C is just some random uninteresting temperature, letting it be 0 is... disturbing.