Only if you are poor…

Doch zum Beispiel NABU, BUND und so fürs Klima. Die sind im Lobbyregister. Für soziale Themen gibt es auch andere entsprechende Organisationen wie zum Beispiel die Caritas, die auch im Lobbyregister stehen.

Das die SPD mittlerweile die Union und die FDP überholt hat ist echt krass.

You could in theory eat whale meat, which would have even bigger bones. I do not recommend that, but certainly more possible then dinosaurs.

Ostrich eggs are a very real option.

You need genetic material for that and unfortunatly that does not preserve even close to well enough to clone a non avian dinosaur.

Also no China.

deleted by creator

Dolph is vegan and seems to not care about religion, but mostly stays out of politics.

Probably more important is the next paragraph:

There are a few alternative timelines. Some scholars extend the end date of the golden age to around 1350, including the Timurid Renaissance within it,[6][7] while others place the end of the Islamic Golden Age as late as the end of 15th to 16th centuries, including the rise of the Islamic gunpowder empires.

The Ottomans managed to siege Vienna centuries after the end of the Golden Age. They were not that behind in technology. Really the big change happened with the industrial revolution, which the islamic world mostly failed to implement. However at least the Ottomans managed to do a good enough job, to stand the ground against the Brits. Of the none Western world only Japan and depending on how you look at it Russia was better at adopting Western science and technology.

Iran and Moghul India did much worse though.

Why do you need me to come up with reasons justify your hate booner for China?

See? Moving the goalposts. Moving from cumulative, the real important metric, to per capita current emissions during a renewable transition, because otherwise the data doesn’t fit your preconceived, chauvinistic anti-china views.

I initially just wanted to point out that China does in fact consume a lot more coal, then you claimed. If you want to have the moral discussion, we can have that. The fundamental problem with your logic, is that you presume future emissions do not matter. The fact of the matter is that we will emit much more in the coming decades. Higher current per capita emissions make it much more likely that future emissions will be higher as well. At the 2023 rate of emissions, China emits as much as the EU cumulative did until 2023 in 25 years. Last year China increased its emissions by 0.8%. Current UN forecast put the population of China 633million and the EU at 347million. I hate to say it, but it is very realistic to presume that China ends up just as guilty by your metric as say the EU.

First of all greenhouse gases not just CO2.

It is also a metric China will not want to use. Per capita annual emissions are already higher in China then in many Western countries. More so UN population forecast shows Chinas population falling much more quickly then that of the West.

Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don’t matter anymore?

Do you think I am here to hate on China or something? Your inital claim was:

How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less.

And when you looked at the numbers and you were clearly wrong, you moved the goal poast again:

So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it’s already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.

Or 50% more to be at the level of the EU, using the Our World in Data numbers from 1900(thanks btw). Given current production, China would overtake the EU around 2040 in that metric.

Maybe that is because I have the elementary school education necessary to understand that burning coal and gas also causes emissions. So when I am looking at cummulative coal consumption, I have the very basic common sense to not look at CO2.

EDIT: Btw 2/3 of EU emissions happened in the last 60 years. So this very likely shows most of the EU coal consumption. Also if you happen to have actual coal numbers and want to share them, I am happy to have a look at them. But please no CO2 = coal bs.

Pollution per GDP is a bad measure. Mali has a high CO2 intensity, but the GDP per capita is low, so pollution is low. The best measures are emissions per capita in consumption and production terms. China is not a saint in either of those metrics, being rather close to the EU in both of them today.

Not so sure about that. China overtook the EU in 1987 in coal consumption, but today it is at 25,000TWh or so. In 1965 the current EU countries were at 4,500TWh. It certainly is not much less, if China has not overtaken the EU by cumulative coal consumption.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27

It is a modified version of Mastodon, with a Soapbox front end. It does not have ActivityPub enabled and lacks a bunch of features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Social#Software

Thankfully only DDos. Truth Social is Mastodon so a security flaw could have been a real problem.

Removed by mod

Your entire point, though, relies on painting the Communists as comparable evils to the Nazis, which is quantitatively and qualitatively divorced from reality. Again, the Nazis industrialized mass murder deliberately, and figures like Bandera sided with them deliberately against the Soviets, who were a force for good. Upholding Nazi sympathizers is a bad thing.

Just to be clear, as in my initial post:

So a lot of them were initially rather happy about it. That quickly changed though.

I pretty much said that Stalin was mass murderer and did not run Ukraine very well. I do not think any of what you wrote really disproves that. You do not need to be on Nazi level evil, to be evil.

We are also talking about modern day Russia introducing the resolution for a reason. Basically it would be Bandera wanted an independent Ukraine, so everybody who wants an independent Ukraine is a Nazi. If the West agrees with that resolution, then that would be used. This way they choose to be absent, as to not be in that vote.