That moment when you criticize China on a community hosted at lemmy.ml

That’s a very interesting take! Rather psychological, but individual psychology of those with excess power unfortunately plays a huge role. I didn’t know about Vlad Vexler, great link!

The linked Wiki page starts:

Use of coal is expected to peak in 2025.[1]

I guess the details are more complex. And I have seen the Ember report that showed that now USA out of fuck knows what reason increases coal even at the cost of gas.

Shut down and stop is a different thing…

Also, Volkswagen EV sales increased nearly 50% in the first half of 2025 (see link below).

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/07/10/volkswagen-ev-sales-surge-47-percent-in-2025/

It is not good. Infrastructure is lacking in big parts of Europe. As a citizen, I would focus on that, rather than Chinese EVs (if they scare the industry, it is good though).

And busses, trains, bikes. Too much cars in this comm.

Was the whole shitshow just not to give Tomahawks?

Hope they bounce back soon. As usual, the Chinese can thank the “Nation Builder”, aka DJ Trump.

I’ve never been there

Zelenskyy should invite him to come and see ¯\(ツ)/¯

Since when is skin plant-based?

(And yes, I get it is a joke)

Lol internet a predominantly American innovation. World Wide Web is, by definition, well, world-wide (and while the earliest networks started in the US, WWW originates from CERN, a European, international organization).

Couldn’t they put on the light in the “dark factories” to show the executive what is going? Just for a moment, I am sure they do have lights there for maintenance.

Cutting red tape, huh?

And you don’t even want to look at the USA, the world’s second-biggest emitter (China, USA, India, EU, Russia (probably EU level by now) and so it goes… But historically you get US, EU, China, Russia, UK, etc.)

Current: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#Cumulative_fossil_CO2_emissions_1970-2023_vs._fossil_CO2_emissions_2023 Historical (the graph on top still shows EU with the UK, but you can look at the table in the interactive graph below, and you have EU 27 there): https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2

Nevertheless, the way ahead matters, even if all don’t meet the 1.5C target. <3C (EU), <4C (China), or 4C+ make huge difference. The historical data should be rather a warning of what happens if we do not help developing countries kick-off more sustainably, and with less fossils, from the start. And less of an allowance to pollute more on the way ahead.

One correction: “The Socialist-led government in Stockholm” was actually Social-Democrats. If they say “Socialist”, one would expect “Vänster” (ofically “Vänsterpartiet”, “The Left Party”).

But that’s a detail. Good article.

EU countries should do the same

Yeah, Israel and UK contribute to the Horizon Europe’s budget, and are fully eligible to the grants under the program.

The program is managed by the European Commission. Thus, in theory, the countries outside the EU pay but have no influence on the decision-making bodies. This can be a big disadvantage in more politically loaded processes. I suspect (from my experience with the ERC) that the selection process under Horizon Europe is build very much to focus on evaluating each project separately, not providing equity by country. Israel and the UK get a lot of funds since from there come project that, if not good, are at the very least popular. Or rather: That the decision boards, usually filled with specialists from the respective fields, find to have the highest feasibility times impact (figuratively, as, to the best of my knowledge, no such value is calculated).

I see no conspiracy or a bypass to support Israel with extra money here. They were just good at writing grant proposal (or however you call it in the startup world), and they were allowed to be a part of EU’s research program as they have always been.

They benefit from it nevertheless. And it is high time to end the collaboration. It is already being discussed. And it is good to know it would hurt indeed - thanks for the research, OP’s sources!

https://efe.com/en/latest-news/2025-07-28/eu-suspension-israels-horizon-europe-gaza-attacks/

50% of the value for a “byproduct” is a lot, isn’t it?

I guess my main point is that we do not need to push the soy cake through guts of animals cramped in industrial farms, losing around 90% of the energy captured by soy and creating public health dangers. If used the soy directly as a food source, we wouldn’t need all the expansion. Even the soy cake can be used for totally healthy and tasty products, such as soy milk or meat alternatives. It would, anyway, reduce the stress on land use substantially. Simply because so much energy is lost in the whole feeding, caging, killing process of factory farming.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat-and-dairy-production https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/protein-efficiency-of-meat-and-dairy-production https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Interesting point!

In line with the uses of soy globally (Figure 3), the greatest driver underlying the production increase in South America is most likely the pig and poultry industry’s demand for soy cake, although it is given additional impetus by concurrent increases in the demand for soy oil by the food manufacturing and biofuel industries (see section 3).

https://www.tabledebates.org/building-blocks/soy-food-feed-and-land-use-change#SOYBB3

Most of the calories from soy go into the fodder. This is unlike other plants used for oils. I doubt so much soy would be used for oil if not for the profits from “byproducts”.

And most of the soy ends up in livestock feed…