Ok, let’s say the ceasefire deal does exist and is “inside the 10-yard line”. Is it going to be another Camp David and kick the can down the road until we have another round of murder, or are there provisions about a international peacekeeping force and a credible path to Palestinian state hood?
Uhh there’s a paywall, but I’m gonna presume they said something to the effect of: “Pweze Impwemewnt IMF style-SAPs and privatize Petrobras. Pweze”.
National Conservatives… hmmm Nat Cons… Nat Cs
No OP, but I’ve been using it for a bit now, and while it’s not perfect, it does make it really easy to read news from other parts of the world and to look into the background of various outlets. It makes it easy to get around pay walls and article limits and It’s also, like, $10 a year… and it’s pretty easy to get a “1 dollar for a year sub” promo code from any random politics YouTuber. It’s been a decent way to keep me from just defaulting to Reuters and AP instead of reading other outlets, which I would say is it’s best feature for me.
I’m not going to claim this is a positive take that will make you feel less hopeless, but the “climate transformation” is guaranteed to succeed. We will be hitting “peak carbon” and it will decline from there. The only choice we get is whether that transition is by choice in the next decade or two (the easy way) or if we are compelled to by cataclysmic collapse of the world systems we depend on to maintain our modern society (the hard way).
The transition is guaranteed, we just get to decide if we wanna do it the easy way and maintain a reasonable quality of life for billions of people, or the hard way and watch as millions of people die and put planet’s ability to support humans is substantial cut down.
To solve the climate crisis the ~1 billion people in global north will absolutely need to significantly bail out the global South. There is no clear development path that doesn’t go through heavy fossil fuel usage, and it should go without saying we probably can’t even improve the living standard of another billion people, let alone seven billion without basically just giving them money and technology to skip the fossil fuel step. Countries in the global north have actually agreed to this framework, it’s just that noone has actually made good on the promise yet. So… not only is it not nonsense… it’s an active dispute between developed countries and developing countries.
Andres Malm suggests in his book “Fossil Capital” that part of the reason that fossil fuels (stocks of energy) are so profitable is that you can pick and choose when to extract and then again when to release the energy stored in them, which will always be more profitable than, for instance, wind and solar (flows of energy) because you can manipulate production to prevent over supply, and choose when to release energy instead of waiting for the energy to be available in the flow. The higher capability to profit means that they will remain more profitable than renewables long after any other sort of calculation other than “profitability” would favor the renewables (cost to produce, damage to the environment, ability to satisfy energy demand).