I’m really sick of the whole “criticism of Israel is antisemitism” rhetoric.

It’s just playing dirty. Israel, much like modern conservative politicians, doesn’t care about how it achieves its goals. World War II has much of the western world hypersensitive to antisemitism, so conflating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism has been an easy way to stifle discourse.

I would argue the United States also carries the blame as they’ve supported Israel’s genocide, but that’s secondary to the primary point, on which you and I agree.

I think the issue with this particular tool is it can authoritatively provide incorrect, entirely fabricated information or a gross misinterpretation of factual information.

In any field I’ve worked in, I’ve often had to refer to reference material as I simply can’t remember everything. I have to use my experience and critical thinking skills to determine if I’m utilizing the correct material. I have not had to further determine if my reference material has simply made up a convincing, “correct sounding” answer. Yes, there are errors and corrections to material over time, but never has the entire reference been suspect, yet it continued to be used.

Ahoy!

Agreed, but shitty, self-serving execution isn’t a tree specific issue. It’s a shitty capitalist company putting profit above preventing global catastrophe issue. Unless that’s prevented, they’ll do the same to every sequestration method possible.

You don’t need continual replanting - they have seeds, remember?

That’s what I was implying with the bit about “trees accomplishing replanting themselves”, but I can see how that’s not clear.

Overall I super agree. My grad studies (put vaguely so I don’t dox my ass) were the microbiological aspect of a project examining carbon cycling in various growth stages of forest. Some people shit on trees as a method of carbon sequestration but a healthy, diverse forest can really pack it in, especially in early to mid seral stages, and retain it long term.

Plus humans have deforested the hell out of so much of the planet, returning some of it to closer to its previous state has far reaching benefits beyond chipping away at climate change.

Keep in mind that decomposition is for the growth and maintenance of the organisms doing the decomposing, meaning some of that carbon is incorporated into the decomposers, not released to the atmosphere. It would take years or even decades for a dead tree to release most of its captured carbon to the atmosphere. It will eventually happen, though, which is why you need a continual cycle of new growth that helps minimizes net losses due to decomposition.

It’s not perfect but it’s something and done right, which the vast majority of tree carbon credit programs are NOT, is a self perpetuating method of carbon capture.

Trees aren’t completely ineffective at carbon capture, they just need to be used properly and with knowledge of their limitations: much of their carbon will be released rapidly in the event of a fire (around 20% of a tree’s mass is underground, which is why I don’t say all), the carbon they captured will be released over a course of years after they die, and carbon capture rates aren’t static and will sharply decline at a certain point. To keep such a project going requires continual replanting, much of which can be accomplished by the trees themselves if the project is done properly.

Most tree based carbon credits are pure scams and were always intended to cheat the system. Done honestly, we could still use trees for carbon credit but you’d need a LOT more trees per unit credit (compared to current scheme rates if they were even honest) and the project would have to estimate likely potential carbon losses and bake those into the valuation.

You’re giving them a lot of credit by suggesting they even thought about the potential consequences for their consumers.

I think what they’re getting at is not every person on the Internet lives in the United States.

“Fiscal conservative” was always just a reputable seeming veneer for “we’d rather let poor people die than tax the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else”.

Little Grandpa story time:

Ponies are generally nicer than horses, but I was raised believing ponies were angry, vicious little assholes. My father was bucked off of a pony in his twenties, causing him to break a rib and paralyze half of his diaphragm. Being the actual asshole in this story, he never stopped to think that maybe he was too heavy and too drunk for a pony, so he spread pony hate throughout his life. I want angry ponies as I dislike my father and on a primal level think they’d keep me safe from people like him, like two pissy, grass eating charms to protect against narcissists.

But how else will they get a bigger house? Nicer, larger yacht? More private jets?

Like, I kinda understand the “more more more!” mentality. As my income has gone up over the years, there’s always something more my monkey brain tells me I should want. A nicer, more comfortable car. A new video card. Two angry ponies. You know how it is. I tell it to shut up because I have more than enough already.

I’m not a sociopath, though, so at no point has my monkey brain told me to enslave others so I can have nicer stuff.

There’s a ton of misinformation on this post and some of those spreading it seem to be vigorously doing so.

I’d be unsurprised if some .world’ers crash the comments with liberal hot takes.

Funny how you can basically buy those. Just gotta be filthy rich and ethically bankrupt.

A friend of mine had the same issue at 22. She even had already had a child at 16 but multiple doctors refused, claiming “she might want more”. One doctor would do it but wanted a signed permission slip from her husband first.

All women deserve bodily autonomy.

1. Coconut drink
2. Drink of magnesia

It’s just that simple!

/s

I read the title as saying employees had falsified seven hundred and eighty seven documents and thought that sounded reasonable.

Ahhh, some fresh whataboutism!