Oh no! But what about ThE mUsLiMs ??- Narendra Modi, probably

Built in 1978, had undergone recent maintenance, and consisted of two parallel systems but only one was damaged. This was definitely not sabotage.

500,000 of the 1.9 million hectares lost was from insect-borne disease and drought-caused forest fires. That isn't making money for anyone.

The vast majority of the rest isn't for a timber industry, it's for cattle ranching. As we've seen in Brazil, a large beef industry doesn't equate to a bump in GDP.

Of course Honduras can decide it's own future and use it's natural resources how it pleases, but slash and burn style cattle ranching isn't likely to help Honduras generate wealth, nor is it going to be sustainable.

And if your "geopolitical foe" uses all the riches you've helped them gain to expand their influence into Africa and gain more resources?

Or if they cut off supply and you're woefully behind on being able to capitalize on your own resources?

Besides the obvious strategical failings of this notion, we don't live in some stupid game where people are keeping score or will be declared "the winner". If you're approaching geopolitics with the attitude that there will be both winners and losers then you don't understand the first thing about it. The human race is facing extinction. Either everyone wins or everyone dies.

These minerals will get mined in China regardless, so the energy consumption to mine them is essentially a wash.

The energy used to transport them will decrease because of the lesser distance.

I trust Sweden more than China when it comes to mitigation of environmental impacts of tailing ponds, habitat loss, etc.

More electric cars means more efficient use of energy and increased use of renewable sources. That means less oil from the Alberta Tar Sands, for those of you concerned about the arctic.

Overall I see this as a net positive.

Do corporations have an easier time avoiding taxes in India? IBM frequently pays zero here in the US, and only paid about 3% last year, so I can't imagine that is the case.

Looks like higher corporate taxes isn't actually the problem here. Good to know.

>Missouri previously had virtually no oversight for religious boarding schools.

Because nothing like this has ever happened before?

Ugh.

At least they didn't name it with a public opinion poll.

And I'm sure no innocent civilians will be harmed in that process, right? This all-out Civil War of extermination certainly wouldn't leave Mexico in ruins? And the fighting certainly wouldn't spill over into the USA, right?

Brilliant. Very well thought out plan there, bud.

Dude got straight up murdered. They gave him less than a second to comply. It's like the cop wasn't actually giving an order he wanted the guy to follow, he was just saying the magic words that allowed him to kill without consequences. That's not how it's supposed to work.

I appreciate your maturity in acknowledging your mistake. Have an awesome day yourself.

Lol, says the person trying to gatekeep words...

You go around correcting grammatical errors, too?

Good and productive conversation on Reddit? Have you ever even been here before?

Go ahead and play Comment Referree if it gets you your kicks, tho. Good luck with that.

Uh-huh. I suppose that's why they were in prison in the first place, huh? Because the Federales are really just a murder-squad in disguise? No better than the cartels? All those brave men and women who risk their lives to bring law and justice to their fellow countrymen just set aside their oath and commit murder instead because of what? Convenience? Because they don't have a moral compass? Because they are just completely willing to throw away everything they stand for? And you think people are just going to accept that as some obvious and normal thing that happens and there will be no blowback at all? Because why? Because there's no oversight in the chain of command or from the government, because everyone is in on it?

Yeah, not a wild conspiracy at all. Sounds completely sensible. Your critical thinking skills are truly astounding.

The cartels get their money from drugs. The vast majority of those drugs go to the USA. Solving the USAs drug problems will do more to quash the cartels than anything else.

The cartels get their guns from the USA, too. America's gun problem is Mexico's gun problem.

You want to help Mexico get rid of the cartels then you should be looking at what the USA is doing about itself.

Or maybe the fact that there were other members that got taken into custody is actually proof that your "shoot to kill" idea is wild speculation based on nonsensical action movie bullshit.

That ain't the way the real world works, kid.

This idea you have is pure Hollywood nonsense. There is no such thing as "orders to shoot on sight", unless you live in an authoritarian dictatorship like NK.

Mexico does not have the death penalty. There is no such thing as "too dangerous to be left alive" under Mexican law.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/

You mean like this?

Let's be honest, though, these parents don't read. Not even that one book they claim to love so much.

"Somehow, life...uh...finds a way." - Mark Twain

Because it's much better to die anyways because you can't afford the medicine?

You are aware that even the patented medicines are still made as cheaply as possible to maximize profits, right?

Patented pharmaceuticals get recalled for quality issues just like everything else, it just doesn't make the headlines (for obvious reasons).

You don't seem to understand what it is you're talking about.

No, you don't seem to get it.

What constitutes the "genuine need" you speak of? Seems like there is genuine need to reduce carbon emissions, should people be sabotaging our power infrastructure? What if it turned out that these substation attacks were committed by people using that exact justification, because there's a genuine need to use extreme tactics to reduce energy consumption? Are you saying you would condone that? If you don't condone that, are you saying there isn't a genuine need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

There's a genuine need to reduce the growing far-right hate groups, too. What sort of extremist actions are justified in that case? Who gets to draw that line? You? Me?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Whether you want to admit it or not, that's the essence of your justification for whatever romantic notion you seem to have about committing "extremist acts of resistance".

Not only that, they aren't nearly as effective as non-violent respectability politics and passive civil disobedience.

You do understand this is the same justification that runs through the minds of the people shooting up electricity substations, right?

The same justification the Jan 6th insurrectionists used?

This is the same "the ends justify the means" bullshit that leads to the worst of human behavior and never solves any problems. You can't eat the fruits of a poisoned tree. The means are the justification of the end, the categorical imperative demands it.

Chill, brah. Nobody was worshipping this guy as a hero. There's no evidence of the motive, so it could have been random vandalism, a disgruntled employee, a drunken frat-boy pledge stunt, or literally any other of 1000 reasons.

The fact that nobody or group has claimed responsibility or given a reason is a pretty strong reason to think the motive had nothing to do with activism, because if no one knows why it happened then what was the point?

Even if it was activism, what would this accomplish? It shifts focus away from the cause and distracts from the message. Nobody is going to listen to people they don't respect. If you want to change people's minds they have to be willing to sit at the table with you. Don't cheer this on.

It isn't a government study, done by academics. The only link I can find is behind a paywall, but here is the info if you want to Google it. If you can find it somewhere for free please post the link.

Fasting season length sets temporal limits for global polar bear persistence

Péter K. Molnár, Cecilia M. Bitz, Marika M. Holland, Jennifer E. Kay, Stephanie R. Penk & Steven C. Amstrup

Nature Climate Change volume 10