"Jobs" are not a finite resource. That's just the broken window fallacy with a dash of bigotry.

Or from a macro-economic view, since immigrants are also consumers, studies typically show that immigrants increase aggregate demand for jobs more than they increase aggregate supply.

Well the sentence after that is rather critical. It's not that 100% of humans have it, so who cares about animals; it's that we have an enormous highly-scrutinized test population, and in general the impacts are mild to imperceptible. I'm not blowing off this concern; we need to keep studying it in humans and animals (and the results may be different!).

But right now there are scores of critical world issues that can be tangibly addressed. Asking people to make lifestyle changes for possibly zero meaningful impact is actually counterproductive.

That doesn't really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It's there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I'm not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That's why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.

how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.

You've answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point -- the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.

Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.

And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting -- people aren't about to take action; they are going to internally fester.

What inaction?

The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here's a meme blaming "corporations" for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.

Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

Why would it have to be?

It wouldn't. That's my point. The list doesn't matter.

I already said start at the top and work your way down.

As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.

A lot of people simply don’t care

Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?

It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem

It's more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.

We've already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let's work toward that.

While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products

This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.

State companies are just as accountable

My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.

we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land

This is exactly my point -- how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them

What I'm pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like "taking on" the big bad 57 companies doesn't actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.

The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.

100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

I don't think we've disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement's veracity, do you think saying "80% of emissions come from megacorporations" drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?

Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?

It's nonsense because there's no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).

1. State "companies" should be treated differently because they have different structures, motivations, scope, and controls
2. It is not useful to focus on oil conglomerates because they are basically interchangeable. What is the behavior change you want from them? To all stop existing? To raise prices to discourage use? To collude into providing some correct amount of their product?

How do you imagine one would "take on" a corporation? "Hey Exxon, you're bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!". If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.

It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.

the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases

That's just nonsense.

1. The top two providers in that list are the governments of USSR and China. They are not "megacorporations"
2. It not a list of "emitters". These entities are just "linked to" the emissions -- i.e. they provided the fuel that someone else burned.

It's completely ridiculous to say that it doesn't matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.

Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There's over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.

For anyone wondering, this doesn't actually work, because the bananas will realize they are upside-down.

The complete rules are here: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/refundsfinalruleapril2024

The meat of it is the table on pages 9-14 and mostly comprehensible.

Worth noting:

• A change to your flight number is always a "cancellation" and you may choose to accept a refund
  • The expectation is most people would not, for the same reason most don't cancel their refundable tickets - they want to go on the flight
• There are no carve outs for weather, etc.
  • I am really glad to see this because airlines could claim "weather" for connecting flights, so any weather anywhere meant they could delay your flight

Humans have honored the dead since before homo sapiens. Laws can be complicated, contradictory, and confusing; respecting the dead is clear and primal.

Yeah, this probably won't change a lot of minds, but some folks will see there is something wrong about a man who would dishonor the dead to celebrate himself.

I oppose beef subsidies, but the unsubsidized price seems entirely fabricated. How can $38 billion across 80 billion pounds of meat and 25 billion gallons of milk make hamburger $25 cheaper per pound?

Surprised not to see any posts referencing the Arbitrary List of Popular Lights or ![email protected].

One of the requirements to make it on the list is:

A user interface where a single click turns the light on in a reasonable mode, and another single click turns it off.

I'm surprised there's no flag on the inner flag

NHS to discontinue delivery of babies until double-blind study is done vs just leaving it in there.

Funny running across this article after reading https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/

Spoiler: the author does not have a high opinion of Raghavan.

This seems entirely opposite to my observation. I'd say Biden and his administration are unusually focused on unfair or annoying business practices. In just the past two weeks the Biden administration:

• Set clear rules requiring cash refunds for flight delays
• Banned non-compete clauses
• Set new rules on "junk fees" for credit cards
• Increased the minimum salary for overtime exemption
• Expanded fiduciary duty to retirement "advisors"
• Announced a lawsuit against Live Nation (TicketMaster)
• Re-instated net neutrality

Headline is an outright lie. The article literally quotes her saying she supports IVF. The author speculates that a bill she is co-sponsoring (that does not mention IVF) may accidentally ban IVF (if it passes and Biden signs it).

Certainly you could denigrate her intelligence, performative politics, or the logical incoherence between her abortion and IVF positions. But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.

That's like 30 people in line. It takes half a block and a lane of the stroad to fit 30 people.

All the more reason to be for legalizing immigration and against illegalizing immigration.

Focusing on the immigrants rather than the system puts the blame in the wrong place, and obfuscates solutions to the problem.

What she said was "I think we can certainly do more to be advancing our vision, and I believe we have a strong vision that we can run on." She specifically calls out:

• Codifying abortion/reproductive rights [House and Senate races matter!]
• Lowering Medicare age
• Student loan forgiveness

Contrary to OP's title, she actually pushes back on the false narrative that Biden is running as "not Trump".

She does say that it will be important to demonstrate "what we are willing to do with" governing power between now and November.