I'm using Firefox mobile for many years exclusively (since chrome forced some stupid feature on me, I think it was tab groups which I hated and couldn't turn off. And of course no ubo). Could be a bit faster probably? Otherwise don't see any issues.
I'm a dev and use windows (sadly have to), android and linux, and would never use edge, because why? when it randomly opens because of a wrong file association or whatnot, I only see a bucket of ms nags and dark patterns. It's disgusting.
Firefox allows me to share stuff across devices, block anything I want to and does not get in my way.
Plenty of ways. That's what we have science for. For one, why choose 19th century projects when we did millenia of terraforming, mostly by doing away with forrests and wetlands, but also planting artifical forrests over dry sand areas (see the Cap Ferret fire) etc. etc.
but also, the heatwaves of this summer mostly consist of hot air from Sahara being driven to Europe and staying there.
> that the EU is doing to drive tens of millions of more people into Europe
> The interior of my new build luxury apartment in the financial district is routinely over 30°C
That's not a well built building though. Our flat in warmer location in Europe does not get over 27C unless it's over 33C outside, and that withou the AC active.
"I don't accept" is not an answer though. When the EU can create CBAM, so can (and should) the US and anyone else. That way we don't have to talk about moral responsibility and can progress to adequate international carbon pricing.
Fastest acceleration, possibly, yes. But if another region's climate is for example already close to deadly wet bulb temperature during a large part of the year and only a small change puts them over the threshold, then that regions is more at risk than the EU.
No we are not in the worst place given relative population density. Look at South & Southeast Asia very carefully - there are countries like Bangladesh with pop. of 177 million in an area of double the Czech Republic (pop. 10 million). They have it much worse than us.
> we join Canadian weather with English-level insulation
Having lived both in England and here in Slovakia, we are much much better equipped to survive long spells with -10 with occasional dips far below that in lowlands (and obviously our mountainous regions are even better equipped). What we can't deal with yet is the heat and drought like this summer.
> using our fierce financial pressures to change the world
We are already doing that using for example CBAM. We just have to continue.
But if the AMOC collapses the drought you talk about will become the a year round problem. Climate models predict a drop in rainfall between 20 and 50% depending on the region. So agriculture will be fucked.
And the US will be hit by super hurricanes since all the moisture/hot water will linger there supercharging them.
The rainfall deficit and soil dryness is already a year-round problem in our region, this summer is just a very extreme version of that. I am reasonably sure it will get worse even without the potential AMOC collapse.
The parent wrote: "We are actually in the worst place, given realtive population density.". So I reacted to that.
The climate change impact is worse in South Asia AND their population density is much higher. It means many more people are and will be impacted by it there than here in Central Europe.
This is an interesting take because for example the EU car fleet emmission rules, fuel taxes, additional member state polluting car taxes etc. do exactly that. Otherwise ICE cars in the EU would be far far cheaper and the EV marketshare would be much lower.
Yeah the issue is "minimally inconveniencing 5% of the population", but it's not any 5%, it's the powerful 5% who resist the change using any means necessary including producing mass propaganda and steering the votes to the nazi parties which promise to revert to the old ways and stop any progress on the climate front.
It's a little bit more complicated than that. In a hypothetical EU without political intervention, Chinese EVs would be available without tariffs, and those would probably sell very well without any mandates.
> This is an interesting take because for example the EU car fleet emmission rules, fuel taxes, additional member state polluting car taxes etc. do exactly that. Otherwise ICE cars in the EU would be far far cheaper and the EV marketshare would be much lower.
Can't speak about EV marketshare (I'm guessing someone is bundling hybrids into stats you read), but large part of population is buying only used ICE cars, or get new ones on a business lease; only minority actually pays the sticker price for new car out-of-pocket.
Also, it's hard not to notice how much general population hates those. I'm actually surprised EU got as far as it got here, pretty sure they're burning a lot of political capital because of environmental regulations.
> only minority actually pays the sticker price for new car out-of-pocket.
yes, mostly because new cars are very expensive, and that's exactly the point I was making
> Also, it's hard not to notice how much general population hates those. I'm actually surprised EU got as far as it got here, pretty sure they're burning a lot of political capital because of environmental regulations.
Exactly. But it's hard to quantify how much of that hatred is genuine and how much of it is fanned and amplified by fossil interests and reckless politicians. My guess is that around 80% of it is manufactured.
reply