Over the course of 10 minutes. That means she said it about every 3 seconds...
ThomasLadder_69
joined 1 year ago
As someone who has walked around this mall many times, it may as well be a dungeon lmao
And Colorado proposition 131
Its satire...
Seriously. $100,000 watches? Who the fuck is the target audience for this?
Trump fanatics with a lot of money. Which if even one person buys one (And Im sure someone has) The entire charade becomes worth it.
the graph is clearly just fitted to the data
That's the problem. It's heavily skewed when compared to the greater overall engagement statistics.
Care to elaborate?
It's not the cars that are the issue. it's the politicians and lobbyists who have made it necessary to own one.
That's exactly my point. Instead of pointing the finger at our curremt vehicles, we should be focused more on pushing for better legislation. The rest will follow suit.
It's all come down to over consumption.
You said it yourself... It has nothing to do with our use of personal vehicles.
Our reliance on vehicles is a result of horrible city design, lobbying from vehicle manufacturers, and lack of public transportation. All of which have nothing to do with people's tendency to over-consume.
We all need fuel to drive the car, if the oil is stopped today, what are people gonna do? They still have to change their behaviour regardless.
When you start creating impossible hypotheticals to justify your reasoning, it is a sign that your argument doesn't actually make sense.
Let's look at energy production, the single worst contributor to emissions worldwide. The consumers' propensity to overuse has no bearing on where the energy comes from. Switching to renewables comes from government intervention in the form of incentivizing/requiring green energy production. Unfortunately, due to utility monopolies (at least in the US), the consumer has no way of controlling that. So no, it's not all a cycle, if it were that simple, we wouldn't be having these problems.
obviously you are never going to comprehend IT ALL NEEDS TO GO
Except that's not the case. There are plenty of ways to offset emissions, and that is exactly how formula plans to reach carbon-neutrality by 2030. When that happens, what, then? Do you think they still need to go? Even if they are doing no measurable harm to the atmoshpere? What if they had negative carbon production due to excess offsets?
It seems you are far too obsessed with the principles rather than approaching the situation rationally/pragmatically.
Also, I don't even watch racing lmao.
view more: next ›
10 minutes. That's one every 3 seconds...