More details here, although finding out which countries pushed back is tricky:

https://taxjustice.net/2024/05/17/what-happened-at-the-first-round-of-un-tax-negotiations-and-whats-next/

IM AT THE SOUP STORE!!

There’s still soup!!

Hey, I like Appletinis and I don’t hate myself that much!

Here’s some good news to hopefully brighten your day back up!

https://fixthenews.com/planet/

You mention ‘solve world hunger’, implying you know that’s the outcome already. That’s an easier choice then, isn’t it. The point I’m making is that doing something because it’s the right thing to do regardless of whether you know it’s going to work is what makes it a bigger sacrifice. The person I was replying to was also implying they would only consider sacrificing something if they knew the outcome first. If we all did that we’d never achieve anything.

Then it sounds like you’ve made your choices, and you should be satisfied with them. That’s a good thing. Those compromises and reductions have moved the needle. A little, maybe, but it’s still doing something. Good for you. 👍.

Insignificant in the wider picture, maybe. But as you imply we have little to no control over that. All we can influence is our own actions, and hope that will be enough. The problem with the defeatist attitude that so often surrounds any discourse regarding, for example, climate change is that by declaring success impossible before you even try, all you do is guarantee failure.

All one need do is chose what changes one wishes to make and then make them to the best of one’s abilities. That’s it. If you can look yourself in the eye and say ‘I did all I could. I did my best’ then you have succeeded. Will it achieve everything we want it to? Maybe not, but it’ll achieve 100% more than not trying. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to do what we can. So I argue we should all try and do just that and be content that we did our best, because I will not except defeat. How about you?

If you already knew the outcome, it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice would it. Sometimes we need to do something because it’s the right thing to do, not because it guarantees success.

I agree, greenwashing is a real problem. Hence my point around holding these people to account. We all have a responsibility to ensure they cannot back out of these commitments, and it’s only with that kind of pressure we’ll see any meaningful change. Luckily we are starting to see that kind of sea change begin to happen.

That being said, I do believe that it is also important to foster positivity when it comes to climate change, to ensure we don’t drown out motivation with defeatism.

Better than nothing. We just need to hold them to account, to ensure they actually follow through on it now.

I enjoyed Greenland with Gerrard Butler. I appreciated the focus on the human element that didn’t feel annoying.

I mean, I don’t disagree but ultimately it’s going to be which ever option goes down the easiest with the general population: ‘eat less beef’ or ‘continue eating beef’. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for reducing the amount of meat we eat in general, and I’ve been doing that myself, but from my uneducated view-point lab grown meat appears to offer greater benefits, and fewer disbenefits compared to trying to persuade people to adopt the current alternatives. Not just from a environmental point of view but ethical as well.

And don’t forget: we can do both. We can research improvements to lab grown meat and other alternatives at the same time. These shouldn’t be binary choices.

That’s true as of now, but if we stopped subsidising farmers and spent that funding on lab grow technology then, much like solar, it would go from expensive niche to cheap mainstream a whole lot quicker. All decisions like this do is slow that process down.

Is that not what Amazon Logistics is? Or is that last mile only?

Well said.

A good step in the right direction.

Better than nothing at all though, eh?

The only guarantee of failure is not to try.

*Benadryl Cucumberpatch