Going green.

[saltywizard@beige.party]

@royaards

stop buying things

[max@toet.dnzm.nl]

@royaards deze is wel een beetje pijnlijk waar, ja.

[timwardcam@c.im]

@royaards The Today programme was reporting on increase in retail figures today as if people spending more on stuff was an unqualified Good Thing.

Despite them mentioning in the small print that most of the rise was due to Trump's increased petrol prices, and that food sales actually fell because people can't accord so much food any more. Nevertheless, this is all "good" news.

Another illustration that the BBC have totally and utterly given up on journalism.

[wernerbeinhart@mastodon.social]

@royaards - we are definitively lost if we don't change immediately our habits. But we still have too many people who just think to their purse and their joy, no matter what that means for future generations.

[herman@mastodon.world]

@royaards

[uweb@troet.cafe]

@royaards

Where does the money for one’s own home come from—and the freedom of choice?

[darkoptimism@mstdn.social]

@royaards
Pairs nicely with this from Andy Singer

[kete@mstdn.social]

@WernerBeinhart

Even if we change our habits, the US government and huge corporations intend to keep extracting and burning fossile fuels.

@royaards

[mojala@mementomori.social]

@DarkOptimism @royaards Yeah but it’s shit - qt least the exhaust from a coal plant is actually radioactive - steam from a nuclear plant isn’t. If the picture maker lies willfully in one aspect, what else is bullshit in the picture?

[riago@mastodon.nl]

@DarkOptimism @royaards tof ik heb groene kikkervisjes

[lispi314@udongein.xyz]

@royaards The airplanes are a fun particular.

The most reasonable option besides just using ships to replace them is to use airships (now without fossil fuels).

I'm uncertain which uses the most resources per traveler moved, but I suspect non-fossil naval ships would win out from not having to fight so hard for their buoyancy.