321–330 of 634 posts
Haven't ethanol fuels been introduced to have a buffer for this situation? If we don't turn grain and corn into petrol then there should be some reserves. Additionally, if we stop rising live-stock, where roughly 10 units of plant create one unit of meat, there should be even more calories available.
Corn for ethanol production isn't preferred for eating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly the US, with some UK mixed in. > A better term would be liberal democracies If you think "liberal democracies" still carries the same positive vibe across the world that it used to some years ago you are in for a big surprise. > "both sides are the same" ring to it They are definitely not the same, they have obviously different values. Again, Putin has said as much, he's the one fighting for a multi-polar worl…
> Mostly the US, with some UK mixed in. That's the opposition to Russia? Hardly, Ukraine's neighbours are doing far more than anyone in London or Washington. > They are definitely not the same, they have obviously different values Yes one of them is democracy, the other is dictatorships. One is good, the other is bad. Refreshingly, some things in life are simple. > he's the one fighting for a multi-polar world with m…
Yes, they would want Ukraine under their sphere of influence, that one has been also made pretty clear by them ever since the USSR was broken up.
Haven't ethanol fuels been introduced to have a buffer for this situation? If we don't turn grain and corn into petrol then there should be some reserves. Additionally, if we stop rising live-stock, where roughly 10 units of plant create one unit of meat, there should be even more calories available.
Corn for ethanol production isn't preferred for eating.
Doing that mid-season is of course something of a challenge.
The article actually has four solutions at the bottom. Compared to the severity of the problem, all four solutions are surprisingly simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple and straightforward. 1. Stop using so much corn to make ethanol. 2. Stop using so much seed oil to make biodiesel. 3. Stop feeding so much food to livestock. Bonus: reducing the livestock population provides short term calories! 4. Break the Black…
We can live better, healthier lives without grain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your local zoning board might object. I live in PA, and one of the neighborhood vigilantes immediately ratted me out to the local government when I started growing corn, squash, and beans in my backyard while raising a couple of chickens for eggs.
> one of the neighborhood Karens Please keep that sort of slur off HN. We don't need it here, and you don't need it to make your substantive points.
I think that may be an overly heated response.
Given that I have seen the term used as a pronoun applied to multiple genders, sex preferences, races, ethnicities, etc, I see the term as speaking to behaviors, rather than being a pejorative unique to a group. Here are good examples of it being applied across multiple ethnicities and genders [1] & [2] . There is even a transgender karen [3] .
Normally it is applied to people acting improperly, hall-monitor type of behaviors where it is not warranted. Someone maliciously reporting food growing in a backyard meets the definition.
Please don't make decisions based off Wikipedia [4] or dictionary.com [5] redefining a word to meet a specific agenda.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gncDv1GNF4
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0msiW0mEVo
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Wj9GqsmAI
The article actually has four solutions at the bottom. Compared to the severity of the problem, all four solutions are surprisingly simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple and straightforward. 1. Stop using so much corn to make ethanol. 2. Stop using so much seed oil to make biodiesel. 3. Stop feeding so much food to livestock. Bonus: reducing the livestock population provides short term calories! 4. Break the Black…
I am surprised there are not more calls to end the corn to ethanol subsidies given the cost of food.
From the article.
It is clear that Putin needs to go. By any means necessary.
And? What’s the rest of the plan? I hear people saying that, but this is very short term with no sustainable strategy. Just genuinely pointing out he could be replaced by worse options, and you need to plan against it as well. There is the guy, the system he built, the persons he chose to put in place, all incentivised to continue.
He'll die anyway sooner or later, and there will be a struggle for power regardless. Russia has a constitution, and article 81 describes how to get a new president via elections.
Current paranoid leader is waging major war and isolating the country, so it's hard to say what could be worse for the world. Maybe mobilization in Russia, but that may be a tough call for any newcomer.
The article actually has four solutions at the bottom. Compared to the severity of the problem, all four solutions are surprisingly simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple and straightforward. 1. Stop using so much corn to make ethanol. 2. Stop using so much seed oil to make biodiesel. 3. Stop feeding so much food to livestock. Bonus: reducing the livestock population provides short term calories! 4. Break the Black…
>1. Stop using so much corn to make ethanol. >2. Stop using so much seed oil to make biodiesel. Easier said than done when there's a global fuel shortage too!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't really make any sense though. It changes nothing about the geopolitical reality of what's going on. If the US sends a merchant ship and a cruiser, what is russia going to do exactly? Try to bomb the ships? They will lose, and get shot down. Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time".
Russia might respond with conventional cruise missile strikes against US forces in the region.