201–210 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lease expires in 2123. The militarily strategic landscape then is pretty much unknowable. To a 1925 (99 years ago ) military force, the Diego Garcia airfield would have had zero importance.
Q: Is there a reason for making a lease 99 years, rather than - say - 999 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK, the US and UK value Diego Garcia because currently there aren't geographical alternatives for that base. Where else could they put it that would have the same benefits?
I am sure that if at the end of 99 years the US or the UK still really really want to retain them, they will find a way (another lease, or by force). Mauritius is not China. Not that I am suggesting for this to happen, but what are they going to do if the UK just decides not to leave after 99 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UN General Assembly and various UN courts have ruled that the UK had no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in the first place. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126
The UN is relevant how? Anyway, UK did the right thing, though. Now get rid of that US hegemony-supporting base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lease expires in 2123. The militarily strategic landscape then is pretty much unknowable. To a 1925 (99 years ago ) military force, the Diego Garcia airfield would have had zero importance.
Q: Is there a reason for making a lease 99 years, rather than - say - 999 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very likely that we're already beyond some of the tipping points, and others are very close[0]. We're basically going into the mitigation phase now by my understanding. [0] https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-rea...
I'm quite skeptical. If we lower the CO2 levels (carbon sequestering) and cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight (SO2 injection in the stratosphere), I'm sure these alleged tipping points will be tipped back again, given some time. It's good to be aware that doom sells, and the incentive to publish doom predictions for the money they make is very high. Of course, they can still be true... We'll see how it goes :…
This is simply fantasy. Sequestering carbon mechanically is an energy losing process. It is also inefficient.
If we burned oil in year 2,000 at (generously) 50% efficiency, it will cost us 4X more in year 2040 to sequester it at 50% (very generous) efficiency.
On the face of it, we would need a sequestering industry that is 4X bigger than the oil industry, and it will be just losing money. Politically, it’s just not going to happen.
Natural sequestration (I.e. tree planting) is not enough by a very large margin (like over 10x)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, fair point. Can the UK hand over Bermuda, or Cayman isles? I vaguely remember handing over the Falkland Islands to Argentina was actually on the cards before the invasion, so perhaps surprisingly the answer is "yes".
Which highlights how stupid the war was. Argentina should have invested in a better relationship with the islands. They would all be speaking Spanish by now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with the original text - but it contains NO maybes. BurningFrog hasn't correctly read it and is arguing against a strawmanned version of it (it may be incorrect for other reasons). The original: https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-rea... states (correctly or not): Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will…
>> that this [ Climate tipping points ] may possibly happen, not that it will!
> whereas the text (again, correct or not) was definite that Climate tipping points are real and will happen when thresholds are crossed.
It will happen IF thresholds are crossed. And crucially, we don't know where the thresholds are. So it could happen.
"The Empire State Building WILL fall over WHEN it tips beyond some threshold" is not saying that it will fall over, means that it could fall over. And yes, also in this case the threshold is real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, of course Parliament will need to vote on this Not the case. The executive makes treaties. Parliament can scrutinise them but has no general ratification or veto role. See https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... .
The Parliament being sovereign, it can pass an act about anything. It could certainly pass an act forbidding the government from ceding territory to a foreign power. However, since the current government holds a majority in parliament, in practice it won't happen.
My point was that there is no constitutional requirement for parliament to ratify treaties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with the original text - but it contains NO maybes. BurningFrog hasn't correctly read it and is arguing against a strawmanned version of it (it may be incorrect for other reasons). The original: https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-rea... states (correctly or not): Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will…
> the incorrect interpretation by BurningFrog above was that >> that this [ Climate tipping points ] may possibly happen, not that it will! > whereas the text (again, correct or not) was definite that Climate tipping points are real and will happen when thresholds are crossed. It will happen IF thresholds are crossed. And crucially, we don't know where the thresholds are. So it could happen. "The Empire State Buildin…
It's a physical fact that once thresholds are reached then irreversible problems occur.
> The Empire State Building WILL fall over WHEN it tips beyond some threshold
Not a good example as the Empire State Building isn't tipping.
The insulation in the atmospheres is (by contrast) increasing.
The specific skepticism expressed in BurningFrog comment above based on an incorrect reading of the text was unwarrented, a more geneneral dbate about the specifics of models, etc. is still in play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lease expires in 2123. The militarily strategic landscape then is pretty much unknowable. To a 1925 (99 years ago ) military force, the Diego Garcia airfield would have had zero importance.
in 99 years, most of the island probably will be underwater due to climate change.
"Of over 13,000 islands examined, approximately 12% experienced significant shifts in shoreline positions. The total shoreline length of these islands approaches 200,000 km, with 7.57% showing signs of landward erosion and 6.05% expanding seaward. Human activities, particularly reclamation and land filling, were identified as primary drivers of local shoreline transformations, while natural factors have a comparatively minor impact. "