geogle

Well, they took inspiration from Clement Clarke Moore’s (1922) “Twas the night before Christmas” and illustrations from Thomas Nast (1881) showing him in red with the sack over his shoulder. Certainly, Coca Cola has solidified the modern image with their ad campaign though starting in 1931. Src

Good on them. Can someone non-snarkily explain why this is good for them financially?

Those had better be encrypted

Not through cities. We need clean running options in densly populated areas

I know you want it to be stated outright, which is unlikely to happen. However, section e does state pretty directly:

(e) Reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner so as to achieve net zero by, before, or around 2050 in keeping with the science;

Yes, you can pick on ‘the science’ and what ‘net zero’ means, but unequivocally phasing out all fossil fuels in 27 years is not achievable unless we found ways to completely replace our current infrastructural needs by that time. This includes upscaling biodiesel and ethanol production to run existing machinery that cannot yet run on electric or hydrogen power, including planes, freighters, etc.

This is just what the bots are into.

deleted by creator

Monster cables

Burning sustainably grown plants is a net zero carbon addition to the environment. It’s not what you want, but it’s a step in the right direction.

I first read Beyonce, and I was both confused and impressed by her troublemaking and net worth

Let’s be clear. People’s data was stolen by the spy agency long before it was put online.

I know you’re being funny here, but…

Warm could also translate to “cozy” or overall “hue”. Neither would necessarily pick the indoor photos. I don’t think you need to be neurodivergent to be confused, maybe just a little more artistically minded.

You’re thinking too small. Base 60 (Sexagesimal)…the Sumerians had the right idea.

I think I’ve seen this movie before

I’m not going to argue with your sentiment, but your above arguments are either weak or factually wrong. This doesn’t help your cause.

A less then 10% increase in health risks is really a deciding factor, particularly against a cultural and dietary staple to many.

As for beef production, time to slaughter is often between 6 to 8 months, and not years.

That’s weird…and so is the flipping

This is actually welcomes news.

The use of biomass rather than fossil fuels, if it can be scaled up is carbon neutral. The biomass grows from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes this will take about 60% of our crop land to completely replace fossil fuels (including cars), but this is completely doable if we reduce grain production for livestock. Source: https://esa.org/biofuels/presentations/Auyeung_poster.pdf

*Attorneys General