I do not know about what the guy on the picture said, but I do know that Putin visited New York after 9/11 to pay respects to the victims

“Freedom and Democracy”

-Says the most well-known monarchy in the world.

???

That’s TikTok, from a private corporation. They do not represent the CPC or the Chinese Government.

deleted by creator

The Soviet Onion…

I wasn’t able to see it even on my own profile. But it really might be because it was set in portuguese maybe

oh, I just deleted it right before I saw your comment.

since that post was not really important, I’ll not repost it.

Thanks, I’ll go to my comment and then delete my post from there so I can repost it.

I remember that there is a quote from Engels where he says that while the material conditions do have influence on humans, humans can and do influence the material conditions of the world.

If any comrade can find this quote and link it on a reply to my comment I would be grateful.

I can’t say that the deportations were necessary, nor can I say that they were unnecessary. But what I can say is that if you see lots of people that you know and love collaborating with the Axis, the probability of you being convinced to collaborate too may increase.

However, deporting innocent people just for the possibility of them collaborating with nazis in the future is pretty bad.

Though I do understand the soviet government of the time. They were losing the war and if they lost their whole people would be enslaved/genocided. As such, they couldn’t take any chances.

edit: since the deportations were not made with the intention of decimating the deported, they were clearly not a genocide by any good definition.

That is true, I did not think of that perspective. I agree with you.

I think maybe OP is not good at english and is expressing himself poorly. Maybe the war is a part of the agenda of the meeting.

(source: I’m bad at english and I have a lot of experience in expressing myself poorly)

I agree. By being confrontational from the beginning, OP would be definetly a bad person. Only be confrontational if they become confrontational. If they start saying bullshit, just argue calmly and respectfully.

Yes, but as I said, we already have all that infrastructure in Brazil, and it is way cheaper to get people to use ethanol than to get them to switch to electric in the short term.

Carbon neutrality in automotives are a means to an end, which is to get transportation to net-zero. To actually get to net-zero, the only real way would be to get everyone to use public transit (there is not enough electricity in the world for powering a electric fleet of millions of cars). So, I still think that as a temporary solution until public transit becomes good enough of an option, electric cars are (at least in Brazil) way worse than regular cars running on ethanol.

In other countries, electric cars may be better, especially on countries from the imperial core (western Europe, USA, Canada, Japan) becase the population has enough money to buy EVs if they get cheaper. But in poorer, overexploited countries, most people can’t even buy a new gasoline-powered car from the dealership, so why would they buy a new electric-powered car from the dealership? They will obviously just continue to buy used gasoline-powered cars like normal.

Where did you get that information? I just searched it online and the first results say about 33% efficiency for coal plants and between 25% and 30% for gasoline engines.

I’ll edit my coment in a few minutes with the links to my sources.

edit: those efficiencies are energy efficiencies, completely unrelated to emmissions. I did not find any sources for emmissions efficiencies, but I’d guess knowing the energy efficiencies that coal is worse for the environment than gasoline.

edit 2: Coal power plant efficiency: https://www.pcienergysolutions.com/2023/04/17/power-plant-efficiency-coal-natural-gas-nuclear-and-more/

gasoline ICE efficiency:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

here it says that the engine losses go from 64% minimum on roads to 75% maximum on cities.

I wouldn’t go to this extreme because some places are too sparsely populated for any type of public transport, but cars in general should be abolished in all urban and most rural areas in my opinion.

They would definetly be nice as substitutes to gasoline cars in rural areas, but in cities they would be pretty useless for the average person if we had good urban planning or good public transport or both.

How isn’t it? I think the only part of it that could be considered not carbon neutral would be the deforesting needed to get farmland to produce ethanol. However, we already deforested that land and it isn’t coming back soon, so we might as well just use it for ethanol instead of sugar.

I mean, I do not know if EVs are as bad to the environment as regular gasoline-powered vehicles, but I do know that they won’t fix the problem of the environmental devastation caused by car culture since they still run on energy made from gas and coal plants and they are still as inefficient in transporting people as regular vehicles.

I know that it will be very difficult to substitute cars for public transit. Actually, public transit will never fully substitute cars since there will always be places that are too far away for trains, trolleys, and other forms of public transit to reach. Also, ambulances, police cars, and firefighter trucks should never be substituted by public transit, since they need speed and versatility more than anything. But for most people, public transit could be insanely attractive if enough investment was put into it. Most people go through the same few paths every day, and even then, they almost always go at the same time every day.

I suggest that cities go substituting cars for public transit in small batches by building infrastructure and changing urban development laws in key places and then expanding to the rest of the city.

edit: Oh, and by the way, here in Brazil EVs are literally just dumb. Although Brazil is mostly run by clean hydrelectric energy, which would be very nice for EV development, we also have lots of sugarcane farms producing sugar and ethanol. Ethanol is widely used here as a biofuel, and there is a dynamic between sugar prices and ethanol prices, where low sugar prices make ethanol a more lucrative business, thus making the agribusiness produce more ethanol, and vice-versa. So, if we just put lots of taxes on sugar and make it less profitable, or we subsidize ethanol, we could make people use ethanol instead of gasoline, and then we would have a near carbon neutral fleet of cars without having to transition to electric.

(public transit is still better, though)

Hi pancake!