Djennik
Er zijn een paar maatregelen die voor de hand liggen:
- Activering van de inactieve bevolking
- Vermogensbelasting
- Meerwaardebelasting
- Besparen op het overheidsbeslag
Maar gezien er altijd wel een partij bezwaren heeft, komt hier niets van en wordt het probleem alleen maar groter…
What else than The Lord Of The Rings
The problem is not the amount of people but how much each individual consumes. Getting meat out of your diet is a simple and a small sacrifice. Besides the health benefits there is also the fact that you don’t contribute to the culling of 70 billion animals per year (of which 40% is probably not eaten and thrown in the trash). Not only that but you don’t contribute to the greatest cause of deforestation, antibiotics resistance, decline of biodiversity, water waste, …
Besides the global population is steadily stagnating (Africa is still booming) as a lot of countries see population decline (less than 2 children per woman).
Both are true: reducing waste and adopting a plant based diet are great ways of reducing your footprint.
The number of vegetarians/vegans is growing quickly. I’m not convincing you of going vegan. You are convincing yourself to keep on eating meat despite the scientific facts and moral consequences.
The only way to do this is to not buy products that are incredibly harmful to the climate and voting for politicians that want to sharpen climate policy. Industries won’t regulate themselves. Acting like the consumer/voter can’t do shit is just straight up lying and results in inaction.
Again who is going to work towards industrial action? Not the industries… That’s not how capitalism works. Do you really think that asking them to be more climate friendly will work?
Industries listen to two things: money and policy. And I’m not even so sure about the latter. Vote at the ballot and vote with your wallet.
If you don’t want to change, the CEO of BP won’t either because he’s still getting those tasty dollars out of your pockets at the pump and through government aid.
Ukraine will probably get the NATO membership as a sweetener after the war. Realistically the war will only end through negotiations where unavoidably land will be lost to Russia in exchange for security guarantees.
Membership can come quickly: Finland became a member rather swiftly. I figure most members would want the war the end as soon as possible because it’s a moneydrain. European members are not eager to prolong a war just outside their borders.
The situation is different for the US of course. I don’t agree with you on Russia: A prolonged war is in the best interest of the US as it weakens Russia over time. Their current economy and sanctions don’t allow a long-term “military operation”. Furthermore China can’t rely on a weak ally if shit hits the fan in Taiwan. Ukraine is also a prime example on how willing the US is to support allies in a long-term proxy war.
One of the reasons of not granting NATO membership was indeed in fear of russian retaliation. Russia took Crimea and invaded Donbas since then even without the membership promise. Putin is already upset so no reason not to bestow the membership on Ukraine.
Kicking out Russia is next to impossible as they’ve dug in. What Ukraine has in superior weaponry, Russia has in numbers. Time is bad for both parties, but worse for Ukraine, as Western fatigue will inevitably come.
