Again, the issue is that once you burn fossil fuel, you are not turning it into fossil fuel in any meaningful amount of time.

On the other hand, let’s say that a field used for producing plants for biofuel does not capture any carbon at all to simplify. So deforesting an area releases all the carbon a forest held. The difference is that the fossil fuel gives you energy one time, while the field produces it yearly. We need energy yearly. So if you deforest an area for biofuel, you release CO2 from deforestation but all the CO2 released in the future is what was recaptured by the plants. It is one time CO2 release for perpetual energy delivery. If you go with fossil fuels, you will keep burning more and more every year until it is much worse than deforesting an area.

So reforesting can capture CO2 already released, but that only offsets fossil fuels for some period of time. Even if you cover the whole planet in forests, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels you can burn before it is negated. That is why eliminating fossil fuel use, and quickly, is far more important than protecting forests. Once you burn fossil fuel, you can’t recapture it into fossil fuel and would have to increase fores area permanently to compensate.

the alternative to burning biomass would need to have very high emissions in order to come out ahead.

Not really, that’s the point. Soil has a max capacity of carbon it will hold. Just like biomass. So even if the fossil fuels release tiny amount of CO2, they release it continually vs deforestation releasing it one time. The only thing that changes is how long it takes for biomass to break even. But after thousands of years, the one time big release will always turn out better than continual small releases.

Of course, avoiding both deforestation and fossil fuels is even better.

It is superior if letting the forest grow means using fossil fuels. That was the point of my comment. It releases CO2, but only once and then is sustainable without additional CO2.

Of course, having the forest and e.g. nuclear power would be even better but that does not work very well for mobile applications, such as vehicles.

I fully agree, it’s just that the operative keyword is eventually, and I don’t expect it to mean soon. Of course they can’t keep this up forever.

The economy, while struggling, is far from collapsing and popular support is almost a non issue. Russia is not drafting. Without a draft, most soldiers joining do so voluntarily, so there is not as much resistance. They have to pay a lot of money to make people sign up to go fight a war and the extra competition for labor (army vs factories) is increasing wages in many categories. The ones most unhappy about the situation are the oligarchs who have to pay for all of it. So unfortunately, betting on Russia somehow collapsing anytime soon is probably a loosing bet.

The more likely bottleneck for Russia is equipment and volunteers for the Army. Their Soviets stockpiles are starting to run low. And, if Russia runs out of people willing to sign up for money, they may be forced to either end the war or start drafting with all the issues that brings.

I base this mostly on Perun YT channel, that has many videos doing in depth analysis of various aspects of the war.

I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t with default settings. Beware of enabling any setting that stores data next to the media like nfo metadata storage, as those could maybe cause conflicts.

Aaah, yes. Everyone’s fault but your politicians.

rotted what brain they had

I want to disagree, but the mental gymnastics people will do to shield their party/candidate from any responsibility is makes it difficult.

My point is that Democrats enabled a Fascist to have any chance of winning and seem to have no regrets about it. Any half competent candidate should have run laps around Trump, a convicted felon and known rapist. As long as they keep supporting the democratic party and making excuses for it despite that, stuff like this will keep happening. They need to find a way to hold their party accountable. Blaming the voter is the absolute opposite of that. I say this not to encourage anyone to vote for Trump, but to make people stop wasting time blaming the voters and start holding Democratic party accountable.

Ah yes, so after you enter conversation about politics and voting, try to change the subject to other mysterious things you did to help, you get tired of people bringing back the original topic.

10/10 discussion /s

Do you not live in the US? Because not living in the US is the only way your voting could have no effect on Palestine.

Yes, the mysterious other things.

The point is, who did you vote for if you say it helped Palestinians? Because the only option that has even a miniscule chance to help is not voting.

But I am guessing that is not what you did. You voted for the party you liked and then pretended listening to Palestinians and making effort with negligible or nonexistent results was helping.

You are the only one missing the point.

But continue, tell us what you did (on the advice from the Palestinians) that made anywhere near the difference voting can.

deleted by creator

now you have a shit facist as president so yes, is your fault

I am not American. But putting that aside, US has a fascist president because the so called better choice decided it is better for a fascist to be elected president than to do what voters asked for, like not supporting fucking Genocide.

How much better are the Democrats really, if they themselves did not care about handing the presidency to Trump?

It’s years of voters willing to vote for the “lesser evil” that allowed both parties to field shittier and shittier candidates. Because it’s not as bad as the other guy and people will vote for lesser evil. So now you have two options that should have both been completely unacceptable in any civilized society and you still pretend to be morally superior, because your completely evil candidate is slightly less evil then the other one.

deleted by creator

Oh, right, I forgot I should have checked first if they wanted a bomb dropped on their head or literally anything else.

Plenty of European politicians support this war too. How many of them did you contact?

Thankfully in Europe, we have more choices than two genocidal maniacs, so I could just vote for ones that don’t support genocide.

Not that it changes much, since US is the only country actually sending significant material support to Israel and diplomatically shields them from consequences.

Ah right, because US politicians care so much about calls and e-mails from Europeans who can’t vote for them.

Who do you blame for climate change? The sun, chemistry or humans releasing chemicals to the atmosphere?

Arguably all 3 contribute to climate change, but only the last one is something you can change. So you blame humans, because it is the only productive option.

In an election, you can blame the party that lost or the voters. Blaming the voter is about as productive as blaming the sun, distracting from what changes have to happen in the Democratic party to guarantee a win in the next election.

“Vote for candidate A who supports genocide.”
“Vote for candidate B who supports genocide.”
“Don’t vote and be loud about it so that in the next election, the losing party is hopefully forced to have a candidate that doesn’t support genocide to get your vote.”

Which one of those 3 has at least a theoretical chance of helping (even if it may be too late by then)?

I am not saying it was worth it, considering how much worse Trump is on most other issues. It probably wasn’t. But if Palestine is the only issue you care about, it makes sense to not vote.

Yes, blame the voters. That will surely make them change and help win the next election for Democrats. /s