I want to add, that arms are still needed in this day-and-age, even to uphold peace. So many things are not as black and white as they seem.
I am quite happy NATO (to name one) can deter bad actors from attacking it, or in worst case use them to protect its member states. But, yes, ideally weapons would be history.
There are definitely effects on the British economy because of Brexit, just alone the loss in confidence in the British economy after the vote and the uncertainty following it.
I was merely pointing out that GDP is a tool to look at the economy as a whole, but it can not visualise more specific trends or inequalities, let alone those caused by Brexit.
Solely looking at GDP says little about the impacts of Brexit, especially on the impact it has on individuals. While it tells us the UK fares well on production capacity and economic growth, it says little on the welfare and well being of her citizens.
There is of course a lot of disparity of the origins in the data, and Tory governing most likely have its effects as well.
Point is, GDP is not a good measure on whether things are looking bright for individuals.
They speak more elegant… or French
Anrwerp is Belgium, though ;)
You are simplifying this extremely.
I wonder if there is a state willing to do this on their on accord without backing from the UN. Then, would Israel consider this as a breach of sovereignty? What is the risk for the peace keeping state if Israel considers this a breach of sovereignty, do you have the US + west against you?
being the weaker group, they could have requested neutral foreign troops to help guard their territories as a peace keeping mission at any time.
Did you forget Palestine is not recognised as a member state in the UN?
Also, confusing Palestinians with the terror group Hamas is disingenuous.
It is a shame the international community has taken so little effort to prevent bloodshed. The terrible terrorist attacks are the symptoms of the unhealthy and hostile environment. The numbers in the link below just show that there was enough reason to put more effort and discussion in this region.
Indeed, that is what had happened to the League of Nations and why the US never joined.
Also the UN is still an important platform where diplomatic relations are upheld even in dire situations. Even with Russia it is important to have some lines of discussion.
It was in August of last year apparently (does time fly). He suddenly wanted to discuss the agreed upon nitrogen-plans at the start of the formation of the government. This, to try to regain trust from traditional supporters of the party, farmers. They have been in recent times moving to a dedicated farmers party.
De harde maar omstreden deadline van 2030 is daarbij voor de CDA-voorman niet langer ´heilig´.
De boerenachterban, die traditioneel op het CDA stemde, loopt weg juist door het stikstofbeleid van dit kabinet^1.
Of course that could be the case, but less than a year ago, he almost caused the collapse of the Dutch government on the sustainability of agriculture in the country.
At least I can’t see an honest motivation other than his own opportunities.
We can’t wait for corporations as long as we consume the same things, they are just out for profit.
And as long as we don’t vote for politicians that will care enough, these corporations will not have any restrictions in regards of climate change.
The actions of individuals has a normative effect on their peers.
Also, in the global north an individual’s action has a greater effect than in the global south.
I agree that an individual’s action has a lesser impact, but I think actions should be triangular (individual, governmental and corporate). But the individual definitely bears responsibility. At least in voting a certain way, but being aware of what you are doing could help persuade oneself of taking action.
Understanding why an individual does not act is important though. New technologies, like EVs are expensive and public transport might not be sufficient. Eating less meat (or non at all) and flying less (or not at all) are, I am pretty sure of, things one definitely could do.
Looks like the work shop ran out of white banner.
I think this is the most overlooked aspect, besides it never being in time to do any good for the crisis we are in now.
I believe, the increasing cost and loss in efficiency compared to alternatives will always be an issue for NE to be out-priced by solar and wind (Dunai, 2019; WNSIR, 2022). These cost will eventually come back to the end user.
Most definitely the reason why nuclear advocates want the government to give securities and don’t dear to be the entrepreneurs they claim to be (NOS Nieuws, 2018). Please give me some welfare state, but I’d rather have some more solid solutions.
Costs. Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis by U.S. bank Lazard shows that between
2009 and 2021, utility-scale solar costs came down 90 percent and wind 72 percent, while
new nuclear costs increased by 36 percent. The gap continues to widen. Estimates by the
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has seen the LCOE for wind drop by
15 percent and solar by 13 percent between 2020 and 2021 alone. IRENA also calculated that
800 GW of existing coal-fired capacity in the world have higher operating costs than new
utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) and new onshore wind (WNSIR, 2022).
Oh sorry! My comment was a bit vague, meant the feature which recognises symbols and such (visual look up?).
I believe it is US/some regions only, unfortunately :(
Of course, I neither wanted to portray arms sales as just something good. Unsurprisingly, states manage to have these twisted deals in the name of national interests.