perestroika

Interesting solution, thank you for introducing. :)

But how much are "lifestyle consumption emissions" compared to total emissions? I have never seen the term before, so I cannot put it in context.

What I imagine:

• if a poor person heats 30 square meters, and a rich person heats 3000 square meters, that is a lifestyle-related emission, and will differ considerably
• if a poor person drives a car, but a rich person drives a luxury car, emissions will differ, but not considerably (the poor person's car is old, while the rich person's car has engine volume like a truck), but if the poor person has no car, emissions will differ considerably
• however, if the rich person takes a plane ride every week, and the poor person twice per year or once per decade, that will differ considerably
• both persons will need to eat, but if the rich person eats fancy food, maybe the transport, packaging and other factors add up to make a considerable difference? or maybe not...

...etc. A breakdown of how would be nice to see.

Don't ban, just tax them appropriately. :)

A heat wave of this severity is unfortunately always followed by a wave of avoidable deaths. :(

Authoritarian tactics to suppress protest typically intend to have a chain of effects like this:

• protest will decrease
• those who protest will protect themselves better, legally (in terms of planning and considering how to avoid charges)
• those who protest will protect themselves better, physically (in terms of not being detained and overcoming the police)
• in the second scenario, police will then be able to depict the protests as "violent" and call it an "insurrection"
• consequently, they can press heavier charges against anyone they do manage to detain
• organizing a protest becomes dangerous
• participating in a protest will be perceived as dangerous
• people with families and a job and elderly people will fear to participate
• protest will lose effect due to few participants
• that will prompt some individuals to anonymous protest and actual sabotage
• nobody should want that, yet that's where the path leads to

The solutions?

• fixing the problematic laws via political process, adding a freedom-of-protest agenda to other goals
• disputing the problematic laws where the legal system allows (appealing to constitutions, conventions and charters)
• bypassing the laws after analysis, protesting in ways that cannot be criminalized
• in rare cases where it's worthwhile and there is exceptional mass support, just ignoring the laws, because if there's a million people blocking streets for some reason, cops are powerless

All of that won't be doable in every country, and in some countries, something else might be doable instead.

Ebay denied the charges in a public statement, saying it has blocked "more than 99.9% the listings for the products cited by the DOJ, including millions of listings each year."

A court will determine if that claim is true, but if yes, EBay as a market platform won't be liable. A 99.9% interception rate would indicate a considerable effort to prevent illicit trades.

Along with Civitas, 55 Tufton Street also houses the climate-sceptic lobby group the Global Warming Policy Foundation and its campaigning arm Net Zero Watch. These groups previously attempted to spark an “honest debate about the cost of net-zero” in 2020.

The Civitas report claims to offer a “realistic” £4.5tn estimate of the cost of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and says “the government need to be honest with the British people”.

This estimate is much higher than the figure produced by the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which has said that reaching net zero would require net investments of £1.4tn by 2050. Note the difference between Civitas’s “costs” and the CCC’s “net investments”. The CCC also found that reaching net zero would generate savings in the form of lower fossil fuel bills worth £1.1tn, resulting in a net cost of £0.3tn.

In his report for Civitas, Stewart adopts the well-worn climate-sceptic tactic of simply ignoring these savings. He also ignores what the Office for Budget Responsibility has called the potentially “catastrophic economic and fiscal consequences” of unmitigated climate change.

/.../

Unfortunately the report’s author has confused power capacity in megawatts (MW) with electricity generation in megawatt hours (MWh). As a result, he presents a distinctly unrealistic “£1.3m per MWh” figure for the cost for onshore wind power. The true number is around £50-70/MWh – more than 10,000 times lower. He then compounded his embarrassment by mixing up billions with trillions.

Truly classic. :) Cherry-pick a method that doesn't see many things, mess even that up twice, and get quite a bit of media coverage for the botchery, before it's called out.