The point obviously isn't to give grocery stores more money for no reason, it's to support products that have higher quality standards.
Take poultry as an example, standards vary by county, but the differences between quality labels can be stark. Cheap poultry is often raised in tiny indoor cages and they need to be pumped full of antibiotics due to the unhealthy living conditions. On the other end of the spectrum, organic poultry is free to roam in fields and the coops are regularly moved or kept clean, avoiding the need for antibiotics in the first place.
Even if you disagree that the latter provides a better quality product, it's pretty clear that supporting brands with higher standards results in better living conditions for the animals.
If an animal product is more expensive at point of sale it does not also follow that the producers of said product provided better living conditions for their animals. It could be that the producers of the cheaper of two similar products provided better living conditions. Again, you have the causation all mixed up.
All else being equal, providing betting living conditions should increase the cost to the farmer. But thah A implies B does not mean thah B implies A. Not everything thah increases production cost is better animal living conditions.
Somewhat tangential, but the EU has a directive mandating electronic invoicing for public procurement.
One of the standards that has come out of that is EN 16931, also known as ZUGFeRD and Factur-X, which basically involves embedding an XML file with the invoice details inside a PDF/A. It allows the PDF to be used like a regular PDF but it also allows the government procurement platforms to reliably parse the contents without any kind of intelligence.
It seems like a nice solution that would solve a lot of issues with ingesting PDFs for accounting if everyone somehow managed to agree a standard. Maybe if EN 16931 becomes more broadly available it might start getting used in the private sector too.
The CFA franc is used by 14 countries. Until 2020, those countries were required to deposit half of their foreign exchange reserves with the French Treasury. France also maintains a military presence in several of its former colonies.
Colonialism may have ended, but France continues to exert influence in Africa.
> Colonialism may have ended, but France continues to exert influence in Africa.
Yes, of course. Lots of countries exert influence in Africa. The PRC just opened its first off-shore military base Djibouti. Russia has whatever fresh hell the Wagner group is bringing - especially to the Central African Republic. America has bases in at least 10 African countries.
Colonialism may be over but challenges in managing international influence will always persist.
The issue isn't necessarily the form of the agreement, it's verifying the identity of the signatories.
If you can't see the other person signing the agreement, you need to verify that the right person is signing it. It's much the same issues that exist with simple passwords versus 2FA; shared accounts, piracy, identity theft, etc.
eIDAS is a set of standards for verifying identity that is backed by law. It allows businesses to follow protocols (some similar to 2FA) with the assurance that it will be held up in court.
That is also not true, and not supported by the IPCC.
What do you mean "we can't wait that long?" Any time we start reducing emissions is better than never. There will never be a "too late" point to reach net zero.
Secondly, what is the alternative to reducing our carbon outprint in 10 years?
The alternative to building thousands of reactors that finish construction in ten years if we're lucky is building millions of wind turbines and solar panels that incrementally reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
1. There is no "10 year" time limit. There is a window of time to keep our overall warming below 1.5c, which is virtually impossible regardless of which policies we choose to pursue, collectively.
2. There is no indication that we will be able to produce lithium-ion batteries with a high enough wh/kg density to create high enough energy storage capacity to replace carbon-based energy sources. Until such a time as that technology becomes possible and production-ready, we will need other sources of energy.
Not building nuclear with the assumption that grid-scale battery storage will become feasible is a potentially catastrophic policy decision.
There is no x year limit, there is a x ton of CO2 limit. Gradually reducing CO2 output has a lower area under the curve than doing something for ten years and then dropping output to zero.
You're drawing a huge false equivalence here. The idea that we can deploy renewables at scale within even two or three decades sufficient to reach net zero is patently false.
> When 90% of the "content moderation" decisions lean towards one end of the political spectrum that's hardly a mere disagreement at the adjudication stage.
Which end of the political spectrum do you mean? I've often heard of them being criticized for leaning too far to the liberal-left but the examples you gave are a little confusing.
The Chinese government is authoritarian left-wing so that kind of aligns with the anti-right sentiment but it goes against liberalism.
Parler is conservative/authoritarian right-wing, so that holds up but the Iran example is also conservative/authoritarian right-wing which contradicts that?
The biggest bias I see for the English language with foreign languages being poorly moderated. It is a business after all, so they probably only invest as much in moderation as they need to to keep their advertisers.
Flamanville 3 in France was started in 2007 and is due to be launched in 2022. It's the first of its generation (in France at least) so the delays and cost overruns are not unexpected. Even so, if more are to be built they will not come into service until the mid 2030's at the earliest. I don't think we can wait that long.
Most reactors in France are 1st gen whereas the new one being built is 3rd gen and the first of its kind in France. The increased safety has made construction more complicated than previous reactors but a lot of those issues are being worked out so future reactors would probably be built more quickly and cost efficiently.
Take poultry as an example, standards vary by county, but the differences between quality labels can be stark. Cheap poultry is often raised in tiny indoor cages and they need to be pumped full of antibiotics due to the unhealthy living conditions. On the other end of the spectrum, organic poultry is free to roam in fields and the coops are regularly moved or kept clean, avoiding the need for antibiotics in the first place.
Even if you disagree that the latter provides a better quality product, it's pretty clear that supporting brands with higher standards results in better living conditions for the animals.