solo

I agree with your take on many levels. Maybe the percentage looks like it's a quite higher than 0.05% [Nestlé reports full-year results for 2023], but still not enough to really hurt them. I also agree with what is mentioned at the end of the article:

"It's a scandalous decision which sends a very bad message about a climate of impunity: Nestlé Waters can deceive consumers around the world for years and get away with it by pulling out its checkbook,"

Great you mentioned this, so I just edited the title so the point is clear.

Just finished the first episode and I find it very interesting. Crossposting it to Podcasts.

This article does use more specific language than "southern hemisphere", so not too sure what you mean. It also includes several links for further reading in relation to this topic.

Thank you for pointing me towards the right direction, so I found the following link:

Precise, gentle and efficient - The cleanup system has been specially designed and tailored for this purpose. It is four meters deep and designed as a funnel with an opening at the bottom to ensure that fish and other marine life are not trapped when trawling for marine plastic.

Thank you for pointing that out, this part really does not make any sense. Not to sure what I had in mind, so I thought of making an edit with a strikethrough so that the sentence does make sense.

To be honest, I don't know who's in the right here, ...

The way I see things, it's pretty clear. In the global south are the countries that suffer the most from the economic activities (to say the least) that come from the global north. Giving these badges to the global south NGOs is important as an effort to balance out how underrepresented these part of the world typically are, even tho they are most affected by actions of others ~~,namely the countries that got upset, or companies that come from there~~. Admittedly, I don't expect too much out of this specific climate conference due to the intense lobbying that takes place there. I'd love to be wrong on this one and be pleasantly surprised, for sure.

...but the article definitely feels like it’s taking a side, and the editorialized title makes that bias worse.

I believe it is important to accept that all media is biased, even if they try to portray themselves as neutral or objective (an easy example would be fox's fair and balanced sloggan). So I don't think that bias is a problem by itself, but performing impartiality totally is, and mainstream media do that for several reasons.

Still, I think a journalist or an outlet can be trustworthy, and this relies on their processes. They need to be honest and meticulous in their research (and perhaps something else that I didn't think of right now).

Edit: The strikethrough

This looks like a very interesting project but I'm not sure I understand how the net works so it catches only plastics and not fish. Or are fish caught as well in this process?

I see what you mean, so I need to make the following clarification.

My statement that you quoted is specific to the context of the anthroposcene topic. Not a general one, for all topics.

Archived link of an article from Haaretz:

Israel's General Strike: Who's Working and Who's Not

I have to admit (even tho I understand the intentions behind it) I really don't like the term anthroposcene for many reasons. I don't think it reflects the issue. The issue is not humans in general. The issue is a tiny part of humans that are on top of the social hierarchies within a system we call capitalism. As a term, it also seems to me that it feeds this wrong linear narrative of human evolution that has been widely adopted in the west (cultures that have been traditionally colonizing), unfortunately by almost everyone, even the left.

From the link you provided, it looks like in 2021 it was 4.2 not 7.5. Apart from that, this approach sounds too speculative to me, since the production comes from 2021 and the CO~2~ emissions quota from 2023. In the Drax chart it shows a decline in TWh produced from 2017 to 2021 (btw 2021 is also the year they retired coal). Still, assuming from this trend that their production few years latter continues to decline is something I would consider too risky to do.

• 2017 -> 14.9
• 2018 -> 11.7
• 2019 -> 10.2
• 2020 -> 7.5
• 2021 -> 4.2

The Ratcliffe chart has so many fluctuations till 2021 that I couldn't dare guess what their 2023 production was.

• 2017 -> 2.6
• 2018 -> 3.2
• 2019 -> 0.7
• 2020 -> 0.1
• 2021 -> 0.8

If I find the 2023 numbers, I'll add a comment or edit this one.