![](https://jlai.lu/pictrs/image/1534339c-b696-4556-be8b-b7b6e9cd8aa5.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
A big reason is India is getting cheaper Russian gas and oil since Europe has stopped or lowered its imports.
I try to contribute to things getting better, sometimes through polite rational skepticism.
Disagreeing with your comment ≠ supporting the opposite side, I support rationality.
Let’s discuss to refine the arguments that make things better sustainably.
Always happy to question our beliefs.
A big reason is India is getting cheaper Russian gas and oil since Europe has stopped or lowered its imports.
Except for her monumental mistake of giving up on nuclear and consequently giving enough leverage to Putin to finance his imperialist plans peacefully.
How fucking cool is it to have a woman IPCC scientist as your president?
There was a cool hightech one where they hid an invisible motor inside the frame of the bike. It could not move the bike by itself but it added a few watts that gave a clear advantage. https://road.cc/content/news/uci-warns-it-impossible-use-motors-tour-de-france-309061
Could you quote the articles? I read them and couldn’t find the data that backs your claim. But maybe I missed it. As the person making the claim, it is your job to demonstrate it.
Ok, I got time to read it. Drones are only mentioned in one paragraph of the conclusion. Here it is:
‘Eco-friendly’ fireworks, which do not use perchlorate and have lower levels of heavy metals, do exist (Fan et al. 2021); the problem lies in their higher cost of manufac- turing (Palaneeswari and Muthulakshmi 2012). The future of ‘firework’ displays may lie in the use of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles. Drones and visible-wavelength lasers for light shows have the benefit of being reusable, have no emissions, and are quiet (Daukantas 2010; Zerlenga et al. 2021). Drones come with their own issues for wildlife, however, usually flying at low altitudes where there are most likely to come into contact with wildlife; a review indicated that many taxa react negatively to the presence of a drone (Rebolo-Ifrán et al. 2019). Even so, drone light shows are less likely to disturb animals, wild or domestic, with noise, nor do they deposit large amounts of pollutants.
The use of drones is an opening hypothesis, not the subject of the study. Impact of drones is not quantified, it is hypothesized to be lower. The linked papers that I have also checked also don’t quantify the impact but similarly mention it as a potential eco-friendly alternative.
Would you have a different reading of this article?
My mistake, I read the abstract too fast and too late, let me read it and get back to you.
No you don’t, that’s for fireworks, now we need the impact of drone shows to answer the problem. Would you have it?
Edit: I was wrong, it does mention drones.
Edit2: After proper reading. It only mentions it as an opening hypothesis in its conclusion. It does not quantify the impact of drones, which is what we need to understand if they are actually more eco-friendly.
Absolutely, fireworks also have emission in their while life cycle, so let’s get the data and compare. EVs are not zero emission and offsetting is not zeroing emission, it’s just compensation, pollution is still being produced and if everyone does that we will not reduce it. In fact EVs sometimes have higher emissions than thermic card at fabrication, but it has been demonstrated that they emit less during their full lifecycle.
I am not saying they are better. I am questioning if they are. Please don’t mistake my question as veiled disagreement, I am not a Xitter user. Someone claimed an objective opinion, and that supposed to have data and a study to back it, but there likely isn’t any yet. I am open to the possibility, I just want to make sure it is actually more ecological. It is objectively demonstrated for electric cars vs thermic cars, for fireworks vs drone show, it probably isn’t yet.
Zero emission at use, not at fabrication, probably not when recharging and not as electronic waste at the end. Yes, I am being serious, considering only emission during usage is a very limited view of what carbon footprint is. A view that is often used by companies for green washing. Do you also believe electric cars are zero emissions? Considering full life, knowing which one emits more is not trivial.
Objectively, so you have some data to back it up? Do you have the comparative carbon footprint of those shows?
Parent comment claims it would, so my questions refers to that.
The hack was performed by a 13 old Kenyan using ChatGPT to avenge his father, traumatized for life after being exploited by OpenAI to label images containing torture and pedophilia.
Are drones really less pollution than fireworks?
I’m not blaming the single person who did a mistake, I’m blaming the negligence of the companies that cut corners for profit, so most of them.
Your first comment read as if organizations where this happens couldn’t have bad consequences. Your new comment explains what you meant better, and I agree.
Ok, people will always fuck up, so what do you do?
The majority of industries that actually have immediate and potentially fatal consequences do exactly this, and have been for more than a generation now.
All the organizations (including public) getting ransomware and data stolen, it’s because the consequences are not that bad? It is not gross negligence?
2001 especially.
Left or right is an economic stance
What about the social stance?
It’s rather balanced. This article says 32% of women voted far right and 36% of men at the last EU elections. https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2024/07/05/legislatives-comment-le-rn-parvient-il-a-seduire-les-femmes_6246971_3224.html The fact that the leader of the far right is a woman and doesn’t have a virilist stance with sexist speeches probably plays a role. They keep an ambiguous stance on women’s right progressive laws.