I think that is optimistic. Here's another graph:
bstix
joined 2 years ago
Look at this graph:
So.. draw your own conclusions.
I initially wrote a long analysis, but then I figured that these numbers are quite big to fuck around with. We'll find out soon enough.
De fleste flexjobs bliver ikke slået op, men skal søges uopfordret eller via netværk.
Har du overvejet Rema? De plejer at være gode til at tage fleksjobbere. Lidt for gode faktisk, men det er en anden historie.
Ignition had different boost sounds for each car.
Forsaken was pretty similar to Descent.
Access road.
I don't know an English term for it, but in Danish we call them pork chip properties because of the shape. It happens when someone splits their property to make a second house in the previous backyard.
Oxford Professor: Cycling is 10 times more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities
I don't think it's required to be a professor to tell this. It's pretty obvious that a 2 ton car is worse for the climate than a 15 kg bicycle. They also do completely different things though.
The article seems to bash on electric cars for no particular reason.
You know what would be even more environmentally friendly than even bicyling to work? Staying at home. Working from home could save a lot more and doesn't require infrastructural investments.
Anyway, the percentages mentioned are still quite low. It would make a larger difference to focus on other kinds of transport than personal vehicles.
There are larger fish to catch. One of them is the ships. A lot of them transport fuel. Changing personal transport to electric cars, regardless of how efficient they are or not, will also have the effect of lowering the amount of fuel to be shipped around. The environmental impact of distributing fuels is larger than the impact of personal vehicles, so by all means, we should change as many industries and transport forms to electricity instead of fuel, including personal vehicles.
This will be he same as when he had to call the Mexican president to beg him to say that they'd pay for the wall.
"Kiss me where the wind blows"
Yes sure.
Now, if you look at the change from the beginning of Trump's first term where the tariffs were increased by 10% points (from 10% to 20%) and to the end of Biden's term in which Trump's tariffs were maintained, the imports dropped by 100 billion - regardless of COVID.
That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you want to talk about.
But.. now Trump increases the tariffs by an additional 114% points. (From 20% to 134%)
Assuming there is a correlation between tariffs and imports, which is the very point of doing it according to Trump, that would mean that imports would have to drop 1140 billion. This is obviously not possible from a 400 billion import, so it's essentially putting a full stop to all trades with China.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well. It's great that USA is not paying China, but... where does USA get stuff from then? 400 billion dollars worth of stuff not being available in USA will definitely cause all kinds of issues.