Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday November 17 2019, @11:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the climatic-decisions dept.

The European Union's investment arm said Thursday it will stop funding fossil fuel projects from 2022 as part of a new strategy aimed at fighting climate change, in a decision environmental campaigners hailed as a "significant victory".

The European Investment Bank, the world's largest multilateral lender, had been criticised by climate groups for funding gas projects that potentially threatened the EU's commitment to the Paris climate goals.

But despite gas proving a potential sticking point, the EIB's board of directors—composed of state representatives and the European Commission—approved the new energy policy on Thursday.

"We will stop financing fossil fuels, and we will launch the most ambitious climate investment strategy of any public financial institution anywhere," EIB President Werner Hoyer said in a statement.

The EIB said the new energy plan would also "unlock" one trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) of climate action and environmentally sustainable investment over the next decade.

[...] Nineteen EU member states including France and Germany voted for the new policy, according to Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

But three countries—Poland, Romania and Hungary—voted against, wanting more flexibility for gas funding, as did Estonia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Malta, which abstained.

Austria and Luxembourg also abstained, objecting to nuclear power being eligible for funding under the new policy, Greenpeace and the WWF said.

The European Commission said it supported the new policy, and it voted in favour.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @04:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @04:02PM (#921253)

    That not investing in something did nothing to actually stop that thing unless everyone did it.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday November 17 2019, @05:41PM (22 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday November 17 2019, @05:41PM (#921273) Journal

    What's with the people who cling to fossil fuels in defiance of all reason and sanity? Even when fossil fuels plain cost more money and are less convenient, some still cling. I can only think it's a visceral dislike of change. In our daily lives, personal transportation in the form of the automobile has been the most visible and common gift of fossil fuel power. But it's been convincingly demonstrated that cars don't have to run on fossil fuels.

    What I find particularly ironic about conservatism and resisting change on this issue, is the utter disregard of the huge, huge change that the automobile itself is. If they were real conservatives, shouldn't they be clamoring for a return to real horsepower, produced by real, live horses?

    Very few seem interested in going back to the cathode ray tube TVs and monitors. No one really wants to give up their 65" flat screen for a 27" tube. True, vinyl records have seen a baffling resurgence that I put down to the loudness wars. It's an exception. In most other cases, in with the new, out with the old. Smart cell phones, LED lighting, the world wide web, laptops and personal computers, microwave ovens, etc. Fake conservatives, that's what they are.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @06:44PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @06:44PM (#921278)

      Khallow, paging khallow!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dwilson on Sunday November 17 2019, @09:33PM (8 children)

      by dwilson (2599) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 17 2019, @09:33PM (#921309) Journal

      Let's be clear up front here, I do think fossil fuels need to be phased out wherever possible. wherever possible != everywhere they're in use.

      I'm very much in favour of wind and solar being put in, and will happily pay a bit extra on my utility bill to help it happen. I would not be averse to living down the road from a Nuclear plant, provided it's a Gen III+ or Gen IV design. I think shutting down the Coal generating plants is long overdue, and that natural gas turbines are a reasonable interim solution while Wind/Solar/Nuclear get ramped up.

      That being said, your attitude comes across as an eco-nutter, like it's an all-or-nothing situation and how dare anyone intend to keep using fossil fuels. Sometimes, they're the right tools for the job, and will be for a long time.

      What's with the people who cling to fossil fuels in defiance of all reason and sanity? Even when fossil fuels plain cost more money and are less convenient, some still cling.

      Perhaps because at the current time, for some people, in some places, fossil fuels don't cost more money, and aren't less convenient. Since the rest of your post deals with automobiles, I'll confine my response to that.

      Example: I have two pick-up trucks, and both run on diesel fuel. One has a 'milage' rating of ~5L/100km and the other is roughly ~11L/km. Both are completely paid for.

      In no way, shape, or form is it cheaper for me to go drop $50,000 USD (up-front, of course. Buying with a payment plan means paying interest, potentially doubling the cost. For the sake of your argument, we don't want that) on the new Tesla pickup once it's available, vs keeping my current ones maintained and usable. I live and work on a farm; I do actually need a pick-up.

      I'll allow that it would me more convenient to only have one vehicle that can be used for everything, and to be truthful I could use the 11L/100km truck exclusively. It's newer, safer, in better shape and a nicer ride. But because I do care about my impact on the climate (and my wallet!) the 5L/100km truck is my daily driver. It burns less fuel, with a less-harmful pollution mix (It's naturally aspirated, so heavy on the CO2/CO and much lower on the NOx. On a modern Turbocharged diesel, that ratio is somewhat reversed). The newer truck only gets used for the really heavy loads, or long trips.

      So there you have it. No "defiance of all reason and sanity" involved. No "clinging to the more expensive and less convenient". When the cost of buying and maintaining an electric pickup drops below what the purchase+ongoing-maintenance costs of my newer truck, I'll buy one. Simple as that. That likely means buying a used one, since I bought these used as well. Fair's fair.

      I could also add that, in my case, having to put fuel in the tank is not more inconvenient than plugging it in to a power source. This is a farm, and -everything- runs on diesel fuel, and will until batteries stop sucking. Fueling my truck up involves driving it about three hundred feet, from the parking pad in front of the house over to the fuel tanks. The local Co-op delivers fuel by the truckload, straight to us.

      --
      - D
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @11:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @11:31PM (#921333)

        Wake me up when EU Bank refuses you personal loan (grin)

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday November 18 2019, @02:04AM (3 children)

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday November 18 2019, @02:04AM (#921372) Journal

        You talk as if I asked you and everyone to make huge sacrifices. I did not ask anyone to drop $50,000 on a new battery electric pickup. I'm talking about the kinds of weirdos who sacrifice in order _not_ to change their fossil fuel habits-- the kind of person who insists on driving from one store to another in the same strip mall rather than walking, even though just walking would be faster, or, worse, doesn't bother to plan at all, and impulsively makes two or more separate trips in one day, when they could have easily taken care of their business in one trip, and who drives around the parking lot two or three times trying to get that parking spot next to the door. I'm talking about the people who hit the drive thru every day, letting their engines idle while their orders are taken and prepared. The ones who sit in their cars for half an hour or more at a time, and run the engine for the A/C, instead of going inside. The kind of person who has no need of it but drives an expensive monster gas guzzler anyway, because they feel safer in a biiig car, and they want to show off and think that sort of vehicle impresses others.

        But that's the kind of stuff people do with any resource that's dirt cheap. Think nothing of putting 100 miles on the car every day, driving all over town or doing the hour long commute to work thing, spinning their wheels, then complaining there aren't enough hours in the day. All the worse that the price is artificially low because many of the costs have been externalized. Currently, where I live in Texas, I see gas prices ranging from $2.08 to $2.39 per gallon. That's amazingly cheap. The last gas spike was circa 2008, when gas hit $4 per gallon, and wow, were the monster gas guzzling SUVs being dumped in droves.

        Myself, a year ago I got a used Nissan Leaf, the very cheapest one I could find, in part so I could experience what it is really like to own a battery electric. (Also, I felt more comfortable getting that kind of car from the slimy used car dealership. Simply fewer potential problems for them to lie about.) An old Leaf is definitely not for everyone, not with a paltry range of just 50 miles, thanks to the batteries having degraded over the years. I have found the car to be of limited use. One unexpected problem is the wife freaking out because she fears the range is even less, and refusing to use it even for trips it can do. I have also learned that the public charging network is not reliable enough. So that limits the range to 25 miles. Sucks to have driven to some destination 40 miles away, only to discover that the charging stations are all occupied, or out of order, turned off or locked behind a gate for the night, or whatever, and be forced to wait 2 hours for a spot to open up and then 2 more hours to recharge enough to get home.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2019, @02:58PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18 2019, @02:58PM (#921516) Journal

          You talk as if I asked you and everyone to make huge sacrifices.

          Yes, I do. That's because I think you are asking us to make huge sacrifices that don't improve our situation on Earth.

          I'm talking about the kinds of weirdos who sacrifice in order _not_ to change their fossil fuel habits-- the kind of person who insists on driving from one store to another in the same strip mall rather than walking, even though just walking would be faster, or, worse, doesn't bother to plan at all, and impulsively makes two or more separate trips in one day, when they could have easily taken care of their business in one trip, and who drives around the parking lot two or three times trying to get that parking spot next to the door.

          Really? What of them and their minuscule additional emissions?

          But that's the kind of stuff people do with any resource that's dirt cheap.

          Indeed.

          All the worse that the price is artificially low because many of the costs have been externalized.

          Or don't exist in the first place. I don't see any point to making something more expensive merely because you don't like how someone drives around at the mall.

          Myself, a year ago I got a used Nissan Leaf, the very cheapest one I could find, in part so I could experience what it is really like to own a battery electric. (Also, I felt more comfortable getting that kind of car from the slimy used car dealership. Simply fewer potential problems for them to lie about.) An old Leaf is definitely not for everyone, not with a paltry range of just 50 miles, thanks to the batteries having degraded over the years. I have found the car to be of limited use. One unexpected problem is the wife freaking out because she fears the range is even less, and refusing to use it even for trips it can do. I have also learned that the public charging network is not reliable enough. So that limits the range to 25 miles. Sucks to have driven to some destination 40 miles away, only to discover that the charging stations are all occupied, or out of order, turned off or locked behind a gate for the night, or whatever, and be forced to wait 2 hours for a spot to open up and then 2 more hours to recharge enough to get home.

          In other words, a serious performance degradation over used fossil fuel-powered cars.

          • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday November 18 2019, @05:12PM (1 child)

            by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday November 18 2019, @05:12PM (#921582) Journal

            > Really? What of them and their minuscule additional emissions? ...
            > I don't see any point to making something more expensive merely because you don't like how someone drives around at the mall.

            That's disingenuous. How people drive around the mall is NOT the point. It is merely one example of how people unthinkingly burn fossil fuels unnecessarily, and by doing so, actually make themselves worse off.

            For another example, consider traffic lights. They absolutely could be better, in some cases a lot better, at minimizing the time cars wait at intersections. Most are essentially brainless, responding very mechanically to inputs from traffic sensors and timers. They can't handle changes in circumstances, such as a sports game letting out or a lane being closed for road construction, and will create a totally unnecessary traffic jam because they can't adjust their timing. The closed lane really messes them up, because no traffic at all is sensed in that lane.

            The worst kind of traffic light is the "political" light, the one that was placed or adjusted (or more like, maladjusted) not because it was really needed or a good idea, but because the strip mall tenants at that intersection clamored for it. If the tenants did no more, it wouldn't be so bad. But they also firmly believe that the longer they force travelers to sit at a red light, the more likely those travelers are to notice their stores and perhaps visit and buy, so they press local authorities to make a mess of the timing. If a privately owned toll road is nearby, the owners would also like the traffic lights to do a bad job, to push more people to take their toll road. Then there's the red light camera operators also wanting the lights set up to maximize red light violations, and safety and the environment be damned.

            > > You talk as if I asked you and everyone to make huge sacrifices.
            > Yes, I do. That's because I think you are asking us to make huge sacrifices that don't improve our situation on Earth.

            Not waiting as much at red lights is win-win. Definitely not a sacrifice, having to do less waiting at red lights.

            Here's another one: the hood ornament, and similar un-aerodynamic automobile features. One of the worst is the front grill with the massive openings. There is zero reason to let air blow past the sides of the radiator and swirl around in the engine bay. Dirties things up more under the hood, and reduces fuel economy. But people think more air intake equals more power, so for decades, manufacturers have been faking us out with useless air intake. Cars from the 1960s will have what appears to be a chrome lined grill opening, but behind the parts near the sides of the car, it's actually the body of the car, except it's been painted a flat black! And today, we still see that, with some of the cells blocked in what appears to be openings in a front grill in a grid style.

            > In other words, a serious performance degradation over used fossil fuel-powered cars.

            Doubtless you regard that move as a sacrifice. It wasn't. It was a trade-off. Yes, the low range is the worst limitation. But on the positive side, the car is super low maintenance. I love, love, love that part. No oil changes, no tuneups. And, no fumes from the tailpipe. Also, it's quiet. I can actually hear the radio at low volumes. And it's smooth and responsive.

            I actually dodged a tornado with the Leaf. Came around a corner, and saw tree branches whipping back and forth more and more violently, and stopped, trying to see what was going on all around, and figure if I should stay put, back or turn around, or resume travel in my original direction. I saw a tree branch seemingly just floating along, high in the air. Some door sized boards propped against a nearby wall lifted up and swirled away. Staying put was looking like a real bad idea. When the road in front of me cleared for a moment, and I saw calmer conditions ahead, I floored it. A gasoline powered car couldn't have got off the line as quick.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2019, @11:16PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18 2019, @11:16PM (#921735) Journal

              That's disingenuous. How people drive around the mall is NOT the point. It is merely one example of how people unthinkingly burn fossil fuels unnecessarily, and by doing so, actually make themselves worse off.

              Except that they aren't making themselves worse off.

              When the road in front of me cleared for a moment, and I saw calmer conditions ahead, I floored it. A gasoline powered car couldn't have got off the line as quick.

              You would need to downshift first.

      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday November 18 2019, @06:44AM

        by deimtee (3272) on Monday November 18 2019, @06:44AM (#921444) Journal

        It's still in pre-order, and I doubt they'll make a right-hand-drive version, but the Rivian pick-up/SUV models look nice.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMfxJEfb4lw [youtube.com]

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @09:32AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @09:32AM (#921461)

        So there you have it. No "defiance of all reason and sanity" involved. No "clinging to the more expensive and less convenient". When the cost of buying and maintaining an electric pickup drops below what the purchase+ongoing-maintenance costs of my newer truck, I'll buy one. Simple as that. That likely means buying a used one, since I bought these used as well. Fair's fair.

        Why is it so hard to think further than you can see outside of your window?

        It's not about your fucking truck! This is about the *FUTURE* policy. You know, like 10 or 30 years from now. And this is not about a fucking TRUCK! Will I have to repeat that again??

        This is about providing funding for things like COAL POWER PLANTS, or GAS POWER PLANTS, where there are alternatives that could be used TODAY. So instead of providing funding for a COAL POWER PLANT, the bank will now provide funding for things like SOLAR POWER PLANT or WIND POWER PLANT or PUMPED STORAGE instead.

        So, stop thinking about "me me me". No one gives a shit about your truck. This is about new, industrial scale capital projects. No one wants to see a COAL POWER PLANT funded today spewing shit into the air 60 YEARS in the future, when we are all dead. That's the purpose of this policy change.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2019, @11:19PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18 2019, @11:19PM (#921738) Journal

          It's not about your fucking truck! This is about the *FUTURE* policy. You know, like 10 or 30 years from now. And this is not about a fucking TRUCK! Will I have to repeat that again??

          This is about providing funding for things like COAL POWER PLANTS, or GAS POWER PLANTS, where there are alternatives that could be used TODAY. So instead of providing funding for a COAL POWER PLANT, the bank will now provide funding for things like SOLAR POWER PLANT or WIND POWER PLANT or PUMPED STORAGE instead.

          Alternatives that could be used at a higher price and reduced reliability. If ten or twenty years from now, the renewable+storage mix turns out to be superior to the fossil fuel mix, then we'll switch over without any drama. In the meantime, there's no reason to rush the future.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @09:39PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @09:39PM (#921312)

      What's with the people who cling to fossil fuels in defiance of all reason and sanity? Even when fossil fuels plain cost more money and are less convenient, some still cling. I can only think it's a visceral dislike of change.

      If the words "total rebuild of infrastructure" do not ring a bell, then the process you're indulging in cannot be named "thinking" even under the most lenient of definitions.
      Do make note that no natural catastrophe and no shooting war in the history of this planet ever caused an amount of damage that would require anything even remotely approaching that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @12:23AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @12:23AM (#921347)

        Do make note that no natural catastrophe and no shooting war in the history of this planet ever caused an amount of damage that would require anything even remotely approaching that.

        Tell that to the ca. 1945 (former) residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2019, @11:20PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18 2019, @11:20PM (#921740) Journal

          Tell that to the ca. 1945 (former) residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

          How many of the seven billion people alive today is that again? It's not even one part in a thousand.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Monday November 18 2019, @12:18AM (2 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Monday November 18 2019, @12:18AM (#921344) Journal

      I have no problems whatsoever with a ban on all fossil fuel tomorrow. But if some parts of the world,namely China Africa (a Chinese colony soon) and others do not apply the ban with the same strength, all we have achieved is hurting local industry.

      My problem is seeing the very same group of people who gave us the industrial age turning all green and environmentalist. But not in the direction of a pre industrial lifestyle, with little pollution and heavy reuse of goods built to last and be repaired. In the direction of heavy regulations making goods obsolete sooner. See cars. Who the fuck cares if the euro6 has lower emissions when the car weighs two fucking tons and idles looking for parking spots removed to make the city greener? I should have faith in these guys to take the right decisions? Who are the useful idiots? We'll see.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 18 2019, @12:43AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18 2019, @12:43AM (#921356) Journal

        But if some parts of the world,namely China Africa (a Chinese colony soon) and others do not apply the ban with the same strength, all we have achieved is hurting local industry.

        Brought to you from the "what if we create a better world for nothing?" saga - a mixture of "false dichotomy", "nirvana fallacy" and FUD.

        Are you saying that if we continue to emit more CO2, China Africa will stop?
        Or that if we can't reduce the CO2 emission under a level that triggers global warming then we actually should make the matter worse or get there faster just because we can no longer stop it?

        My problem is seeing the very same group of people who gave us the industrial age turning all green and environmentalist.

        I reckon you have bigger problems, many of which you actually chose to ignore.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday November 18 2019, @03:57PM

          by Bot (3902) on Monday November 18 2019, @03:57PM (#921547) Journal

          I am saying that if local industries do not compete FAIRLY, which means taking into account the difference in both worked rights and pollution impact, instead of letting the lower price win, our industries will (but I should use the present tense) die out and you will only have to deal with polluters. If you intervene with regulations and push to remove trade barriers at the same time we have a problem.

          --
          Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 18 2019, @04:24AM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18 2019, @04:24AM (#921425) Journal

      What's with the people who cling to fossil fuels in defiance of all reason and sanity?

      Those "clingers" don't exist for starters. It makes no sense to discuss this matter without considering that fossil fuels are used for many of the activities that make our societies work, like agriculture, transportation, electricity production, a huge portion of chemistry, etc.

      What I find particularly ironic about conservatism and resisting change on this issue, is the utter disregard of the huge, huge change that the automobile itself is. If they were real conservatives, shouldn't they be clamoring for a return to real horsepower, produced by real, live horses?

      No irony here. There's been a long, pathetic progression towards less effective technologies and ineffective and often destructive environmental strategies. For example, toilets that don't flush and laundry machines that don't clean, electricity and food that is much more expensive and less reliable, technology development projects that just shuffle tax payer funds to the right cronies, international treaties that are simultaneously too small and too destructive to parties with actual compliance requirements, and of course, it comes at the expense of the serious problems of the world like poverty, overpopulation, habitat destruction, reducing corruption, and so on.

      The positive nature of the car was easy to see. The positive nature of climate change rituals that don't even help are nonexistent.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @08:35AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @08:35AM (#921452)

        Thought you said you were going to get "on it", khallow! All you got is whining about your "no-flush" toilet? I have a solution for you: Leafblower! Gasoline powered if you must, but even electric, channeling all that California Nuke energy right behind your "bidness" and blowing it right on down to the fossil fueled waste water treatment plant! Take a dump for Exxon!

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday November 18 2019, @05:40AM (2 children)

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Monday November 18 2019, @05:40AM (#921438) Journal

      Even when fossil fuels plain cost more money and are less convenient, some still cling.

      If fossil fuels cost more, then why is electricity in places that have embraced renewables like California, Germany, and Denmark so expensive?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @09:52AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @09:52AM (#921463)

        If fossil fuels cost more, then why is electricity in places that have embraced renewables like California, Germany, and Denmark so expensive?

        https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=DE [electricitymap.org]

        It says €50/MWh. So about USD$0.06/kWh... or are you confusing the "mostly taxes prices dictated to end users" vs. the "industrial users price"? Or maybe you are not confusing, just stirring the pot with false information??

        • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday November 18 2019, @07:42PM

          by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Monday November 18 2019, @07:42PM (#921642) Journal

          That is a nice map, but I didn't see the price, just CO2 intensity. I assume you're right that it says 50 Euro / MWh somewhere, but perhaps you are confusing propaganda with reality. The costs of renewable energy are easy to obfuscate with accounting rules because of subsidies and the need for back-up generation when renewable production is low. What the end-user pays de-obfuscates the accounting.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @06:35PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @06:35PM (#921277)

    The Bank of China maybe?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 18 2019, @02:07AM (2 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 18 2019, @02:07AM (#921374) Homepage Journal

      Every other bank on the planet.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday November 18 2019, @01:07PM (1 child)

        by Unixnut (5779) on Monday November 18 2019, @01:07PM (#921479)

        > Every other bank on the planet.

        Quite. What will happen is that these projects will be financed by other companies and other banks, making them more money and giving them more influence in the countries that were loaned to.

        So other banks and countries prosper, while the EU slides further into irrelevance and economic self destruction in order to virtue signal. I would not mind so much, if I didn't live in the EU myself. At this rate I will have to start looking for a non EU country I can relocate to.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 18 2019, @02:01PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 18 2019, @02:01PM (#921497) Homepage Journal

          Whenever I consider expatriating, it's generally to here [wikipedia.org]. Probably be more comfortable to Brits on account of still keeping Liz on as monarch but they'd likely find the legal prohibition on homosexuality unfamiliar to say the least.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(1)