I would say this headline is misleading. The first paragraph reads,

“A court in Paris ruled on Thursday that energy company TotalEnergies must account for its consumers’ greenhouse gas emissions, giving the French oil giant six months to report the environmental risks caused by the consumption of its gas and oil products.”

Also, further down,

“TotalEnergies expressed “satisfaction” that the court didn’t ban it from pursuing new oil and gas projects or force it to reduce oil and gas production.”

I’m skeptical they’ll even write the report.

I’m not trying to be rhetorical here, but genuinely curious. How can NDAs apply when a crime has been committed? If they can apply, shouldn’t that loophole be closed?

I never heard that one. Yikes.

There are legitimate complaints from the anti-immigration camp, resources reaching their limits and dwindling government support are real problems. I don’t see this as a factor of immigration, but rather the endgame of a system that feeds on more.

In the case of the UK, virtually every ‘anti-immigration’ Conservative government actually increased immigration more than the Labour opposition. I suppose no one knows the ‘benefits’ of cheap labour and infinite growth better.

My feeling is, until a balanced steady-state economic system is acheived, or even desired, immigration will remain a side-show. The proposed Swiss law says it all. When the population reaches 9.5 million, the government must ‘do something’.

Good luck.

It will never not astonish me how something as basic as trying to stop infinite growth on a finite planet has been politically transformed into let’s get rid of the brown people.

Knowing nothing about the hierachies in the PRC government …