Yes, though animal agriculture is big enough that we need to address it in addition to fossil fuels.

Took down the misleading comment.

So long as people aren't all identical, they'll have plenty of ability to engage in needless hate

Yes. They don't see an emphasis on it in the media they consume

Try the short version of the gift link: https://share.inquirer.com/4ayTXy

Click the link to find out. It's a gift link, so anybody with JS turned on should be able to access the article.

It's a gift link. Anybody with Javascript turned on has free access already

There's a third type: those who think that the President should be bound by law and constition.

This happens to be a nonprofit, which while funded by congress, has some level of independence. The President isn't supposed to be able to shut it down like this, and it took coercing the guards's boss and having cops break into their offices to get to this point.

During Trump's first term there were still Republicans who cared about things like:

• Constitution
• Law
• Good Governance

They've all been purged now.

In the US, unless the outcome is changed as a result of an appeal, yes.

It's not a direct impact; it's that the ad buys get the oil folks access in a way that you and I don't have. The journalists end up at things like conference panels with oil folks, and not so much with activists or scientists, and the editors choose who to put on a given story.

The NYT takes huge ad payments from the oil industry. Industry reps get regular access to reporters in non-news contexts as a result, and this spills over into the background beliefs and attitudes a lot of them have