"If we do not start reducing global emissions over the coming decade, plausible scenarios to limit warming to below 2C will move out of reach as well."
Aren't we already plausibly tracking roughly +2.7 °C or so?
We are 100% going to hit +1.5 °C already in the early 2030s.
Aviation is only about 2% of the whole CO2 emissions worldwide.
Over 60% of emissions come from things like transport of goods and people using cars, heating/cooling of homes, industry (iron/steel, chemical/petrochemical, ...) and so on.
70% of annual emissions come from outside of USA and Europe. Cumulatively USA and EU still dominate.
You don't have to buy expensive garbage like Gatorade! You can make an electrolyte drink yourself and save money.
Warm everything together while mixing to dissolve the sugar, then allow to cool fully.
You can add some flavor when it has cooled. Lemon, or lime, or artificial flavor if you prefer...
Put it to a bottle, it's ready to go.
Don't give this to small kids without diluting, they cannot handle a lot of salt. For kids (under 1 year), adjust with water, rule of thumb it should taste like at most teardrop level saltiness. Over 1 year can drink as-is. If in doubt, give under one-year olds something from the pharmacy to get the salt amount correct.
Edit: typoed spoons, please check
Toundra is a great suggestion indeed!
Iceland: Sunna Gunnlaugs
Finland: Joose Keskitalo
Germany: Colour Haze
Poland: Weedpecker
Sweden: Bob Hund
You really think that the full officer's name won't leak somehow?
I am almost certain the officer's name will leak if it already hasn't. There are plenty of people with political interest one way or the other to make it public. Or simply someone greedy enough for a scoop to build their journalistic reputation.
As for "look the other way", once the police work and field decisions gets politicized enough, this can happen. And case Nahel is politicized to the max due to the scale of follow-up rioting. For example, I recommend to check what happened in Baltimore post-2015. The part from David Simon, a Baltimore police reporter, is interesting here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/02/baltimore-murder-rate-homicides-ceasefire
FYI I brought up USA and case Baltimore as people are people, and they function in the same way in USA and Europe. The police profession is similar in its mechanisms in both countries -- law determines what is allowed to be done, law is words on abstract level and vague enough to push final per-situation decision authority to the field operatives. I expect the same behaviour of "look the other way" to occur in Europe, too, when given the same systemic setup, that is: heavy consequences from interpreting conflicting/vague requirements "wrong" in a split second decision, where the "wrong/right" is ultimately determined after the fact over several months with much more information.
Yes, I agree and I am sure they will investigate this case thoroughly. It will be interesting to follow it, there are so many levels it impacts (legal, political, national security, ...).
Server update ate my reply, sorry. Here's a summary from the top of my head. It is incoherent, my apologies.
From what I know, mixed messages about the law. A researcher from CRNS has said recently that the law is vague, but DPGN (General Directorate of the National Police) said years earlier that the law makes police more effective. The police has to my knowledge complained about lack of training.
I doubt legislative change will make a difference since police is only one side of the equation; the repeating customers of the police generally do not follow the law at all and also have a mindset of ignoring the police.
The questions which have to be firstly clarified in court/parliament/elsewhere are: 1. should police try to stop cars at all, and, if so, 2. should police allow stopped cars to flee.
I believe the answers are "yes" and "no", because anything else is the same as ignoring reckless driving and basically a decriminalisation of ignoring the police and the law.
As for how to stop a car... There is no good way to do it in an ad hoc traffic check against an uncooperative, fleeing driver. Shooting the driver is the only way, and there is a really narrow window to do this.
Shooting tires won't stop the car, it may make the car harder for the driver to control or accelerate. Depending on the car type (FWD, RWD, 4X4), the car may still be able to accelerate, with possibly less control, thus putting surroundings in more risk.
Nonlethal devices like gas or taser do not work if the driver window is closed, or if the car moves too fast.
Shooting at the engine may not have effect. Also, it can be difficult to hit the engine at all from the position and angle where verbal commands are likely given (front, near driver window). Furthermore, if the car accelerates quickly, there is a danger of hitting the passengers, bystanders or the driver while aiming at the engine.
In a planned traffic stop, one can have spike mats and obstacles etc. which can help stop a car. These are obviously not available if the car stop is done ad hoc by patrolling police, such as two motorcycle police in this case.
All in all, the police officers truly have a shit sandwich on their hands with these kind of cases, even if they follow the law to the letter.
PS. Not sure if you are aware of events in Baltimore in 2015 but it is interesting in this context. After the death of Freddie Gray, police started ignoring criminal activity to avoid going to jail for "wrong arrest". The effects of this behaviour could be seen on the crime level of Baltimore.
I understand your point and I even agree with it.
However, the law applying to the French police force, after the 2017 terror attacks, specifically allows use of firearms against drivers who flee traffic stops, even if the officer(s) are not under immediate danger.
Now, if the police has to, as the situation develops quickly, start weighing possible consequences of letting or not letting a fleeing car go because of the driver's possible ethnic background, age, etc., they WILL certainly play it safe and not do anything, if the consequences of a wrong decision for the officer and/or their family end up being economically catastrophic.
Yes, I agree, there is certainly the "screw you"-angle in the crowdfunder! Just look at who created it.
Regardless, there is another angle, perhaps unintentionally, and I think it is more important in the big picture:
The officer will likely never work as a policeman again, regardless if he goes to jail or not.
He likely ends up unemployed, and will probably have a hard time finding work for the rest of his life because of the reputation he has obtained.
If the consequences for a police officer following their training -- crime happens, suspect does not comply to verbal commands, suspect needs to be stopped per training, in this case firearms were allowed -- is that the officer's life will be destroyed and also their family will suffer tremendously and ends up losing whole or half their income, what do you think happens next time when police has to uphold the law?
The police will choose to look the other way and let whatever is happening take place. This is very bad for society as a whole in the long term.
Where did I say this?
I don't think he deserved to die! I also don't think the police shot him for fun and/or for being of North African descent.
Like the article says, the crowdfunder is for the family of the officer (as the officer is likely going to jail). French authorities would have immediately stopped a crowdfunder going directly to the officer, as that would be illegal per French law.
This is s tragedy all-in-all but what I would like to know: Nahel M. was 17, therefore driving illegally (no license), why was he doing this? Why didn't he stop at the checkpoint? Why try to drive away? Was it a stolen car (it had Polish plates)?
Sadly, had Nahel M. stopped and done what the police say, I believe Nahel M. would still be alive. They would have certainly arrested and charged him (reckless driving, no license, possibly stolen car, and so on). Perhaps Nahel M. was afraid of being arrested like this, possibly a justified fear based on his experiences in the banlieue.
However, his attempt to drive away suggests he was aware of his actions being illegal and he wanted to avoid the consequences. Why would one do something illegal in the first place, if one wants to avoid consequences with the police?