Still some solid work. Thanks for saving us all from the unreasonably harrowing ignorance of not knowing exactly where a random picture on the internet was taken.
First I assumed you lived close by, but then I saw in your username that you are Czech. So now I assume that you are some geoguessr wiz that can recognize any shopping center in the world from a reflection in a bus window.
I don't expect a conservative backlash, on the contrary Francis's Pontificate has weakened the conservative wing considerably. Given that 80% of the voting cardinals were appointed by Pope Francis, I would expect them to elect a successor that continues in the same direction, perhaps even a more radical one.
During his pontificate Francis also made a lot of efforts to bring in new groups into the corridors of power. Not only by his appointment of cardinals, but also e.g. by reforming the Curia with Praedicate evangelium.
See also Magna Carta (An Embroidery). It's an 1.5 m × 13 m embroidery of the entire Wikipedia article on Magna Carta.
When I first heard about it, it seemed like an absurd waste of time, but it turned out to be quite neat. The documentary video explains the project pretty well (07:39 long).
1 gallon gasoline contains 31 million small calories, while the human caloric requirements are given in large calories. 1000 small calories = 1 large calorie. So the calculations are off by a factor of 1000. The confusion stems from the fact that both are commonly referred to as "calories", for some stupid reason.
So in reality you would have to drink another gallon in just 2-3 weeks.
The figure 80% needs to be nuanced a bit. The reason for such a drastic decrease is that there is a lot of forest land in Sweden. In 1990, the emissions were 71,6 Mt CO2eq, while the absorption was 51,39 Mt CO2eq. In 2023, the emissions were 44,22 Mt CO2eq and the absorption 41,22 Mt CO2eq. The net emissions did indeed decrease >80%, but that was because forests made them low in the first place. If we look the emissions only, they only decreased 40%, which is still a good achievement, especially since the population has grown, but far from 80%. Source, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
So to a large extent the amazing figure is due to geographic luck. It's not very easy for other countries to copy this solution unless they also are lucky enough to have lots of forests.
It might also be worth noting that if you look at Sweden's consumption based-emissions instead, they are about twice as high as the emissions withing Swedish borders. Ourworldindata publishes consumption-based emissions for all countries, and by that measure Swedish emissions are low by European standards, but many countries have lower emissions and Sweden is by no means an outlier. (Note, numbers don't agree with those from Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, probably due to different methodology.)
Indeed, there is are significant difference between the maps. Perhaps most notably in Baden-Würtemberg where there seems to be a lot of fir. But I also think there is a a clear correlation between the maps. I also find it interesting to see the correlation between the suitable habitat for oakwood and the absence of forests.
You think so? My impression of the Netherlands is that the staple food is fries with mayonnaise, maybe with some broodje kroket in between. In general the diet consists of a lot of butter, white bread and sugar. To me it does not seemt surprising at all that they eat least vegetables in Europe.
