In this NYT article they say that 55 percent of NYC households have no car, and this site claims a modal share of 30% for cars. So most NYC residents already use sustainable transportation, but not all of them.

It was probably Hans Niemann then

I recently read this and was surprised at how good it was. I loved Orwells Animal Farm, but didn't like 1984 that much, so I wasn't expecting to enjoy it; I read it more to get some insights of the war. But the book is not just informative, it is also really funny at times, and the story is just wild.

I second this recommendation.

In my experience (Dutchie living near the German border) the car culture of Germany isn't that big; it is mostly the industry. Yes, there are many cars and a few more people driving in big BMW than the Dutch average, but there are quite a few people on bikes too. Also, transit in Germany is quite decent, despite the governments efforts; and, contrary to the Netherlands, it is affordable. Meanwhile the UK cancelled part of their HSR system and the prime minister claims it is a "country of motorists".

Deutsche Bank I don't know about, so you may still be right.

Fair point. You probably could still build a metro, but because it would not be worth the cost it for a city of this size. But no soil should stop a tram from being built, only the VVD and co may do that.

Good luck! It seems to me like Eindhoven would be perfect for trams: a lot of major destinations, like the university, football station, ASML in Veldhoven and the airport. Add to this that the region will definitely grow a lot in the future and trams (or even a metro) should be a no brainer. The fact that the much smaller city of Enschede is actually going to look at trams potentially in the future, but Eindhoven doesn't, is absolutely crazy. Hopefully they'll change their minds.

This could very well be the truth. In LOTR and the Hobbit these despicable creatures seem pretty nice, but keep in mind that it was Hobbits who wrote all of that and they are in this case biased towards Hobbits. Furthermore, it's interesting that the Hobbits, who could barely read or write, had so much knowledge about their genealogical ancestry: this could merely be an oddity, but it could also mean that they made it up to erase any questions about their rights to the territory.

On top of that, when I was searching through my memory for proof of another theory I have, that Lobelia got screwed over by Bilbo, it seemed suspicious to me that despite their love for genealogy and the fact that they (at least before "the Hobbit") kept their homes to their family, or heirs, there is no mention of any inheritance procedure in any of the books, despite this being more relevant for the Hobbits who wrote the books than for example some random elven language. When Bilbo comes back in the Shire, he was declared dead, but there seemed to be an "auction" instead of an "inheritance". On the other hand, Bilbo bequeaths everyting to Frodo later on.

This use of words raises some suspicion. One possibility is that the "auction" was actually an "inheritance" and that Bilbo tried to invalidate Lobelia's claims to his inheritance in his writings. Tolkien may have omitted the part of the book where inheritance in the Shire is explained to make Bilbo more likable: this part of the book is necessary to make my Lobelia theory, which I will not explain here because it's too long, not just a theory, but a fact.

The other possible reason as to why there is no explanation of the inheritance procedure is because there was no such thing, because the Hobbits didn't live here for that long yet, increasing the probability of the theory mentioned in the above comment.

Furthermore, Sauron wasn't actually an eye, but he was seen by the Hobbits as such. The sun baby may have been angry at the Hobbits (see comment above this one); by showing himself as something resembling the sun baby, he (what even are the sun baby's pronouns?) made them recall the crimes they commited against the Teletubbies.

I may just be wrong though.

Somewhat beside the point, but cycling infrastructure makes most of these things way better too. Every year I do an inline skating time trial with a club where we use a bike highway: the asphalt is way smoother than anywhere else!

I am studying something related to biology, so I know something about this stuff. However, i am no expert either and there is some speculation in this comment.

Fish populations can grow at a certain rate. When there are very few fish, there are not enough fish to breed effectively. On the other hand, when there are too many fish, there is not enough food for everyone, leading to a smaller growth. Somewhere between this is the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). This is the point where the growth in population is the highest. If you want to do fishing sustainable, you need to make sure that at the end of the season, there is exactly as much fish as the MSY needs. This way, there will be more new fish next year than otherwise.

However, if you catch too many fish, rhe population will drop below the MSY-treshold. This means that next year, there will be less newborn fish, which means you can't catch nearly as much. If you continue overfishing, the population will very quickly die out. So after a few years of overfishing, there will barely be any fish left, which means that fishing sustainably leads to more fish in the end. It is a bit more complicated than this, and fish population depends on more factors, but this is the basic idea. This is what I know fairly certain.

I think the big difference between farming and fishing in this case is that with farming, you have less risk of the population dying out. Fishing is more like hunting: if you hunt too much Bison, they will die out. But with breeding cattle, the risk of cattle dying out is small.

There are a few other things though. If you farm crops unsustainably, the soil will lose its fertility, meaning you will in the end not farm as many crops, or you will need a lot of manure, which is not sustainable either.

On top of that, I believe I have heard some time ago, that sustainable farming does lead to better meat, but I may be mistaken I'm this.

Do you have any stories/articles about this you can share? I would love to hear more about it!

I don't know about interstate water systems. In Europe something of the kind is already there, but the ecological consequences are pretty bad. Unconnected rivers sometimes have their own species, but connecting the rivers will mean that species from one river can invade the other. This happened when they connected the Rhine and the Danube. I don't know how big the economic gains would be, but I feel like the world has damaged its rivers enough, with canalization and dam placements.

In the Netherlands beavers had been hunted into extinction by mid 20th century (I don't know exactly when they went extinct). In the 80s beavers were reintroduced from the DDR and now there are over 5000 beavers in the country. In western Germany populations have been rising too, and these are just what I know from the top of my head.

Beavers are definitely doing great right now around the world and that is uplifting news indeed!