Vincent Welsch

🔴 Für Freiheit, Frieden, Fortschritt | @MERA25_DE

[klimareporter° @Klimareport]

Big-Tech-Unternehmen bauen weltweit Tausende neue Rechenzentren. Doch die Datencenter verschwenden Strom und Wasser, an vielen Orten erhebt sich Protest. Allein 2025 wurden so in den USA fast 50 Serverfarm-Großprojekte verhindert. https://t.co/lLCHAMOUnj

[MERA25 Hessen @MERA25Hessen]

Technologische Souveränität sieht anders aus! Der Vorstand von MERA25 Hessen zum rasanten Ausbau der #Rechenzentrum-Infrastruktur im Rhein-Main-Gebiet.
https://t.co/fN7IXTYyDg

[Vincent Welsch @VincentWelsch]

@ArnoGottschalk @adam_tooze Das klingt für mich nicht gerade wie ein Dementi, lol. Meine eigenen Texte verfasse ich jedenfalls noch selbst, aber danke für die Anregung. 👍

[Vincent Welsch @VincentWelsch]

@ecb @Lagarde @LesEchos "We had to raise rates because of the external supply shock" aaargh

[Lukas Scholle @lukas_scholle]

Bei diesen marginalen Entlastungen bei der Einkommenssteuer wird die Belastung durch die Beitragserhöhung der Kapitalrente zu einem realen Nettoverlust führen.

Das ist keine Politik der Entlastungen sondern der Belastungen.

[Tilo Jung @TiloJung]

Madness

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

What makes it even weirder is that this Palantir manifesto is in complete and total opposition to what Jacob Helberg (the ex-Palantir advisor now running the US government "Pax Silica" initiative) is saying 👇https://t.co/Z1rotPl9Ee

Helberg is passionately arguing **against** AI sovereignty - basically saying that countries should not be sovereign AI-wise and all run on the US AI stack. That's the very essence of his Pax Silica initiative: locking countries in the US AI stack and **preventing** AI sovereignty (see my article on "The Pax Silica con": https://t.co/B7lY2ZTRSZ).

There is little doubt that Palantir's manifesto is, in part, a response to Helberg (who is, immensely stupidly, openly saying that US's tech runs in direct opposition to countries' sovereignty - which isn't exactly good publicity for Palantir, all the more because that's exactly the type of accusations they're facing).

They write that, on the contrary, sovereignty is "the precondition for choice," that you need to "control your weights or lose your fate" and that anyone who tells you to transfer data to them "is likely to exploit it for their gain and your loss."

I can't believe I'm writing this but Palantir is right.

Right, yes, but without a doubt for a very cynical purpose: to whitewash the fact that they are part of the problem - they're precisely what countries need to be sovereign **from**. They are ironically, alongside OpenAI or Anthropic, the kind of sovereignty threat their own manifesto warns against.

As such, their manifesto should be read as correct in principle but a transparently cynical attempt at gaslighting in practice.

[DG MEME 🇪🇺 @meme_ec]

+++ Commission launches infringement procedure against the weather for repeatedly exceeding the 35°C threshold established under the Maastricht Summer Convergence Criteria, regretting that the weather has not taken effective action to correct its excessive heat imbalance.

[Patrick Kaczmarczyk @pat_kaczmarczyk]

Gott sei Dank ist es nächste Woche wieder kühler. Dann kommt einem der Rollback der Energiewende wieder wie eine rationale Wirtschaftspolitik vor.

[Vincent Welsch @VincentWelsch]

@federalists How does he do it? How does he come up with such an inspiring message of vision and hope? 🤩

[Nate Soares ⏹️ @So8res]

Agreed. If we don't ban superintelligence, it'll be the end of history.

[DiEM25 @DiEM_25]

This heat is not only a climate emergency, it is class war. The rich burn the planet, then buy air conditioning, private pools and second homes while workers are left in overheated flats, unsafe jobs, failed public services and burning cities. Climate Action Now!

[Vincent Welsch @VincentWelsch]

Cannot comprehend the outrage over this. Doesn't seem like it would be so different from typical #eurocrat workplace culture after all.

[Jason Hickel @jasonhickel]

This is an important new paper.

When we allocate responsibility for emissions, it's normally in terms of consumption. We tally up direct household emissions (eg, from household energy use) plus the emissions embodied in all the stuff that a household consumes.

But this creates a problem, because households do not control the conditions under which that stuff is produced. The energy and production techniques, which determine the emissions content of goods and services, is decided by those who own the means of production - mostly the capitalist class, and to some extent governments.

Scholars have argued that owners should therefore be held responsible for emissions from production they control, given they have the power to produce differently, such as by using renewable energy, or by investing in less damaging forms of production.

When we account for private ownership-based emissions, together with government ownership-based emissions and direct household emissions, the richest 1% are responsible for 30% of global emissions, and the richest 10% are together responsible for a staggering 60%.

These are the people who are driving climate breakdown. Climate change is class war.

But these results should be understood as conservative. I would argue that even direct household emissions should be assessed at least in part in terms of energy-system ownership. When households cook or heat water for showers, they usually have little control over the source of the energy, i.e., whether it is fossil fuels or renewables. That is decided by the people who own the energy system.

The fact that so much of our energy system is still provided by fossil fuels is not the fault of the working classes, it is the fault of those who own and control the energy system - which is mostly capitalists, and to some extent governments (which are in turn often captured by the capitalist class).

So households may be responsible for the quantity of energy they use, but they cannot reasonably be held responsible for the additional emissions produced by fossil-fuel sources if renewable sources could be provided instead. Perhaps one methodological solution here would be to allocate emissions to households *as if* their energy use was provided by currently available renewables, and allocate the rest to the owners of the energy system.

The paper is by @lucas_chancel and Yannic Rehm in Nature Climate Change: https://t.co/iLIO9vnBvR

[E L H O T Z O @elhotzo]

Man kann die AfD und die CDU nicht miteinander vergleichen, die eine Partei spricht die ganze Zeit davon Migranten zu entrechten und Sozialleistungen radikal zu kürzen und die andere Partei setzt das tatsächlich um

[Daniela Gabor @DanielaGabor]

they called him the Maestro, but in 2008, Greenspan had to accept that his free market ideology was wrong and it inflicted a global financial crisis on the world

[Vincent Welsch @VincentWelsch]

@yanisvaroufakis Completely forgot about that guy still being alive for the past few years, lol.

[Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn]

Keir Starmer could have ended child poverty, homelessness and the grotesque levels of inequality in this country.

Instead, he abandoned those in need, destroyed our civil liberties and facilitated genocide in Gaza.

That is how this Prime Minister will be remembered - and that is the legacy of moral and political bankruptcy he leaves behind.

The crises in our society are not going away. Neither are we - and we will keep fighting for a more equal, peaceful and dignified society for all.

[Vincent Welsch @VincentWelsch]

Seit gestern ist @MERA25_DE die wahrscheinlich erste deutsche Partei, die sich explizit für ein Moratorium für den Neubau von großen privaten KI-Rechenzentren ausspricht. Mein diesbezüglicher Programmantrag zur diesjährigen Bundesmitgliederversammlung wurde einstimmig angenommen.