The Green New Deal

[Adam Jensen]

Straight-up fascist thinking.

The only people who think persuasiveness is more important than truth are fascists and propagandists. Who care more about deluding you into obedience than they care about educating you so you can make an informed choice.

Like, there isn't any daylight between what Adams is talking about and fascist ideology. It's the same thing. This is not hyperbole of exaggeration, just simple observation.

I mean it's the same exact shit Hitler did.

"We will bring you law and order, we will bring you these socialist ideals, we will do better than the weimar republic"

Then when he gains power, his "law and order" rounds up and persecutes Jews (and other "untermenschen"), the socialist ideals are abandoned, and his regime practically destroys Germany in the deadliest war in human history.

But the the first two points, the law and order and the socialist platform, are precisely your point. Lies the Nazis told to gain power, they were items the Nazis had no real intent on following up on. They just knew what the current issues German people worried about and manipulated them.

And what did Trump and his ilk do? The same exact thing. Lied to coal miners claiming he can protect their jobs, lied to racists claiming he can protect them from hordes of diseased criminal Mexicans crossing the border (their words, not mine). Oh, and look at how they talk about Mexicans and dehumanize them . . . kinda like how Nazis talked about Jews and dehumanized them. They took issues that Americans worried about, and used them to manipulate people.

I got a lot of flack for comparing Trump to Hitler, but Hitler didn't start with war and concentration camps, he started with bellicose lies and a populist uprising (though thankfully Trump's rise was not violent, unlike the uprisings in the German 1920s.) Trump and his ilk were like the early Nazis, before 1933. And even though Trump did of course take power, thankfully American democracy was rigid enough that Trump wasn't able to go as far as Hitler could when Hitler took power.

This frustrated Trump and you could see it. He got into office and instead of being treated like a king, as he believed Obama was treated, people actually told him "no" for the first time in his life. While the Republicans did enable him, there was still enough pushback against Trump that he remained as restrained by his office as the Presidents who came before him.

But what scares me is that Trump was a buffoon; what happens when a smart Trump takes office?

[Shadowferal]

Well, the banking industry are pushing for internal changes for zero emissions...making a good show "completely offset all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050..."
Manchin seems offended by the idea

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) criticized major U.S. banks for setting goals to zero-out their carbon emissions within decades, arguing that they should take “a more realistic approach” to fighting climate change.

“I would hope that a lot of the larger financial institutions would take a more realistic approach, and not just a knee-jerking approach ... where shareholders are wanting to do this and that and everything,” Manchin said during the Independent Community Bankers of America's annual D.C. summit.

Along with targeting their own personal climate footprints, major U.S. banks have reduced their financing of oil and gas drilling projects, particularly within the Arctic region.

---------

Manchin is determined to be a special kind of loathsome...

[Adam Jensen]

Manchin is determined to be a special kind of loathsome...

I for one am sick of Manchin and Sinema getting in the way.

2050 is too far away. Should be done as soon as possible. Preferably this year, except that's completely impractical, barring a miracle.

[Dontrike]

Well, the banking industry are pushing for internal changes for zero emissions...making a good show "completely offset all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050..."
Manchin seems offended by the idea

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) criticized major U.S. banks for setting goals to zero-out their carbon emissions within decades, arguing that they should take “a more realistic approach” to fighting climate change.

“I would hope that a lot of the larger financial institutions would take a more realistic approach, and not just a knee-jerking approach ... where shareholders are wanting to do this and that and everything,” Manchin said during the Independent Community Bankers of America's annual D.C. summit.

Along with targeting their own personal climate footprints, major U.S. banks have reduced their financing of oil and gas drilling projects, particularly within the Arctic region.

---------

Manchin is determined to be a special kind of loathsome...

I can only wonder what a "more realistic approach" would be compared to reducing emissions over three decades.

[minteK917]

I dunno how a republican can ever be so fucking scared at all time. Democrat never pass any real gun legislation after all the mass shootings, yet you somehow think they will remove meat, what next you think they will remove sugar? Sex?

[some guy]

I dunno how a republican can ever be so fucking scared at all time. Democrat never pass any real gun legislation after all the mass shootings, yet you somehow think they will remove meat, what next you think they will remove sugar? Sex?

I give them credit when they go outside. I can only imagine how scary that must be when everyone is out to get you.

[Slant]

It's irrelevant because no matter what's in the Green New Deal environmentalists will say it's not enough and doom is still coming. There's literally nothing you could put in the Green New Deal that would make it so environmentalists are satisfied and not fearful of the future.

When scientific studies speculate that it may be already too late, this is the result. People like you dilly dallied around for decades, you don't get to complain that there are people who say it's not enough now. You get put in the passenger seat and pray it's enough, however much it'll be in the end.

- - - Updated - - -

I dunno how a republican can ever be so fucking scared at all time. Democrat never pass any real gun legislation after all the mass shootings, yet you somehow think they will remove meat, what next you think they will remove sugar? Sex?

Here's a secret of populism: It pays off to be scared. Fear is one of the strongest emotions in humanity, it's also at times one of the most irrational ones. Once you realise that, you see the gaping opening for manipulation.

The trick is to create fear, doesn't matter if it's real or not. Say I start talking about that one meteor that's aimed at Earth in 2022, you'd start getting nervous, right? It doesn't matter that there isn't one, it just sounds plausible enough that if I had made this claim for real, you'd go and look it up.

Now what do populists do? They just take something like migration, blow it up, create some fantasies about how immigrants are taking everyone's jobs... something you can never really verify, and if you do, you'll drown yourself or your listener in statistics. Good luck keeping people awake through THAT. And they promise the solution. They won't tell you what it is other than a very simple "We'll fix it! No more immigrants!"

Fat chance of "no more immigrants" ever being a thing, mind you. But they'll make the claim anyway, and they'll get votes, because people are stupid and when they're afraid, they become even supider and nothing is as realiable as "concerned" voters (or panic voters as I dub them). But they still have this fake problem they created, all those immigrants taking jobs, so now they gotta fix it, right?

Right. And they do it by not talking about it anymore. Nothing has changed except they're not riling people up anymore. Suddenly everyone feels safer, and to the stupid they even seem like they achieved their goal. Good job, eh?

It's a disgustingly simple ploy, and the only thing you lose is integrity and trust in democracy. Because guess what, if the serious politicians talk about an actual problem, who's going to start talking about fake news? That's right. Because only one side is allowed to scaremonger people. See, the problem is if you scare people all the time, that's no good either. Especially not if you're not doing the scaring, cos those stupid panic voters aren't reliably on your side anymore. So then you go ahead and discredit whatever serious, actual problem the other side presents. Further erodiing trust in the democratic system and losing more integrity.

And the kicker? All of that bullshit is covered by the 1st amendment. It's a direct attack on US democracy, and yet the US constitution somehow protects it. A hyperbolic statement would be that the US constitution has self destruct built into it.

Now, what's bugging me isn't even that, cos it's arguable obvious. What's not so obvious to most people is... this is just plain fraud. They create a lie for their own advantage and trick you into doing something you would normally not do. This is just plain old, criminal fraud. But somehow people are not prosecuting it. It seems if the crime is just big enough, there really is no punishment for it. All those petty criminals dreaming about the perfect crime. Well, stupid... you're too small scale. You need to ramp it up like a million times, don't defraud one person. Defraud an entire nation and they'll cheer you a hero, too! Give you bodyguards, a lifetime pension once you're out and those book deals are going to make you rich. Not to mention the bribes you can pocket along the way... that, ladies and gentlemen, is the perfect crime.

Don't be stupid and start wars. You can insult as many people as you like, but don't start a war.

[Endus]

When scientific studies speculate that it may be already too late, this is the result. People like you dilly dallied around for decades, you don't get to complain that there are people who say it's not enough now. You get put in the passenger seat and pray it's enough, however much it'll be in the end.

To put an end to the warming trend by cutting emissions?

It isn't really "speculation". Pretty much every analysis confirms we passed that point somewhere in the aughts, at the latest. If we cut emissions worldwide to zero literally tomorrow, the climate would continue to warm for centuries, unless some heretofore unknown major factor inserts itself. For years, the argument's been to stop feeding more "fuel" into that warming "engine", to try and keep the pace of warming down to a level we could hypothetically adapt to over time.

It's also why discussions of carbon sinks are starting to increase, and people are trying to find increasingly cost-effective techniques to go about capturing that carbon out of the atmosphere. The latest idea I've heard is growing mass amounts of certain plants with a high carbon-capture ratio, harvesting them once they finish growing, bundling and compressing them, and then dropping the massive bundles that produces into the deepest parts of the ocean. Decomposition down that deep is slow to potentially borderline nonexistent; the oceans already function as a carbon sink naturally through this process, where phytoplankton absorb carbon as part of their natural life process, and are either consumed or die themselves, the process of consumption eventually leading to the death of the consumer and it sinking to the bottom, where the carbon gets trapped.

Basically, this process, but accelerated through active human farming and dropping; https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2...limate-change/

We're already well past the point of preventing this. Now it's about damage control.

[Mayhem]

To put an end to the warming trend by cutting emissions?

It isn't really "speculation". Pretty much every analysis confirms we passed that point somewhere in the aughts, at the latest. If we cut emissions worldwide to zero literally tomorrow, the climate would continue to warm for centuries, unless some heretofore unknown major factor inserts itself. For years, the argument's been to stop feeding more "fuel" into that warming "engine", to try and keep the pace of warming down to a level we could hypothetically adapt to over time.

It's also why discussions of carbon sinks are starting to increase, and people are trying to find increasingly cost-effective techniques to go about capturing that carbon out of the atmosphere. The latest idea I've heard is growing mass amounts of certain plants with a high carbon-capture ratio, harvesting them once they finish growing, bundling and compressing them, and then dropping the massive bundles that produces into the deepest parts of the ocean. Decomposition down that deep is slow to potentially borderline nonexistent; the oceans already function as a carbon sink naturally through this process, where phytoplankton absorb carbon as part of their natural life process, and are either consumed or die themselves, the process of consumption eventually leading to the death of the consumer and it sinking to the bottom, where the carbon gets trapped.

Basically, this process, but accelerated through active human farming and dropping; https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2...limate-change/

We're already well past the point of preventing this. Now it's about damage control.

So what you're saying is "we're fucked".

[PC2]

So what you're saying is "we're fucked".

Except there isn't a single human metric that is "fucked" and doomed to decline. Name one human metric that can't be further improved while the climate is changing.

[Shadowferal]

Except there isn't a single human metric that is "fucked" and doomed to decline. Name one human metric that can't be further improved while the climate is changing.

You mean nothing that you'd ever accept as an argument. So just stop.

[Elegiac]

Except there isn't a single human metric that is "fucked" and doomed to decline.

Which Endus already pointed out by saying "if nothing is done". Sit down and be quiet for once in your natural life.

People like you insisting climate change isn't a problem are the principle reason that nothing substantive is being done; you are not helping and your opinion adds no value to this discussion.

[Mayhem]

Except there isn't a single human metric that is "fucked" and doomed to decline. Name one human metric that can't be further improved while the climate is changing.

wtf is a human metric?

[Elegiac]

wtf is a human metric?

Insert some bullshit about because PC2 saw Star Trek it means there isn't actually such a thing as resource scarcity, lol.

[Shadowferal]

Hmm...water restrictions in place next year for California.

- - - Updated - - -

wtf is a human metric?

Water usage is one.

[Mayhem]

Water usage is one.

Thanks, never read that term before.

Wait, so is land usage also one? Because rising sea level would probably fuck up a few things for uhm ahm idk 40% of the human population that lives in coastal areas.

[Shadowferal]

Thanks, never read that term before. Wait, so is land usage also one? Because rising sea level would probably fuck up a few things for uhm ahm idk 40% of the human population that lives in coastal areas.

Yes. Land use...or perhaps better to say land management use, would be another. Cold hard terms I'm not fond of using, but in terms of logic and reasoning regarding human usage that's what's needed.

[Endus]

So what you're saying is "we're fucked".

Depends on what you mean by "fucked". Underdeveloped nations are the most at-risk. It's more about the cost of adaptation (in terms of more than just dollars) than any inability to do so. The biggest issue thus far is government dragging their feet with these regards, because of conservative voices pushing disinformation. A lot of corporate groups are already making adaptations because they look further ahead than the next election cycle in their planning; I did some work with the International Development Bank a few years back to help them future-protect their expectations for development plans because they were well aware that many governments in Central/South America weren't being rigorous enough at the time (not all; some were VERY proactive about this stuff, but in our analysis there was a really wide range).

Except there isn't a single human metric that is "fucked" and doomed to decline. Name one human metric that can't be further improved while the climate is changing.

For anyone else following along, PC2 is a Stage 3 climate change denier; "it's real but it's not bad/harmful".
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial

I've pointed this out before, with concrete and well-supported scientific analyses, and he's just hand-waved it away, which is why I'm not bothering to speak directly to him, here; I'm still waiting for him to address the data he's ignoring;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53097572

[Felya]

Except there isn't a single human metric that is "fucked" and doomed to decline. Name one human metric that can't be further improved while the climate is changing.

Said the man literally responding to someone demanding improvement...

Edit: Does the pendulum ever stop at using the improvements we can make now? Is it always the equivalent of doing nothing, because you assume someone in the future will invent something better to ignore? Ridiculous...

[Shadowferal]

We can always improve...just not today because it's inconvenient.../s