474
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
474 points (98.4% liked)
News
23634 readers
3426 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Luckily, the fossil fuel companies told us it isn’t anthropogenic and not to worry about this so we will be okay. /s
They’re also gunning for precedent of immunity from repercussions of wrongdoing through SCOTUS as we speak.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/09/fossil-fuel-allies-pressuring-supreme-court
Won't save them from the mobs and pitchforks.
I mean, that’s great and all, but you can’t reappropriate corporate funds with pitchforks.
We need punitive rulings and legislation.
BBQs would kill two birds with one stone: get rid of the stupid and feed the hungry masses.
That still doesn’t address the need for funds to be redistributed from oil companies to the alternative energy industry or carbon mitigation projects.
It’s not about revenge. We need to address the climate crisis, and they need to pay the fuck up.
So in other words, less Hannibal Lecter and more Robin Hood/Hackers/Mr. Robot?
That’ll work. A scoche of Superman 2/Office Space wouldn’t hurt either.
If you were mathmatically certain we were all going to die as a result of their actions, would your opinion still be the same?
I suppose I am more pessimistic when I look at graphs. It's not even about the most blatant damage, a lot of my concerns is based on the damage we aren't measuring. I think the game is over and we lost.
The pessimism is fair. I think the difference isn’t simply if we’re going to succumb to extinction, but also when and how. I’m going to die one day, regardless of climate change. If I have more money, I can extend that time and reduce suffering. The same can be said for humanity.
For example, we’re very likely to face food supply constrains first. Since most food corporations turn their profits into shareholder value, they won’t have the means necessary to combat the inevitable climate obstacles, and will immediately turn to governments for assistance. The same can be said for insurance corporations and coastal residents or those in wildfire zones.
you're writing, on the one hand, "it's not about revenge"
and i'm writing, on the other, that these oil-executives could make "moloch happy with a feast"
(i am not advocating for that specifically, but i am saying others could advocate for that)
in a way, I think we are actually saying the same thing, only you're saying it in terms of civil judgments and i'm saying it in terms of large hot statues of moloch filled with oil executives.
what if it's not 300 years until human extinction? what if it's 30?
Would you still be so civil?
Perhaps the scientists lighting themselves on fire to try to get us to notice the problem weren't protesting in a calm civil nice manner because it's really that bad.
What if we aren't saying the same thing? What if you are part of the problem with your civility?
My civility can successfully reappropriate funds. Your oil boiling will only pass the funds to their beneficiaries and land you in prison.
Beneficiaries? Reappropriation?
Although I appreciate all these big words, I am trying to point out that collapse could occur much sooner than we all realize.
I am not actually suggesting "oil boiling," I was using the idea of a hot statue of moloch filled with oil executives as a allagorical simile and metaphor for people being upset.
My point is, civility may become more blatantly meaningless when the biosphere becomes more visibly in a state of complete collapse, and then all the buddhism and jesusism and sitting under a tree or behind desks and calmly talking about words isn't going to undo a collapsed biosphere.
I get how jesusism and civil complaints and erudishun have a place in society, but many people may care about those things less when the biosphere reaches a tipping point and the collapse becomes undeniable.
You are saying the normal liberal socially acceptable thing, let's have civil respectable accountability and change the future. But in the future, with a biosphere collapse, it may not be the normal thing to say. I'm sure when the new tropes come, you'll be ready.
(Which is exactly when someone.... not me... rolls in a giant metal hollow statue of moloch, conveniently on a pair of wheels... ready as a symbol... of accepting the future)
based on the math, it's likely too late and we're all going to die. so given that, are you saying emotional catharsis of holding accountable the greedy religious idiots who have fucked the world is somehow bad?
some would disagree and say let's bring back moloch for all the religious flat-earth global-warming-isn't-real-bibletard-oil-avaricious-fucktwads who destroyed us all and start our own warming
some would say, if we're all going to die, shouldn't the global warming deniers at least make moloch happy with a feast?
i wouldn't say that, but some would
I agree, I don't think vigilante mob justice is the way to go. If the rule of law stops working for the people, they'll find another way, that's all I'm saying. The SCOTUS should do the right thing, appropriate assets should be seized for damages and distributed to those affected.
if the mob is big enough, and things are written down and symbols added to paperwork and ceremonial clothing added into the mix, is it really vigilantism still?
You can reappropriate board members' internal organs, though.
I think that's a nice idea of a statement like Jesus loving you unconditionally.
Not helpful really and probably not exactly true.
For that to be true you kinda need to get people to form a mob
I've also been told that despite emitting close to a third of the world's over all emissions, China produces less per capita than some developed countries so climate change is giving them a pass.
So that's a third taken care of right there!
That’s the scapegoat argument from US industry and politicians. The only reason the US is second to China in carbon emissions is because of the excessive outsourcing of US manufacturing to China.
The US is responsible for the most carbon emissions worldwide.
Who controls the manufacturing processes in China? Who accepts the manufacturing contracts? Who controls their energy grid?
Gotta keep that finger pointed, huh? I’m American, and I’m fully aware of our massive contribution to carbon emissions, and the responsibility that puts on our industry and consumers to reduce and mitigate. Pointing fingers at China gives American industry a false benchmark for comparison.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/
Implying that the US needs to not only retrofit their own grid but also China's is nonsensical...
China has benefitted economically from their emissions, they are the second largest economy in the world. They're not some backwater third-world country at this point, they can afford to take responsibility for getting their own emissions under control. They in fact must, because no one can afford to fix their problems for them.
Perhaps they could save on emissions by closing down some of their concentration camps.
Manufacturing creates emissions. Period. The US outsources over 84% of its manufacturing to China, so the emissions generated by said manufacturing are effectively US emissions. Climate scientists agree. Politicians and US industry deny responsibility.
https://www.scmr.com/wp_content/e2open_wp_outsourcing_mfg_011316.pdf
And not just the US. The whole western world effectively runs on Chinese coal.
And when China get around to outsourcing it all to Africa which is already on the way to being China's China, we'll still be running it all on fossil fuels.
You can try taxing everything based on its ecological footprint, sanctions on non-complying countries, etc, but all that will mean in the long term is prices will go up, people will feel poorer, and you'll be voted out in favour of somebody who doesn't give a shit.
That’s true. I’m only saying that when you add the carbon emitted by US industry in China to the total of domestic emissions, the US is the world’s leading contributor.
It’s time we stop allowing US industry to point the finger at China by parroting that falsity. The US could produce domestically and responsibly, or outsource to a climate responsible nation, while consumers become more mindful of offending products. That won’t happen as long as we continue to blame the nation making our products for making our products.
No...the manufacturing is occurring in China, it's literally coming out of chinese facilities that are controlled by the Chinese state and industry management. One could just as easily say it's China's responsibility to turn down manufacturing contracts based on their inability to take those contracts without delivering huge amounts of CO2.
It's entirely unrealistic to think the US can or should fix China's grid and industrial processes. It's literally a non-starter and is essentially just saying China is "owed" the right to pollute because other countries did in the past.
And even if you actually believed what you're claiming, what is the solution here? The US scales back manufacturing and craters the world economy (including for China's)? Or are they suppose to pay their own GDP out to China so the Chinese government doesn't have to scale back their imperial ambitions and focus on solving domestic issues that are destroying the planet? Where do you realistically think China is going to put that hypothetical payday if they're already unwilling to scale back their own wasteful, ancillary domestic programs?
You're trying to pretend China isn't the second largest economy in the world, it's just not convincing. It's way more efficient for countries that can afford to fix their own emissions, like China and the US, to do so and then help poor, developing countries that actually need financial and material support meet their climate goals.
Pretending the US can fund the entire world's transition is, frankly, idiotic because your same backwards-looking logical gymnastics can be applied to almost every country that is smaller than the US. It's an unserious solution.
All I’m saying is that climate scientists confirm that US manufacturing demands are creating a large portion of the CO2 from China, so the US should stop using them as a scapegoat, and accept responsibility as the world’s largest contributor to climate change.
It doesn’t need a wall of text to combat.
There is no "scapegoat", it's politically and financially impossible for the US to "take responsibility" for China's grid emissions, even tankie's should be able to understand that hard reality.
It's the Chinese energy production that's driving climate change, what they are choosing to do with that energy is irrelevant, whether it's manufacturing for other countries or running a billion surveillance cameras, it's their unsustainable grid that creates the emissions. The US cannot force China upgrade their power grid.
We could produce domestically and responsibly, outsource to a climate responsible nation, or reduce consumption of offending products. It’s on us, and pointing the finger at China for making our Walmart plastic junk doesn’t address anything. It further obfuscates the problem and justifies our current emissions as “2nd largest” contributor when we in fact lead the world in emissions.
Yup, you're almost there, now what does that make China then? What makes producing Walmart plastic junk more acceptable in a climate responsible nation?
What puts the actual CO2 into the atmosphere? The product itself or the process and grid powering the creation of that product?
To solve the climate crisis the ~1 billion people in global north will absolutely need to significantly bail out the global South. There is no clear development path that doesn't go through heavy fossil fuel usage, and it should go without saying we probably can't even improve the living standard of another billion people, let alone seven billion without basically just giving them money and technology to skip the fossil fuel step. Countries in the global north have actually agreed to this framework, it's just that noone has actually made good on the promise yet. So... not only is it not nonsense... it's an active dispute between developed countries and developing countries.
China is not the global south, the hell are you on?
So you're essentially saying exactly what I was criticizing at the very beginning, that China gets a free pass for their emissions and are entitled to pollute, that the climate will forgive them and the US will somehow magically save the day and bail out the second largest economy on the planet while China ramps up their own unsustainable consumer culture.
What are you knuckleheads going to be saying as China continues to shift from manufacturing useless shit for other countries and is instead producing the same shit for their own population? It's literally already happening right this very moment. Is the climate going to give them a pass for those emissions too because "US bad"?
Your politics have made your conception of climate change completely incoherent. The climate simply does not care if China really really wants to be an empire and feels that they're entitled to unsustainable growth. The gas they are producing in their country, both in manufacturing and in their other sectors, is the single largest concrete thing fucking the planet up. The US could finish switching their manufacturing chains away from China tomorrow and China would still be producing massive amounts of emissions.