• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals

Northern Light

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
8,744
Reaction score
5,358
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals

While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant. The breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an astonishing 71%. You tinker with those pens or that panel; they go on torching the planet.

The freedom of these corporations to pollute – and the fixation on a feeble lifestyle response – is no accident. It is the result of an ideological war, waged over the last 40 years, against the possibility of collective action. Devastatingly successful, it is not too late to reverse it.

The political project of neoliberalism, brought to ascendence by Thatcher and Reagan, has pursued two principal objectives. The first has been to dismantle any barriers to the exercise of unaccountable private power. The second had been to erect them to the exercise of any democratic public will.

Its trademark policies of privatization, deregulation, tax cuts and free trade deals: these have liberated corporations to accumulate enormous profits and treat the atmosphere like a sewage dump, and hamstrung our ability, through the instrument of the state, to plan for our collective welfare.
Click to expand...

It's time to wake up to the fact that climate change denialism is being supported and funded by the major oligarchs running the global capitalist show. Once you put this into proper perspective, it's obvious why there is reluctance to change: it means having to dismantle our current capitalist paradigm.

Now, I'm not suggesting we do away with capitalism entirely, but that the consumer model and the growth model are not sustainable within a finite system. We must shift our economic way of life toward a resource economy. The world's ecology MUST be factored into input costs and those costs must be distributed wisely. The fiduciary responsibility of the economy has to be shifted away from making obscene profits (money isn't real) and toward thinking about the future of the planet, and not just thinking about what THIS generation can get.

At the very least, we need to start having this conversation. It doesn't mean you're a communist because you start pointing out that global capitalism is destroying the planet and humanity's future. It means that you are assessing flaws in a system and those flaws need addressing.

No more waste, no more excess. We either make this transition willingly or we do it while we face our own peril. The people running this show don't care because they have their bunkers and private oases away from the rest of us who are going to feel the burn in a perhaps fatal way.

It's time to make transparent the very source of our problems: the corporate oligarchs. Sure, every day people are responsible for changing their lives, but the people planning the economy and manipulating government to keep this dinosaur model in place are the ones who should be outed. They obstruct democracy, they rape and pillage, they horde resources, and they pit humans against one another in a competitive model that is leaving future generations a dismal legacy. It must end.
 
Northern Light said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals



It's time to wake up to the fact that climate change denialism is being supported and funded by the major oligarchs running the global capitalist show. Once you put this into proper perspective, it's obvious why there is reluctance to change: it means having to dismantle our current capitalist paradigm.

Now, I'm not suggesting we do away with capitalism entirely, but that the consumer model and the growth model are not sustainable within a finite system. We must shift our economic way of life toward a resource economy. The world's ecology MUST be factored into input costs and those costs must be distributed wisely. The fiduciary responsibility of the economy has to be shifted away from making obscene profits (money isn't real) and toward thinking about the future of the planet, and not just thinking about what THIS generation can get.

At the very least, we need to start having this conversation. It doesn't mean you're a communist because you start pointing out that global capitalism is destroying the planet and humanity's future. It means that you are assessing flaws in a system and those flaws need addressing.

No more waste, no more excess. We either make this transition willingly or we do it while we face our own peril. The people running this show don't care because they have their bunkers and private oases away from the rest of us who are going to feel the burn in a perhaps fatal way.

It's time to make transparent the very source of our problems: the corporate oligarchs. Sure, every day people are responsible for changing their lives, but the people planning the economy and manipulating government to keep this dinosaur model in place are the ones who should be outed. They obstruct democracy, they rape and pillage, they horde resources, and they pit humans against one another in a competitive model that is leaving future generations a dismal legacy. It must end.
Click to expand...

Climate change is the result of a bet between a couple bureaucrats that they could tax the air we breath and we would be ok with it. Boy howdy were they right. Sucker born every minute.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Climate change is the result of a bet between a couple bureaucrats that they could tax the air we breath and we would be ok with it. Boy howdy were they right. Sucker born every minute.
Click to expand...

Who told you that, an Exxon executive?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Climate change is the result of a bet between a couple bureaucrats that they could tax the air we breath and we would be ok with it. Boy howdy were they right. Sucker born every minute.
Click to expand...

Corporations are far more of a danger than bureaucrats, especially when they control said bureaucrats directly or indirectly via politicians.
 
The Mark said:
Corporations are far more of a danger than bureaucrats, especially when they control said bureaucrats directly or indirectly via politicians.
Click to expand...

Prívate businesses supply with services we voluntarily wish to purchase, government is violence.
 
PirateMk1 said:
A couple the bureaucrats who were in on the bet. :cool:
Click to expand...

If this were a one hundred percent libertarian nation, with enough money and enough lawyers, I could pollute the environment on my own property to the point where you would be unable to breathe, and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it, and you'd have to purchase expensive filtration equipment.
For all practical purposes, that IS de facto "taxation of the air you breathe". Just because you aren't paying a government makes no difference whatsoever.
 
The Mark said:
Corporations are far more of a danger than bureaucrats, especially when they control said bureaucrats directly or indirectly via politicians.
Click to expand...

Tell that to a bureaucrat.
 
We are now all supposed to be missionaries out to save the world and all of humanity by thinking "right" and acting "right" all day everyday.

And then of course those who dont measure up need to be tossed overboard if attempts to fix them fail.






BARF
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
If this were a one hundred percent libertarian nation, with enough money and enough lawyers, I could pollute the environment on my own property to the point where you would be unable to breathe, and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it, and you'd have to purchase expensive filtration equipment.
For all practical purposes, that IS de facto "taxation of the air you breathe". Just because you aren't paying a government makes no difference whatsoever.
Click to expand...

No you would run out of money because either the lawyers will eat it up or it will taken from you via recompense to those that can prove damages. If you pollute enough to produce damage you will be destroyed in court.

As far as CO2 being a pollutant, that's just bunk. Plants require it to live and we require it because plants produce oxygen as a byproduct. CO2 is a very important fraction of the gas mix we breath. At less than a percent. Yet without it we die, because the plants we depend on die. Here's another ask your climate change buddies how the AGP morons determine whether or not we are warming. Here's a factiod for you for the last 2 million plus years the climate has been in a cycle cooling and warming then cooling. The cycle goes 100,000 in the freezer, 10,000 thawing, and 100,000 in the freezer again. Wash rinse, repeat. Here's something for you, even though the climate wienes say we have the highest recorded CO2 levels, what they don't say is over what period of time. If you go back over the current climate cycle of a couple million years you will find the current HIGH CO2 levels to actually be on the very low end of known CO2 concentrations over time. As a matter of fact C02 in the relative past has been an order of magnitude higher.

Climate changes with or without humans. That's a given. What effect humans have on the climate if any is highly debatable. Calling CO2 a pollutant is just ****ing stupid beyond words. So before get on your horse Rocinante, Don Quixote and tilt at the windmills, you might want to really consider just how educated you truly are as to your cause.
 
PirateMk1 said:
No you would run out of money because either the lawyers will eat it up or it will taken from you via recompense to those that can prove damages. If you pollute enough to produce damage you will be destroyed in court.

As far as CO2 being a pollutant, that's just bunk. Plants require it to live and we require it because plants produce oxygen as a byproduct. CO2 is a very important fraction of the gas mix we breath. At less than a percent. Yet without it we die, because the plants we depend on die. Here's another ask your climate change buddies how the AGP morons determine whether or not we are warming. Here's a factiod for you for the last 2 million plus years the climate has been in a cycle cooling and warming then cooling. The cycle goes 100,000 in the freezer, 10,000 thawing, and 100,000 in the freezer again. Wash rinse, repeat. Here's something for you, even though the climate wienes say we have the highest recorded CO2 levels, what they don't say is over what period of time. If you go back over the current climate cycle of a couple million years you will find the current HIGH CO2 levels to actually be on the very low end of known CO2 concentrations over time. As a matter of fact C02 in the relative past has been an order of magnitude higher.

Climate changes with or without humans. That's a given. What effect humans have on the climate if any is highly debatable. Calling CO2 a pollutant is just ****ing stupid beyond words. So before get on your horse Rocinante, Don Quixote and tilt at the windmills, you might want to really consider just how educated you truly are as to your cause.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned carbon dioxide.
And polluters have been winning in court. You just haven't noticed, or else me pointing it out is inconvenient for you.
What do you think the whole point of Scott Pruitt and his replacement at EPA was?

The town of Midlothian, TX has a history of air pollution dating back well over thirty years.

The rates of cancer, stillbirths, respiratory problems, and birth defects are among the highest in the nation.

Despite one or two settlements forcing mild regulatory controls, the relatively libertarian town has allowed its top polluters to not only stay in business but to expand to burning industrial waste.

I lived in Mansfield for ten years, that's ten miles from Midlothian, don't talk to me about "lawyers eating it up or recompense upon proof of damage." My lawyer can beat up your lawyer, it happens all the time. Individuals get destroyed in court.
Who ever said that we were limiting this to individuals.
I sure didn't.

By the way, the military knows we're dealing with a problem, and large investors know it, too.
You're struggling with politics because for some people, the idea of an [FONT=&quot]operational carbon market terrifies them.
You can't stop what's coming.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I never mentioned carbon dioxide.
And polluters have been winning in court. You just haven't noticed, or else me pointing it out is inconvenient for you.
What do you think the whole point of Scott Pruitt and his replacement at EPA was?

The town of Midlothian, TX has a history of air pollution dating back well over thirty years.

The rates of cancer, stillbirths, respiratory problems, and birth defects are among the highest in the nation.

Despite one or two settlements forcing mild regulatory controls, the relatively libertarian town has allowed its top polluters to not only stay in business but to expand to burning industrial waste.

I lived in Mansfield for ten years, that's ten miles from Midlothian, don't talk to me about "lawyers eating it up or recompense upon proof of damage." My lawyer can beat up your lawyer, it happens all the time. Individuals get destroyed in court.
Who ever said that we were limiting this to individuals.
I sure didn't.
Click to expand...

Ok.....
 
The day is coming when climate change deniers change their minds.
A few large cities abandoned to sea level rise or the starvation of millions as crops fail, but eventually they'll change their minds. We'll be watching them scurry about like headless chickens and blaming Democrats for not telling them sooner. :lamo

The funny thing is, things like biochar are not only smart ways to sequester carbon, it's good for the soil, for agriculture, and it's a moneymaker. No matter, because once conservatives come to fear and loathe global climate change like they do Muslims and Mexicans they will do whatever is necessary to get rid of it. And then they will start suing left and right to shove early adopters aside so that they can gobble up the money opportunities therein, and if they have to look like hypocrites in the process, and pretend they didn't spend twenty five years lying about it beforehand, they won't even bat an eye.

Because THEIR lawyers can beat up anyone's lawyers. It'll be another Brooks Brother Riot, only not about polls.
 
Northern Light said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals



It's time to wake up to the fact that climate change denialism is being supported and funded by the major oligarchs running the global capitalist show. Once you put this into proper perspective, it's obvious why there is reluctance to change: it means having to dismantle our current capitalist paradigm.

Now, I'm not suggesting we do away with capitalism entirely, but that the consumer model and the growth model are not sustainable within a finite system. We must shift our economic way of life toward a resource economy. The world's ecology MUST be factored into input costs and those costs must be distributed wisely. The fiduciary responsibility of the economy has to be shifted away from making obscene profits (money isn't real) and toward thinking about the future of the planet, and not just thinking about what THIS generation can get.

At the very least, we need to start having this conversation. It doesn't mean you're a communist because you start pointing out that global capitalism is destroying the planet and humanity's future. It means that you are assessing flaws in a system and those flaws need addressing.

No more waste, no more excess. We either make this transition willingly or we do it while we face our own peril. The people running this show don't care because they have their bunkers and private oases away from the rest of us who are going to feel the burn in a perhaps fatal way.

It's time to make transparent the very source of our problems: the corporate oligarchs. Sure, every day people are responsible for changing their lives, but the people planning the economy and manipulating government to keep this dinosaur model in place are the ones who should be outed. They obstruct democracy, they rape and pillage, they horde resources, and they pit humans against one another in a competitive model that is leaving future generations a dismal legacy. It must end.
Click to expand...

This is an unusually silly claim. The most serious scientific challengers to AGW orthodoxy are physicists whose politics, insofar as they can be discerned, are as Euro-style social democrats.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The day is coming when climate change deniers change their minds.
A few large cities abandoned to sea level rise or the starvation of millions as crops fail, but eventually they'll change their minds. We'll be watching them scurry about like headless chickens and blaming Democrats for not telling them sooner. :lamo

The funny thing is, things like biochar are not only smart ways to sequester carbon, it's good for the soil, for agriculture, and it's a moneymaker. No matter, because once conservatives come to fear and loathe global climate change like they do Muslims and Mexicans they will do whatever is necessary to get rid of it. And then they will start suing left and right to shove early adopters aside so that they can gobble up the money opportunities therein, and if they have to look like hypocrites in the process, and pretend they didn't spend twenty five years lying about it beforehand, they won't even bat an eye.

Because THEIR lawyers can beat up anyone's lawyers. It'll be another Brooks Brother Riot, only not about polls.
Click to expand...

So which do you think will be the first large city abandoned to sea level rise, and when?
 
longview said:
So which do you think will be the first large city abandoned to sea level rise, and when?
Click to expand...

Miami, FL - - probably somewhere around 2030 at the latest.
Have you seen the latest maps of Southern Louisiana?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Not to mention the fact that we lost around 10% of our active F-22 air superiority fighters when hurricane Michael leveled tyndon airfield.
Click to expand...

This might be a dumb question, but forecasters gave a rather extensive early warning, and those are aircraft.
They couldn't be moved?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
You would think so, but I guess moving aircraft is trickier than one imagines it to be.

And here is the news article explaining the damage

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...ne-tyndall-nelson-rebuild-20181015-story.html
Click to expand...

Twenty-two F-22 Raptors at $339 million each equals $7.4 Billion dollars.
I am having a difficult time imagining why sufficient resources couldn't be engaged to move seven point four billion dollars worth of assets out of harm's way with more than adequate warning.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Twenty-two F-22 Raptors at $339 million each equals $7.4 Billion dollars.
I am having a difficult time imagining why sufficient resources couldn't be engaged to move seven point four billion dollars worth of assets out of harm's way with more than adequate warning.
Click to expand...

Not like it was “their” money.........:shock:
 
Northern Light said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals



It's time to wake up to the fact that climate change denialism is being supported and funded by the major oligarchs running the global capitalist show. Once you put this into proper perspective, it's obvious why there is reluctance to change: it means having to dismantle our current capitalist paradigm.

Now, I'm not suggesting we do away with capitalism entirely, but that the consumer model and the growth model are not sustainable within a finite system. We must shift our economic way of life toward a resource economy. The world's ecology MUST be factored into input costs and those costs must be distributed wisely. The fiduciary responsibility of the economy has to be shifted away from making obscene profits (money isn't real) and toward thinking about the future of the planet, and not just thinking about what THIS generation can get.

At the very least, we need to start having this conversation. It doesn't mean you're a communist because you start pointing out that global capitalism is destroying the planet and humanity's future. It means that you are assessing flaws in a system and those flaws need addressing.

No more waste, no more excess. We either make this transition willingly or we do it while we face our own peril. The people running this show don't care because they have their bunkers and private oases away from the rest of us who are going to feel the burn in a perhaps fatal way.

It's time to make transparent the very source of our problems: the corporate oligarchs. Sure, every day people are responsible for changing their lives, but the people planning the economy and manipulating government to keep this dinosaur model in place are the ones who should be outed. They obstruct democracy, they rape and pillage, they horde resources, and they pit humans against one another in a competitive model that is leaving future generations a dismal legacy. It must end.
Click to expand...

Go away communist.

You will never achieve your dream of controling those who actually can do stuff unlike the pathetic types who have never done anything.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Twenty-two F-22 Raptors at $339 million each equals $7.4 Billion dollars.
I am having a difficult time imagining why sufficient resources couldn't be engaged to move seven point four billion dollars worth of assets out of harm's way with more than adequate warning.
Click to expand...

Can a plane fly when half of it is in the shop for repairs?

I don’t think they were able to move the raptors because the planes themselves were not serviceable to fly safely.

I think this article presents a compelling argument for why the planes could not move away from the storm.

Setting The Record Straight On Why Fighter Jets Can't All Simply Fly Away To Escape Storms - The Drive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom