US Politics, September 2024 -- “I’m Not Going to Apologize For Posting a Joke”

srsly xp

if its too little too late then does it qualify as doing something about it

it depends on whether you look at addressing climate change by shifting energy consumption to non-carbon sources as a binary or a continuum. we've already triggered feedback effects that will be self-reinforcing for decades to come, so halting climate change is no longer an option. but failure to migrate to non-carbon energy robs future people (including you 40 years from now) without the kind of tools necessary to adapt to climate change. if we fail them, they might feel betrayed by the present time, just as we feel betrayed by the climate denial of the 1990s oil companies.

thread verging on self-parody

also lagoon otm i gotta say, think harris’ platform should meaningfully address things i care about, in many ways it doesn’t or does the opposite, there is nothing wrong with expressing this bc it actually doesn’t hurt harris’ electoral chances for me to be really cynical about a democratic agenda, given history, furthermore none of you are exempt from dropping into this thread with condescension that goes up to 11 at least

lag∞n you know I love you but you are not in a position to tone-police in this conversation, I mean you get that right

It’s not that lagoon is wrong that we probably need to do something on the demand side, but I never hear a single realistic proposal for something we could do on the demand side that wouldn’t mean drastically reducing everyone's standard of living to a degree that I don’t think most people are prepared to accept. Like “buy less plastic crap” ain’t gonna cut it. So I tend to give more credit to the people who are doing *something* (bringing green energy online) vs the people who are complaining this is insufficient while doing basically nothing.

i have so much power to enact energy policy

Assuming you did have power to enact it, what is the demand side solution? There are certainly some things we could do that would be both demand reduction and QOL benefit like increased public transit and high speed rail, but ultimately you are going to have to lower people’s standard of living and take things from them that they like, or at least make them much more expensive.

It’s not that lagoon is wrong that we probably need to do something on the demand side, but I never hear a single realistic proposal for something we could do on the demand side that wouldn’t mean drastically reducing everyone's standard of living to a degree that I don’t think most people are prepared to accept. Like “buy less plastic crap” ain’t gonna cut it. So I tend to give more credit to the people who are doing *something* (bringing green energy online) vs the people who are complaining this is insufficient while doing basically nothing.

isn't it the case that reducing personal use isn't really it -- that it's giant corporations who eat up the energy? addressing that chain of reliance, that'd take some immense vision. which: a failure to build that vision is for sure a failure of the imagination with catastrophic consequences. trying to reimagine how we live, that'd the ticket, but it's super fair to say "well, good luck with that," the people we could be and the people we are have a whole, whole lotta air between them.

People always say “it’s giant corporations who eat up the energy” but they eat it up making things that they sell to people. It’s still personal consumption, it’s just one step removed. If you make things more expensive to produce you will also make them more expensive to consume.

And any politician who makes things more expensive to consume is not going to have the power to make policy pretty quickly

“the only solution is to punish consumers with no power” is exactly the kind of galaxy brain thinking that i really try not to do, sorry, no solutions here, in addition to not being able to enact energy policy, i am not a politician

really i think we should be focusing on “fracking is a red herring,” astonished that was typed out and posted

lag∞n you know I love you but you are not in a position to tone-police in this conversation, I mean you get that right

― J Edgar Noothgrush (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:02 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

its was merely a suggestion that condescension combined with not explaining yourself is not going to win a lot of hearts and minds, you can read shakey and my interactions and tell me if thats a fair take

people can say that im an arrogant jerk and no doubt theres truth there but im not just jumping in with the shut up moron, i try to be substantial

end the u.s military

US military would be a top 50 polluter is it was a country or something like that iirc

truly having a cursed day if i'm posting my actual thoughts multiple times itt so just leaning into it now i guess

isn't it the case that reducing personal use isn't really it -- that it's giant corporations who eat up the energy?

The one argument I've heard against this is that it is true but that the giant corporation's eating up of energy is done...mostly to service personal consumer goods, so personal use would still have to go down. Anything to this?

lol xposts

I will say Shakey combining "this is very complicated stuff that's difficult to put into soundbytes" with "ppl wrong about this are saying the absolute dumbest shit" did not strike me as the best way to engage, one or the other surely?

one thing that the USA could do to reduce the demand for dirty energy is to reach agreements with foreign governments on capping emissions and in exchange subsidize building out their clean energy infrastructure

well capitalism is the problem. naomi klein has an entire book about it.

klein:

Late capitalism teaches us to create ourselves through our consumer choices: shopping is how we form our identities, find community and express ourselves. Thus, telling people that they can't shop as much as they want to because the planet's support systems are overburdened can be understood as a kind of attack, akin to telling them that they cannot truly be themselves. This is likely why, of the original "three Rs" – reduce, reuse, recycle – only the third has ever gotten any traction, since it allows us to keep on shopping as long as we put the refuse in the right box.

capitalism-consumerism does have some downsides its true

Shakey Mo is right, the pro-environment legislation had massive provisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While they primarily consist of incentives on new construction and financial assistance for green energy, rather than rules on consumption choices, they are still going to prove highly consequential in slowing global warming. The trends in renewable energy production and storage are really good (from January to mid-July of this year, zero-carbon, renewable energy exceeded demand in California for 945 hours during 146 days — equivalent to a month-and-a-half of 100% fossil-fuel-free electricity). Have we totally solved the problem, not yet, but the US is far closer on energy emissions than we were 5 years ago.

I find it ironic that people who insist on everybody changing their behavior by making more environmentally-conscious choices aren't willing to change theirs by actually reading about the legislation that is proposed and passed, instead insisting it be spoonfed to them in televised TV events. You want people to make the effort? Start by doing so yourself!

here let me employ an internet search engine for lagoon about a couple things (will this shut you up? I predict the answer is no)

https://www.wri.org/insights/asia-clean-energy-transition-examples-5-countries
https://www.weforum.org/publications/transforming-energy-demand/
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/building-decarbonization-how-electric-heat-pumps-could-help-reduce-emissions-today-and-going-forward - (there are currently utilities running programs where they are installing heat pumps - for free - to customers)

many xposts

'They're making consumer goods so it's actually consumers' fault' relies on us ignoring the impact of influence buying on public policy making it difficult/impossible to make better consumer choices. Sure, yes, I buy a tank of gas every 7-20 days... because mass transit doesn't exist where I live.

here let me employ an internet search engine for lagoon about a couple things (will this shut you up? I predict the answer is no)

― famous instagram dog (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:26 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

ok so is it going to work

Yes

say more

No

US military would be a top 50 polluter is it was a country or something like that iirc

it was in the bottom percentile (no. 47) 5 years ago (https://theconversation.com/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-as-many-as-140-countries-shrinking-this-war-machine-is-a-must-119269). Under Biden admin their policies have shifted dramatically: https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jun/16/2003243454/-1/-1/1/2023-DOD-PLAN-TO-REDUCE-GREENHOUSE-GAS-EMISSIONS.PDF

this is like the Trump dynamic, where you just say a bunch of crap but for some reason the burden is on people like me to fact check every dumb fucking thing

so where do they rank for the most recent year available

lag∞n's just a guy asking questions

this article is sighting the same report you posted

The U.S. Department of Defense puts its own emissions at 51 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in fiscal year 2021, which was roughly the same as the emissions produced by Sweden. (In response to an inquiry about the military’s emissions disclosures, a spokesperson pointed me to this report, which was congressionally mandated.) About half of the total came from jet-fuel use. That’s more than three-quarters of the U.S. government’s total emissions, and 1 percent of the total emissions of the country in 2020. And that’s to say nothing of defense contractors, who are not presently required to disclose their emissions. Crawford estimates that if the industrial complex that supports the military—weapons manufacturing, for example—were included, the total would make up about 2 percent of U.S. emissions.

https://archive.ph/7n41R#selection-977.0-989.167

That a great deal of green energy installation involves utterly destroying the planet in other ways is totally ignored. Let me tell you that if we could ask birds and other migratory animals about what they think of huge solar arrays, they’d give us a big collective middle finger or their equivalent gesture.

Not to mention that such installations, particularly of large solar arrays, kick up enough dust that people in nearby arrays get asthma and cancer at higher rates than those not near solar arrays.

Green energy, like recycling, is merely a way for corporations to greenwash unsustainable energy consumption and make it palatable to investors, who then sell these ideas to a clueless consumer market.

That the only way to actually do anything about climate catastrophe is to move toward a model of swift and steady degrowth is obvious, and the rest of this is all copium/hopium

thanks for inviting me over. i did eat everything in your fridge. however there's a plan to address this. by 2045 i will only be eating about a third of the things in your fridge. also, here's a coupon for some store brand saltines. i feel like you're getting angry for some reason??

I see lagoon is adopting a solid Stephen Miller rhetorical approach today

Someone chose violence today after they woke up haha. Keep it real mate

That the only way to actually do anything about climate catastrophe is to move toward a model of swift and steady degrowth is obvious, and the rest of this is all copium/hopium

I mean, it's true that from a purely environmentalist perspective, life in the 18th century was a lot "better." All the bears and fish and birds were a lot happier.

table what's your plan for world peace and sustainable living then?

damn we all gotta have platforms before we can dream, once again

you wanna do something more productive about climate change than being a dick on the internet? Eat something else besides beef. Buy an electric car with Biden's tax credits (or don't drive at all!) Don't use ChatGPT (a single query uses the same amount of energy to run an LED light for 20 minutes). Get a job in the clean energy industry (we need electricians, for real)

But don't spread this disingenuous shit about the Dems not having an actual, strong climate policy. that's bullshit. They do.

don't actually buy an electric car

lol budo

We’re not going back. To pre-agrarian times.

this article is sighting the same report you posted

omg you connected a dot. Here's a cookie.

The difference as ever is between those who believe in this system and those who think the system is bullshit

i'm doing so much for climate change by being one person who doesn't own or use a car

touché, linda

Ronstadt also called Trump a rapist, saying: “Trump first ran for president warning about rapists coming in from Mexico. I’m worried about keeping the rapist out of the White House.”

i'm doing so much for climate change by being one person who doesn't own or use a car

In a similar spirit, I have done my part by not having kids.

i also don't have kids, do i win

i do, i win the climate award

i've made the correct consumer choices and climate change has been altered