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

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

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

not sure that's true -- I think the system is total bullshit, but I have given up -- there's never, in America, going to be a critical mass of people who believe the system requires progressive change. (there may be a critical mass of people who believe the exact opposite -- that what the system truly needs is reactionary change!) All I'm going to get is the system, so I have to try to imagine ways to extract value, however minimal, from it.

Alfred with the understatement of the year— and I mean that in the “you are OTM” sense, not in a sarcastic or shitty sense

Thanks -- I wanted that award! Sonlong as it's biodegradable.

Sorry ivy but your efforts are sadly negated by lagoon's all beef diet.

Go buy a new car and you don’t get to criticize unless you’ve personally resolved all of the world’s problems - politics thread is getting good again.

not sure that's true -- I think the system is total bullshit, but I have given up -- there's never, in America, going to be a critical mass of people who believe the system requires progressive change. (there may be a critical mass of people who believe the exact opposite -- that what the system truly needs is reactionary change!) All I'm going to get is the system, so I have to try to imagine ways to extract value, however minimal, from it.

― J Edgar Noothgrush (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:53 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

Sure, but I'm not talking about levels of support/numbers or even feasibility

unless you are personally destroying a wildlife habitat that has been around for centuries with a solar array, are you really doing your part to mitigate climate instability?

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.

― papal hotwife (milo z), Thursday, September 12, 2024 11:27 AM (seventeen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

It has nothing to do with whose “fault” it is, it’s just a matter of what the practical implications are of reducing demand. Certainly there are some things we could do with policy like better mass transit and denser living patterns that would arguably not reduce overall quality of life that much (putting aside some people’s preference for quieter, less crowded places), but we’d also need to consider things like 24/7 on demand hot water, regular air travel, two-day shipping, widespread air conditioning, high speed wifi everywhere, affordable appliances and personal devices that rely on a global supply chain etc. and whether those things can still be widely accessible and affordable.

the system is designed to fuck you and generate capital, if you believe in it i sort of assume you're either benefiting from it financially or have invested an enormous degree of your personality in it

not judging i guess, good job if that's you, i'm just sitting here feeling powerless typing on the internet

And I’m talking about policy changes, not individual choices. I certainly don’t think it should be left to individual choice to fix global warming. I’m just saying that these would be potential implications of the policy changes.

if you want something on the demand side, canada and europe both have carbon taxes and they work fine. they give rebates to low income households so it ends up being a very progressive tax. however for some reason americans don’t want to do it, even in the most liberal states like washington they vote against it. iirc even former ilxor silby voted against the WA carbon tax ballot measure.

there's never, in America, going to be a critical mass of people who believe the system requires progressive change. (there may be a critical mass of people who believe the exact opposite -- that what the system truly needs is reactionary change!)

OTM. I find it far more likely that in the event of climate catastrophe America keeps being a bunker state mostly interested in keeping out refugees and extracting resources from the rest of the world than that it moves toward sustainable degrowth.

aside from some big obvious ones like don’t drive a car or don’t fly, you can’t really consume your way out of climate emissions, the supply chains and spillover effects are just too complex. lots of thing ppl think of as climate friendly consumption patterns (eg eating local produce) are actually carbon neutral or even positive once you take into a count the global end-to-end emissions along the supply chain

you guys are all underrating the inflation reduction act though. even though it has pretty little on the demand side, it’s one of the most ambitious and aggressive climate policies taken by any country. it’s impact on emissions is of course tbd (and of course it would likely be gutted if trump wins) but it’s potentially really big

xps - It's not so much believing in the system as realizing that the system is central to how power gets distributed. If you want grits, you go to the grocery.

^ That's pretty much where I land.

Sure, yes, I buy a tank of gas every 7-20 days... because mass transit doesn't exist where I live.

I'm not trying to criticize the reality that we need to change our patterns of consumption if we want to stop environmental destruction. But damn, it is really difficult to get people to make even small changes.

There's a lot of chicken-egg issues with transit. In areas with enough pop density to make it work, it's tough to get single-passenger commuters to get out of their cars and ride a bus, because the routes don't run frequently enough. On the flip side, transit departments say that they cannot increase frequency because ridership isn't high enough to warrant it.

As a member of a 1-car household who lives 4 blocks from a semi-frequent bus route that takes me to and from the city center up until midnight, I try to ride buses/trains/bikes for as many trips as I can, and evangelize the fuck out of the advantages ("I literally got dropped off right at the door with no need to find parking!"; "I save $3000 per year in auto payments and expenses!"). But I've found that people in my friend/acquaintance group - especially those with young children - insist on driving everywhere, even though several live near frequent transit routes, including one that connects several of our residences. Despite my pro-transit agitprop, there's a strong perception that transit is not safe, and I have a really tough time convincing people in my immediate world - whether they fall on the traditional liberal side, or the more DSA-aligned left - to trade the comfort of their cars for what they view as an unpredictable/unsafe method of travel. And this is in a city with somewhat-decent transit!

To tie this back to politics, I understand the reticence of Harris to get too preachy and bossy regarding consumption choices, because the electorate generally chooses the side that is more perceived as live-and-let-live, and right now, that's the Dems. When Trump croaks, the right wing will once again fall into the grip of more churchy leaders, who will be unable to cloak their 'hall monitor' attitudes against pop culture behind a New Yorker with a perception of libertinism (it is tough to seem like the 'rebellious' party when a overly-religious southerner, like Tom Cotton, Nikki Haley, or Ron DeSantis, is the avatar). Then, I think we will have more ideological space to ask Americans to make a few changes.

That is believing in the system though - it doesn't require you to like it, just to believe there is no alternative. Xpost

this article is sighting the same report you posted

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

― famous instagram dog (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:49 PM (thirty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

nothin is good enough for this guy

you can’t really consume your way out of climate emissions

― flopson, Thursday, September 12, 2024 1:04 PM (twenty-one minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

agree with this and would expand on it to say were not going to shop our way out of any problems, thats consumer brained, the only thing that can match the horrible destructive power of capital or whatever you want to call it in whatever system youre into is collective people power

Alternatives to the present system are easy to imagine, but none of those alternatives will exist until one is created and supplants this one. If you have organized enough power to substitute another system or fundamentally alter what we have presently, then you probably have enough power to use the means that exist in the present system.

collective people power

soylent green energy

Serious question about “believing in the system” vs. “not believing in the system” — what does “not believing in the system” look like from a policy/politics perspective? You do what exactly? How do you get from “the system” to “not the system”? There’s a general assumption afaict that “vote for change” is ineffective and/or insufficient under the system, so … then what?

one way to approach it is organizing in professional/affinity etc groups, more workers unions student groups etc, and then having solidarity between those groups, its proven effective in the past

I don't know if anyone has ever organized anything as large as what it would take to stop climate change.

yeah probably not

likely won't be popular will for it until way too late anyway

"That the only way to actually do anything about climate catastrophe is to move toward a model of swift and steady degrowth is obvious"

this will happen naturally as the situation progresses via fire and flood and storm. it already is happening. more people will die. more houses will burn/be swept away. there is your degrowth.

No one has ever passed legislation or come up with market solutions for anything of the magnitude of stopping climate change either, surely? It's prob the biggest thing we've ever encountered as a species, at least in terms of global impact.

There are also more ways to connect worldwide organising than ever before - not that I'm optimistic about getting there.

Joining a public sector union earlier this year was easily the most satisfying thing I've done in years. To have even a foothold on power is a thrill.

I think organizing in general is good strategy even though also very hard to do. (Particularly organizing non-wealthy people and interests against very wealthy ones like oil companies.) But that still seems like acting within the system to me, if by the system we mean existing economic and political structures and the limited levers of power they provide.

Not trying to be overly literal about believing vs. not believing in the system, just trying to grasp what effective action outside the system looks like. I can understand it at a small scale, like mutual aid networks, but it seems a lot more challenging at the scale required to think about climate change.

nature always has the final word. species don't get to overrule it.