6 ms·

China has rightly realized that poisoning the population and polluting the world will not make its wealthy people any wealthier, nor will it help the country gr

China has rightly realized that poisoning the population and polluting the world will not make its wealthy people any wealthier, nor will it help the country grow economically. The USA, on the other hand, still firmly believes that coal, oil, and other poisonous, polluting substances that harm citizens and life across the whole world, is worth it because the owners can still make money doing it. Rather than tell them it is illegal and to stop harming us, we give them subsidies and tell them to speed up (drill baby, drill! [1] coal jobs! [2] removing subsidies for renewables [3]! bomb them and take their oil! [4] etc). This won't make the rich any richer, not in the long term. It will destroy the livelihoods and bank accounts of the people who would have otherwise spent all their money on products and services that help the rich get richer. If America really cared about capitalism, it would work quickly to shut down the polluting industries by force and replace them with reusable energy. By definition, American capitalism has a near-term local maximum, defined by its choice to intentionally not be a sustainable, growing, economically viable civilization. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drill,_baby,_drill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drill,_baby,_drill [2] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1432/save-coal-industry/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer... [3] http://www.newsweek.com/trump-set-slash-energy-subsidies-hankers-after-coal-800329 http://www.newsweek.com/trump-set-slash-energy-subsidies-han... [4] https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-take-the-oil-madness https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-take-the-oil-madness

Kyragem 9y ago
If the Koch brothers owned the sun, the US would be 100% solar powered.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
I live in a state that gets most of its electricity from hydro. I’m enjoying air that is much cleaner than when I lived in Beijing (we left because of the pollution). You are comparing third world problems to first world ones, China has a massive problem today, the USA has mostly solved those. E.g. PM2.5 rarely goes above 100 in most USA cities, that AQI was considered normal in China until very recently, which definitely wasn’t sustainable. It’s great that China is solving its pollution problem; but this doesn’t have much to do with the USA unless you want to talk about carbon instead.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  Air quality is merely one measure of how this stuff hurts a population. There is massive poverty in the USA. And these huge oil companies who start fracking? They literally destroy people's homes and don't care. http://insideenergy.org/2016/03/30/oklahoma-earthquakes-who-pays/ http://insideenergy.org/2016/03/30/oklahoma-earthquakes-who-... > but this doesn’t have much to do with the USA unless you The parent comment was all about the USA. I am responding to a comment directly about the USA and its ability/desire to implement renewable energy. > You are comparing third world pro or s to first world ones I am not. Much of the US is living in third world conditions [1], despite the definition meaning originally ~"not the US or Russia", an enormous amount of people in the US live in poverty, and a lot of them next to huge corporate pollution nightmares. West Oakland is a good example. These people have lifelong respiratory problems and few people care - certainly not the city nor the company who gave those people long term health problems. That pollution mostly comes from the Port - but my point still stands. If you think the US is "mostly solved" when it comes to pollution you are dearly wrong. > A unless you want to talk about carbon instead. That's pretty much all I was talking about in the first place. Edit: [1] I'm being told off for this comment, like it isn't true or something? But a commenter below told me that something like 40M people in the USA live in poverty. That's a big number, and certainly is "much of the US". I'm not wrong about a very, very large number of people in the US living in poverty.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    PM 2.5 is an immediate non-abstract threat that really sucks if you have to live it. If you think the respiratory problems are bad in Oakland, that is nothing compared to what is happening in much of eastern China. Again, the scales are completely different and incomparable. If you want to start talking about carbon, I don’t think a higher or lower carbon footprint would have forced me to leave Beijing for the states. Ya, it eventually kills the planet, but it doesn’t effect immediate quality of life.
    - cryptoz 9y ago
      I am aware the problems in China are large, and different. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The USA also has an immediate existential crisis right now when it comes to pollution. To deny that is exactly how we got into such a disaster in the first place. > Ya, it eventually kills the planet, but it doesn’t effect immediate quality of life. I disagree with everything I am. It does immediately affect quality of life. For one, changing climate in the Bay Area and in Colorado locally is a result of changing global climates. These affect people, crops, plants, animals, everything, immediately. Personally, my quality of life has been dramatically reduced for 30 years due to global warming and climate change from local carbon outputs. To suggest otherwise is extremely close minded and offensive. Growing up in world and being told it is totally wrecked for generations, told that the greed of our parents' generation and before that has ravaged the Earth so completely that problems are spiralling out of control and life will be increasingly hard and complicated for people all over the world for a long time. Being told that hundreds of millions of people will be low on food due to changing climate patterns, that this is already happening, that there are droughts and wars fought over this already. > but it doesn’t effect immediate quality of life. Yes it does. People have died. Please be more considerate and understanding of the immense damage caused by greed and greenhouse gas pollution that is presently happening.

Kyragem 9y ago

If the Koch brothers owned the sun, the US would be 100% solar powered.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

I live in a state that gets most of its electricity from hydro. I’m enjoying air that is much cleaner than when I lived in Beijing (we left because of the pollution). You are comparing third world problems to first world ones, China has a massive problem today, the USA has mostly solved those. E.g. PM2.5 rarely goes above 100 in most USA cities, that AQI was considered normal in China until very recently, which definitely wasn’t sustainable. It’s great that China is solving its pollution problem; but this doesn’t have much to do with the USA unless you want to talk about carbon instead.

cryptoz 9y ago
Air quality is merely one measure of how this stuff hurts a population. There is massive poverty in the USA. And these huge oil companies who start fracking? They literally destroy people's homes and don't care. http://insideenergy.org/2016/03/30/oklahoma-earthquakes-who-pays/ http://insideenergy.org/2016/03/30/oklahoma-earthquakes-who-... > but this doesn’t have much to do with the USA unless you The parent comment was all about the USA. I am responding to a comment directly about the USA and its ability/desire to implement renewable energy. > You are comparing third world pro or s to first world ones I am not. Much of the US is living in third world conditions [1], despite the definition meaning originally ~"not the US or Russia", an enormous amount of people in the US live in poverty, and a lot of them next to huge corporate pollution nightmares. West Oakland is a good example. These people have lifelong respiratory problems and few people care - certainly not the city nor the company who gave those people long term health problems. That pollution mostly comes from the Port - but my point still stands. If you think the US is "mostly solved" when it comes to pollution you are dearly wrong. > A unless you want to talk about carbon instead. That's pretty much all I was talking about in the first place. Edit: [1] I'm being told off for this comment, like it isn't true or something? But a commenter below told me that something like 40M people in the USA live in poverty. That's a big number, and certainly is "much of the US". I'm not wrong about a very, very large number of people in the US living in poverty.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  PM 2.5 is an immediate non-abstract threat that really sucks if you have to live it. If you think the respiratory problems are bad in Oakland, that is nothing compared to what is happening in much of eastern China. Again, the scales are completely different and incomparable. If you want to start talking about carbon, I don’t think a higher or lower carbon footprint would have forced me to leave Beijing for the states. Ya, it eventually kills the planet, but it doesn’t effect immediate quality of life.
  - cryptoz 9y ago
    I am aware the problems in China are large, and different. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The USA also has an immediate existential crisis right now when it comes to pollution. To deny that is exactly how we got into such a disaster in the first place. > Ya, it eventually kills the planet, but it doesn’t effect immediate quality of life. I disagree with everything I am. It does immediately affect quality of life. For one, changing climate in the Bay Area and in Colorado locally is a result of changing global climates. These affect people, crops, plants, animals, everything, immediately. Personally, my quality of life has been dramatically reduced for 30 years due to global warming and climate change from local carbon outputs. To suggest otherwise is extremely close minded and offensive. Growing up in world and being told it is totally wrecked for generations, told that the greed of our parents' generation and before that has ravaged the Earth so completely that problems are spiralling out of control and life will be increasingly hard and complicated for people all over the world for a long time. Being told that hundreds of millions of people will be low on food due to changing climate patterns, that this is already happening, that there are droughts and wars fought over this already. > but it doesn’t effect immediate quality of life. Yes it does. People have died. Please be more considerate and understanding of the immense damage caused by greed and greenhouse gas pollution that is presently happening.