3 ms·

Environmental collapse also disproportionately hurts the poor. When a drought strikes, they’re the first to starve. At least the pain inflicted by regulations c

Environmental collapse also disproportionately hurts the poor. When a drought strikes, they’re the first to starve. At least the pain inflicted by regulations can be mitigated, while collapse leads to something like Libya.

api 8y ago
I was not arguing otherwise. Whenever I bring up issues like this I get a lot of "shoot the messenger." My point was not that environmental concerns are wrong but that they do tend to decrease the economic well being of poor and middle class people more right now vs. the status quo. That in turn tends to anger these classes of people right now, causing them to vote for people like Donald Trump. Trump, a super-hard-right Republican, won largely because of working class traditionally progressive economic concerns. The poor also cannot afford the luxury of thinking about the future. When you are poor your primary concern is getting out of poverty right f'ing now. Screw the future. The rich on the other hand can sacrifice for the future because they have abundance. Try some grinding poverty and come back and tell me how much you care about what happens in 100 years. Now try some grinding poverty with children. Tell me how much you care about the great Pacific garbage patch after you watch your kids suffer a bit. This is why I think what I call "abstinence based" environmental policies are doomed. I draw a deliberate analogy with right-wing abstinence-based sex-ed, which also fails pretty reliably. Abstinence based environmental policy is any attempt to solve environmental problems by preaching and shaming the poor and middle class into reducing consumption for the sake of some future ideal that might as well be heaven-and-hell as far as they are concerned here and now. The only way we will create a world where we care about the future is to elevate as many people as possible out of poverty. This means we must build systems that create abundance now and try to figure out how to do so as sustainably as possible. If people can't afford the luxury of caring about the future, nothing serious will ever be done about massive problems like climate change.
- simion314 8y ago
  This article and law proposal was not about energy, it is all about cheap plastic, fishing equipment and tires, though I did not understand if they plan to do anything about the car tires. You can have good environmental laws and have the person that pollutes pay and encourage recycling. I am not from US but I don't think the elections were influenced by environmental politics
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  Try some grinding poverty and come back and tell me how much you care about what happens in 100 years. Now try some grinding poverty with children. Tell me how much you care about the great Pacific garbage patch after you watch your kids suffer a bit. That’s a strong argument for ignoring the desperately poor where long term survival is concerned, is that really the argument you meant to make?

api 8y ago

I was not arguing otherwise. Whenever I bring up issues like this I get a lot of "shoot the messenger." My point was not that environmental concerns are wrong but that they do tend to decrease the economic well being of poor and middle class people more right now vs. the status quo. That in turn tends to anger these classes of people right now, causing them to vote for people like Donald Trump. Trump, a super-hard-right Republican, won largely because of working class traditionally progressive economic concerns. The poor also cannot afford the luxury of thinking about the future. When you are poor your primary concern is getting out of poverty right f'ing now. Screw the future. The rich on the other hand can sacrifice for the future because they have abundance. Try some grinding poverty and come back and tell me how much you care about what happens in 100 years. Now try some grinding poverty with children. Tell me how much you care about the great Pacific garbage patch after you watch your kids suffer a bit. This is why I think what I call "abstinence based" environmental policies are doomed. I draw a deliberate analogy with right-wing abstinence-based sex-ed, which also fails pretty reliably. Abstinence based environmental policy is any attempt to solve environmental problems by preaching and shaming the poor and middle class into reducing consumption for the sake of some future ideal that might as well be heaven-and-hell as far as they are concerned here and now. The only way we will create a world where we care about the future is to elevate as many people as possible out of poverty. This means we must build systems that create abundance now and try to figure out how to do so as sustainably as possible. If people can't afford the luxury of caring about the future, nothing serious will ever be done about massive problems like climate change.

simion314 8y ago
This article and law proposal was not about energy, it is all about cheap plastic, fishing equipment and tires, though I did not understand if they plan to do anything about the car tires. You can have good environmental laws and have the person that pollutes pay and encourage recycling. I am not from US but I don't think the elections were influenced by environmental politics
DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Try some grinding poverty and come back and tell me how much you care about what happens in 100 years. Now try some grinding poverty with children. Tell me how much you care about the great Pacific garbage patch after you watch your kids suffer a bit. That’s a strong argument for ignoring the desperately poor where long term survival is concerned, is that really the argument you meant to make?