4 ms·

This piece is far short of a scientific paper, it has all the tells from proclaiming a vegan diet as healthy to advocating for population controls. This is not

by kls 7y ago

This piece is far short of a scientific paper, it has all the tells from proclaiming a vegan diet as healthy to advocating for population controls. This is not science it is an agenda paper. I mean what in the world does full gender equality have to do with the climate. I have no idea but it's in the papers conclusion as a must do to contain climate change. And why is a scientific climate piece advocating for social and economic justice.

rayiner 7y ago
Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been hijacked by leftist radicals. Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much ink talking about universal healthcare, housing security, and labor unions? Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept. Basic economics recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead to market failure. But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes, leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  It's only been hijacked because the centrists and right-wing people have let it be hijacked. Up until a few years ago, the standard way to get bills passed was for Democrats and Republicans to jointly write bills. Failing that, they'd each write their own bill and then hammer together a compromise. If the only politicians with a climate change proposal are those on the far left, they're the ones that are going to get heard and set the agenda. I'd love to see a nice Republican environmental proposal, something based on market economics, like a carbon tax & tariff (https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding) But until such exists, you can't complain about the far left setting the agenda.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  has already been hijacked by leftist radicals Greta is on stage calling for not net zero emissions but actual zero. It’s a religion at this point complete with prophets (whose prophecies are always wrong) and demagogues.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been hijacked by leftist radicals. Environmentalism has always been a cause of the (mostly, as now, center- rather than radical-) left. > Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much ink talking about universal healthcare, housing security, and labor unions? Because, as the name suggests, it is intended as a New Deal that is also Green. Sure, it's a left-of-center proposal. But where, if environmentalism isn't inherently left, is the equally strongly advocated proposal from the right? The left isn't hijacking environmentalism, they are just the only group showing up for it. > Basic economics recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead to market failure. Basic conventional economics does recognize that, but that center-right isn't interested in much policy action based on that, and farther right factions reject conventional empirical economics for openly ideological schools that hold that markets can't fail they can only be failed. > Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept It's inherently inconsistent with the capitalist doctrine that is universal in the center-right to right. It's not fundamentally incompatible with some of the not-exactly-capitalist economic views of the far right, I guess, but it has other conflicts with most of them. > But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes Left environmentalists would try harder to build a compromise coalition with other environmentalists around solutions that weren't specifically tied to other left-wing agenda items if, you know, any other environmentalists were showing up. > leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism. Nah, it's using socialism to overcome the working classes natural resistance to policies whose broad outcomes they would prefer, but who know that without some guardrails the capitalist class is going to assure that the working class pays all the (gross) costs and more. That is, it's using socialism to peddle environmentalism, not the other way around.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Environmentalism has always been a cause of the (mostly, as now, center- rather than radical-) left. This absolutely is not true. Who is, by a massive margin, the top polluting nation right now? Communist China. The Soviets did plenty of environmental damage also. Meanwhile the Western capitalist countries are all on a downward trend for emissions. The “rapid industrialisation at any cost” approach is an essential hallmark of socialism, always has been. Human lives are of no importance to it, let alone plants or animals.

by kls 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been hijacked by leftist radicals. Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much ink talking about universal healthcare, housing security, and labor unions? Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept. Basic economics recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead to market failure. But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes, leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
It's only been hijacked because the centrists and right-wing people have let it be hijacked. Up until a few years ago, the standard way to get bills passed was for Democrats and Republicans to jointly write bills. Failing that, they'd each write their own bill and then hammer together a compromise. If the only politicians with a climate change proposal are those on the far left, they're the ones that are going to get heard and set the agenda. I'd love to see a nice Republican environmental proposal, something based on market economics, like a carbon tax & tariff (https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding) But until such exists, you can't complain about the far left setting the agenda.
goatinaboat 7y ago
has already been hijacked by leftist radicals Greta is on stage calling for not net zero emissions but actual zero. It’s a religion at this point complete with prophets (whose prophecies are always wrong) and demagogues.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been hijacked by leftist radicals. Environmentalism has always been a cause of the (mostly, as now, center- rather than radical-) left. > Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much ink talking about universal healthcare, housing security, and labor unions? Because, as the name suggests, it is intended as a New Deal that is also Green. Sure, it's a left-of-center proposal. But where, if environmentalism isn't inherently left, is the equally strongly advocated proposal from the right? The left isn't hijacking environmentalism, they are just the only group showing up for it. > Basic economics recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead to market failure. Basic conventional economics does recognize that, but that center-right isn't interested in much policy action based on that, and farther right factions reject conventional empirical economics for openly ideological schools that hold that markets can't fail they can only be failed. > Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept It's inherently inconsistent with the capitalist doctrine that is universal in the center-right to right. It's not fundamentally incompatible with some of the not-exactly-capitalist economic views of the far right, I guess, but it has other conflicts with most of them. > But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes Left environmentalists would try harder to build a compromise coalition with other environmentalists around solutions that weren't specifically tied to other left-wing agenda items if, you know, any other environmentalists were showing up. > leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism. Nah, it's using socialism to overcome the working classes natural resistance to policies whose broad outcomes they would prefer, but who know that without some guardrails the capitalist class is going to assure that the working class pays all the (gross) costs and more. That is, it's using socialism to peddle environmentalism, not the other way around.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Environmentalism has always been a cause of the (mostly, as now, center- rather than radical-) left. This absolutely is not true. Who is, by a massive margin, the top polluting nation right now? Communist China. The Soviets did plenty of environmental damage also. Meanwhile the Western capitalist countries are all on a downward trend for emissions. The “rapid industrialisation at any cost” approach is an essential hallmark of socialism, always has been. Human lives are of no importance to it, let alone plants or animals.