4 ms·

> into an international crime on par with genocide and crimes against humanity is gaining momentum in the EU. Honestly, this sounds like a global totalitarian

> into an international crime on par with genocide and crimes against humanity is gaining momentum in the EU. Honestly, this sounds like a global totalitarian state. No, clearing land is not the same as a genocide. Are we going to execute some poor farmer in Kenya? Particularly, this is detrimental to the poorer countries which may not even have the central authority or resources to impose their will by potentially starving their population. I understand the concern, but I don’t think this is a reasonable position to take.

skrebbel 6y ago
> Are we going to execute That sounds excessive even for actual genocide perpetrators. I strongly doubt many of the proponents of this campaign want to sentence anybody to death.
- Tyr42 6y ago
  Sure, take away their only income and walk away knowing you didn't kill them, starvation did. Very different.
  - skrebbel 6y ago
    GGP mischaracterises the campaign by suggesting that the people behind it want to have perpetrators executed. This is not true. I did not say anything about the other pros and cons of the idea at all, you're jumping to conclusions. You wouldn't use the word "execute" when discussing other measures that put people's livelihoods at risk, even if they're terrible measures.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
They did not say it was the same, they said it is "on par with". Please read instead of interpret. That said, the current policies or lack thereof will lead to climate change, famine, depopulation and mass migration globally. Is that preferable?
- Verdex 6y ago
  "on par with" : at the same level or standard as (someone or something else) Given the definition of that phrase, your admonishment seems misguided at best. I think asking if an alternative implied by the previous comment makes sense. But criticizing their reading comprehension by gaslighting them is wrong.
- lettergram 6y ago
  Thus far almost none of the models have accurately predicted the climate change or the outcomes there of. There’s a great clip of John Kerry in 2009 saying in 5 years there will be no year-round ice in the ice caps. Or earlier when al gore claimed everyone on the coast would be under water (he still has several beach front properties btw). Lets assume they were arguing from a position of good faith (imo unlikely). Then it’s too late to impact the outcome, we should instead invest in mitigation tactics. None of those include going to war or launching air strikes on farmers clear cutting their land. It wouldn’t reduce or improve carbon emissions in any way. Climate change should increase crop yields by most models. Depopulation and migration is more likely to happen when you stop a 3rd world countries ability to produce food or generate electricity (from coal or oil). These policies are going to explicitly cause what their intended to stop. Further, we’re exiting an ice age, by default the earth is 2-4 degrees celsius warmer. The original argument is still potentially valid that off gases can create a poor environment. It is however unclear how and what would cause this and how to mitigate. Just reacting by handing over all production capacity to China and india (which have exceptions to much of the Paris climate accords) is not going to help - it’ll just move the pollution there (and wealth to those who invested there).

skrebbel 6y ago

> Are we going to execute That sounds excessive even for actual genocide perpetrators. I strongly doubt many of the proponents of this campaign want to sentence anybody to death.

Tyr42 6y ago
Sure, take away their only income and walk away knowing you didn't kill them, starvation did. Very different.
- skrebbel 6y ago
  GGP mischaracterises the campaign by suggesting that the people behind it want to have perpetrators executed. This is not true. I did not say anything about the other pros and cons of the idea at all, you're jumping to conclusions. You wouldn't use the word "execute" when discussing other measures that put people's livelihoods at risk, even if they're terrible measures.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

They did not say it was the same, they said it is "on par with". Please read instead of interpret. That said, the current policies or lack thereof will lead to climate change, famine, depopulation and mass migration globally. Is that preferable?

Verdex 6y ago
"on par with" : at the same level or standard as (someone or something else) Given the definition of that phrase, your admonishment seems misguided at best. I think asking if an alternative implied by the previous comment makes sense. But criticizing their reading comprehension by gaslighting them is wrong.
lettergram 6y ago
Thus far almost none of the models have accurately predicted the climate change or the outcomes there of. There’s a great clip of John Kerry in 2009 saying in 5 years there will be no year-round ice in the ice caps. Or earlier when al gore claimed everyone on the coast would be under water (he still has several beach front properties btw). Lets assume they were arguing from a position of good faith (imo unlikely). Then it’s too late to impact the outcome, we should instead invest in mitigation tactics. None of those include going to war or launching air strikes on farmers clear cutting their land. It wouldn’t reduce or improve carbon emissions in any way. Climate change should increase crop yields by most models. Depopulation and migration is more likely to happen when you stop a 3rd world countries ability to produce food or generate electricity (from coal or oil). These policies are going to explicitly cause what their intended to stop. Further, we’re exiting an ice age, by default the earth is 2-4 degrees celsius warmer. The original argument is still potentially valid that off gases can create a poor environment. It is however unclear how and what would cause this and how to mitigate. Just reacting by handing over all production capacity to China and india (which have exceptions to much of the Paris climate accords) is not going to help - it’ll just move the pollution there (and wealth to those who invested there).