4 ms·

Finally something in biopersistent chemicals. oh!..but look at those companies being all green and scores on their ESG ratings. Oh, and they are using green el

Finally something in biopersistent chemicals. oh!..but look at those companies being all green and scores on their ESG ratings. Oh, and they are using green electricity. CO2 has been used as greenwashing and mis-direction. Yes. It is a problem. No - it will not harm you today - but these chemicals harm you and your children today and every day after that, forever. Persistent chemicals that are hormone disruptors are killing humans, killing fish, killing bees, killing literally EVERYTHING alive on this plant - TODAY. And all you hear from powers that be is global warming and CO2 that drowns out this very immediate, but such a profitable problem. Disgusting.

dataflow 5y ago
> And all you hear from powers that be is global warming and CO2 that drowns out this very immediate, but such a profitable problem. Uhm... no? I'm not sure where you got this from or who your "powers that be" are, but I have yet to see a climate change advocate play down other environmental problems. All of those problems are understood to be in need of addressing. Which is in sharp contrast with climate-change deniers and skeptics, whom I repeatedly see confusing people by directing attention away from climate change to other environmental problems, like talking about air pollution and clean water every time someone mentions climate change.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I haven't seen a candidate run with an anti-PFAS statement. It does seem like a largely ignored issue in politics.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > I have yet to see a climate change advocate play down other environmental problems But they stated it was about emphasis, because their obsession (global warming) is drowning out other environmental issues. > Which is in sharp contrast with climate-change deniers and skeptics, whom I repeatedly see confusing people by directing attention away from climate change to other environmental problems, like talking about air pollution and clean water every time someone mentions climate change. I'm not sure what you'd expect? They disagree or are sceptical, do you expect them to talk up global warming? That would be strange. It also implies that they do care about the environment, which is in contrast to how they're usually portrayed, but they're emphasising different environmental challenges. Maybe, if things like clean water and air pollution were tackled then they'd have less things to "play down" and "confuse" others with? Wouldn't that be a boon.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > I'm not sure what you'd expect? They disagree or are sceptical, do you expect them to talk up global warming? That would be strange. I expect them to deny or express skepticism about it. Not deflect to a different topic. The logical response to e.g. "do you care about global warming? What should we do about it?" if you are genuinely skeptical would be something like "I'm not convinced it's a problem we need to address", not "of course I care about the environment! I love clean air and water!" as if the question had been about air pollution or water delivery...
    - brigandish 5y ago
      Maybe that's because: a) they do care about the environment b) they get accused of not caring because of their stance on global warming I think it's the language of a tribalist to say your opponent is deflecting without something more substantial than they don't want to talk about that thing they don't think is worth talking about.
      - dataflow 5y ago
        > I think it's the language of a tribalist to say your opponent is deflecting without something more substantial Have you considered there might be a different explanation here than me lacking "substance" and you somehow being full of it? Ironically, have you considered you might be the one instantly jumping to a conclusion about me just based on a couple offhand internet comments on a discussion that's barely even started? I think it's quite ridiculous (and frankly, rude) to accuse people of being "tribal" or lacking "substance" just because they you a couple quick comments summarizing years of events and didn't spend hours preemptively writing you an essay with detailed analysis and citations. And bear in mind that jumping to -isms accusations so quickly itself has the exact opposite effect of the one you're hoping for.
        brigandish 5y ago
        > Have you considered there might be a different explanation here than me lacking "substance" and you somehow being full of it? Ironically, have you considered you might be the one instantly jumping to a conclusion about me just based on a couple offhand internet comments on a discussion that's barely even started? Firstly, I wasn't saying anything about you but the language you are using. Secondly, I didn't accuse you of lacking substance, I wrote that your argument lacked evidence. Lastly, your reaction is over the top, which is also quite a tribalistic response to being challenged. Yes, now I'm making an insinuation, but that's your own fault for your own faulty assumptions. If you want, we can dial down the temperature and discuss things at a better level, or we can just leave it, not that I believe there's much to discuss other than why you're jumping to so many assumptions about the people you disagree with (or who disagree with you) and their bad intentions.

dataflow 5y ago

> And all you hear from powers that be is global warming and CO2 that drowns out this very immediate, but such a profitable problem. Uhm... no? I'm not sure where you got this from or who your "powers that be" are, but I have yet to see a climate change advocate play down other environmental problems. All of those problems are understood to be in need of addressing. Which is in sharp contrast with climate-change deniers and skeptics, whom I repeatedly see confusing people by directing attention away from climate change to other environmental problems, like talking about air pollution and clean water every time someone mentions climate change.

giantg2 5y ago
I haven't seen a candidate run with an anti-PFAS statement. It does seem like a largely ignored issue in politics.
brigandish 5y ago
> I have yet to see a climate change advocate play down other environmental problems But they stated it was about emphasis, because their obsession (global warming) is drowning out other environmental issues. > Which is in sharp contrast with climate-change deniers and skeptics, whom I repeatedly see confusing people by directing attention away from climate change to other environmental problems, like talking about air pollution and clean water every time someone mentions climate change. I'm not sure what you'd expect? They disagree or are sceptical, do you expect them to talk up global warming? That would be strange. It also implies that they do care about the environment, which is in contrast to how they're usually portrayed, but they're emphasising different environmental challenges. Maybe, if things like clean water and air pollution were tackled then they'd have less things to "play down" and "confuse" others with? Wouldn't that be a boon.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > I'm not sure what you'd expect? They disagree or are sceptical, do you expect them to talk up global warming? That would be strange. I expect them to deny or express skepticism about it. Not deflect to a different topic. The logical response to e.g. "do you care about global warming? What should we do about it?" if you are genuinely skeptical would be something like "I'm not convinced it's a problem we need to address", not "of course I care about the environment! I love clean air and water!" as if the question had been about air pollution or water delivery...
  - brigandish 5y ago
    Maybe that's because: a) they do care about the environment b) they get accused of not caring because of their stance on global warming I think it's the language of a tribalist to say your opponent is deflecting without something more substantial than they don't want to talk about that thing they don't think is worth talking about.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      > I think it's the language of a tribalist to say your opponent is deflecting without something more substantial Have you considered there might be a different explanation here than me lacking "substance" and you somehow being full of it? Ironically, have you considered you might be the one instantly jumping to a conclusion about me just based on a couple offhand internet comments on a discussion that's barely even started? I think it's quite ridiculous (and frankly, rude) to accuse people of being "tribal" or lacking "substance" just because they you a couple quick comments summarizing years of events and didn't spend hours preemptively writing you an essay with detailed analysis and citations. And bear in mind that jumping to -isms accusations so quickly itself has the exact opposite effect of the one you're hoping for.
      - brigandish 5y ago
        > Have you considered there might be a different explanation here than me lacking "substance" and you somehow being full of it? Ironically, have you considered you might be the one instantly jumping to a conclusion about me just based on a couple offhand internet comments on a discussion that's barely even started? Firstly, I wasn't saying anything about you but the language you are using. Secondly, I didn't accuse you of lacking substance, I wrote that your argument lacked evidence. Lastly, your reaction is over the top, which is also quite a tribalistic response to being challenged. Yes, now I'm making an insinuation, but that's your own fault for your own faulty assumptions. If you want, we can dial down the temperature and discuss things at a better level, or we can just leave it, not that I believe there's much to discuss other than why you're jumping to so many assumptions about the people you disagree with (or who disagree with you) and their bad intentions.