5 ms·

> We opted to wage pointless wars instead No, we opted to provide incentives to fossil fuel producers and consumers. That is how we got into this mess. Pointl

> We opted to wage pointless wars instead No, we opted to provide incentives to fossil fuel producers and consumers. That is how we got into this mess. Pointless wars are bad for other obvious reasons.

ashtonkem 5y ago
It’s worth pointing out that the US Military is one of the most prolific polluters in the world, and while an army at peace isn’t a totally idle thing, active deployment drives up consumption massively. Our pointless wars have absolutely contributed to global warming, although I wouldn’t pin the majority of the blame on them.
- dundarious 5y ago
  I think the military comparison is apt, because massive military spending is seen as table stakes for being a “serious” politician in the US, whereas massive GHG reduction spending is seen as an automatic disqualifier and makes you a silly believer in the “green dream or whatever”.
rayiner 5y ago
We also opted to make climate change a vehicle for unrelated progressive issues: https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-124408358.html https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-12440835... > “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added
- coryrc 5y ago
  It has to be in the US due to FPTP voting. That's how you build a coalition. Getting Republicans on your side won't do any good because they don't vote in your primary.
- Zababa 5y ago
  Don't even get me started on ecologists complaining about nuclear power for the last 50 years at least. These people should be punished for all the time and energy they wasted.
  - Teknoman117 5y ago
    It's literally the best thing we have going for us, even now. In terms of energy output (TW/h to grid over lifespan) for energy input (mining, refinement, construction, cooling), it's something like 10x both solar and wind. We would need to do fuel reprocessing to manage the waste output and also need to enter serial production of reactors so they could all stop being one-off designs that take forever and literally billions of dollars to certify. Build them where cooling water is available and build wind and solar where practical anywhere else. If fusion ends up working out and/or something better comes along, switch to building that over nuclear fission plants whenever that time comes and sunset the fission plants at the end of their lives. Waiting for a more convenient answer is no excuse for inaction today. We're going to need more power capacity that we have today, because we'll also have to be switching all transportation and manufacturing to electrical sources as well. Shipping is either going to need vessels with nuclear power, or that burn ammonia or hydrogen. One of the only things that we don't have any decent known answers for is what to run airplanes off of. Maybe they keep burning carbon fuels and we explicitly build carbon scrubbers for what we know they produce.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  Couldn't part (even a large part) of that "change-the-entire-economy thing" be weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels? I don't see how they are incompatible. Sometimes the correct solution has more than one benefit.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    And sometimes the purpose is a planned economy, and the pretext is whatever it is today.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      Maybe, but you never actually connected the two things beyond cryptic innuendo. Your link doesn’t related to actual climate change legislation that is under discussion today. It’s a distraction made for us to focus on the partisan aspects rather than the actual proposals and solutions.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        The Green New Deal is an “actual proposal.” It was an actual bill that was submitted. You could just read it and see that it was a laundry list of economic interventions that liberals have always wanted, mostly unrelated to climate change. I understand that many Democrats purport you support the Green New Deal while advancing much more moderate proposals. Democrats think that “making a big opening bid” and paring it back is a way to anchor expectations. Except how this reads to non-Democrats is that “socialist takeover of the economy in the name of climate change is the ultimate goal,” and subsequent moderate measures are just seen as stepping stones toward that end. It’s like leading with “Defund the Police” and trying to backfill with moderate police reform proposals. It’s a way to keep activists engaged, but it just makes moderates distrustful off your true intentions.
        long_time_gone 5y ago
        There are two parties in the USA. One party has acknowledged climate change and proposed solutions (even though the solutions aren’t perfect). The other party denies climate change exists and has presented no plans to combat it. An entire political party not providing a single solution for society’s largest ongoing problem is what should make moderates distrustful. Actually proposing solutions opens one up to the types of attacks you constantly make on this site, that’s the price to pay for taking threats seriously and actually trying to solve problems. You can deflect to other topics, but in the end, no amount of wordsmithing changes that fact.
- yongjik 5y ago
  Republicans (well, honestly, every party) had decades to come up with their own sane climate policy. They came up with a president that called climate change a Chinese hoax. Not that I'm terribly fond of AOC, but I'd pick AOC over Republicans every time if I get to choose.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  The issues are not in fact unrelated.

ashtonkem 5y ago

It’s worth pointing out that the US Military is one of the most prolific polluters in the world, and while an army at peace isn’t a totally idle thing, active deployment drives up consumption massively. Our pointless wars have absolutely contributed to global warming, although I wouldn’t pin the majority of the blame on them.

dundarious 5y ago
I think the military comparison is apt, because massive military spending is seen as table stakes for being a “serious” politician in the US, whereas massive GHG reduction spending is seen as an automatic disqualifier and makes you a silly believer in the “green dream or whatever”.

rayiner 5y ago

We also opted to make climate change a vehicle for unrelated progressive issues: https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-124408358.html https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-12440835... > “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added

coryrc 5y ago
It has to be in the US due to FPTP voting. That's how you build a coalition. Getting Republicans on your side won't do any good because they don't vote in your primary.
Zababa 5y ago
Don't even get me started on ecologists complaining about nuclear power for the last 50 years at least. These people should be punished for all the time and energy they wasted.
- Teknoman117 5y ago
  It's literally the best thing we have going for us, even now. In terms of energy output (TW/h to grid over lifespan) for energy input (mining, refinement, construction, cooling), it's something like 10x both solar and wind. We would need to do fuel reprocessing to manage the waste output and also need to enter serial production of reactors so they could all stop being one-off designs that take forever and literally billions of dollars to certify. Build them where cooling water is available and build wind and solar where practical anywhere else. If fusion ends up working out and/or something better comes along, switch to building that over nuclear fission plants whenever that time comes and sunset the fission plants at the end of their lives. Waiting for a more convenient answer is no excuse for inaction today. We're going to need more power capacity that we have today, because we'll also have to be switching all transportation and manufacturing to electrical sources as well. Shipping is either going to need vessels with nuclear power, or that burn ammonia or hydrogen. One of the only things that we don't have any decent known answers for is what to run airplanes off of. Maybe they keep burning carbon fuels and we explicitly build carbon scrubbers for what we know they produce.
long_time_gone 5y ago
Couldn't part (even a large part) of that "change-the-entire-economy thing" be weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels? I don't see how they are incompatible. Sometimes the correct solution has more than one benefit.
- rayiner 5y ago
  And sometimes the purpose is a planned economy, and the pretext is whatever it is today.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    Maybe, but you never actually connected the two things beyond cryptic innuendo. Your link doesn’t related to actual climate change legislation that is under discussion today. It’s a distraction made for us to focus on the partisan aspects rather than the actual proposals and solutions.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      The Green New Deal is an “actual proposal.” It was an actual bill that was submitted. You could just read it and see that it was a laundry list of economic interventions that liberals have always wanted, mostly unrelated to climate change. I understand that many Democrats purport you support the Green New Deal while advancing much more moderate proposals. Democrats think that “making a big opening bid” and paring it back is a way to anchor expectations. Except how this reads to non-Democrats is that “socialist takeover of the economy in the name of climate change is the ultimate goal,” and subsequent moderate measures are just seen as stepping stones toward that end. It’s like leading with “Defund the Police” and trying to backfill with moderate police reform proposals. It’s a way to keep activists engaged, but it just makes moderates distrustful off your true intentions.
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        There are two parties in the USA. One party has acknowledged climate change and proposed solutions (even though the solutions aren’t perfect). The other party denies climate change exists and has presented no plans to combat it. An entire political party not providing a single solution for society’s largest ongoing problem is what should make moderates distrustful. Actually proposing solutions opens one up to the types of attacks you constantly make on this site, that’s the price to pay for taking threats seriously and actually trying to solve problems. You can deflect to other topics, but in the end, no amount of wordsmithing changes that fact.
yongjik 5y ago
Republicans (well, honestly, every party) had decades to come up with their own sane climate policy. They came up with a president that called climate change a Chinese hoax. Not that I'm terribly fond of AOC, but I'd pick AOC over Republicans every time if I get to choose.
dredmorbius 5y ago
The issues are not in fact unrelated.