4 ms·

What should they quit over climate change? The earth? Is there a specific nation like Russia people can avoid for climate change? You're comparing apples and eg

by _8j50 5y ago

What should they quit over climate change? The earth? Is there a specific nation like Russia people can avoid for climate change? You're comparing apples and eggs here. People should quit BP? Because what? Exxon or Shell are so much better for the environment? Do you know why there is so much Russia-quitting? Because there is political incentive to do so. There is nowhere near the same amount of unity and consensus among voters of democraric nations when it comes to climate change. It's not the politicians fault either. Inability to convince fellow voters (for whatever underlying reason) is what you should be blaming. It's easy to blame politicians and corporations, that way, you can blame someone and not have to do anything about it.

hall0ween 5y ago
To me, the people who need convincing don’t handle/care about the abstract threat like climate change as well as one where a nation invades another. I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Also, per your argument about BP wrt other rivals for most environmentally damaging activities exist - perhaps you should reorient the argument ( for the sake of better conversation) towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff - rather than thinking a corporation and it’s shareholders will change their ways.
- _8j50 5y ago
  > I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Depends. In the US at least, the underlying issue is socio-political alliances resulting from the two-party rule. The people trying to do the convincing also lump in a bunch of other things to the point where unless the otherside had the interest and motivation to study climate science first hand, taking their word for it is impossible. Like, you wouldn't take climate change advice from say... the CCP or the Taliban either unless you know enough to independently berify their claims. The people that can independently verify need no convincing, for the people that can't well.. you're also telling them their beliefs are a joke, their history is shame and they have to accept a whole lot of other things (not that I agree with any) they find utterly repulsive. Not only is there no trust, there is open hostility. Maybe don't make climate change an us vs them thing? This is the price of politicizing everything. You want the Bible-belt to get onboard with climate change? Get preachers on board not scientists. You want texas and alaska onboard? Also get the NRA onboard. Blue collar workers? Get them unions for green jobs that pay better (price in better pay to workers). You want china and EU onboard? Convince people nuclear power is safe. These are just my ideas but the point you need consensus not a majority. > towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff That sounds great and I agree but try convincing people that use scooters at walmart to bike to work. Most post-war cities are designed to consume fossil fuel. They are anti public transport and pedestrians. All that can change, but even if it did, takes too long and it will not be enough by itself anyways.
- lanevorockz 5y ago
  The biggest issue of Climate Change is that it doesn’t really mean anything. We need to be precise if we want action done. Our worst enemy is lack of information and the mistakes done when selling Global Warming, think Al Gore in the 1990s. Let’s not be fooled to think CO2 is such a magical evil molecule, we need to tackle much bigger problems than a chemical that earth is naturally trained to tackle.
lanevorockz 5y ago
It’s not politics, when a country promises to start the nuclear holocaust the fame changes. Putin turned Ukraine into a World War threat. Don’t be fooled, nobody expected such reckless which is a sign of desperation. Russia is certainly in some deep deep problems.
- _8j50 5y ago
  I disagree. The invasion of Ukraine was not a surprise. Even Trump was impeached for witholding aid to Ukraine because this threat has been around for a while now. I still remember when their previous president or PM sold them out to Russia by selling of a base or something and they had fist fights in their parliament because of it. The US and pals tell everyone what to do in their country, including putin (see Chechnya), they invade Iraq for Oil but act like they are better than when russia invaded Georgia. Russia's economy depends on oil sales to neighbors and to Putin, the only thing preventing the west from twisting their arms is nukes, the US has been handing out THAAD and hosting nukes in NATO states, Ukraine and Georgia have the desire to join NATO. This isn't that surprising. Putin wants a buffer of former soviet states . Of course, I personally disagree with his views but from his perspective invading Ukraine was in the best interest of his rule and preserving Russia's sovreignity. The whole WW3 scare is silly. Putin isn't interested in a 1000 year reich. He's a KGB spy who spent his life resisting western influence, he is doing what he does best. Now that they have him feel cornerned though, things will get very bad. He may invade all the former soviet sattelites and the west should stay out of it unless WW3 is on the calendar.
  - redisman 5y ago
    This WW3 scare is IMHO stupid. Just let Russia take Ukraine? Kazakhstan? Lithuania? Georgia? Finland? Sweden? Estonia? Poland? Where do you draw the line? I don’t think any of those are acceptable. If you don’t fight a expansionist tyrant then what do you envision happens? Sacrificing innocent free countries to (maybe) appease a monster is completely out of the question. Things can get bad if you interfere - things are guaranteed to get bad if you don’t
    - 5y ago
bamboozled 5y ago
No, I meant we should've and we could've quit fossil fuels at the scale we consume them a longgggg time ago. Quit BP, Quit Shell, Quit Exxon.

by _8j50 5y ago

hall0ween 5y ago

To me, the people who need convincing don’t handle/care about the abstract threat like climate change as well as one where a nation invades another. I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Also, per your argument about BP wrt other rivals for most environmentally damaging activities exist - perhaps you should reorient the argument ( for the sake of better conversation) towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff - rather than thinking a corporation and it’s shareholders will change their ways.

_8j50 5y ago
> I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Depends. In the US at least, the underlying issue is socio-political alliances resulting from the two-party rule. The people trying to do the convincing also lump in a bunch of other things to the point where unless the otherside had the interest and motivation to study climate science first hand, taking their word for it is impossible. Like, you wouldn't take climate change advice from say... the CCP or the Taliban either unless you know enough to independently berify their claims. The people that can independently verify need no convincing, for the people that can't well.. you're also telling them their beliefs are a joke, their history is shame and they have to accept a whole lot of other things (not that I agree with any) they find utterly repulsive. Not only is there no trust, there is open hostility. Maybe don't make climate change an us vs them thing? This is the price of politicizing everything. You want the Bible-belt to get onboard with climate change? Get preachers on board not scientists. You want texas and alaska onboard? Also get the NRA onboard. Blue collar workers? Get them unions for green jobs that pay better (price in better pay to workers). You want china and EU onboard? Convince people nuclear power is safe. These are just my ideas but the point you need consensus not a majority. > towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff That sounds great and I agree but try convincing people that use scooters at walmart to bike to work. Most post-war cities are designed to consume fossil fuel. They are anti public transport and pedestrians. All that can change, but even if it did, takes too long and it will not be enough by itself anyways.
lanevorockz 5y ago
The biggest issue of Climate Change is that it doesn’t really mean anything. We need to be precise if we want action done. Our worst enemy is lack of information and the mistakes done when selling Global Warming, think Al Gore in the 1990s. Let’s not be fooled to think CO2 is such a magical evil molecule, we need to tackle much bigger problems than a chemical that earth is naturally trained to tackle.

lanevorockz 5y ago

It’s not politics, when a country promises to start the nuclear holocaust the fame changes. Putin turned Ukraine into a World War threat. Don’t be fooled, nobody expected such reckless which is a sign of desperation. Russia is certainly in some deep deep problems.

_8j50 5y ago
I disagree. The invasion of Ukraine was not a surprise. Even Trump was impeached for witholding aid to Ukraine because this threat has been around for a while now. I still remember when their previous president or PM sold them out to Russia by selling of a base or something and they had fist fights in their parliament because of it. The US and pals tell everyone what to do in their country, including putin (see Chechnya), they invade Iraq for Oil but act like they are better than when russia invaded Georgia. Russia's economy depends on oil sales to neighbors and to Putin, the only thing preventing the west from twisting their arms is nukes, the US has been handing out THAAD and hosting nukes in NATO states, Ukraine and Georgia have the desire to join NATO. This isn't that surprising. Putin wants a buffer of former soviet states . Of course, I personally disagree with his views but from his perspective invading Ukraine was in the best interest of his rule and preserving Russia's sovreignity. The whole WW3 scare is silly. Putin isn't interested in a 1000 year reich. He's a KGB spy who spent his life resisting western influence, he is doing what he does best. Now that they have him feel cornerned though, things will get very bad. He may invade all the former soviet sattelites and the west should stay out of it unless WW3 is on the calendar.
- redisman 5y ago
  This WW3 scare is IMHO stupid. Just let Russia take Ukraine? Kazakhstan? Lithuania? Georgia? Finland? Sweden? Estonia? Poland? Where do you draw the line? I don’t think any of those are acceptable. If you don’t fight a expansionist tyrant then what do you envision happens? Sacrificing innocent free countries to (maybe) appease a monster is completely out of the question. Things can get bad if you interfere - things are guaranteed to get bad if you don’t
  - 5y ago

bamboozled 5y ago

No, I meant we should've and we could've quit fossil fuels at the scale we consume them a longgggg time ago. Quit BP, Quit Shell, Quit Exxon.