3 ms·
It just seems squirrely to double down that inaction doesn't mean inaction. You seem to be pushing your ideas more than you seem to be thinking about what they
by frumper 3y ago
It just seems squirrely to double down that inaction doesn't mean inaction. You seem to be pushing your ideas more than you seem to be thinking about what they actually sound like.
- runarberg 3y agoBut it is right, inaction to commit to international agreements does not mean inaction to reduce carbon emission. Those are separate things. And when the conversation is explicitly about the (im)possibility of international agreements, it should be clear which inaction I’m talking about. And of course I’m pushing my ideas. The history of who killed the Kyoto protocol is still up for debate. I’m of the opinion that the death of the Kyoto protocol and all subsequent agreements rests in one bad actor, the USA. There is not a historic consensus about this, and you’ll find historic accounts that disagree with this (or more likely you’ll find historians putting less importance on the Kyoto protocol than I do). I’m pushing what I believe is the most accurate—or rather the most relevant—narrative of history here.
- frumper 3y agoComplaining about someone saying they aren't committing to do something while they generally do that thing doesn't seem like a good complaint. Diplomacy has a lot of moving parts.