4 ms·
Attacking or blaming environmental groups in a time of environmental crisis seems like an absurdly misguided strategy. The author should re-evaluate their prior
by protastus 3y ago
Attacking or blaming environmental groups in a time of environmental crisis seems like an absurdly misguided strategy. The author should re-evaluate their priorities.
Oil and gasoline are some of the most subsidized products in history. Too many Americans demand cheap gas, like it's a human right.
If solar had been similarly subsidized over the last 20 years, we'd see solar panels on every other business and house in every state except Alaska.
This is the situation, and environmental groups did not cause it. And they did not pivot towards undermining their own mission at scale, like they're being accused of.
- systemvoltage 3y agoGreta said the world has 5 years left if we don’t do anything in 2018: https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1634644472553168896 https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1634644472553168896
- protastus 3y agohttps://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Imagine you're 15 and look at the graph above. What deadline do you set for humanity to fix the issue?
- systemvoltage 3y agoI don’t trust the Science that censors dissent. It’s not science. The people that propel climate doom are also ok with depopulation of millions. The incoherence is absolutely staggering. The entire climate agenda reeks of malaise, dishonesty and authoritarianism. You will live in a pod. You will eat bugs. You will euthanize people on a mass scale. You will be happy. We have limitless resource - Nuclear energy both in the form of Uranium/Plutonium and the sun itself. Climate doomers are Marxists who don’t want solutions. They just want state power expansion and erosion of rights through the bullshit excuse of climate. It’s year 2050 and there are climate activists for space to keep space pristine. Mark my words. The roots are in place at cities like Berkeley.
- protastus 3y agoYou didn't answer the question.
- systemvoltage 3y agoIt was a rhetorical question.
- jay_kyburz 3y agoWow, thanks for posting voltage, it's think its really valuable to be reminded there are such wildly different points of view on this. And actually it's our wildly different perspectives is what makes me a climate doomer. Me and my group will never allow nuclear because we don't trust people to manage it properly. You and your group will never reduce your energy usage and consumption of resources because that might be an erosion of your rights! It's like with Covid, when people were asked to put on a mask to protect themselves and others, a lot of people said OK, and a lot of people made a big deal about it. I think we should continue our transition to non polluting energy sources, but our democracy means no government is going to make deeply unpopular choices, so nothing will happen very quickly. Climate change will happen.
- systemvoltage 3y ago> Me and my group will never allow nuclear because we don't trust people to manage it properly. Strange and contradictory. I thought people said the same thing about CDC, vaccines and the entire COVID fiasco. You didn’t have any issue with trusting the people to manage the pandemic properly then?
- whats_a_quasar 3y agoDid you read the article? The author linked many examples of situations where the actions of environmental groups have been aimed at preventing clean energy projects that benefit the environment. It's perfectly legitimate to point out that environmental groups are acting against their stated goals. The stuff about oil and gas is besides the point. I don't think anyone in this conversation disagrees with you about subsidies.
- protastus 3y agoThe author claims that "America's top environmental groups have lost the plot". This is an incredibly serious and broad accusation, and the author is throwing away the baby with the bathwater with a few cherry picked examples.