3 ms·

Sometimes i wonder if the actions of ICE, are a reaction to try and stop immigration because of climate change. Naturally the administration will never say this

Sometimes i wonder if the actions of ICE, are a reaction to try and stop immigration because of climate change. Naturally the administration will never say this, but the American west in particular is suffering a water crisis today and recent times seem to indicate today is the new normal. I think its reasonable to guess that the land cant support more people.

krapp 7d ago
No. The actions of ICE are a reaction to how much Trump and his base hate brown people. This administration doesn't even believe climate change is real, Trump infamously called it a "Chinese hoax."
- ares623 7d ago
  In the face of such incredulous hate, one must try to find some meaning to try and rationalize it.
  - junofan 7d ago
    A big problem is these political spectrums are not really coherent moral philosophies yet fulfill an individual’s need for that kind of structure. I think anyone would find that “a person in America has a larger carbon footprint than a person almost anywhere else; therefore it’s an ecological imperative to expel whomever we can“ is odious. So we just don’t think about it.
PeterHolzwarth 7d ago
The current administration doesn't believe in climate change / global warming, so no. It's just the typical "blame foreigners for your problems" thing that every authoritarian regime all over the world indulges in, and uses to justify nasty stuff. In the last 20 years, for example, it's also been how China justifies stealing stuff from other countries to further their local industries and technological growth (not that there aren't fantastic engineers and scientists in China already).
- georgemcbay 7d ago
  > The current administration doesn't believe in climate change / global warming Sure they do. None of the Greenland stuff (or most of the Canada stuff) makes sense unless they believe in these things. We assume that if they believed they would try to slow these things down, but they chose a different path, profiting off the accelerationism. The claims of not believing are just fodder for the FOX News/OANN watchers and what they say publicly is not what they believe. In much the same way that David Miscavige doesn't believe in Xenu, I'm pretty positive Donald Trump does believe in global warming, he just doesn't care... or rather only cares insomuch as it is a profit opportunity.
  - citrin_ru 7d ago
    Greenland stuff doesn’t make sense even if they believe into the climate change. The US already has military bases there which are barely used. It’s just plain imperialism.
    - 3seashells 7d ago
      [dead]
- MiroslavPokorny 7d ago
  They know the truth, their public statements are an act. I think its pretty obvious that all public people say one thing and believe or do another in private.
gmerc 7d ago
Lol, the Golf courses, Almond plantages and Datacenters would beg to differ. It can't support more peasants maybe
pfannkuchen 7d ago
I’ve been puzzled why climate change messaging seems to ignore the emissions of other large countries like China and India. If USA reduces emissions but others don’t, well we all share the same atmosphere so… But similar to your angle, I’ve wondered if the climate change messaging is secretly targeted towards resource depletion. If USA switches off oil and oil runs out, who cares if others didn’t switch? But people have a hard time processing “going to run out in 50 years” as a crisis, so instead we get an apocalypse angle, I suppose because humans love the apocalypse (see: various religions).
- anonymous_user9 7d ago
  The USA is far wealthier, uses more carbon per-person, and is responsible for more historical emissions than China or India. We have an obligation to reduce our gluttony before asking others to go without.
  - hyperlinerapp 7d ago
    What have you done to reduce your gluttony?
  - MiroslavPokorny 6d ago
    The USA is not wealthy, some people and corporations are wealthy, most people are not. BIG difference. I like to think of holidays and work / life balance as a measure of wealth. Rich people can take time away from work because they can afford it. If you need to work lots of hours and barely can have a few days off then you arent wealthy. Let me ask again, if you need to work 2 - 3 jobs are you wealthy ? If you can only take a weeks worth of holidays in a good year are you wealthy ?
- dyauspitr 7d ago
  China and India have very, very low per capita emissions. They are also the countries working the hardest and fastest at installing renewable energy.
- defrost 7d ago
  > I’ve been puzzled why climate change messaging seems to ignore the emissions of other large countries like China and India. It doesn't. The issue is likely more that you don't see or read widely enough. Even here on HN you'll see mention of China and India's emissions and use of coal on a regular basis. The US is a significant mention for two main reasons:- * of all the human lofted additional CO2 of the past century plus (that sourced from formerly deep underground) the US is the single largest sole country contributor (although China is catching up (but may or may not equal the US)), ... * the US is still a large per capita contributor today (ignoring tiny tiny outlier countries with small populations and near single export fossil fuel extraction countries) - it has an energy intensive economy. My personal beef isn't so much with the US but specifically with US based fossil fuel and resource companies of the 1970s onwards (eg: Koch brothers) who were well aware of the problem with increasing the insulation factor of the atmosphere and doubled down anyway - spending large on "think tanks" to promote confusion via media, over sell the appeal of large cars, destroy any and all grass roots campaigns for public transport, etc. (CO2MaXXing ?). The US has had influence across the planet post WWII, these campaigns just promoted a bad example for profit and deferred early and timely addressing of the issues.

krapp 7d ago

No. The actions of ICE are a reaction to how much Trump and his base hate brown people. This administration doesn't even believe climate change is real, Trump infamously called it a "Chinese hoax."

ares623 7d ago
In the face of such incredulous hate, one must try to find some meaning to try and rationalize it.
- junofan 7d ago
  A big problem is these political spectrums are not really coherent moral philosophies yet fulfill an individual’s need for that kind of structure. I think anyone would find that “a person in America has a larger carbon footprint than a person almost anywhere else; therefore it’s an ecological imperative to expel whomever we can“ is odious. So we just don’t think about it.

PeterHolzwarth 7d ago

The current administration doesn't believe in climate change / global warming, so no. It's just the typical "blame foreigners for your problems" thing that every authoritarian regime all over the world indulges in, and uses to justify nasty stuff. In the last 20 years, for example, it's also been how China justifies stealing stuff from other countries to further their local industries and technological growth (not that there aren't fantastic engineers and scientists in China already).

georgemcbay 7d ago
> The current administration doesn't believe in climate change / global warming Sure they do. None of the Greenland stuff (or most of the Canada stuff) makes sense unless they believe in these things. We assume that if they believed they would try to slow these things down, but they chose a different path, profiting off the accelerationism. The claims of not believing are just fodder for the FOX News/OANN watchers and what they say publicly is not what they believe. In much the same way that David Miscavige doesn't believe in Xenu, I'm pretty positive Donald Trump does believe in global warming, he just doesn't care... or rather only cares insomuch as it is a profit opportunity.
- citrin_ru 7d ago
  Greenland stuff doesn’t make sense even if they believe into the climate change. The US already has military bases there which are barely used. It’s just plain imperialism.
  - 3seashells 7d ago
    [dead]
MiroslavPokorny 7d ago
They know the truth, their public statements are an act. I think its pretty obvious that all public people say one thing and believe or do another in private.

gmerc 7d ago

Lol, the Golf courses, Almond plantages and Datacenters would beg to differ. It can't support more peasants maybe

pfannkuchen 7d ago

I’ve been puzzled why climate change messaging seems to ignore the emissions of other large countries like China and India. If USA reduces emissions but others don’t, well we all share the same atmosphere so… But similar to your angle, I’ve wondered if the climate change messaging is secretly targeted towards resource depletion. If USA switches off oil and oil runs out, who cares if others didn’t switch? But people have a hard time processing “going to run out in 50 years” as a crisis, so instead we get an apocalypse angle, I suppose because humans love the apocalypse (see: various religions).

anonymous_user9 7d ago
The USA is far wealthier, uses more carbon per-person, and is responsible for more historical emissions than China or India. We have an obligation to reduce our gluttony before asking others to go without.
- hyperlinerapp 7d ago
  What have you done to reduce your gluttony?
- MiroslavPokorny 6d ago
  The USA is not wealthy, some people and corporations are wealthy, most people are not. BIG difference. I like to think of holidays and work / life balance as a measure of wealth. Rich people can take time away from work because they can afford it. If you need to work lots of hours and barely can have a few days off then you arent wealthy. Let me ask again, if you need to work 2 - 3 jobs are you wealthy ? If you can only take a weeks worth of holidays in a good year are you wealthy ?
dyauspitr 7d ago
China and India have very, very low per capita emissions. They are also the countries working the hardest and fastest at installing renewable energy.
defrost 7d ago
> I’ve been puzzled why climate change messaging seems to ignore the emissions of other large countries like China and India. It doesn't. The issue is likely more that you don't see or read widely enough. Even here on HN you'll see mention of China and India's emissions and use of coal on a regular basis. The US is a significant mention for two main reasons:- * of all the human lofted additional CO2 of the past century plus (that sourced from formerly deep underground) the US is the single largest sole country contributor (although China is catching up (but may or may not equal the US)), ... * the US is still a large per capita contributor today (ignoring tiny tiny outlier countries with small populations and near single export fossil fuel extraction countries) - it has an energy intensive economy. My personal beef isn't so much with the US but specifically with US based fossil fuel and resource companies of the 1970s onwards (eg: Koch brothers) who were well aware of the problem with increasing the insulation factor of the atmosphere and doubled down anyway - spending large on "think tanks" to promote confusion via media, over sell the appeal of large cars, destroy any and all grass roots campaigns for public transport, etc. (CO2MaXXing ?). The US has had influence across the planet post WWII, these campaigns just promoted a bad example for profit and deferred early and timely addressing of the issues.