|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28706 Posts
On August 10 2019 01:46 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 00:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 10 2019 00:11 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2019 23:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The environmentalist/leftist opposition to trump has very little to do with trade wars. Leftists generally aren't opposed to protectionism (the people talking negatively about the trade wars are generally capitalists who are slightly to the left of the current republican party), and environmentalists oppose him because he claims that man made climate change (or even climate change?) isn't real and because he wants to increase/accelerate earthly exploitation.
If Trump had a radical environmentalist agenda where he wanted to stop globalization to lower emissions caused by transportation (and also decrease consumption altogether), there would be very little backlash to that aspect of his policies from leftists or green voters. But that does not make up even the tiniest fraction of his argument, so it's irrelevant. I think basically everyone has a vested interest in trade. Trade is a foundation upon which peace has been built in the modern era. China and Japan, for example, still have a lot of distrust, rivalry, and bad blood but they also need each other. The European Coal and Steel Community was explicitly created to achieve peace through trade and it has been an unqualified success. Humans are inherently pretty dickish about other tribes but we’re also pretty greedy. It becomes a lot less appealing to bomb people when you’re trying to sell something to those people. I don't disagree with any of this and I generally find myself a bit more pro-free trade than most of my comparably leftist friends. But I'm also pretty staunchly in the 'we all need to consume less' anticapitalism-camp - which I see as opposed to the 'free trade gives cheap goods to the consumers while providing jobs to people in poorer countries increasing living standards for all'-camp (even if I also agree with the descriptive statement I just made about that group). Basically I think it's really difficult to balance environmental needs and causes (that I think trump everything in importance) with increasing living standards of the world's poorest 50% (which I think basically trumps everything other than the environment) and there's also some selfish 'I'm Norwegian so I want Norway to thrive' in there (which again is in conflict with both aforementioned goals as our obscene wealth is derived from harvesting resources that happened to be located in the sea outside my country and the harvest of which ruins the environment which is gonna most negatively affect those poorest 50% that I want to help). But this latter makes leftist Norwegians go 'we need to preserve local food production - that's one thing we cannot depend on the rest of the world for - but we also want to maintain some degree of animal welfare and decent worker rights, meaning that other countries that care less about these two will be able to produce far less expensive food - which means some tariffs need to be in place for the Norwegian consumer being willing to choose Norwegian-produced food which is a necessity for the preservation of Norwegian food producers. I think trade wars are dumb as hell, if that's not clear. But I also think there are real reasons why a country might want to impose tariffs to protect local industry / worker rights - and I also think free trade goes hand in hand with a capitalistic pro-consumption society which I think we need to distance ourselves from. I don't see that transition as a particularly fun one to live through, however. And while Trump's reasons for engaging in a trade war has like, some tiny overlap with leftists in the 'protect local industry' part, every other argument he tries to articulate does not resonate at all with mainstream leftists reasons for being negative towards free trade. Frankly, I also think some leftist opposition to 'free trade' is a relic from cold war opposition to IMF affixing economic aid with liberalization of economy (in a way that forced countries to liberalize their worker/property laws in ways that western workers/politicians would never have accepted), but I'm basing that on a collection of tidbits of information, I've never really delved into that myself. Doesn't Norway check literally every box of "sucks for food production"? High wages, mostly mountains, long frost periods in a large part of the countryside. The only things I can see is a large coast of cool water which should make for good fishing grounds, but I don't think that's a realistic approach to feed 5 million people. Keeping self-sustaining food production alive seems pretty expensive to me. Tbh I don't really see the need for countries to sustain their own food production in this day and age anyways, it's not like the majority of food providers in Europe, Africa, Asia and SA are going to collapse at the same time, even in the very unlikely case of a large scale war we'd still trade with these nations.
Being self-sustainable food wise is indeed expensive for a country like Norway. But we do produce enough food to handle 90% of our needs. (50% of food eaten in norway is produced in norway, but we also export a lot of fish, if we stopped that, we'd have 'almost enough'. ) Also, high wages is a reason to do work in Norway, as it means workers are paid decent wages, it's not a reason to not do work in Norway. (An investing capitalist will feel differently, but my goals are kinda diametrically opposed to his).
I disagree that it's not necessary though. Obviously it's not necessary right now. But post WW2, that has held even more true for 'our army', or many other things that exist 'just in case'.
The thing is that rebuilding infrastructure is very costly and time consuming. From a purely economic perspective, we could surely be more efficient through importing more and spending the money we spend subsidizing farmers on something else. However what if a global crisis strikes that lets us know that 'in 5 years there will be a global food shortage and countries will stop exporting food' - that might not be enough time to rebuild, because the competence required to do farming might not be there. It's like, food is just too important.
There are also local reasons; we want people to live in rural areas, and rural people want the option of continuing to live in rural areas. Food production is one of the things they do there, so we subsidize it a bit to make it possible for them to do so.
|
On August 09 2019 22:44 farvacola wrote:
That relates to another big criticism I have with regard to most Dems, that being that only a select few seem to think climate change is at all an urgent, pervasive problem requiring a paradigmatic shift in how society operates..
Because the people in the big cities are the ones most reliant on the current system but hate admitting it.They’re relying on food from hundreds of miles away.
Take away the consumerist capitalist society, close the stores, what do the people in the big cities actually do all day after that?
|
On August 10 2019 02:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 22:44 farvacola wrote:
That relates to another big criticism I have with regard to most Dems, that being that only a select few seem to think climate change is at all an urgent, pervasive problem requiring a paradigmatic shift in how society operates.. Because the people in the big cities are the ones most reliant on the current system but hate admitting it.They’re relying on food from hundreds of miles away. Take away the consumerist capitalist society, close the stores, what do the people in the big cities actually do all day after that? Vertical farms could greatly help a city feed itself, I believe Japan is experimenting with farms on the top floors of skyscrapers.
|
|
|
Is there more to it than calling out functional obsolescence and rehashing "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"?
|
|
|
On August 10 2019 02:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 22:44 farvacola wrote:
That relates to another big criticism I have with regard to most Dems, that being that only a select few seem to think climate change is at all an urgent, pervasive problem requiring a paradigmatic shift in how society operates.. Because the people in the big cities are the ones most reliant on the current system but hate admitting it.They’re relying on food from hundreds of miles away. Take away the consumerist capitalist society, close the stores, what do the people in the big cities actually do all day after that?
What is "current system" ? It's not new information to anybody that people need food to survive. It's kind of common knowledge really.
|
On August 10 2019 04:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Is there more to it than calling out functional obsolescence and rehashing "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"? Tons and tons more.
Care to elaborate? I read about 20 pages and that's all I pulled away from it. The word "cooperation" was used a lot too but it seems like a vanity project to me.
|
On August 10 2019 02:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 22:44 farvacola wrote:
Its both the dual party problem and the lack of proportional representation, fixing those would definitely open up the field in a way the US desperately needs. Because the people in the big cities are the ones most reliant on the current system but hate admitting it.They’re relying on food from hundreds of miles away. Take away the consumerist capitalist society, close the stores, what do the people in the big cities actually do all day after that?
Remove any part of society and the whole thing falls apart. Farmers aren't remotely special. Doctors, engineers, accountants, sanitation services, everyone serves a crucial role.
If anything, farmers are particularly not special because it is likely automation will do their job within in the next 20 years.
|
His argument appears to be that because people need to eat food otherwise they will die, we should not be concerned about climate change. I simply cannot connect the line of thought involved.
|
On August 10 2019 04:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 02:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 09 2019 22:44 farvacola wrote:
Its both the dual party problem and the lack of proportional representation, fixing those would definitely open up the field in a way the US desperately needs. Because the people in the big cities are the ones most reliant on the current system but hate admitting it.They’re relying on food from hundreds of miles away. Take away the consumerist capitalist society, close the stores, what do the people in the big cities actually do all day after that? Remove any part of society and the whole thing falls apart. Farmers aren't remotely special. Doctors, engineers, accountants, sanitation services, everyone serves a crucial role. If anything, farmers are particularly not special because it is likely automation will do their job within in the next 20 years.
My uncle farms over a thousand acres in southern Minnesota and he already has his farm mapped out on GPS for perfect and optimized rows. The thing about automating farms is that the insurance will never allow it as it creates an impossible liability situation for accidents involving automated combines. If its either the GPS company, the combine maker, or the farmer himself the insurance on that risk will never allow it to happen.
If it wasn't for the insurance issue you'd already see massive Latifundium across the midwest. If Elon musk really wanted to change the world he'd have started with making electric combines.
|
On August 10 2019 04:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 04:35 Mohdoo wrote:On August 10 2019 02:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 09 2019 22:44 farvacola wrote:
Its both the dual party problem and the lack of proportional representation, fixing those would definitely open up the field in a way the US desperately needs. Because the people in the big cities are the ones most reliant on the current system but hate admitting it.They’re relying on food from hundreds of miles away. Take away the consumerist capitalist society, close the stores, what do the people in the big cities actually do all day after that? Remove any part of society and the whole thing falls apart. Farmers aren't remotely special. Doctors, engineers, accountants, sanitation services, everyone serves a crucial role. If anything, farmers are particularly not special because it is likely automation will do their job within in the next 20 years. My uncle farms over a thousand acres in southern Minnesota and he already has his farm mapped out on GPS for perfect and optimized rows. The thing about automating farms is that the insurance will never allow it as it creates an impossible liability situation for accidents involving automated combines. If its either the GPS company, the combine maker, or the farmer himself the insurance on that risk will never allow it to happen. If it wasn't for the insurance issue you'd already see massive Latifundium across the midwest.
Not so sure about "never", just that we haven't ironed that out yet. We used to ride horses. Now look. There were huge liability questions and stuff all over the place, we'll figure it out.
|
The FBI spends like it believes Black people that want civil rights are more of a threat than Al Qaeda and white supremacists.
FBI RANKS 'BLACK IDENTITY EXTREMISTS' BIGGER THREAT THAN AL QAEDA, WHITE SUPREMACISTS
Leaked FBI documents indicate "black identity extremists" and animal rights activists are among the agency's top counterterrorism priorities under President Donald Trump.
The FBI's priority list documents, obtained by The Young Turks Thursday, lay out the Bureau's 2018 fiscal year focal points in counterterrorism, cyber crime and counterintelligence.
The 2018-19 "Threat Guidance" documents describe black identity extremists (BIEs) as those who "use force or violence in violation of criminal law in response to perceived racism and injustice in American society." The files claimed some BIEs acted in hopes of "establishing a separate black homeland or autonomous black social institutions, communities or governing organizations within the USA."
An internal FBI report from August 2017 was widely criticized for using the BIE label, which many called racist. But the Consolidated Strategy Guide documents leaked this week show the FBI kept the term and made BIEs one of its top counterterrorism priorities.
Under the Trump administration, they're considered a bigger threat than terror groups such as Al Qaeda.
www.newsweek.com
This is just one reason why I think Comey, Mueller, and the entire gang is trash.
|
On August 10 2019 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:The FBI spends like it believes Black people that want civil rights are more of a threat than Al Qaeda and white supremacists. Show nested quote +FBI RANKS 'BLACK IDENTITY EXTREMISTS' BIGGER THREAT THAN AL QAEDA, WHITE SUPREMACISTS
Leaked FBI documents indicate "black identity extremists" and animal rights activists are among the agency's top counterterrorism priorities under President Donald Trump.
The FBI's priority list documents, obtained by The Young Turks Thursday, lay out the Bureau's 2018 fiscal year focal points in counterterrorism, cyber crime and counterintelligence.
The 2018-19 "Threat Guidance" documents describe black identity extremists (BIEs) as those who "use force or violence in violation of criminal law in response to perceived racism and injustice in American society." The files claimed some BIEs acted in hopes of "establishing a separate black homeland or autonomous black social institutions, communities or governing organizations within the USA."
An internal FBI report from August 2017 was widely criticized for using the BIE label, which many called racist. But the Consolidated Strategy Guide documents leaked this week show the FBI kept the term and made BIEs one of its top counterterrorism priorities.
Under the Trump administration, they're considered a bigger threat than terror groups such as Al Qaeda. www.newsweek.comThis is just one reason why I think Comey, Mueller, and the entire gang is trash. Considering the FBI has, in the past, consistently warned about the threat of white nationalists I'm thinking this is more of Trump problem then an FBI problem.
|
On August 10 2019 05:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:The FBI spends like it believes Black people that want civil rights are more of a threat than Al Qaeda and white supremacists. FBI RANKS 'BLACK IDENTITY EXTREMISTS' BIGGER THREAT THAN AL QAEDA, WHITE SUPREMACISTS
Leaked FBI documents indicate "black identity extremists" and animal rights activists are among the agency's top counterterrorism priorities under President Donald Trump.
The FBI's priority list documents, obtained by The Young Turks Thursday, lay out the Bureau's 2018 fiscal year focal points in counterterrorism, cyber crime and counterintelligence.
The 2018-19 "Threat Guidance" documents describe black identity extremists (BIEs) as those who "use force or violence in violation of criminal law in response to perceived racism and injustice in American society." The files claimed some BIEs acted in hopes of "establishing a separate black homeland or autonomous black social institutions, communities or governing organizations within the USA."
An internal FBI report from August 2017 was widely criticized for using the BIE label, which many called racist. But the Consolidated Strategy Guide documents leaked this week show the FBI kept the term and made BIEs one of its top counterterrorism priorities.
Under the Trump administration, they're considered a bigger threat than terror groups such as Al Qaeda. www.newsweek.comThis is just one reason why I think Comey, Mueller, and the entire gang is trash. Considering the FBI has, in the past, consistently warned about the threat of white nationalists I'm thinking this is more of Trump problem then an FBI problem.
While Trump's made it worse (like most things), the FBI has consistently targeted and assassinated Black people wanting their rights while doing dirty work for white supremacists. While there was warnings about white supremacists, it's groups like BLM that were considered a serious threat/under surveillance by the DHS and FBI under the Obama administration (and Comey's FBI).
|
|
|
On August 10 2019 05:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2019 04:23 JimmiC wrote:On August 10 2019 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Is there more to it than calling out functional obsolescence and rehashing "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"? Tons and tons more. Care to elaborate? I read about 20 pages and that's all I pulled away from it. The word "cooperation" was used a lot too but it seems like a vanity project to me. Happily, I meant to in my first post but had a person show up early. The waste hierarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy) is as true as it ever has been. The best use of a resource is to use the least you need and then reuse it over and over again. What has happened over time do to the west having access to extremely cheap labour and creating vast logistic networks is that the resources became a very small part of the overall cost. This caused many people to not value them, there has also always been a perceived low cost to disposal. It often feels "free" in the west as it is generally taken care of by municipalities through taxes and in under developed countries it is just thrown in rivers or oceans. This works very well for consumerism and convenience, buy something, take off package, throw out package, use thing, throw thing out, buy more things. What this fails to address is the vast climate costs, the social costs, and the scarcity of the resources. The recycling industry actually is helps enable this type of economy because it makes people feel good about throwing their waste in a "blue" bin instead of the garbage. The reality is much of that blue bin material ends up in a landfill somewhere, or worse in places like China, improperly burnt or thrown in the ocean (or river which leads to Ocean). And even when done with the best intentions many products while made of recyclable materials are not actually recyclable because they are all combined into one and the logistics of separating it and getting the volumes are not there and that is even before you get into all the of the contamination issues. Also, all the carbon costs of moving everything everywhere and so on. Not to mention a material like plastic has a very limited number of times it can be recycled as it breaks down with each attempt unlike a material like Glass or Metal. The idea behind circular economies is taking into account the true cost of a product in its entire life cycle. And when you start to actually look at the costs of removing the natural resource, transporting it(like if semi's paid enough taxes for the damage they due to the roads we would invest way more in rail, or better yet reduce) manufacturing it, transporting it again, using it once or for a short time, and then throwing it out you start to see that this is a extremely inefficient system and that the costs are just not being properly accounted for. Example, the manufacturer is not responsible for paying for the disposal of the packaging so why would they care about it? Or a cell phone manufacturer would rather sell you a whole new phone not an upgraded battery so why would they make the battery upgradeable or so on. Once you take into account the entire cost and put that directly on the manufacturer and the consumer it can change there decision making to where people think the material has value instead of no value. (you don't see any gold in the landfill, hell you barely see any copper). All the sudden it makes sense to make the packaging reusable if it is going to cost 100$ bucks to throw it out. It creates the industry of fixing instead of replacing. People start buying things as services instead of items so that the motivation isn't about buying more but getting more value. For example lighting. Instead of buying light bulbs you purchase a contract for lighting. Now the business is rewarded for putting in the most long lasting best bulb, they are also encouraged to make that bulb last as long as possible because they lose money on every replacement instead of get paid on every replacement. It is almost going back in time to where using all the Buffalo made sense because getting a Buffalo was so hard and there for so valuable. The way to encourage this is by upping the cost of land filling and putting that cost on the producers. EPR (enhanced producer responsibility) is doing this in a lot of countries and having a great effect. Cost Neutral Carbon taxes which are charging people who pollute and putting that money into better environmental/social outcomes.
Circular economies is about creating the right drivers, rewards and disincentives, so that it is in peoples best interest to follow the waste hierarchy from the top to the bottom instead of how we have it now with the bottom of the hierarchy being the cheapest and easiest solution. Instead of just telling people that is what they should do.It is a huge topic and I have rambled a lot, I am also not an expert and am just learning about it and how local policy can further drive circular economies. It is about government policy and consumer buying practices rewarding the right behavior instead of the wrong behavior.
That sounds exactly like a rehash of reduce, reuse and recycle (I'll give you an increased emphasis on externalities and corporate responsibility)? The problem was/is that neither consumer or political pressure sufficiently changed the practices of the corporations that are producing the overwhelming majority of pollution because they run our political system.
|
|
|
On August 10 2019 06:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2019 05:30 JimmiC wrote:On August 10 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2019 04:23 JimmiC wrote:On August 10 2019 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Is there more to it than calling out functional obsolescence and rehashing "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"? Tons and tons more. Care to elaborate? I read about 20 pages and that's all I pulled away from it. The word "cooperation" was used a lot too but it seems like a vanity project to me. Happily, I meant to in my first post but had a person show up early. The waste hierarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy) is as true as it ever has been. The best use of a resource is to use the least you need and then reuse it over and over again. What has happened over time do to the west having access to extremely cheap labour and creating vast logistic networks is that the resources became a very small part of the overall cost. This caused many people to not value them, there has also always been a perceived low cost to disposal. It often feels "free" in the west as it is generally taken care of by municipalities through taxes and in under developed countries it is just thrown in rivers or oceans. This works very well for consumerism and convenience, buy something, take off package, throw out package, use thing, throw thing out, buy more things. What this fails to address is the vast climate costs, the social costs, and the scarcity of the resources. The recycling industry actually is helps enable this type of economy because it makes people feel good about throwing their waste in a "blue" bin instead of the garbage. The reality is much of that blue bin material ends up in a landfill somewhere, or worse in places like China, improperly burnt or thrown in the ocean (or river which leads to Ocean). And even when done with the best intentions many products while made of recyclable materials are not actually recyclable because they are all combined into one and the logistics of separating it and getting the volumes are not there and that is even before you get into all the of the contamination issues. Also, all the carbon costs of moving everything everywhere and so on. Not to mention a material like plastic has a very limited number of times it can be recycled as it breaks down with each attempt unlike a material like Glass or Metal. The idea behind circular economies is taking into account the true cost of a product in its entire life cycle. And when you start to actually look at the costs of removing the natural resource, transporting it(like if semi's paid enough taxes for the damage they due to the roads we would invest way more in rail, or better yet reduce) manufacturing it, transporting it again, using it once or for a short time, and then throwing it out you start to see that this is a extremely inefficient system and that the costs are just not being properly accounted for. Example, the manufacturer is not responsible for paying for the disposal of the packaging so why would they care about it? Or a cell phone manufacturer would rather sell you a whole new phone not an upgraded battery so why would they make the battery upgradeable or so on. Once you take into account the entire cost and put that directly on the manufacturer and the consumer it can change there decision making to where people think the material has value instead of no value. (you don't see any gold in the landfill, hell you barely see any copper). All the sudden it makes sense to make the packaging reusable if it is going to cost 100$ bucks to throw it out. It creates the industry of fixing instead of replacing. People start buying things as services instead of items so that the motivation isn't about buying more but getting more value. For example lighting. Instead of buying light bulbs you purchase a contract for lighting. Now the business is rewarded for putting in the most long lasting best bulb, they are also encouraged to make that bulb last as long as possible because they lose money on every replacement instead of get paid on every replacement. It is almost going back in time to where using all the Buffalo made sense because getting a Buffalo was so hard and there for so valuable. The way to encourage this is by upping the cost of land filling and putting that cost on the producers. EPR (enhanced producer responsibility) is doing this in a lot of countries and having a great effect. Cost Neutral Carbon taxes which are charging people who pollute and putting that money into better environmental/social outcomes.
Circular economies is about creating the right drivers, rewards and disincentives, so that it is in peoples best interest to follow the waste hierarchy from the top to the bottom instead of how we have it now with the bottom of the hierarchy being the cheapest and easiest solution. Instead of just telling people that is what they should do.It is a huge topic and I have rambled a lot, I am also not an expert and am just learning about it and how local policy can further drive circular economies. It is about government policy and consumer buying practices rewarding the right behavior instead of the wrong behavior. That sounds exactly like a rehash of reduce, reuse and recycle (I'll give you an increased emphasis on externalities and corporate responsibility)? The problem was/is that neither consumer or political pressure sufficiently changed the practices of the corporations that are producing the overwhelming majority of pollution because they run our political system. They do have lots of power in your political system no doubt. In other countries because of the political will of the people they are getting tons of traction. And the corps in those countries, provinces and cities are following those rules, and even innovating in some exciting ways. I'm not sure on your point on the waste hierarchy, it is never going going to change. It is not a rehashing it, it is about changing the behaviors of people to fit the hierarchy. Reduce reuse recycle are all good, in that order (less so on recycle but still better then dispose) this has not changed. We just realized simply telling people to do it has worked no better than simply telling people to pay a livable wage, or share.
I'm not sure where you believe they are getting traction, but as I've noted before, in the US the emission improvements are a mirage and places like Britain it's no better:
Britain, for instance, slashed domestic emissions within its own borders by one-third between 1990 and 2015. But it has done so as energy-intensive industries have migrated abroad. If you included all the global emissions produced in the course of making things like the imported steel used in London’s skyscrapers and cars, then Britain’s total carbon footprint has actually increased slightly over that time.
www.nytimes.com
As you're familiar, my position is that this is too little too late by even it's own expectations, which is why it comes off as a vanity project to me.
"Circular Economy" is a bumper sticker like "Coexist" or "reduce, reuse, recycle". The issue is that capitalists prefer more profit and bunkers/spaceships; a slick rebrand like "circular economy" doesn't change that.
|
On August 10 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 04:23 JimmiC wrote:On August 10 2019 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Is there more to it than calling out functional obsolescence and rehashing "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"? Tons and tons more. Care to elaborate? I read about 20 pages and that's all I pulled away from it. The word "cooperation" was used a lot too but it seems like a vanity project to me. it can't work because they don't mention consumption, reducing consumption, and that's mandatory at the stage we're in. they assume they can recycle the over-consumption, and that's wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
