EPTSouth American Politics thread - Page 35
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23235 Posts
On August 24 2019 12:27 JimmiC wrote: I did, ghost cities, no unnecessary super projects, use less in each project by choosing less harmful materials. Tgis would require putting the people and environment over profit and the grandness of China. I fins it very confusing that you are OK with all this considering how you are against when the US does less. Another wonderful thing about China is unlike the US where you can openly criticize your government and talk of revolution. In China that would end up with you in jail. They wouldnt get arrested it is acceptable business practice. They wouldnt even call it corruption. I pointed out they'd still be using more concrete than the rest of the world and it would be a lot so "other materials" doesn't mean much nor does holding them to higher standards than countries with far greater gdp per capita and energy consumption. As for the corruption I guess we should end this now since you seem completely unaware/unfamiliar with the anti-corruption campaign at the center of Xi Jinping's presidency. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23235 Posts
On August 24 2019 12:47 JimmiC wrote: The amount would be drastically smaller. Bntns smaller. This a huge environmental disaster, this is not me saying it, this is everyone in the world with a basic understanding of the environmental issues. I dont think your understanding. In China the government officials are the businessmen so there is no corruption that is just how they do it. They dont consider that corruption. They are talking about low level guys stealing money. And How would you react if some right wing person told you "There is no corruption in tge USA, you clearly have not heard of president Trumps cleaning of the swamp?" Come on man yse some critical thinking and realize that not all bad avout China is rightwing propaganda. China is just bad. Others can be bad too like russia and the US and iran and so on. Edit: out of curiosity. How do you think one becomes a billionaire in a dictatorship with a command economy? Obviously industrialization has been a huge environmental disaster. As I've said your argument is against industrializing of China (and the waste) because even without the waste, they would be using more than somewhere like the US and polluting a bunch more than the US (which pollutes several times more per capita despite having far more wealth available to reduce it). You're just rambling without a coherent point on the corruption thing. All billionaires get their money by either exploiting people themselves or inheriting the wealth from those who did (and then exploiting them themselves) | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23235 Posts
On August 24 2019 14:12 JimmiC wrote: I am completely confused on how you can see vuilding extra uneeded cities and unnecessary infrastructure is not something that could have been avoided. You're confused because you completely fabricated that position and are attributing it to me? I think you have completely missed the point of what I have said. And I cant think of any way to explain to you any clearer or other way. Last try. It's pretty reliably the opposite. China is bad for the environment, horrible, this does not mean the US is good and is not at all related they are bad because they are bad. Not out of necessity, not because the US made them but for the exact reason that people in the US do shit things greed. Not because the US made them but the US (and west generally) certainly exacerbates the issue while chastising them (<- that much applies to US and South America as well) for doing better than we have/do ourselves in any remotely fair comparison and/or for our profit/short-term benefit. They also need your revolution or environmental policy or what ever. It is not rightwing propaganda that china is shitty, they just are. That in turn does not make the US good. That is a completely unrelated topic to whether or not China is bad. This is exactly wat moodoh was talking about in the feedback thread. It is rightwing/western propaganda that China is so much worse than its peers or the west under comparable conditions. Granted there's a lot of room to be bad and still better than/comparable to the west/US when it comes to energy and environment on the whole though. No one is arguing China is the best or doing the best they can or not wrecking the environment, if you stop projecting your imagined positions onto me you won't continue to be confused by them. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3022 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23235 Posts
On August 24 2019 15:10 JimmiC wrote: Perfect, then we agree china is shit for the environment. The US is shit for the environment. This is a disagreement you made up? When two countries fight it is not because one is good and one is bad. Both can be bad. Also a disagreement you imagined. For the record do you now understand why China using far more concrete than required is just fact and not western propaganda to make China look bad? It makes China look bad because it is bad. You cant poo poo the US for using coal powerplants from the past and be ok with China building new ones. We know know how horrible they are and so do they, they are behind us on the development curve not the scientific basic knowledge curve. And this does not mean tge US is perfect or even good. It is unrelated to them The argument wasn't over whether China used excessive amounts of concrete or that it was strictly propaganda so I'm not sure why you think I don't understand? Any country can accurately be described as "horrible" on the environment as none of them are sustainable. The point is; relative to what and in what context. For instance, no one expects 0 corruption or 0 horribleness on policy (at least not overnight lol). It's a matter of to/from whom, to what end, to what extent, under what circumstances, relative to what, and so on. That said we've gone all over the place for your anti-industrialization/urbanization argument, because industrialization/urbanization necessitates absurd and catastrophic levels of pollution even if they were spending more than 3 times the money on green tech as the wealthiest country on the planet and doing it with less waste (but still a lot) than western countries like the US have with more resources to allocate to each resident. If you're not anti-industrialization/urbanization than you're not being realistic to expect China not to be the worlds largest or maybe second largest polluter (gross, not per capita where the US and Canada are at least 2x as bad for CO2 emissions and and the US is worse on plastic consumption and littering, obviously). fwiw I think China's vastly superior investment in green energy is a practical matter (the choking on dirty air part) and because carbon burning isn't sustainable (from a national economic/security perspective) not out to save the world. Hence still polluting much more than they need to (as well as greed). EDIT: For relevant/tie-in comparison, while I strongly oppose it, I recognize Brazil is going to cut Amazon for agribiz because US and Chinese markets make it profitable or at least exacerbate the issue. The issue is how a fascist like Bolsonaro (with full-throated support from the wealthiest most powerful country/military) makes it catastrophically worse + Show Spoiler + Somewhat tangential but the ghost cities seem to actually have been hit and miss over time. Some were just smaller towns blown up way faster than the population, some were ambitious/disturbing/misguided relocation efforts, others took some time but filled out more or less as predicted. Like they have a mini Paris one that certainly would strike me as a vanity project (and seemed so initially, you can find reports circa 2013) but it is doing pretty well as just another small town in China. For perspective of the level of urbanization that's already happened in China, The US has ~11 cities with populations over 1m (most in CA and TX), China has ~65. For additional perspective we have ~6 whole states without 1m people in them. | ||
|
BlueStar
Bulgaria1166 Posts
I came here to see some fellow gamers opinion on the current LATAM events and all i see is offtopic derailing to Asia vs N America | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23235 Posts
On August 24 2019 19:44 BlueStar wrote: Why don't we have another thread - China vs US? I came here to see some fellow gamers opinion on the current LATAM events and all i see is offtopic derailing to Asia vs N America to give it some value for you it's in the context of each's role in accelerating catastrophic global ecological disaster and the US in their support of the fascist in Brazil who has encouraged the burning of the Amazon for profit and disregarded the humanity of indigenous peoples (and other marginalized groups). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23235 Posts
On August 24 2019 23:48 JimmiC wrote: Interesting take on what happened. I guess your arguments make a little more sense now that I know what position you made up for me. Here is what happened: I made a statement of fact on how on top of the Coal burning, which they do because it is cheap with no care for the environment, they are also pouring more concrete every 2 years than the US did in the 20th century. You then say it is reasonable and they can't not do it? I point out they could use less in each project, not do unnecessary projects and so on. You create in your head that I am anti industrialization in China. The rest happens, probably because I had no clue that that was the position you made up for me! The coal burning, the way they handle plastic (and management in general), and there excessive construction are all facts. Yes they have the most Solar power, guess what country is number 2? The US. Green washing through some alternative energy programs does not take away all the damage you are doing, there is some carbon offset but it is pretty small. I'm sorry that the enemy of your enemy is also horrible. But it is not my fault, I'm not making it up for any reason it is just factual. And I'm sorry that facts upset you. There is really nothing I can do about that. Good luck, and I await the next time something random happens and you make it all about how terrible the US is. You are anti-industrialization/urbanization of China. You consider China the worst despite operating at a fraction of the emissions per capita of the US or Canada. It's okay to be anti-industrialization/urbanization of China btw. Since if they follow any western model, including the places you frequently mention, we're all dead. You should just be aware of it and be able to justify that position relative to the west's continued extensive per capita pollution. Same goes for countries like Venezuela and Brazil (as far as not being able to become modern urban industrial countries without stressing the environment to the breaking point btw. Brazil with their agriculture/rain forest, Venezuela dependent on oil revenue. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23235 Posts
On August 25 2019 00:32 JimmiC wrote: When I judge a countries environmental impact I look at it holistically, not simply Co2 emissions. If you keep wanting to make the world is ending because of climate change type statements it would do you a great service to actually understand all the issues. I think industrialization and urbanization for china and the developed world is inevitable and not necessarily terrible. What is terrible is ignoring all the technological and scientific advancements to do things as big, fast and cheap as possible. As I mentioned before I was simply making statements of fact that somehow offended you because for some reason you are the defender of China, whether it is their obvious environmental destruction or their re-education camp. The only reason I can come up with is the enemy of your enemy is your friend. But you really need to look at things more critically and understand that the US is not the only bad guy when it comes to the environment. Anyway, this is starting to go in circles of you making up a position for me and me having to explain to you that I am only saying the words on the screen not the ones you make up in your head for whatever reason. So I'll leave at this and get back to SA politics [spoiler] This is exactly why I had to ask you to leave my blog back when it existed. If not for me, for the sake of everyone can you try to make this thread about SA politics and not why the US is bad? Keep that talk on the US politics thread. I'm just as guilty as I should just ignore you, but that seems rude when you ask me direct questions that have really easy answers, like how China could less concrete. But considering how fast it devolves to this I should know better. Have a good one![spoiler] You habitually do things, then I call it out, then you try to say it's what I'm doing but it's clearly not the case and then we end up here. Like suggesting I'm saying the US is the only bad guy when it comes to the environment when I've explicitly said that's not the case. If you aren't anti- you're pro or at best "neutral", I feel like you don't even get that anti- is the only position that doesn't lead to (accelerated/worse) catastrophic climate collapse and the good one of the three. It's not tech (as every western nation demonstrates) that will cut emissions/pollution to a sustainable level, it's a change of lifestyle the west expects developing nations from Brazil to China to live while they go on wastefully accelerating climate change without any sincere plan let alone accompanying action to get our per capita consumption where it needs to be. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23235 Posts
Bolsonaro responded angrily to what he regarded as meddling. “These countries that send money here, they don’t send it out of charity. ... They send it with the aim of interfering with our sovereignty,” he said in a Facebook Live broadcast. But earlier on Thursday, he said that Brazil alone lacked the resources to control the fires. “The Amazon is bigger than Europe, how will you fight criminal fires in such an area?” he asked reporters as he left the presidential residence. “We do not have the resources for that.” Fires in the Amazon have surged 83% so far this year compared with the same period a year earlier, government figures show. uk.reuters.com He will be sending the military to "fight fires" though they will be in dangerous proximity to the indigenous peoples displaced by the fires. | ||
|
rexxO
Canada44 Posts
On August 24 2019 04:29 JimmiC wrote: He is not a political prisoner. Most of everything I have read indicates that he did do everything he accused of, just that his prosecution was politically motivated. This is far different from an innocent person getting set up. The Judge running operation Car Wash also helped the prosecutors in improper ways. In Canada's legal system the conviction may or may not be overturned. But that does not mean that he was not corrupt. The best excuse I have read is "but they are all corrupt, it is just how it is done there". Hell that might even be true but you need to hold leaders of countries to better standards. There is tons of writing on operation Car Wash, who was all caught up and what it did. There is also a article from the intercept on the ways in which the judge who was leading the case acted improperly. There is also rebuttals to that improper behavior indicating that the release of documents was "edited" or at least some context left out. I'm not sure on all of that, but I have yet to read anything credible about Lula not doing what he is accused of. Here are some sources the wiki one is best if you want a basic overview. This thing took down people in multiple countries and a billion dollar company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/01/brazil-operation-car-wash-is-this-the-biggest-corruption-scandal-in-history https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-lula-operation-car-wash-sergio-moro/ I'm no far of Bolasarno and I think Brazil would be better off with Lula but they should be reaching higher than either to a actual non-corrupt leader. + Show Spoiler + As I mentioned at the time I was one narcotics for pain, still am mind you a lot less. However, GH being the wonderful guy he is insulted me for it. And now you the "lurker" managed to see that detail but not the following posts? Come on man, who ever you are stop being a fraud and use your real account and we can continue this conversation on the SA thread. (I moved this from the US to the SA thread to stay on topic). I appreciate you fleshing it out a bit. I still think what is lacking in your account here, and what is said in the links you posted, is how the investigation was used swiftly as a tactic to prevent Lula from running in the 2018 election. Is it so conclusive that what he was guilty of would have justly excluded him from reelection? It seems like a more adherent process was followed for Rousseff after 2014, although there was problems with that (more below) I don't agree, as you say, that one might justify Lula's acts of corruption as just 'what they do there'. There's something frustratingly banal about chalking these problems to 'people there should hold their leaders to a better standard'. As if their democratic process is working openly for them. Though Rousseff's removal from power after the 2014 workers party were elected was an example of the justice system behaving better, was it democratic that the VP that replaced them enacted a policy platform that was counter to the one the public elected? Some critics refer to this pivotal moment as a legislative coup. I wonder if it is that you view the investigation or Brazilian judiciary as impartial entities in this situation (as we all hope they should be), when realistically they are just another instrument of political power, captured and wielded. We agree that Lula would have comparably been the better of two powers (or at least less bad than Bolsanaro), and likely the most democratic, but I consider Lula as a victim of having that judicial power wielded against him for explicitly political (as in, power seeking) reasons. If he had been elected, and forced to resign and replaced with another representative of the workers party, that would have been real justice, and continued anherence to democracy. But for now it looks like a genuine effort to obstruct the workers party's popularity has lead to facism. The real problem for me in this case is not that people should behave better, but rather how ensure that that democratically elected poltical power is protected from attempts to capture or obstruct it, and that it can used in the service of enacting politics that will reduce the tendencies for corruption in the first place. Now, it's totally fair to call me a lurker, and I understand that that puts me on shaky footing to be taken seriously, but it was quite amusing to be suspected as someones alt account. This is also a woefully late reply because I got on a flight last night and lost reception before hitting send. And I also apologize for the jab about the misgendering, I suppose I didn't lurk hard enough for the clarification  | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23235 Posts
Brazil will reject $20 million of Amazon fire aid from G7 Brazil will reject an offer of $20 million in international aid for the fires that are burning across the Amazon rainforest, according to the president's office. He's living up to his moniker "Trump of the Tropics" with this one though. Bolsonaro's chief of staff suggested that the aid should be used elsewhere instead. "We are thankful, but maybe those resources would be more relevant to reforest Europe," Onyx Lorenzoni was quoted as saying by G1 Globo late Monday night. Bolsonaro appeared to cast doubt on the matter. "Did I say that? Did I? Did Jair Bolsonaro speak?" he asked reporters outside the presidential residence, adding that he would only respond to the offer once Macron withdrew his insults of him. I agree with this last part though, the west only knows how to colonize and exploit countries it sees as vassals. Bolsonaro said the idea of creating an international alliance to save the Amazon would be treating Brazil like "a colony or no man's land," calling it an attack on the country's sovereignty. www.cnn.com I guess I should add that we (humanity) should obviously save the Amazon, we (oligarchs and their minions) just won't unless there's money/resources/power in it for us. | ||
| ||
