|
On November 13 2019 06:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How did your reading did not inform you that Evo Morales has resigned as president of Bolivia and fled to Mexico under asylum? How did your reading of "next leader", "or if Morales retakes it" let you think I was not aware of the above? Not to mention my first words about the political upheaval.
If you are going to be a dick about someones reading comprehension, you may want to, you know, read what they wrote.
|
You aren't fooling anybody. Who talks about some proposed environmental policy of a country when the President himself has fled the country? It is clear that you had no idea that Evo Morales has left the country entirely. It is clear that you thought that Evo Morales was still President of Bolivia. He's not going to retake the presidency.
|
Netherlands6079 Posts
Jimmi isn't trying to fool anyone. He posted about the Morales situation in the other thread before he posted here. You just misunderstood.
|
It is one of the most confusing attacks Ive ever received, and that is saying something! Lol.
|
He might have written abour Eva Morales under some sort of "situation" previously. However the situation had changed to resigning and leaving the country. It simply makes no sense to talk about hoping someone will implement some minor policy when he has fled the country and claimed asylum in another country. It is quite literally a coup.
|
Dude this is really showing the power of confirmation bias. If you go back starting at the bottom of page 43 on the south american politics thread we discuss Morales leaving, for like 3 pages lol. The reason I said if he retakes is because his last tweet says he will be back more energized. Not to mention I have no idea how I would get to the part of the article I quoted without knowing since that whole article is about it, I stumbled across the environmental part while reading about the political part. The reason I thought it was interesting is much has been made about Brazil's lack of environmental protection under there government (and it should be) but nothing about Bolivia.
So unless you think I posted this post and then took my time machine back a couple of days to discuss what you think I'm unaware of just to prove you wrong. It might be time to realize that you in fact are the one with poor reading comprehension and all you are accomplishing by continuing to double down on you being a dick to me is make yourself look more and more foolish.
And while it is sort of entertaining considering how much glee you take in being an ass to people, its starting to turn the corner to sad, so please stop.
|
It'll be as if JFK just got assassinated, and the next day you writing hoping that JFK will implement his promised economical policy. it would be obvious that you haven't heard the news. Evo Morales is now a political non-entity in Bolivia. He has no power. I'll leave it at that.
|
On November 13 2019 23:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote: It'll be as if JFK just got assassinated, and the next day you writing hoping that JFK will implement his promised economical policy. it would be obvious that you haven't heard the news. Evo Morales is now a political non-entity in Bolivia. He has no power. I'll leave it at that. He is not dead, he is in Mexico, he has said he is going to return and there has been no word on if he will be allowed to run in the next elections. It is very clear you don't know what is going on. And how you can still think I don't, when I taked about it for 2 days before this post is beyond me. But for shits lets even go through my post:
On November 13 2019 04:33 JimmiC wrote:With the recent upheaval in Bolivia I was doing some reading and I was interested to find out that despite Morales being a socialist and claiming to respect mother earth his policy didn't match his words.Show nested quote +Evo Morales has regularly spoken at international climate conferences, where he has argued for greater respect for "Mother Earth".
However, he has not always been successful in balancing that intention with economic development.
One of the most contentious issues of his presidency involved plans for the construction of a major road through the Amazon, which indigenous groups argued would open their territory up to illegal logging and land grabs.
Large-scale protests led to violent clashes and forced the government to backtrack in 2011. The project later got the go-ahead in 2017, with Mr Morales dismissing international concern as a form of "colonial environmentalism". More recently, in 2019, Evo Morales faced protests over fires, which raged in protected eastern areas of the country.
Demonstrators called for him to revoke a decree that authorised "controlled burning" to help farmers create bigger plots for crops. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-12166905He appears to be no better than Bolsonaro when it comes to this, hopefully who ever is the next leader, or if Morales retakes it he follows through on his pledge to protect the environment.
With the recent upheaval in Bolivia I was doing some reading and I was interested to find out that despite Morales being a socialist and claiming to respect mother earth his policy didn't match his words.
So here I talk about the upheaval and say I'm reading about it, and post an article that talks all about it. Somehow you still claim I don't know.
He appears to be no better than Bolsonaro when it comes to this, hopefully who ever is the next leader, or if Morales retakes it he follows through on his pledge to protect the environment.
Here I say whoever is the next leader, this indicates I know Morales is not the leader. Next I say if Morales RETAKES, that again means he is not the current leader.
It was dumb enough for you to claim after my post what you did, but that you are choosing to die on the hill is just embarrassing. The unintentional comedy of you claiming I have no reading comprehension, when you totally miss the OBVIOUS mark is pure gold, so I'll let it slide.
Have a good one!
|
On August 27 2019 10:09 JimmiC wrote: That is not my preference, my preference is to look at the entire picture which includes CO2 emissions, waste management practices, government policy, so on.
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
I would love it if China really becomes the technological and economic leader on climate change. That would be amazing. I have nothing against China doing well, I want everyone to do better. They would have to do a bunch of things that would make life better for all their people and the world but I doubt it. What I bet they will have though is mostly really terrible practices and then the Biggest this and the Biggest last.
I don't believe that China was truly socialist just a dictatorship marketing it as socialism. But for someone like you who does believe they are can you answer me why you keep telling me how better the Chinese are doing and how many amazing gains they are getting, but that they are going more capitalist and that's bad.
If things are getting better than isn't capitalism working?
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
No the usa is actually worse like gh already said.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita
I don't think it is worth it anymore for countries to bend themselves over to reduce co2 emissions. They should try reduce but not at all cost. The thing is,the point of no return has been passed a long time ago,probably somewhere in the 70,s of previous century. Even if we would stop all emissions today,all of them,then the world will still continue to heat up for a very long time. It actually is to late to do something meaningfull lol so we might as well keep racing forward in the hope technology will come with better answers. There also is a more or less direct relation between GDP and co2 emissions. Which makes sense since 99% of our wealth is build on co2. Machines that do the work for us and which increase our productivity,They all run on co2. Our whole society runs on co2 emissions. If we reduce emissions with 50% then we reduce our wealth production with 50%. How many americans are actually willing to make that sacrifice? Almost none of them.
So while it is absolutely horrible,and I do agree that something should have been done before we got to this point,it now actually is to late to do something. You seem to have better knowledge about this subject Jimmic,so i would like to ask:do you actually think that we could still turn it all around? And if so what do you think would be needed to turn it all around?
|
On November 14 2019 09:57 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2019 10:09 JimmiC wrote: That is not my preference, my preference is to look at the entire picture which includes CO2 emissions, waste management practices, government policy, so on.
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
I would love it if China really becomes the technological and economic leader on climate change. That would be amazing. I have nothing against China doing well, I want everyone to do better. They would have to do a bunch of things that would make life better for all their people and the world but I doubt it. What I bet they will have though is mostly really terrible practices and then the Biggest this and the Biggest last.
I don't believe that China was truly socialist just a dictatorship marketing it as socialism. But for someone like you who does believe they are can you answer me why you keep telling me how better the Chinese are doing and how many amazing gains they are getting, but that they are going more capitalist and that's bad.
If things are getting better than isn't capitalism working? You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth. No the usa is actually worse like gh already said. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capitaI don't think it is worth it anymore for countries to bend themselves over to reduce co2 emissions. They should try reduce but not at all cost. The thing is,the point of no return has been passed a long time ago,probably somewhere in the 70,s of previous century. Even if we would stop all emissions today,all of them,then the world will still continue to heat up for a very long time. It actually is to late to do something meaningfull lol so we might as well keep racing forward in the hope technology will come with better answers. There also is a more or less direct relation between GDP and co2 emissions. Which makes sense since 99% of our wealth is build on co2. Machines that do the work for us and which increase our productivity,They all run on co2. Our whole society runs on co2 emissions. If we reduce emissions with 50% then we reduce our wealth production with 50%. How many americans are actually willing to make that sacrifice? Almost none of them. So while it is absolutely horrible,and I do agree that something should have been done before we got to this point,it now actually is to late to do something. You seem to have better knowledge about this subject Jimmic,so i would like to ask:do you actually think that we could still turn it all around? And if so what do you think would be needed to turn it all around? From everything I read it is still possible to turn it around, but that time is fast approaching where we cannot. I'll try to find something later to quote but from what I remember they said it would take the same effort and money (counting for inflation) that it took to get to the moon and the Manhattan project.
But as you said people are not willing to sacrifice and the downside of democracy is people have that choice.
My issue with China's environmental policies goes much deeper than just Co2, many of the industries that left "the west" for their and others was due to the regulations around the environment, and labor. You often hear about the cheaper labor but not a lot of people write about how much cheaper because instead of properly dealing with the dye's and plastics they just can dump them into the water or openly burn them. Now I don't completely blame them because they have more need for the money, and really I blame us more because we care more about the cheaper goods than we do about saving the planet. But this is the reason why you can read that that the US is is worse for Carbon by different measures but then if your travel to parts of China and India and so on the air is almost unbreathable at times. It is because we outlawed the practice of open burning long ago. And that is before you get into water treatment and solid waste management.
The reason I wish China would do better is because they have a central planning and control. If they really wanted to better environmentally they could, but they would rather make record breaking things (airports, damn's, bridges, solar farms and so on) than fix many of their environmental problems. Half of you don't hear of because the Chinese government senors there media, hell they censor the internet. They are also not remotely socialist, they have raised the standard of living for many, but that has all been trickle down while they make the few ultra rich. And on top of that they have huge human rights abuses going on daily, that again we rarely hear about because of the censorship. There is a reason that HK is protesting so furiously.
|
Between China, the US and India China is the least concerning to me. They are the only one of the three not led by right-wing neofascists and actually demonstrating real progress when it comes to confronting the scale of the problem ecological collapse presents.
|
Id say they are lead by closer to fascists than the US, they already have the dictatorship and are catching up and soon to pass on wealth disparity. Last I checked socialism didnt involve creating a few billionaires and giving scraps to the masses. And outside of their propaganda they are not solving any ecological problems. Hell they wont even stop eating sharkfin soup, which is only the chinese rich since the poor cant afford it. Which is again odd that China with a "socialist" dictatorship has a rich and poor...
|
I think I read somewhere that all of the US government bldgs are to be net neutral by 2030 or 2050 some place a while back. You also have most large corpos changing to pure renewable energy for their data centers and HQs. Hell, even here in Chicago there are a lot of solar going up. Still most of the fuel and energy is from fossil fuel, but people are slowly but surely changing. It just won't happen quick enough for some people's taste.
And I agree with pmh to a certain extent. Whereas we can no longer turn back the damage, we can still push forward with technological advancements and hope we can invent something that will help mitigate major damage in the future. There is no way to completely stop or undo what is already done. It is done. So instead of bitching and moaning about it, we need to find a way to carefully, safely, but with all haste possible, transition to clean, renewable energy.
Also, we need to get the salt and microplastics out of the ocean because our fresh water supply is quickly dwindling. Water wars are more of an immediate threat than rising flood waters.
|
On November 14 2019 12:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think I read somewhere that all of the US government bldgs are to be net neutral by 2030 or 2050 some place a while back. You also have most large corpos changing to pure renewable energy for their data centers and HQs. Hell, even here in Chicago there are a lot of solar going up. Still most of the fuel and energy is from fossil fuel, but people are slowly but surely changing. It just won't happen quick enough for some people's taste.
And I agree with pmh to a certain extent. Whereas we can no longer turn back the damage, we can still push forward with technological advancements and hope we can invent something that will help mitigate major damage in the future. There is no way to completely stop or undo what is already done. It is done. So instead of bitching and moaning about it, we need to find a way to carefully, safely, but with all haste possible, transition to clean, renewable energy.
Also, we need to get the salt and microplastics out of the ocean because our fresh water supply is quickly dwindling. Water wars are more of an immediate threat than rising flood waters.
Your first point has been pointed out as largely meaningless as they've had almost no measurable impact once you account for the pollution we send elsewhere.
phm is right that a certain amount of damage has already been done and even if we reduced our carbon from energy to practically 0 it's still going to get worse before it gets better. The technological aspect of his point is fantasy. The reason we aren't much further in sustainable tech is that truly sustainable localized systems aren't nearly as profitable for the people in power and the capitalist systems like we see in the US cater almost exclusively to their interests. That's how China blew past the US in solar development.
Your last point is mostly right and why the billionaires are already buying up reservoirs and water systems so they'll own both the water and it's delivery systems.
EDIT: To be clear, the people building green energy data centers and HQ's, buying reservoirs, etc... are planning on ecological and infrastructure collapse then you and your descendants dying or exploiting the desperation for profit (and good PR). Not making an effort to curb climate collapse.
|
|
JimmiC is right that the main cause for slow adaptation of renewable energy are the regulations in place. How much hell was raised when the EPA rolled back nuclear waste disposal regs? China doesn't have that problem because no one is talking back to them and getting them to do it in a responsible manner. They might have moire solar production than the US, but I would want to see the stats from deaths and illnesses caused by them not giving a damn about the human cost.
The pollution we send elsewhere is only a problem because where we send it, they don't have the means to dispose of it. The waste we ship out of country could be handled here by immigrant and poor workers, but americans think themselves too good for that kind of labor. So we ship it to another country where they're glad for the work and opportunity to feed themselves/family.
The last point, GH, is a non sequitor in the sense that if climate change does as much damage as you fear, that profit and anything else becomes utterly meaningless. They want to try and fix the world as much as possible because in the end, their bottom line depends on consumers. So you can gloom and doom it but I don't see a realistic proposal that people can rally behind coming from you or anyone else who is afraid of climate collapse.
For reading: medium.com
|
On November 14 2019 13:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:JimmiC is right that the main cause for slow adaptation of renewable energy are the regulations in place. How much hell was raised when the EPA rolled back nuclear waste disposal regs? China doesn't have that problem because no one is talking back to them and getting them to do it in a responsible manner. They might have moire solar production than the US, but I would want to see the stats from deaths and illnesses caused by them not giving a damn about the human cost. The pollution we send elsewhere is only a problem because where we send it, they don't have the means to dispose of it. The waste we ship out of country could be handled here by immigrant and poor workers, but americans think themselves too good for that kind of labor. So we ship it to another country where they're glad for the work and opportunity to feed themselves/family. The last point, GH, is a non sequitor in the sense that if climate change does as much damage as you fear, that profit and anything else becomes utterly meaningless. They want to try and fix the world as much as possible because in the end, their bottom line depends on consumers. So you can gloom and doom it but I don't see a realistic proposal that people can rally behind coming from you or anyone else who is afraid of climate collapse. For reading: medium.com
Those are full blown Republican talking points. Reagan took the solar panels off the white house which was a symbolic example of the doubling down on oil dependence and sending people like yourself half way around the world to kill brown people to secure it for the last 40 years and they are determined to do it for another 40.
You're last bit doesn't make any sense to me, particularly when what you linked is saying the exact opposite. A popular intellectual went to speak for a crowd of rich guys about the future of tech and they weren't interested in talking about saving the ecosystem, they were talking about how to protect their shit from desperate poor people.
|
On November 14 2019 14:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2019 13:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:JimmiC is right that the main cause for slow adaptation of renewable energy are the regulations in place. How much hell was raised when the EPA rolled back nuclear waste disposal regs? China doesn't have that problem because no one is talking back to them and getting them to do it in a responsible manner. They might have moire solar production than the US, but I would want to see the stats from deaths and illnesses caused by them not giving a damn about the human cost. The pollution we send elsewhere is only a problem because where we send it, they don't have the means to dispose of it. The waste we ship out of country could be handled here by immigrant and poor workers, but americans think themselves too good for that kind of labor. So we ship it to another country where they're glad for the work and opportunity to feed themselves/family. The last point, GH, is a non sequitor in the sense that if climate change does as much damage as you fear, that profit and anything else becomes utterly meaningless. They want to try and fix the world as much as possible because in the end, their bottom line depends on consumers. So you can gloom and doom it but I don't see a realistic proposal that people can rally behind coming from you or anyone else who is afraid of climate collapse. For reading: medium.com Those are full blown Republican talking points. Reagan took the solar panels off the white house which was a symbolic example of the doubling down on oil dependence and sending people like yourself half way around the world to kill brown people to secure it for the last 40 years and they are determined to do it for another 40. You're last bit doesn't make any sense to me, particularly when what you linked is saying the exact opposite. A popular intellectual went to speak for a crowd of rich guys about the future of tech and they weren't interested in talking about saving the ecosystem, they were talking about how to protect their shit from desperate poor people. Another fruitless discussion.
|
sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
|
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God. Im not accusing China, im pointing out fact. And as you mention China is not the only one doing it, they just are the one most talked about because they are the biggest and have the most economic power. You are also right that they are at a different stage than the West, the hope is that rather than follow the mistakes they would learn from them and do something different.
The point that really frustrates me is that the "need" to do this to feed their people. I call bullshit, not now, now they have a lot of billionaires, how about instead of making the relative few rich off the environment and backs of the poor through cheap labor they spread some of that wealth around? How about instead of vanity projects that are also terrible for the environment, such as the worlds largest bridge, they build proper waste management systems. This is why I get so frustrated when people on the left fall all over themselves to talk about the greatness of China, they are not socialists, have not been for decades. They are a command capitalist economy who cares more about wealth and power for the few than betterment of all their people. They are basically all that is wrong with the west with the added awfulness of being way behind in environmental rules and have all the awful human rights abuses of dictatorships.
China can and should do better.
Edit: I should add China is not alone in the can and should do better department. Almost every country can and should do better, but the ones with more wealth have no excuse not to be, and the developing countries need to look to the mistakes that countries further along made and not repeat them. It is a global problem that will take a global solution.
|
|
|
|