Capitalism causes climate change

[ousdahl]

Let’s spice the pols bored up with some new content!

been meaning to start this thread for a while. It got brought up a while back in some other thread but figure it deserves it own

admittedly, don’t have my discussion points and credible sources (memes) all ready to go quite yet, but figure if this thread gets good and goes places, happy to provide that stuff.

Basically I think a system built around some concept of endless consumption is not also an ideal system to implement some concept of much-needed conservation.

And a system built primarily for individual accumulation and concentration of wealth may also often condone, maybe even incentivize, pollution and emissions and other destructive behaviors.

sooo where to begin!

Would anyone like to suggest/explain why maybe the best way to combat climate change might be to leave it to free market capitalism to take on?

[KUTradition]

it does, but it doesn’t have to

[DCHawk1]

Oh.

[Mjl]

Good luck

[Deleted User 863]

Good luck

[zsn]

Oh.

When someone brings up poverty and hunger in many parts of the world you don’t bring up the fact that nearly 100% of the US and other developed country’s population also “starves” between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, every single day.

What was the estimated cumulative emissions between say 1700 and 2020?

To be clear, I’m not sure that the original premise of the thread is entirely accurate, but I’ll also add that modern so-called conservatives are against conservation. I think it’s a little lazy to claim that capitalism caused climate change, but definitely uncontrolled growth did. The failure to act once we recognized the problem was rooted in capitalist hubris.

[DCHawk1]

LOL

[ousdahl]

wait, so what's the point of sharing that pie chart?

so China has like twice the carbon emissions as Merica? Don't they also have like 5 times the population? And Russia, well...they bad.

either way, yea, when it comes to carbon emissions, yea China and Russia too are probs.

but that may only corroborate the OP theory?

cuz, this:

you are the one espousing the superiority of socialism and communism to capitalism with regards to changing important environmental decision making for the future...

China's economy has created 539 billionaires since they became "socialist/communist" and Russia's economy has created 83 according to Forbes. That don't sound anything like either Marxist definition to me. Sounds like capitalism to me.

...So I would posit that all of those countries are capitalist. There are no socialist or communist countries in the world and never have been.

[twocoach]

Let’s spice the pols bored up with some new content!

been meaning to start this thread for a while. It got brought up a while back in some other thread but figure it deserves it own

admittedly, don’t have my discussion points and credible sources (memes) all ready to go quite yet, but figure if this thread gets good and goes places, happy to provide that stuff.

Basically I think a system built around some concept of endless consumption is not also an ideal system to implement some concept of much-needed conservation.

And a system built primarily for individual accumulation and concentration of wealth may also often condone, maybe even incentivize, pollution and emissions and other destructive behaviors.

sooo where to begin!

Would anyone like to suggest/explain why maybe the best way to combat climate change might be to leave it to free market capitalism to take on?

Cutting emissions cost money. No system likes increased expenses. Not capitalism, not communism, none of them. No one wants to spend money on something they don't think is necessary and people will always make excuses to categorize cutting emissions as unnecessary. I wish that I thought something significant was going to done before it's too late but I don't.

It's even worse in China and Russia, two countries whose model is to rip off the intellectual property of others and to make as much money off of those stolen properties as possible. If anyone thinks we're going to talk China into reducing their emissions on a bunch of illegal factories they are insane. And the legal factories in China were built there because it cost less to operate them. Now that corporations have made the decision to pay the investment to move these operations to China, I don't see them spending more money to install equipment to reduce emissions on these factories unless some mythical global entity forces them to. No such global entity exists and even if they did, good luck enforcing it.

[DCHawk1]

Also:

[ousdahl]

also!

I can't believe certain posters have given up on my pols bored threads, when my pols bored threads literally have the power to bring DC back.

and since DC's back, may I kindly ask you to help about this one?

[DCHawk1]

*Carter is not, however, a member of the most down-home and ecstatic of the Baptist sects, which is a back-country branch known as the Primitive Baptist Church. In the Primitive Baptist churches men and women sit on different sides of the room, no musical instruments are allowed, and there is a good deal of foot-washing and other rituals drawn from passages in the Bible. The Progressive Primitives, another group, differ from the Primitives chiefly in that they allow a piano or organ in the church. The Missionary Baptists, Carter’s branch, are a step up socially (not necessarily divinely) but would not be a safe bet for an ambitious member of an in-town country club. The In-town Baptists, found in communities of 25,000 or more, are too respectable, socially, to be called ecstatic and succeed in being almost as tame as the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists.

[japhy]

Oh.

fuckin oceania, fuck those fucks

[ousdahl]

*Carter is not, however, a member of the most down-home and ecstatic of the Baptist sects, which is a back-country branch known as the Primitive Baptist Church. In the Primitive Baptist churches men and women sit on different sides of the room, no musical instruments are allowed, and there is a good deal of foot-washing and other rituals drawn from passages in the Bible. The Progressive Primitives, another group, differ from the Primitives chiefly in that they allow a piano or organ in the church. The Missionary Baptists, Carter’s branch, are a step up socially (not necessarily divinely) but would not be a safe bet for an ambitious member of an in-town country club. The In-town Baptists, found in communities of 25,000 or more, are too respectable, socially, to be called ecstatic and succeed in being almost as tame as the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists.

sounds kooky!

But why did Carter install solar panels at the White House?

And why did Reagan take them down?

[DCHawk1]

Carter was always prone to religious fundamentalism.

[zsn]

wait, so what's the point of sharing that pie chart?

so China has like twice the carbon emissions as Merica? Don't they also have like 5 times the population? And Russia, well...they bad.

Whatever the point was it was totally irrelevant - maybe “SQUIRREL”? What proportion of China’s emissions, especially in 2019, was because they were “doing our dirty work for us”?

Reagan taking down the solar panels just shows that the Republican affliction of “owning the libs” is not new.

[MICHHAWK]

china is a horrible country.

[jhawks99]

china is a horrible country.

My friends who live there think it's the greatest country on Earth and like it very much.

[ousdahl]

Pretty sure pretty much every citizen of pretty much everywhere thinks their country is the best.

Just ask Borat!

[DCHawk1]

wait, so what's the point of sharing that pie chart?

so China has like twice the carbon emissions as Merica? Don't they also have like 5 times the population? And Russia, well...they bad.

Whatever the point was it was totally irrelevant - maybe “SQUIRREL”? What proportion of China’s emissions, especially in 2019, was because they were “doing our dirty work for us”?

Reagan taking down the solar panels just shows that the Republican affliction of “owning the libs” is not new.

LOL