General

Just to be clear, I am not threatening you, or anyone else. I am telling you that as passionate as you may be, there are others who are just as passionate about not allowing "you" to impose your plans on them.

You see them every day and they are just regular people. But at the end of the day, they would spill your blood to stop the "solution" you desire. They don't just think you are wrong, they think your ideas are evil.

If we go so far as to provoke this conflict there will be no winners. Think about the consequences.

You know the Earth is going to do whatever it wants and there is nothing man can do about it.
Globalism isn't the answer.

Mother Nature never listens LOL

I suppose with the right technology it is theoretically possible to have long term economic growth that is environmentally sustainable. But that is not where we're at now.

Global CO2 emissions continue to rise with no significant decline in sight. And globally speaking, economic growth is still linked with unsustainable resource use and carbon emissions, and it has been since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

And keep in mind time is running out. The 2018 IPCC report claims that a 45% reduction in global CO2 emissions from 2010 levels is required by 2030 to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.

I wish I could share your optimism for the free market but I just don't see it. If anything, over the past 40 years markets have been freer than ever, due to neoliberal deregulations and free trade. Still the problem has only intensified.

If what you're saying is true, and the technology for sustainable growth is there and it is in many cases economically viable, then there must be something missing. Carbon emissions are not declining at the rate they need to be to meet the IPCC targets.

At some point governments are going to need to step up in a big way. Which is why I'm in favor of Green New Deal style policies that aim to decarbonize the economy on an aggressive timeline and democratize control over fossil fuel producers energy resources.

Any serious climate policy would also need to backstop the working class, so they don't bear the brunt of the costs for these shifts, otherwise you wind up with protests like the yellow vest movement.

Now I thought this went without saying, but I support the implementation of these policies through non-violent, democratic means.

The Green New Deal, for example, is a policy proposal, that with sufficient political support can be transformed into legislation. This is the same process by which countless laws are ratified.

If you don't like socialist climate change proposals, don't vote for politicians that support them. But I don't see why you keep fixating on bloodshed. Unless you're falling into the trap of equating every socialist policy proposal with Stalinism / Maoism.

Evil also seems like a strong word for the policy proposals I have been referencing.

As MediumHadronCollider notes, there is rich history of social democratic movements that predate even the existence of the Soviet Union. These movements aim to enact socialist policies within a free and democratic society. It's social democrats that are responsible for public health care in Canada where I live, for example.

I see you don't understand what I am saying.

Here in the US, we have a minority who is pushing an actual piece of legislation called the Green New Deal. This specific Green New Deal is not a conceptual thing, or a call for more funding for renewables, or anything like that. It is also, not a move away from globalism and a move towards US or first world production (which because of energy efficiency would reduce global CO2 by itself), it is essentially a move to full on Socialism wrapped in an environmental wrapper.

The result of it would almost immediately be a LARGE reduction in US standards of living, widespread unemployment, and more.

Of course the proponents of it deny this, but if you actually read it, you are constantly struck by "why is this in an environmental bill?".

So, what I am saying is that if those who consider themselves the enlightened betters in the US were to push this through, half the country would erupt in armed insurrection.

So I am not saying you want bloodshed, and certainly I don't either. I have been working in engineering, in industry, for a long time and have never met anyone who wanted to ruin the environment. It is almost always about honest mistakes or economics. But plans that essentially ruin peoples lives in mass are going to provoke bad stuff happening.

I wish I thought the people cooking up these plans understood what the consequences would be.

Unfortunately, I believe than many of them regard environmentalism as a convenient method to implement the socialism that is the real agenda. When I say socialism, I don't mean a strong social safety net, I mean "control of the means and methods of production".

Like some religious zealots, they believe they are right, and anything that lets them get their way is justified. They scare the cr#p out of me.

Agree. So far nobody's climate change plan makes sense. We will soon have electric autos and trucks plus so much solar and wind power that we can't use it all, because of lack of storage and grid improvements, plus baseload and backup technologies. But even if we get that, we'll still need to take massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Unless we can replant the Amazon, the Sahara and a lot more, we need an economical way to remove CO2 and we don't have it. So overall, we're probably a dozen innovations short of a real plan.

Way too much panic there! Food production is increasing due to improved yields. The amount of land devoted to agriculture in the US is decreasing even as production increases

We have a lot to learn about plastics in the environment. Some of the plastics we were certain were going to require hundreds of years to break down are breaking down in decades or less.

The Amazon is about local politics and warped government incentives more than anything else.

Over-fishing is solvable in most cases by aquaculture, if we can stop trying to regulate it out of existence.

Many of the technologies required to overcome these issues is already here, but suppressed by rent-seeking by current business'. In short, the people who are supposed to regulate fishing are actually protecting those doing the over-fishing by holding back aquaculture for example.

We don't know everything and sometimes what we think we know is wrong. Mother nature is more resilient than we often give her credit for.

When you exaggerate the scope of the problem, instead of scaring people into agreeing with you they throw their hands up and ignore it as a hopeless case.

Government central planning is not the solution, most of the time it is the problem.

The "green new deal" is anything but environmental and people should be scared of those who push legislation like that.

Since this general topic has devolved into politics, I have a thought that relates to feederism; how would being fat in a democratic socialist eco society even work?

Universal healthcare is a key component of socialism, so to a normie society there would be even more shame to fatness since you're not only wasting infrastructure, but *electricity* to keep up with common side effects of obesity. Ideally, food would be rationed so that everybody would have enough, so in order to get a higher calorie budget you'd basically have to cheat and lie about work you haven't done. That's assuming if you aren't bartering with other bloc members and trading rations for services in a black market, as some blocs ended up doing in Soviet-era regimes.

Factoring ecological goals makes this even more complicated. AC? Unless it'll kill you, no reason to hoard that much power. Fridge? Easier to make everything freeze-dried or salted. Meat? Fauna emit CO2, you're going vegan or eating bugs. Dairy, the staple of gaining? Sorry, cows emit even more gasses, so we shut down all farms and put them in zoos. All we got is peanut butter and avocadoes. You'll get some soy m/boobs, but not much meat on your bones unless you can handle the taste.

To pretend that capitalism can be destroyed is ignoring that flora has this thing called *seeds*, which now can be grown with lamps in a basement. Even if you got the big picture of socialism right, all it would take is enough people to bond over a farmer's market for individuals to create wealth and develop even more black markets. Even meat and dairy can be smuggled if "pets" were defined loosely enough. Mind you, early China made their currency out of *tea leaves*, so home-grown money is possible even if you nail down technology to prevent crypto tokens.

Personally, I treat solar and wind as a chance to become grid-independant instead of reducing carbon footprint, there are so many other options to consolidate grid power such as fission, fusion (if it's possible), or moon/asteroid mining. With nuclear waste being minimized to the point where we might get away with launching waste into the sun, I see the real reason for lobbying against nuclear would be that it's a terrorist magnet (France is still fine, go figure), the materials for nuclear domes share some tools with nuclear weapons programs, and how much upset this would cause the big wigs such as Exxon along with the labor unions that rely on them for work, like pipefitters.

Lastly, the words we type right now are on servers being cooled in warehouses, so unless the world is ready to be hosted on Pi Zeroes there is a lot of overhead in other sectors to reduce before removing national governments. Or, y'know, dust off some commodores and reuse them in a network even more friendly than ipv4/6.

Unless Socialists invent the matrix where anyone can be an 800lbs woman that's fit as a fiddle and stimulating tastebuds that can taste like the real deal with droids/concubines, then I'd be more open to the idea. Until then, is it too hard to ask for a VR suit that can simulate expansion? Might come sooner than sex dolls that have adjustable thiccness.