a truly psychotic account of an apocalyptic cult that has to be completely removed from any decision making process and with it any person who doesn't recognize those people and that thinking process are the biggest threat to humanity, not the world getting marginally hotter.

the list of completely insane claims in the article is too long to write, it's basically every sentence being totally out of whack from actual science, a truly grotesque collection of psychopathic claims by people with actually serious mental illnesses (as declared by some of them in the article itself).

jfc if we needed any further proof climate change is being exaggerated by orders of magnitude in it's impact, now we don't anymore.

The homeowners insurance market is collapsing in a lot of climate vulnerable locations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/c...takeaways.html

Residential real estate and related mortgages are enormous and leveraged asset on balance sheets across the USA. Climate change is en route to punching our lights out.

Capitalism was a wonderful tool for lifting people up for a long time. But human civilization needs to pivot away from economic growth as its fundamental measuring stick. The planet is not growing. We are living with finite resources.

Climate messaging is difficult because people are naturally selfish and consumed with surviving the short-term. Very few people actively care about the experience of others beyond their own lifespans. So there is little interest for people to even attempt to educate themselves.

We currently have the personal liberty to add unlimited amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. The average American is responsible for about 30,000 lbs per year while the IPCC scientists are saying we need to get to a global average of about 5,000 lbs per capita by 2030. This liberty must disappear in order for some semblance of human civilization to be maintained.

This liberty is similar to the liberty to own slaves in Alabama 200 years ago. There was no place to in the South to have a discussion about that liberty in the 1820's. Just as there is no place in America to discuss the liberty to add CO2 to the environment.

When the financial system cracks .... the conversation will emerge.

Mostly agree with this but I would rather put the burden more on infinite amount of debts being printed , resulted from a fiat monetary system , providing excess demands and overconsumption of resources instead of blaming capitalism system .
Current Capitalism isn’t perfect , we saw its flaws today due to a bad monetary medium but that could change and making it better down the road .

"everything I dislike is like slavery"

Capitalism is a serious problem but the idea that growth is the problem is a disasterous one.

We urgently need to tackle climate change and it's going to take a lot of hard headed realism rather than anti growth thingy which is many fallacies rolled into one and worse it means never dealing with the problem. We can't afford that

I admit that I wouldn't be sure if you were on team "we need to eliminate growth in order solve climate issues"

It would be better if we all just turn off our cars and wear fish net clothing.

If people actually wanted to reduce emissions the most with the smallest impact on daily life, it would be quite possible with a fraction of the costs currently imposed on rich countries.

First of all, people emit much more CO2 in rich countries than in poor countries, as everyone is reminded every day by the left.

Well a corollary of that is that there is then a moral imperative to ban all immigration from poor countries, obviously, IF CO2 emissions are the threat the left says.

Every time a person moves from say Bangladesh or Nigeria to the USA or the UK, that's a massive increase in CO2 emissions over decades.

Make that illegal.

Then we can massively increase nuclear energy production, like every rich country should produce as much as france at the very minimum, as a % of total (if France can do it, anyone can).

Theoretically we could be able to produce all energy with nuclear and hydro and a bit of solar/wind.

But nuclear needs to be the backbone for 24/7/365 baseline production.

Then transportation is either electric or fuel synthesized with nuclear energy.

But see, the above wouldn't imply socialism, nor any change in how we live, so...

Everytime you hear someone talking about emission reduction as a moral necessity who isn't in favor of severely limiting or outright banning immigration from poor countries, and isn't in favor of massive subsidies and a strong push for nuclear above everything else, you know you are facing a lying hypocrite who is criminally using climate change talks to instead push for his preferred socialist policies.

I appreciate the honesty of arguing to **** the poor while a small group get all the goodies. Not a fan myself alhtough I dont doubt that may well be a lage part of the way we go with an increasingly small group having more and more of the wealth while the rest of us go to hell.

I'm unashamedly in favour of socialist policies even without climate change. Climate change is going to make it much harder because there's going to be a lot of war and general misery which tends to favour more your sort of world.

poors would only be "suspended" in their progress through immigration, but after emissions are solved (and it's a very quick thing if we act properly without leftism, it's a couple of decades at most) immigration can resume. We just need a ton of nuclear energy then we can carbon capture as much as we want, it's all feasible with today technology, and in theory technology does improve fairly fast with time.

What is certain is that we don't need in any way to change how we live, and anybody claiming that is in complete bad faith. Even if we want to believe the problem of climate change is as big as proponents claim (and ofc they are grotesquely exaggerating it by orders of magnitude), and even if emission reduction had to be an actual first priority, we could do that living the same way we do today, and with growing economies. As with literally every other thing we might desire to achieve as groups of human beings, socialist policies are actually insanely detrimental, and we would already have solved emissions (in the paris agreement sense) just by going nuclear as much as france 10-15 years ago.

But if we keep destroying productive economy, which is what you need to have the money to go nuclear (and to the other, far less important, things that can still help a bit like mass reforestation of vast empty land and so on), it all gets slower and worse.

And btw a lot of leftist people are against nuclear lol, those are the enemy a lot more than climate change deniers.

Leftist anything = bad per the Fascist.

I'm not an ideologue.

I think capitalism is appropriate in some instances and socialism is appropriate in others.

If a person is smart enough to become a doctor and is willing to invest a decade in studies and residency to get there, they deserve to be paid more than a waiter.

In the case of the atmosphere, it is a globally shared resource that all 8 billion people and lots of critters are dependent upon its being within a habitable range. I don't think wealth should provide someone with the privilege to pollute it and contribute to its destruction.

As it pertains to that globally shared resource, I believe we need a globally binding treaty and a communist approach to protecting it.

This is a difficult issue to have an intelligent discussion around when people seek to discredit any substantive discussion with ideological attacks.

In WW2, we rationed lots of things like coffee, butter, gasoline, meat, etc as we came together to fight a global war.

We need to ration carbon emissions. That isn't going to be easy. If we can't give up recreational emissions such as those associated with internation jet travel, then what can we give up ?

Nut, you should start with understanding capital controls bretton woods strategy and how that works for rationing effectively than some third grade socialism communism idiot talking point. Look at tobin taxing and how that affects things.

Everything you said looks great until you begin to understand how things operate and that none of what your asking revolves over some idiotic capitalism vrs socialism macro power force that solves everything.

There are a lot of very intelligent folks out there attempting to formulate the best approach to your questions and you're not going to solve the problem by saying that we came together 80 years ago and why cant we give up recreational emissions?

The most populous country is communist and it's polluting like there is no tomorrow lol

Hmmm ..... so, let's understand how things operate my friend .....

Nature doesn't give a damn about human financial systems. We can't transcend physics and biology.

We've had 5 mass extinctions in the last 450M years and humans are not immune to precipitating a 6th. Extinction is the natural destination of any organism which has no external checks and balances on its population growth. Such an organism is destined to perish in its own toxic waste. We are bacteria in a petri dish. The earth is finite. In the span of a single century we have reconstituted an atmosphere which is >10M years old.

We are triggering Earth System tipping points which are irreversible. The overturning ocean circulation (AMOC) is near a threshold for stoppage for the first time in 13k years. Sea level rise is accelerating and coastal real estate around the world is shifting from perpetuity to annuity. We are adding the equivalent of 1M Hiroshima bomb detonations worth of energy to the ocean every day. Coral reefs are dying en masse.

Humans are playing chicken with an opponent that is bigger than us and has no feelings.

China is much more than "communist". There are lots of billionaires in China. They eat our lunch when it comes to manufacturing efficiency. And a whole lot of that pollution is manufacturing for western consumption. When the accounting system for emissions assigns ALL of the emissions to the country of manufacture and ZERO to the country of consumption ..... we need to maybe take those numbers with a grain.

We do need to treat it like a war but rationing did not win the war. Science, maths and technology won the war along with determined, focused effort and a belief in the future.

We cannot afford mistakes about the earth being finite or ideas like rationing is a solution.

I have to admit that it did start to make a little sense when you stated that we are bacteria in a petri dish.

With that, what solutions do you propose against this opponent that is bigger than us and doesn't have feelings?

If rationing didn't help win the war .... why did we do it ? Why was that policy accepted by the people and why has it not been seen as an historic failure.

Rationing was necessary to win the war. It wasn't the only thing. It was part on an integrated solution.

Mostly we did rationing because germany sunk our shipping (sieges etc in historical times)

Rationing may be required at times but it's part of hanging in their while we win the war. Rationing is not the solution.

To begin with, a sense of humility which helps us understand that we are both part of and subordinate to nature.

Second .... we need to apply MATH to the problem of human industrial waste. A poker community should have a good grasp of math.

Our current global financial system operates on a concept where wealth is measured as the present value of future cash flows called the Time Value Of Money.

The PV of a dollar to be received in the future = 1 / (1 + i)^n

i= interest rate
n = # of periods (such as years)

When you do the math ..... you realize that at a reasonable interest rate (say 5-6% on Treasuries or higher on riskier investments), the only cash flows that matter are those to be received in the next 20-30 years. The global financial system is only concerned with the near future and the ability of the system to be productive beyond that near future is completely ignored.

This system works perfectly fine until you cross a threshold where its possible to destroy the future as a result of surpassing planetary habitability boundaries.

A system such as a carbon tax which caused the emitter to pay for the damage to the future might have been effective if it had been implemented a few decades ago. But its late for that. We need global regulation which protects the future from the narrow priority of short term profit seeking. We need to recognize the rights of future generations to a habitable planet as inalienable.

50% of global emissions come from the wealthiest 10% of the population. We need to disconnect wealth from the privilege to pollute and take away the present unlimited ability to pollute for free. We need to declare a global war on toxic waste and have Manhattan Project level commitment to finding ways to minimize it.

We need to let go of addictions and the idea that anything that makes money is OK. A single bitcoin transaction consumes 1.3 million x as much electricity as a standard credit card transaction. We need people in leadership to say "no ...bitcoin is unnecessary even if the companies who sells the servers necessary for bitcoin will have to take a hit in profit". We need cell phones and PC's that don't need to be replaced every 2-3 years in order to maximize the profit of Microsoft and Apple. We need more durable products. We need to encourage telecommuting. We need more electrified public transit. We will need more local resiliency and food supply as a result of global supply chains being disrupted due to increasingly severe weather. We need foreign policy which tells poor countries that we aren't willing to let them starve. We need to stop investing in real estate construction in places like South Florida which are destined to be claimed by the ocean.

We need to have more global cooperation and the intelligence to not have our brains glaze over when someone yells "socialism".

We need to learn from history at what a world looks like when we are indifferent to the suffering of others. Indifference to the starving of Germans led to the Nazi's, a Holocaust and 60M dead in WW2.

We need to teach people what it means for the overturning ocean circulation to stop. We need to teach them what it would mean for the glaciers in the Himalaya and Hindu-Kush which supply nearly 2B people with water to disappear. We need to teach them what it would mean for coastal communities around the world if sea levels rose 5 feet.

Humans are incredibly intelligent when it comes to their personal short term survival . We are great when it comes to clan identity and loyalty vs other clans. But we suck big time when it comes to global cooperation. We have to do better.

We need an 11th commandment which involves fidelity to the experience of the future. We have a commandment to honor our parents But there is no commandment in the opposite direction. We need to amend our religious beliefs.

Odds are against us. But I'm not clinging to the outcome. I'm just doing my best to explain what we need and letting the chips fall where they may.

I agree with much of that but it lacks the positive vision of what we can achieve for our children and humanities future. Humilty is good but there is a brilliant future to be won for humanity if we fight for it. Defeatism isn't going to cut it.

Yes we need manhaten projects, we need colossus, we need the moon landings. We need it on a different scale. Not just to deal with problems but to make life vastly better for everyone.

Humanity is nothing like bacteria in a petri dish. If we **** it up it will be our own fault.

I think u missed the « philosophical « concept of what he meant .

No I didn't. Humanity is not subservient to nature. Or if we are we are currently an infinitesimal speck in the petri dish.

I've no interest in bitcoin but using it as a proxy for all the good stuff. Sure we need to mitiigate the short term problems and try to buy time. I'm going with a covid analogy so we need masks and lockdowns. The real aim though is cheap clean energy - effectively unlimited virtaully free clean energy. That is the vaccine that we need and that is one area where the manhatten/colossus/moon landings type analogy needs to focus on - with steroids.

Telling people we need to live forever with masks and lockdowns is both false and doomed. The future if were going to win will be awesome and we need to go for it really hard because we're in a deadly race.

If we took climate change seriously, we wouldn't call it "climate change".

Imagine your friend is rushed to the hospital and you get called as their emergency contact. You rush to the hospital and the doctor tells you that your friend has "body change". Imagine your reaction ..... ("what the ****"). This tells you nothing.

The reason your friend is in the hospital is because they drank a bottle of whiskey. The doctor will tell you that your friend has "Blood Alcohol Poisoning".

Blood is the LOCATION of the poison.

Alcohol is the NAME of the poison.

Poisoning is an unequivocal declaration of dangerous toxicity.

That's informative !!!

Climate change should be renamed as Atmospheric Poisoning or Atmospheric Carbon Poisoning (since the primary toxins are excess CO2 and CH4).

If we understood it that way, people would look to understand where the atmospheric carbon comes from and understand that clean energy is only a minority part of the solution. We need to look at agriculture, diet, transportation, industry, land use and recreational behaviors too.

Nut, warming isn't detrimental to the totality of the planet, stop the bullshitting. Some places gain by warming. You want to claim "overall" on earth we are worse off? that's possible. Still it's nothing like poison, it isn't something that is strictly worse for everyone.

STOP THE BULLSHITTING