As of now, it looks like all the actions of climate-change activists amount to is setting themselves up for “We told you and you would not listen” decades down the road.
(Not that I’m saying that that’s what climate-change activists want, but rather, that, realistically, it appears to be the fate they/we are headed towards.)
Pot, meet kettle. You’re happy to make an arbitrary dismissal like ‘virtue signaling’, but boy howdy, you sure can’t take it yourself.
The right resists progress kicking and screaming. Suicidally so, if necessary. It is hilarious to have been alive to see the right hysterically resisting every effort to secure civil rights for anyone, only to see them pretending barely a generation later that it only happened when they jumped on board.
According to the World Bank, the average Mexican produces 3.9 metric tons of CO2 a year while the average American produces 16.9 metric tons. Once a a Mexican or Central American arrives in the USA, their carbon footprint increases exponentially.
If climate change activists truly believed in Global Warming, they would fully support Trump’s wall and any other measures to stop legal and illegal immigration. Otherwise, they are disingenuous.
We know their carbon footprint doesn’t change because conservatives assure us that Mexicans don’t become Americans when they cross the border.
Too late, I already pointed out what a big liar Trump is, not only for denying the issue, but also that he is fooling many with the wall, Trump is not using that political support he has among the right into making new nuclear plants that can help a lot with the issue but instead he continues to waste taxpayers money into a useless wall. (BTW that steel and concrete used to build the useless wall has a hefty carbon footprint too)
But never mind that, the other point here is that you missed the memo: in evidence cited before, cities that have more immigrants are the ones with the smallest carbon footprints. So to begin with, nativists that try to be “neophyte” environmentalists need to acknowledge that environmentalists have already looked at the impact.
So you need to check a past tread like this one:
On that thread I mentioned this about the contrarian nativists leaders that attempted and failed to put a wedge between environmentalists groups by misusing the issue of immigration: (hence the comment of you not getting the memo)
"What I conclude in the end is that the real cowardice is in the efforts to divide the environmentalist movement with what amounts to be really a cheap shot. The reality is that virtually all conservatives in office that oppose immigration also oppose doing anything about CO2 emissions, worse, they claim that there is no problem at all.
Until I see any brave efforts by those anti-immigrant organizations to pressure republican leaders to do something about the main causes of the big carbon footprint that the US has, It is clear to me that they are indeed just doing a real coward thing by continuing to accuse the ones that have the least to blame, the immigrants."
In essence that thread shows what others that are contrarians are falling for (and one nativist poster in that thread was seen to end up as a Fascist in a later thread), first they become nativists, then fake environmentalists, then they end up as Holocaust deniers. Please clean up your sources of information before falling down in the pit of their sorry propaganda.
I know you were talking to Sam, but I wanted to comment in this article. How did the Flight 93 election work out? They stormed the cockpit and got the idiot in charge. What do we get? Hm, let’s see, trillion dollar deficits thanks to tax cuts, 89% of which go to the top 1%. Obamacare… not repealed, just McCain blamed for the failure. Infrastructure… not addressed. Migrants? Yay, they are basically being tortured! Kids in cages, families separated, and righties still won’t acknowledge that Obama actually deported more people ( I’ll let others speculate why that is). The fierce denial of racism while taking the explicitly racist stance that immigrants tend to vote Dem since the Pubs simply won’t. abandon. their. racist. policies. towards. them. Ooo, so unfair! So global leftist tide of brown people!
And my favorite point of all, that Trump and his GOP somehow represent “what has counted as knowledge in the West for millennia” and also the primal scream of “I WANT TO LIVE!!!1!” Yeah, that’s why we get the bottomlessly ignorant position of climate change denial, supported by zero evidence, which if not changed is going to result in the deaths of just about all of your grandchildren.
I am not sure if educated and informed people are being extreme enough. But obviously there is a mountain of horseshit to plow through before we can even start a conversation with these poor suckers who have bought into the propaganda. Rush the cockpit or… There will be no tax cuts for the wealthy!! :eek: :eek:
This article had some good discussion about alarmism among climate change activists: Vox - Will climate change kill everyone — or just lots and lots of people?
So, yeah, lots and lots of people dying will be good… /s
As the article ends with:
And as noted before, I do stand by what I said that not pointing out at the plausible worse scenarios has led to a lot of complacency that has allowed worse scenarios to become plausible. And, a lot of that complacency has taken place thanks to the contrarian propaganda. And now we see the results, now bad scenarios are more likely thanks to the past inaction when more optimistic scenarios were the ones that were allowed to be talked about.
People in favor of gay rights should never express an opinion on climate change? Someone interested in tax policy needs to shut up about climate change? People who want to mitigate climate change need to shut up about all other political issues?
I’ll guess that your point isn’t really so nonsensical, but it sure sounds like it.
Give the GOP credit for one thing: A single issue: Stupidity. Scientists are stupid; liberals are stupid; non-Christians are stupid; gun control is stupid; foreigners are stupid; government workers and every President before Trump are stupid. A single versatile message! 
What a bizarre comment. No one is talking about opinions - I was talking about the logic of marrying legislation to fix what we are told is an existential threat, with legislation for policies guaranteed to reduce support for the bill.
As an analogy, let’s say Republicans believed that the military needed vastly more funding to counter a threat from another country that they claim WILL attack unless the military is greatly built up over 10 years. They have all the Republican votes they need, but can’t get Democrats onboard and need their votes to succeed.
Given that scenario, now imagine that the Republicans come up with the ‘Military New Deal’, which is an omnibus legislative package that marries their military budget with a laundry list of Republican wishes - a ban on abortion, shutting down the Department of Education, tax cuts, nationwide concealed carry of handguns, etc. And Democrats are told that they have to vote for all of it to get the military buildup.
Do you think this strategy would help or harm the cause of getting Democrats to vote for a military buildup?
Probably because you read it while thinking the following:
Cite that the Democrats are doing anything like this?
Have you heard of the ‘Green New Deal’? Go look at how much of it actually has to do with climate change.
I would like to see that bill you are talking about, but that is not there, do you know what a non-binding resolution is?
Or in other words, lets get the ball running, and discuss this, of course the Republicans in the Senate decided to force a vote on beginning the discussion** and voted against even that**. It is clear that a lot of what you are complaining about would/will not make it into law… While at the same time a lot of what you mentioned about the Republican “equivalent” of it is being deployed by Trump with the ‘3 monkey act’ consent of the Republicans in congress.
So you mean the Democrats couldn’t get Republican support for their ‘non-binding resolution’ that happened to mix climate change policy with a universal income, universal free education, high taxes on the rich, more regulations across the economy and trillions of dollars in ‘stimulus’ spending?
I’m shocked. And it proves my point.
Nope, again what bill are you talking about?
As you said: “No one is talking about opinions - I was talking about the logic of marrying legislation to fix what we are told is an existential threat, with legislation for policies guaranteed to reduce support for the bill.”
And you only spectacularly showed all that you missed the point. Just starting the conversation by just only looking at the resolution would had showed that indeed a lot of what the more liberal Democrats proposed would not had gone into an eventual bill, making any point you made there moot.
:smack: You post in Elections and don’t even know the difference between a multi-iussue platform and specific legislation? :rolleyes:
Yep. Someone’s comments are rather bizarre.
Sam, I agree with you on this one. I favor treating climate chance as an individual issue rather than trying it to Universal Basic Income and so on, AOC style.
It is worth pointing out that the Green New Deal got ZERO votes in the Senate. I don’t think we have to worry about it.
From my perspective, it seems as if the right only ever talks about climate change in the context of the Green New Deal, so that people will be afraid of the Trojan Horse effect. It also seems as if Fox’s coverage of Democrats would lead one to believe that AOC is the only Democrat in existence, I am guessing so that viewers will become either afraid of or angry with Democrats.
Note that most people don’t think clearly when they are angry or afraid.
To be more precise the Democrats only voted “present” as a way to protest the “see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil” move by the Republicans.