Well, you kind of can’t avoid that when calibrating politics on a US-style left-right spectrum, since the left is far closer to a rational fact-based perspective than the right is. Sheesh, Sam, you want to pat yourself on the back for not being an out-and-out climate-denying Trumpist bigot, while complaining that the Board liberals aren’t making enough concessions to their climate-denying Trumpist bigot political opponents? That’s not as bipartisan a position as you seem to imagine.
Not necessarily, given how much nitrogen is lost in typical fertilizer application, for example.
I mean, I don’t disagree that some emissions policies may be too draconian for the current wartime situation and may have to be temporarily modified, and that Sri Lanka in particular made a bad mistake that was further severely exacerbated by the war. But you’re kidding yourself if you think that climate problems are going to be successfully addressed without causing sustained severe pain to a lot of people.
Since the Netherlands’ agriculture and environment have already started severely suffering from its catastrophic nitrogen excess, what makes you think that the situation’s going to get any better if they just pretend the problem doesn’t exist for a while?
ISTM that you’re trying to tell yourself a convenient story about the current crisis being all the fault of these awful awful “radical left” environmentalists, never mind that the crisis has already been here for a while and is inevitably bound to get worse. Your designation of “crazy” to mean “policy that results in severe problems and suffering” is blithely ignoring the fact that by that standard, when it comes to the climate situation, there aren’t really any non-“crazy” policies left.
But for some reason, you don’t seem willing to say that the policies of those “worst actors” are “crazy”. Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine has caused huge suffering and immiseration for Russians, not to mention humiliating military and political defeats for Russia (including some of the NATO enlargement that Putinistas said the war was supposed to prevent).
But you don’t criticize Putin for his bad choices: no, according to you it seems to be all the fault of other countries’ policy decisions for “emboldening” him. They’re the only ones you’re willing to hold responsible, at least.
But, again, that doesn’t seem to bother you when “riots and street protests” are aimed at government policies you don’t like.
According to you, any community “devastation” caused by protests against burdensome emissions policies is all the fault of the policies themselves, not the protestors. But any community “devastation” caused by protests against racist policing policies is all the fault of the protestors, not the policies.
Yeah, I continue to think you’re not making a very convincing case for your own ideological evenhandedness here.