bro what are you talking about
I appreciate you liked my calendar-wheel diagram years ago, but I really don't appreciate your periodic, bad-faith and ungrounded snarks
talk or stop or block
Look, I am an anarchist.
I guess you are talking about how the mainstream thinks that green = "green growth", electric cars, etc. In my mind, the global North/West absolutely needs to consume way less and, like you say, stop being the worlds jailers.
In any case: bad people holding an idea does not make that idea bad. Ideas must be talked about on their own merit, not attacked ad hominem, and you are smart enough to know that.
Which bit of the climate "agenda" do you take issues with?
Also interested to hear about your climate activism more generally.
I am actually a bit curious to know how you went from climate activist, to thinking that a LNG conference is good 🤔
Some rich people will always profit from change; some profit from keeping things the way they are. The machinations of (m/b)illionaires is important to understand, but doesn't affect empirical reality.
I feel like you want to make a point, but are avoiding it. The billionaires, paid activism, people having agendas... these are all accessory to the important questions of e.g. does CO2 increase atmospheric energy retention? ...
... Is it worth preserving ancient biotopes and rewilding?
Etc. If there is a completely different narrative on all this (which you seem to imply) perhaps just link me to it.
Cool about the planting and battery collection. Do you regret doing it now?
Interesting to read the article you linked, always illuminating to hear stories from around the world.
"CO2 = plant food." Sure, as is NPK & water. But you don't deny that increased CO2 increases solar heat retention, increases ocean acidity and
decreases human cognition?
For example, it seems you think it would be good for more humans to exist. Why? How many more?
What about the rest of life on earth, considering most people on earth want to increase their material wealth?
the Forbes article: first, I think there is *no* consensus about geoengineering or carbon capture and storage like you say. It could make sense to cut and store wood as described, but unless it was much better argued than in the article, I would say it's a bad idea.
I get the feeling you are much more sure "the climate agenda" is wrong than I think it is correct; that you think it is more unified, and I think it diverse
Also, if you could reply in one thread, it would make it easier to talk.
I gave you no promise of response rate.
it seems you have a sufficiently large prejudice against people living in the north/west that I'm not going to be able to gain your confidence.
I think it might be better for me to switch medium and do a call, would that be something for you?
but I did reply in one thread?
I'm not going answer any of your questions,
so long as you hold me accountable for the (very real) crimes of the west.
so I'm a privileged Westerner. Do you still want to talk?
I genuinely don't know which question(s) you are referring to, could you please restate.
What I've picked up over the years it that it's shrunk dramatically.
english wikipedia implies the primary factor to be river diversion:
I didn't get the notification.
Well, that is interesting! Indeed, the narrative I've heard is much more dramatic, and does not mention the previous changes.
I will try to get the Kediri article mentioned on the Aral Sea article - any secondary references you might have are helpful.
thanks for the detailed post and curious about other examples you might have.
Do I understand that you see no generalized human domination over other species?
Even in the heavily industrialized countries?
Perhaps it helps to focus on a concrete example: what do you think about the mass animal industry?
I want to focus on this point, since it seems really central, and I don't think we can construct a useful discussion if we depart too fundamentally on this point.
Support Hubzilla
