Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:


shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 16, 2022, 09:11:40 pm »

It’s Time We Burn the UN Climate Conference to the Ground
experts told The Daily Beast that this year’s COP will go down in infamy as the year the conference was revealed to be a true farce.

“It seems like Egypt is the nail in the coffin for environmental activists and those truly invested in transformative climate action and justice, and not just these small adjustments that seem to be getting us nowhere,” Mohammed Rafi Arefin, a geography and climate justice researcher at the University of British Columbia, told The Daily Beast.
Recent reports have highlighted other hypocrisies, such as a glut of fossil fuel lobbyists present at this year’s meeting, a year after the industry’s already outsized presence was uniformly criticized. Over a hundred more lobbyists registered for COP27, according to an analysis released last week by the international nonprofit Global Witness.

“After it was called out last year, how does this actually still happen?” Kat Maier, a national coordinator for Fridays For Future U.S., told The Daily Beast. That Hill+Knowlton, a PR firm that represents fossil fuel companies, is leading communications at the conference and Coca-Cola, one of the world’s leading plastics polluters, is hosting, only deepens activists’ skepticism about the meeting.
It found that 125 of the world’s richest billionaires each emit one million times more carbon annually than a person in the bottom 90 percent economically on average.
When companies are given a larger platform than they deserve at the conference, it’s important to remember how their tenets may contradict the stated purpose of the COPs and drown out crucial marginalized perspectives.
Posted by: Billy Kid
« on: November 12, 2022, 02:24:10 pm »

I don’t disagree at all that it will take statism to end fix all these things, but it is a tendency among false leftists (usually marxists, but also social democrats) to use the 100 companies etc as an argument against plant-based diets and other life style choices which should be law. In fact I believe many of these people secretly don’t want these corporations gone, as they aren’t already willing to make sacrifices in their life style choices even if they’re in the position to do so.

For example, one of their key arguments against veganism is the existence of food deserts. A true leftist of course would reply that food deserts don’t have to exist but it will require statism and city planning for people to have access to the correct nutrition, but this doesn’t cross a false leftist’s mind (or if it does they don’t mention it because it will invalidate their argument - never mind that many of these false leftist idiots don’t even live in food deserts to begin with!)

And taking into account their distrust towards any form of authority, even that which is just and could actually get **** done, I do not believe these people would be willing to support true left statists. In fact many of these people believe TrUe DeMoCrAcY is what will save their asses.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 10, 2022, 07:44:25 pm »


More than 100 supporters of Animal Rebellion stopped the supply of fresh milk across large areas of England in the early hours of Sunday, including Arla Aylesbury, which processes 10% of the UK supply.

It came after the activist group, who campaign for a sustainable plant-based food system, received no response to a letter to Downing Street in August, in which they warned of disruptive action in September unless progress towards their demands was made.

Members of Animal Rebellion stopped and climbed on company trucks outside four facilities supplying milk to the Midlands and south of England. Others entered company premises, climbing on to milk silos and the sites’ loading bays.

The four distribution centres, operated by Müller and Arla, together process an estimated 2bn litres of fresh milk annually.

The group has said its supporters will continue to take direct action until the British government negotiates on its two demands.

However, democracy (especially involving a demos with a key Turanian mutation) makes it unlikely that the activists will be listened to:

“We are disappointed to be targeted by a small number of activists who don’t represent the 96% of adults in Britain who choose milk every week, and we will ensure that supplies are maintained.

“Dairy is affordable and packed with nutrients that benefit our bodies. During a cost of living crisis it is wrong to try to prevent it from reaching families, including vulnerable members of society.”

For success in eliminating the dairy industry, either democracy must be ended, or the lactose-tolerant must be demographically replaced by the lactose-intolerant. Preferably both.

Bonus link:
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 08, 2022, 07:46:21 pm »


Analysis-Climate change, scarcity chip away at degrowth taboo

By Federica Urso and Mark John

(Reuters) - Degrowth - the idea that a finite planet cannot sustain ever-increasing consumption - is about the closest you can get to a heresy in economics, where growth is widely held as the best route to prosperity.

But, as climate change accelerates and supply chain disruptions offer rich-world consumers an unaccustomed taste of scarcity, the theory is becoming less taboo and some have started to ponder what a degrowth world might look like.

After the U.N. climate science agency this year called for cuts in consumer demand - a core degrowth premise - the think tank that runs the Davos forum published a degrowth primer in June and the issue has even begun to crop up in investment notes.

In short, it took them until now figure out what I as a child had figured out within several minutes while sitting in my first ever class about global warming.

In April, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that outright cuts to consumer demand were needed to reduce carbon emissions, a shift from a previous focus on the promise of sustainable fuel technology.


The article on degrowth published in June by Davos-organiser the World Economic Forum hinted at degrowth impacts, suggesting "it might mean people in rich countries changing their diets, living in smaller houses and driving and travelling less".

And, most importantly of all, REPRODUCING LESS FFS!
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: June 30, 2022, 10:33:50 pm »

It takes an enormous amount of land to raise cattle – land that would sequester more carbon as grass that doesn’t get grazed and forests that are not felled for pasture.

It also takes an enormous amount of food to feed cattle. About 55% of the grain grown in the US goes to fattening cows (and other animals). And as the ruminants chew, they burp out methane, a powerful planet-warming greenhouse gas. Meanwhile, animal waste and fertilizer runoff pollute rivers and poison drinking water supplies.

Eating less meat – primarily beef but pork and chicken, too – would free pasture and cropland, eliminate the suffering of billions of animals and improve human health by restoring clean water and reducing Americans’ calorie and saturated fat intake. Yet it’s an excruciatingly hard sell.
The US intentionally produces a vast surplus of food. The country’s food supply, what is grown and imported, amounts to about 4,000 calories a day for every adult, child and infant. “There’s no reason why we should be growing all that food,” Nestle said. “It’s not for us anyway – it’s for animals or automobiles.”

Not only do tons of US crops get turned into livestock feed but a staggering proportion (40% of corn, which accounts for the vast majority of the nation’s crops) is used to make gas for cars
The government mandates that ethanol, a renewable fuel typically made from corn, be mixed into gasoline to displace a portion of fossil fuels.

The goal is to reduce fuel emissions, but when you factor in the ecological impact of raising more corn to meet ethanol demand, research has found that the math doesn’t check out. That as much or more corn goes to making ethanol than either feeding people or animals is “clearly bonkers”, said Patel.

Producing biogas from cows’ methane waste is similarly better in theory than extracting fossil fuels. But dairies are cashing in on incentives to convert their emissions into energy, which perversely encourages the expansion of factory farms to generate more waste.

When will the mainstream reach the simple conclusion that problems created by Western civilization cannot be solved by more Western civilization?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: June 08, 2022, 08:35:55 pm »

After his election in April 2022, prime minister Shehbaz Sharif implemented a six-day work week for public-sector workers. That will now be cut back to five, and the government is considering a mandate that employees work from home on Fridays.
Venezuela temporarily adopted a similar cut during an energy crisis in 2016, and the idea has been floated by energy executives over the last year in the UK, which also relies heavily on natural gas imports. The move may have the added benefit of lowering Pakistan’s carbon footprint.
The fastest solution to high energy prices is to find creative ways to chip away at demand.

So obvious (and what I have been recommending for decades)!

The next step is to realize that the best way to reduce demand for energy is not merely to promote lifestyle frugality (though that is good too) but to reduce the total number of demanders. (And the first ones to be reduced should be those whose bloodlines created the one civilization uniquely to blame for increasing demand for energy to the insane present-day levels in the first place. You all know which one I am talking about by now.)
Posted by: rp
« on: January 30, 2022, 09:24:31 am »

They should have the same attitude toward machinists.
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: January 30, 2022, 05:50:56 am »

China Jails Almost 50 Steel Executives for Faking Emissions Data

China will jail forty-seven steel company officials for faking air pollution data, in a sign that Beijing’s crackdown on firms that are flouting environmental rules is intensifying.

The officials who worked at four mills in Tangshan city near Beijing, China’s top steelmaking hub, were give prison sentences from six to eighteen months, the municipal government said in a statement on its WeChat channel that cited court documents.

The sentences underscore Beijing’s push to clean up a major source of air pollution. Authorities have ramped up environmental controls on the steel industry over the past decade in a bid to reduce bouts of dirty air. The goal is to have more than 530 million tons of capacity in the “ultra-low emissions” category by 2025.

As time goes on, the ineffectiveness of democracy will continue to be demonstrated.

It is impossible for democratic governments to do because the political parties need the backing of the ultra rich.

That's a bug in the democracies that must be fixed.

This is one of the things that China does really well (as long as it's not just eliminating political enemies). They'll just straight up disappear billionaires (72 billionaire unnatural deaths over a 8 year period) and put the fear of god in the wealthy class.
    Among the 72 billionaires, 15 were murdered, 17 committed suicide, seven died from accidents, 14 were executed according to the law and 19 died from diseases.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 08, 2022, 03:08:27 am »

Mainstream academics slowly learn ecofascism:

A study published in a peer-reviewed academic journal suggests that "authoritarianism" could be necessary to fight against climate change.

The study, published in Cambridge University’s American Political Science Review and first reported by the Foundation For Economic Education, leads with a question of "is authoritarian power ever legitimate?" before the author outlines how it could be when combating climate change.

I figured this out when I was in primary school!

The study states that it is "ultimately an empirical question whether authoritarian governance is better able to realize desired environmental outcomes and, if so, why and to what extent."

Yes, it is better. Because all it takes is a leader who cares (instead of a majority of the population). To the extent that the leader  is willing to reduce the population, preferably by preventing reproduction.

The study drew criticism on Twitter, most notably from Alexander Wuttke, political psychology professor at the University of Mannheim, who called the study "disturbing."

"In my reading, it explicitly argues that we must put climate action over democracy and adopt authoritarian governance if democracies fail to act on climate change," Wuttke tweeted.

Yes. (And we should end democracy anyway.)

Mittiga responded to the criticism with a lengthy Twitter thread writing that his paper is "meant to be a warning about the threats climate change poses to democratic governance and human rights."

"In other words, I argue that we should all be advocating for rapid and extensive climate action, *precisely for the sake of preserving democracy and human rights*, which face their biggest threats in the context of security emergencies, like climate change," Mittiga adds.

I do not argue this. I argue that it was by no coincidence under democracy that the Industrial Revolution happened in the first place, which alone should have been enough to discredit democracy once and for all in the eyes of those who care about the environment.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 04, 2021, 09:42:40 pm »

We should “[d]amage and destroy new CO2-emitting devices. Put them out of commission, pick them apart, demolish them, burn them, blow them up.

Destroying a physical copy of a machine will only cause more pollution as a new copy is constructed to replace the one just destroyed. What we need is to first achieve a population containing no one who knows how (or is able to learn how) to build the replacement. Only then does it become meaningful to start destroying the physical copies.

The only machines that it would make strategic sense to actively sabotage in the meantime are those with the potential to build other machines on their own initiative (ie. AI).

"Who designed the machines in the first place?"

This. What we need is to eliminate all bloodlines capable of designing machines, or even of maintaining the machines that already exist.
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: December 04, 2021, 05:38:38 am »

A new book by Andreas Malm, a professor of human ecology at Sweden’s Lund University, asks a simple but perplexing question: Given the stakes, why hasn’t the global climate movement become far more radical than it is?

It’s a fair question. If we as a species were serious, if we really believed what we already know about climate change, we would be doing everything humanly possible to shift course. And yet we’re not. Even the most ambitious policy proposals on the table, with little chance of passing, are scarcely sufficient. This is the starting point of Malm’s book, and if you follow his logic it leads to some conclusions you may find uncomfortable.

He says it bluntly: We should “[d]amage and destroy new CO2-emitting devices. Put them out of commission, pick them apart, demolish them, burn them, blow them up. Let the capitalists who keep investing in the fire know that their properties will be trashed.” For Malm, we have a choice: Destroy the property that’s destroying the planet, or sacrifice the Earth on the altar of that property.

Malm’s book — it’s titled How to Blow Up a Pipeline — is obviously meant to provoke. But embedded in the provocation is a morally serious challenge to how we think about, and act on, the crisis humanity faces.
Andreas Malm

Well, to begin with, I don’t know that it would succeed. It’s not like I have a crystal ball where I’ve seen that we’ll win if we start doing this. But I think that the situation is so dire, so extreme, that we have to experiment, have to try. What we tried so far has only taken us so far. It’s given us limited success, but we still haven’t managed to dent the curves and bring emissions down and start the transition.

I mean, after a summer like this, and after all the disasters that keep raining down on us, it strikes me as paradoxical that people let these machines, these properties that are destroying the planet, continue to operate without going into the facilities and shutting them down and wrecking them.

I do think that the past experiences of social struggles suggests that if you’re fighting a very powerful enemy, you need to engage in tactics that can impose costs on that enemy. This usually includes forms of property destruction and confrontation with the ruling order that goes beyond absolutely peaceful civil disobedience. I don’t know of any relevant analogy or a parallel struggle in the past that has succeeded without an element of more militant methods. I don’t see how we can imagine that we will win this fight while staying as gentle and kind and polite as we have in the climate movement so far.
Andreas Malm

Some people say that, including the Catholic workers that I write about in the book, Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya, who systematically destroyed property along the Dakota Access pipeline when it was being constructed. They come from a particular radical Catholic tradition where they see this as falling under the definition of nonviolence. So they would destroy a lot of equipment, burn it, blow it up, and classify that as nonviolence.

I myself have no problem with that logic. But most philosophers, as far as I can tell, would say that this is a form of violence because the owners of these things perceive themselves to be harmed, their interests being harmed, even though their own bodies are not being harmed. Therefore, the argument would be that this is a kind of violence. But all philosophers that I’m aware of see this as a form of violence qualitatively different from actually targeting the bodies of the people in question.
Andreas Malm

The struggle against fossil fuel production would not need killings, nor would such acts benefit the cause — no matter how catastrophic the future risks might be. So I do think respect for this line is essential. That said, I am not a pacifist in the sense that I rule out the taking of lives in all contexts, on moral or strategic grounds; in retrospect, I fully support the Northern side in the US Civil War and the struggle of anti-fascist partisans in Europe, to take only two obvious examples.

But I don’t see the moral calculus changing in this fashion, partly because I don’t see how hurting people — as human bodies — in the present could even hypothetically save future lives.
Andreas Malm

No, of course, of course. There are all sorts of pitfalls and dangers and risks, and we’re so late in the day that no path forward is risk-free. If you just continue with business as usual, that entails an enormous amount of risk.

Peaceful civil disobedience as an exclusive tactic for the climate movement has the risk of inefficacy.
Again, the George Floyd uprising last year is a case in point, because I think that there was collective discipline about the level of violence that the radical edge of that movement engaged in.

There was a general realization that if the movement oversteps that boundary, that very important limit, and starts killing people, the backlash will be tremendous. There are many other cases where you have militant movements deciding that, “We’re engaging in this specific kind of violence. We’re not going to harm individuals, we’re not going to kill people, but we’re going to harm property,” and have successfully maintained that limit and that boundary. I don’t think that’s impossible.

Malm is a communist, so he hasn't seemed to realize that consumerism-based communism (and its foundations of Marxism--which literally relies on "materialism"!) is not actually a radical opposition to what is causing environmental problems. He thinks environmental problems are all rooted in capitalism.

From the excerpt of the interview quoted above, he also thinks retaliatory violence against material things is fundamentally different from retaliatory violence against individuals. Who designed the machines in the first place? Who manufactured and paid for the machines to be built? Who runs the machines? Who profits from the machines running? Who has capital to produce more machines? Who bribes the politicians to prevent climate laws from being passed and enforced? Who pays for constant propaganda to make the public think climate change is fake? Who prevents solar and other green energy companies from getting government subsidies to get their industries off the ground?

The earth is not dying, it is being killed. And those who are killing it have names and addresses. -Utah Phillips

A non-sentient machine on its own is just a heap of metal. That's not radical--it does not get to the root of the problem.

But, at least leftists are beginning to realize climate change is indeed something which needs to be taken more seriously.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 19, 2021, 10:15:30 pm »

"Whatever Westerner began the propaganda campaign that "carbon" is the only pollutant worth regulating should be executed."


Although EVs do not release carbon dioxide during their use, their production (and that of batteries) exerts the same toll on the environment as that of conventional cars, while the recycling of lithium-ion batteries poses unique challenges.
battery waste could become a big problem not only for the car industry, but also for the environment.

How big? If an average car battery pack weighs 550 pounds, 100 million cars would produce about 55 billion pounds — 28 million tons — of battery waste that needs recycling. And we can expect a big portion of that waste to accumulate by 2040 if the IEAs’ projections are even partially correct.

Water pollution

Although Li-ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream, several studies have shown they can contaminate the water. Nowadays, a lot of recycling is “informal” — it often occurs in less developed, rural areas and without proper supervision or protective measures in place.

With these kind of operations, there’s a high probability of lithium seeping into the water supply. A similar situation occurs in highly developed areas where people improperly dispose of consumer electronics, which are more often than not powered by Li-ion batteries. Finally, it’s not just lithium that can contaminate soil and groundwater. Nickel, cobalt, manganese and other metals found in EV batteries pose an even greater threat than lithium to both human life and the ecosystem.
So, why aren’t more batteries recycled? The reason is that recycling plants don’t get much for scrap — about $100 per ton. This is by far superseded by logistics costs involved in collecting, sorting and transporting it.

Finally, to make enough batteries, we would need to triple the current production rates for lithium, graphite, nickel and manganese.
the result could be a situation that’s much worse than the plastic pollution that’s fouling up oceans.

This is why I keep saying: trying to use Western civilization to solve a problem created by Western civilization will only lead to even worse problems later. It is Western civilization as a whole which needs to be removed before we can tackle anything else in a serious manner.

Previous coverage:
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 17, 2021, 09:18:36 pm »

"How is one of the most densely-populated areas on Earth going to store toxic waste for tens of thousands of years, while continuously accumulating more of it as the population uses more and more energy?"

Increasingly, I believe that there is a Yahwist collective subconscious process at work which is deliberately trying to trash Earth beyond saving in order to spur Westerners to expand into outer space ASAP. This would neatly account for the behaviour such as you describe.
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: October 17, 2021, 07:54:38 pm »

Some good news, Germany, Spain, Austria, and Denmark are not giving in to reactionary pseudo-environmentalists in France and elsewhere:

France recently asked for the inclusion of nuclear power in the taxonomy framework by the end of the year, leading the charge with nine other EU countries - Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

The group faces strong opposition from Germany and four other countries that want nuclear power to be ineligible for green financing, citing the EU's “Do no significant harm” principle. The principle is intended to ensure that all projects financed by the pandemic recovery fund do not harm the bloc’s environmental goals.

Spain, Austria, Denmark and Luxembourg joined Germany in saying investors concerned about nuclear waste storage could lose confidence in financial products labelled green if they included nuclear energy without their knowledge.

"We worry that including nuclear power in the taxonomy will damage its integrity and credibility, and therefore its usefulness," the countries' ministers said, adding that every EU country has the right to choose its own form of energy.

Countries like nuclear-reliant France and some eastern European states favour nuclear because it emits no climate-harming carbon.
Germany, already committed to phasing out nuclear energy 20 years ago over safety concerns, responded to the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan by accelerating its national exit scheme for reactors.

I'd rather have carbon (graphite, charcoal, the element trees suck out of the air to make wood ffs) than waste which remains toxic for tens of thousands of years... How is that "green"? How is one of the most densely-populated areas on Earth going to store toxic waste for tens of thousands of years, while continuously accumulating more of it as the population uses more and more energy? Ship it to some other nation...?

Whatever Westerner began the propaganda campaign that "carbon" is the only pollutant worth regulating should be executed. It's not even the most dangerous greenhouse gas, although obviously carbon dioxide emissions must be regulated.