Author Topic: True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism  (Read 822 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
« on: April 29, 2021, 10:39:31 pm »
More leftists are finally asking the question I have been asking since the 90s:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-do-some-green-activists-eat-meat/

Quote
It was clear in 2015 that the Paris Agreement on climate change needed a rulebook to help countries meet their obligations under the accord. When diplomats crowded Katowice, Poland, last December to draft this rulebook, they ate like kings. The menu sported beef with smoked bacon, pork and beef dumplings, pork tenderloin, codfish in butter-wine sauce with mussels, barbecue chicken, burgers and assorted cheeses.

Amnesty International’s yearly conference is the same story. Aspiring defenders of humanity celebrate with ornate meat dishes on silver platters. I attended a workshop at this year’s conference titled “Humanity at Risk.” To Amnesty, climate change is a human rights issue since it creates food and water shortages and threatens vulnerable communities. One expert spoke about the importance of clean energy and transportation. But when asked about the impact of animal agriculture, she deflected the question, calling diet a “personal choice” and therefore not a focus of her work.

In school, too, I have listened to one climate change presentation after another. All manage to ignore that 14.5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from animal agriculture. That includes direct emissions from livestock, feed production and processing, and manure processing and disposal. This quantity exceeds all combined emissions from transport.

They also ignore that about a third of all our freshwater consumption is through animal agriculture, and that plant-based foods are dozens of times more water-efficient. They ignore that beef is the single largest driver of deforestation worldwide, followed by soy, half of which we feed to livestock. They ignore the toxic runoff from these farms, its creation of vast ocean dead zones and the desertification of once-fertile land.


They offer recommendations for daily activities: take shorter showers, use alternate forms of transport, eat local foods to avoid shipping. They ignore that a 10-minute shower takes about 20 gallons of water, whereas a single egg takes over 50 gallons to produce. A pound of chicken takes about 500 gallons. A gallon of milk 900. A pound of beef 1,800. You could shower for seven hours straight and use less water than it takes to make a single eight-ounce burger—without cheese.

They lament humanity’s progress on climate goals, America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the destructive power of corporations and their cargo ships. They do not mention, though, that the average American eats 200 pounds of meat per year, four times the world average, and that 97 percent of Americans consume animal products regularly. They ignore the worldwide consequences of feeding, raising and slaughtering 56 billion animals per year, not counting trillions of fish. And they ignore the fact that the global demand for meat and milk will keep rising, increasing 73 percent and 58 percent by 2050.

I want to ask the diplomats who drafted the Paris Agreement rulebook if they understood the irony. Over that 12-day conference, the food court had a carbon footprint of 4,500 metric tons, roughly that of burning half a million gallons of gasoline.

I wanted to ask Amnesty’s climate expert, too, what battle are you fighting? If food scarcity is a human rights issue, why ignore that we lose 97 percent of the protein we feed cows, and that milk and eggs are hardly better at 70 percent of protein wasted? Food waste and emissions aside, high-protein plants like legumes improve soil health for sustained food production, and are adaptable to varying climates.

Models show that if the U.S. transitioned to a legume-based diet, it could healthily feed 190 million more people using the same land area. And if Amnesty fights for quality of life improvements elsewhere, why also not mention the fecal miasma that envelopes towns near pork and beef farms, as farmers dispose of animal waste in mist?

For a climate activist, ignoring livestock is like trying to contain a fire without permitting yourself the use of water. The same goes for environment lovers. If you say you care for the environment, one should expect to find you among the 3 percent of Americans that have boycotted animal agriculture, right?

No? Why not?

...
In fact, when I mention the climate impact of meat, I often hear a sharp response. “I’ve heard all the vegan facts,” as if I were beating a dead horse. Shortly thereafter, as every vegan has probably heard, come the words, “I could never be vegan.” Or even worse, “I just don’t care.”
...
Somewhere in our reasoning about climate change, logic ends. Sure, it is deeply cultural. We are taught from youth that meat makes the dish. But at a certain point, it just becomes ironic. It is ironic that world leaders, questing to save humanity from climate disaster, indulge in beef tenderloin. It is ironic that a climate expert would refuse to acknowledge a leading cause of climate change. It is ironic that when thousands of experts do expose the destruction caused by livestock, no one cares. It is ironic that environmental engineers at my school recoil from vegan baked goods. It is ironic that our dining hall is armed with posters on sustainability and food waste yet serves meat six days a week.
...
If you do decide to avoid meat, you will have made progress in logical consistency. You will be able to back your claims of environmental awareness with a level of action. You might even understand that people don’t go vegan to “feign moral superiority.”
« Last Edit: April 29, 2021, 10:44:49 pm by 90sRetroFan »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-biden-shouldve-gone-after-beef-20210503-mg3wuufxf5d4janzrlkykffzle-story.html

Quote
No, despite what Fox News, Donald Trump Jr. and some Republican members of Congress have claimed in recent days, President Biden is not actually planning to pass a law to make Americans reduce their red meat consumption by 90% in order to save the planet.

It’s too bad though. He really should.

The false claim stemmed from a very real study conducted last year by the University of Michigan and Tulane University. The research found that if beef consumption was reduced by 90% in the U.S., along with a 50% reduction in other animal products, more than 2 billion tons of greenhouse gas pollution would be saved from the atmosphere.

“That’s roughly equivalent to taking nearly half the world’s cars off the roads for a year,”
reads a statement released by NGO The Center for Biological Diversity.
...
A 2018 report published in the journal Nature also included a call to Western countries to reduce beef and pork consumption by 90%, poultry and milk by 60%, and to replace that with four to six times more beans and similar plant-based products, in order to keep current food systems within environmental limits.

Better yet, they are tagging on the ethical arguments also:

Quote
Perhaps learning that reducing beef consumption by 90% in the U.S. could not only help save the planet but also save the lives of approximately 30 million cows, cows bound to have a captive bolt put through their skull before being strung upside-down and stabbed in the throat could do the trick?

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
I told you so:

http://blog.gorozen.com/blog/exploring-lithium-ion-electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint

Quote
Jefferies published a research note entitled “Are EVs as ‘Green’ as They Appear?” in which they conclude an electric vehicle must be driven 200,000 km (or 124,000 miles) before its “whole of life” carbon emissions equals that of an internal combustion engine.

Their analysis is very similar to ours and details the tremendous amount of energy (and by extension CO2) needed to manufacture a lithium-ion battery. Moreover, they point out that a typical EV is on average 50% heavier than a similar internal combustion engine, requiring more steel and aluminum in the frame. They conclude the “embedded carbon” in an EV (i.e., when it rolls off the lot) is therefore 20–50% more than an internal combustion engine.

Our analysis suggests a modern lithium-ion battery has approximately 135,000 miles of range before it degrades to the point of becoming unusable. An extended-range Tesla Model 3 has an 82 kWh battery and consumes approximately 29 kWh per 100 miles. Assuming each charge cycle has a ~95% round-trip efficiency and a battery can achieve 500 cycles before starting to degrade, we conclude a Model 3 can drive 134,310 miles before dramatically losing range. Incidentally, Tesla’s Model 3 warranty covers the battery for the lesser of eight years or 120,000 miles and does not apply until the battery has degraded by at least 30%. If the Jefferies analysis is correct (and we believe it is), then an EV will reach carbon-emission parity with an internal-combustion vehicle just as its battery requires replacement. This will come as a huge disappointment for those believing that EV adoption will have significant impacts on CO2 reduction.

On March 22nd, The Wall Street Journal published a similar report entitled “Are Electric Cars Really Better for the Environment?” The authors agree the embedded carbon in an EV is much greater at the point of manufacturing but argue it would only take 20,000 miles to “break-even” with an internal combustion engine. By 120,000 miles they argue an EV would have emitted 45% less carbon than an ICE and that by 200,000 miles the EV would be 54% cleaner. While this report accurately identifies the large embedded carbon in the manufacturing process, we believe it makes two errors. First, it compares a Tesla Model 3 (a sedan) with a Toyota Rav4 (an SUV). An entry-level Honda Civic, which we believe is a more appropriate comparison, would improve the ICE fuel efficiency by 20%. Next, after consulting the footnotes, The Wall Street Journal article assumes 80 kg of CO2 emission per of battery. This estimate appears to come from a 2019 Swedish Energy Agency report in which they reduce their carbon intensity by half compared with the year prior. The motivation for lowering their estimates was the use of “close to 100 percent fossil free energy [...] which is not common yet, but likely will be in the future.” In other words, the cost and carbon-intensity of lithium-ion batteries is predicated on renewable energy which itself requires cheap and carbon-efficient lithium-ion batteries. Even if The Wall Street Journal figures are accurate, we believe most investors still do not appreciate how little the magnitude of potential carbon savings from lithium-ion EVs is.

Assuming a 130,000-mile battery life, an EV would emit between 40–50% less carbon than a comparable ICE according to The Wall Street Journal’s very generous figures. All transportation makes up approximately 25% of global CO2 emissions and passenger use is less than half of that at 10.8%. Using The Wall Street Journal’s figures, if every passenger car was switched to an EV tomorrow, global CO2 would likely fall by 5%. Using the Jefferies data (which is consistent with our data), the difference would be negligible — there would be no reduction in CO2 output.

We need to stop using private cars completely, not merely change the engine and then act like this:



The same civilization invented both the internal combustion engine and the Tesla. Anyone who thinks a problem created by one civilization can be solved by the same civilization is delusional. WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!

guest5

  • Guest
Fareed: Meat is making the planet sick. Here's how
Quote
CNN's Fareed Zakaria speaks with Ezra Klein about how eating animal products from industrial agriculture can help save the planet by reducing unnatural greenhouse gases and protecting habitable land.
#FareedZakaria #CNNBusiness #News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS2KkYdRpXI&list=TLPQMDkwNjIwMjHjV91XFP-qLg&index=6

Quote
nsn
1 day ago
Thank god. Animals being treated so cruelly is horrific. We should be ashamed. Factory farming is  a stain on humanity.


90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/15/food-strategy-for-england-calls-for-big-cut-in-meat-consumption

Quote
The report takes aim at overconsumption of meat. “Our current appetite for meat is unsustainable,” it says. “85% of farmland is used to feed livestock [and] we need some of that land back.”
...
One major analysis concluded Europeans and North Americans need to cut meat eating by 80% for their diet to be both climate friendly and healthy. Another said a 90% cut in beef eating was required to beat global heating. Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to some researchers.

Note our enemies' reaction:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2021/07/16/the-guardian-food-strategy-for-england-calls-for-big-cut-in-meat-consumption/

Quote
“Climate change” has to be the most retarded reason for establishing a Talmudic Slave State. People that buy into this are just poison.

Quote
We Men of Christendom are God’s Elect, the World is ours because our King is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and Meat- and the fat of it! – is the gift of the Almighty for us and our posterity, Amen.

etc.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/cats-dogs-pets-climate-environment-b1889517.html

Quote
Demand for pets has soared during coronavirus, with 3.2 million households in the UK getting a pet since the pandemic started, according to a survey by the Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association.
...
As lovable as they may be, cats and dogs come with a steep carbon pawprint. This is mainly because of their diet, which includes a lot of meat and animal products.

The meat consumption of cats and dogs in the US produces around 64 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the equivalent of a year’s worth of driving from 13 million cars, according to a 2017 study published in the journal PLOS One.
...
Meat production uses much more energy, land and water than growing crops. Farming animals accounts for 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and the production of red meat accounts for 41 per cent of those emissions, according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
...
Dry pet food production emits 106 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, more than countries such as Mozambique and the Philippines, according to a 2020 study by researchers at the University of Edinburgh. A country producing the same amount of carbon emissions would be the world’s sixtieth highest emitter, the researchers said.
...
The researchers analysed more than 280 types of dry pet food sold in Europe and the US, regions which account for two-thirds of sales, and found that half of the food is made from animal and fish products.

Hence:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/aryan-pet-food/

As I have mentioned numerous times before, it is fairly common for cats and dogs in less Westernized countries even today to be fed mostly cereals mixed with only a small quantity of meat.....

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Turanians are most to blame for global warming:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/is-dairy-or-meat-worse-for-the-environment-b1891387.html

Quote
An analysis by the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization found meat and dairy accounts for 14.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions — the same as all cars, HGVs, aircraft, and ships combined.

But vegetarians who eat cheese may be shocked to learn that the cheddar they grill for toasties is more damaging to the environment than a bacon sandwich.

Lamb and beef cause the most greenhouse gas emissions by far, according to a life-cycle analysis carried out by the US non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG),

But cheese ranks third, generating 13.5 kilos (29.7 lbs) of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent, a standard unit for measuring carbon footprint) per kilo eaten. It is worse for the environment than the production of pork, salmon, turkey, and chicken. …”

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
One of the few good things about Twitter is that it allows people to immediately call out propaganda:




SirGalahad

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
I actually hate this kind of rhetoric. All it does is shift the blame. If every single one of us were morally upstanding, then these corporations would immediately fall to ruin because nobody would be buying what they're selling in the first place. They quite literally only have as much power as we individually give them. What these people are basically saying is "Don't make this fundamental change to your lifestyle that's immediately applicable and at the very least makes a minute difference! Screech about dismantling entire corporations (while doing absolutely nothing on the individual level), because that's far easier and TOTALLY not out of our scope at this point!" The corrupt businessmen and the people who support them deserve each other.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 10:04:55 pm by SirGalahad »

guest55

  • Guest
Is the War on Drugs Killing the Environment? | The War on Drugs
Quote
We talk a lot about the human and financial costs of the War on Drugs – but this conflict is also having a serious environmental impact.

From the military spraying pesticides onto the Amazon rainforest to suppress coca production, to MDMA producers dumping toxic chemicals into rivers in the Netherlands – the illegal drug trade is unquestionably bad for nature.

But whose fault is this? All the drugs we take could be produced in much greener ways as part of a legal, regulated market. The problem is not that they are drugs, it’s that they are illegal. Is the war on drugs killing the environment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXAzTcKXqZI

Westerners make more money with "drugs" being illegal plain and simple. Western banks get to launder the drug money and enforcement agencies are able to ask for a bigger budget because of the "war on drugs".

Quote
It's really sad how the people in power are destroying the world and getting away with it!!

"The people in power" are all Westerners!!!

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Quote
If every single one of us were morally upstanding

But the majority of people aren't, so we must rely on the state to outlaw businesses from being able to massively exploit the planet.

Even if 1 billion people refused to use plastic, etc. and lived a perfectly exploitation-free lifestyle, we would still have 7 billion people screwing it up for everyone else (and screwing it up for the billions of animals who are tortured to "sustain" the ignoble humans).

Even if 7 billion people lived a completely noble and ethical life, there would still be 1 billion individuals causing unspeakable cruelty. 1 billion customers to sustain those ignoble businesses.

Media outlets are owned/funded by business conglomerates, or business conglomerates pay the media outlets for advertising (which includes subtle propaganda articles, not just TV commercials, etc.!) They're trying to distract leftists from the fact that statism is the solution to this problem, by shifting the onus to act on individuals. Obviously we need to make changes in our own lives to live more ethically, but even if 7 billion people magically became ethical, statism would still be the only way to stop the other 1 billion... Even if you and I don't buy plastic bottles, multiple corporations around the globe have just manufactured 1,000 more in the time it took me to write this comment.

In the past, the recycling movement nearly managed to force companies to reduce their wasteful usage of plastics. Instead, the companies funded massive controlled opposition recycling campaigns which placed the blame for pollution on consumers, rather than the companies who made the plastic in the first place. How are we supposed to end plastic waste when companies keep producing this nonsense?


Quote
Earlier this month, the New York Times posted a video op-ed correctly debunking “The Great Recycling Con.” According to the Times, the plastics industry has sold generations of consumers a lie about just how much of the waste they produce could be recycled in order to create the false possibility of eco-friendly, guilt-free consumption.

It comes painfully close, but misses the full story. The true “Great Recycling Con” runs far deeper than lies about which products can and cannot be recycled; it is an ongoing political battle waged by waste-generating corporations against the public to evade regulation, shift responsibility for environmental destruction onto consumers, and protect the ecocidal and highly profitable business model that lies at the heart of industrial capitalism.
[...]
As product consumption became increasingly tied to the American Dream, industry seized the ethos of excess to sell more and more stuff for more and more profit. Vance Packard, a prophetic journalist and sociologist, criticized advertising as an industry and a strategy led by “persuaders” who preyed on consumer vulnerabilities to sell more, more, more of their own product, promising social status and fulfillment.

In 1960, Packard published The Waste Makers, calling attention to a number of waste-making practices by corporations, perhaps most notably the concept of planned obsolescence.
[...]
Jump ahead a few years to 1967, and the future was “plastics.”
[...]
In the 1960s, the counterculture movement challenged a number of prevailing social norms, including the status symbols of owning lots of stuff.

But in addition to the greater cultural battle, corporate executives were also waging a political-economic battle against an early labor-environmentalist movement that threatened to look behind the curtain of the profitable model of postwar consumerism and possibly regulate the ecologically destructive practices that it relied upon.

As early as 1953, as Heather Rogers points out in Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage, nearly twenty years before the first Earth Day, dairy farmers in Vermont noticed their cows choking and dying on glass beer bottles that had been tossed into their grazing fields. Consequently, they organized and passed a state law banning not just the act of tossing the bottles, but the actual sale of such bottles by commercial businesses.

Presumably anticipating similar regulations around the country, and fearing a labor-environmentalist coalition challenging their practices of producing and selling products that quickly turn to waste, major corporations under threat responded with a series of “greenwashing” campaigns to derail environmentalists and labor.
[...]
Drawing on notions of “good citizenship” and inventing the concept of littering as a literal sin against nature, the group used symbols of white, bourgeois virtue, most famously Susan Spotless, and drew on the stereotype of the Noble Indian, shedding a single tear for what is implied to be a consumer-led continuation of indigenous genocide, to shift responsibility for waste management from corporations to consumers. “People start pollution,” Keep America Beautiful would tell Americans, “people can stop it.”

And the group’s propaganda campaigns worked. In the six years after their first major advertising partnership with the Ad Council, the percentage of soda drinks sold in disposable packaging quadrupled, from 3 percent to 12 percent. Ten years later, it was near 70 percent.

Rather than corporations restricting their own production of disposable materials and eating into their profit, American consumers would now shame each other into managing industry’s cheap waste products. It was an insidious sleight of hand that reframed America’s growing waste problem as one not of corporate excess, but of irresponsible consumer choices and individual lifestyles.
[...]
On December 3, the New York City Department of Corrections announced that it will introduce Meatless Mondays in its prisons and jails in part to minimize its institutional carbon footprint. Instead of challenging the agricultural corporations producing ecocidal levels of methane emissions, the state has chosen to place the responsibility of managing methane emissions on people who are incarcerated and already have no choice in what food to consume.
[...]
But the public, much less the most marginalized among us, has not gotten us into this mess, and unfortunately, private citizens acting individually cannot get us out.

We have an obligation to keep our focus on the owners of the means of waste production — on those who can be coerced by state regulation into making the grand-scale, systemic changes required for any climate mitigation.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/12/against-recycling-con-corporations-environment-waste-excess


As touched upon in the article above, many necessary environmentalist goals are not going to be possible without state-level "structural" changes. For example, it's apparently cheaper to ship food and manufactured products across an entire ocean rather than just making them within the nation which needs them. That's a macro-level issue with economics and laws. Getting rid of cars will require cities and higher levels of government to radically change their infrastructure and zoning, and so forth.

I think the indignation by the Twitter commenters is the correct attitude to have. The billionaire manufacturers who are paying millionaires in the media have no room to preach to regular people before they can live up to the ethical standard they tell us to live up to.

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Some good news, Germany, Spain, Austria, and Denmark are not giving in to reactionary pseudo-environmentalists in France and elsewhere:

Quote
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.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/eu-urges-members-protect-poor-residents-amid-energy-80552748

Quote
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.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-four-others-oppose-classing-nuclear-green-eu-2021-07-02/

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.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
"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.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2021, 12:16:17 am by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
"Whatever Westerner began the propaganda campaign that "carbon" is the only pollutant worth regulating should be executed."

Related:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/electric-vehicles-certainly-do-pollute-their-battery-packs-are-poised-to-be-one-of-the-biggest-new-sources-of-pollution-11634577011

Quote
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:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-seriousness-in-environmentalism/msg6940/#msg6940

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Quote
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.
https://www.vox.com/vox-conversations-podcast/22691428/vox-conversations-climate-change-andreas-malm

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?

Quote
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.