This tweet fills me with rage and hatred.
And I hate to hate.
100% of all the policies Senator Whitehouse advocates for require increasing emissions now, next year, the year after, with some vague promise that in later years we will see a reduction.
This tweet is a baldfaced lie.
The author of this article want the right thing: reductions now. Not years in the future. @SenWhitehouse uses this article to push policies for immediate emissions increases.
Prove me wrong.
Prove you can build nationwide infrastructure while seeing reductions now. Or even soon.
You've been building this crap for decades. People proudly tell me Germany is running in renewables. I hear it every week.
Emissions are up DRASTICALLY. GLOBALLY.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO VOICE IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT who wants to decrease emissions this year, or next, or the next.
There is no public policy at any state, federal, or local level to decrease emissions this year. Next year. The year after.
NO FUCKING POLICY.
NONE
NONE
NONE
The entire "climate aware / climate activist" community utterly rejects any policy which would even slow the increase.
Americans, honest to God, are not even aware of the existence of now.
It's pathetic.
What a crock of shit.
I'm out.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's easy to fall into thinking what you're against. Easy for me. Judging by what I hear, easy for a lot of people.
Even what we're for is often being against some specific destruction. Whales. Sharks. Pipelines. Mines. Desecration.
It's easier to explain, too.
2. "See, they shouldn't bulldoze this mountain pass and extract lithium from it because the sage grouse needs it."
That is correct.
But if not this mountain pass, which one?
If not this forest, this stream, this prairie, which one?
3. The logic of our system of life and living, to its very foundation, says we have to bulldoze this mountain pass, because we have to have electric cars to fight climate change, and we need the lithium.
We need the wood.
We need the oil. It's way the hell up there and we need it
Spending high energy tonight. Loading up the lap steel (homemade) and the amplifier (not) and driving at somewhere close to a mile a minute at peak times, for about an hour and a half to three quarters, and play this guitar with two friends, and drink two beers, and do it back.
I have several high energy activities that would be utterly impossible without high energy high speed transportation and other machines.
Utterly dependent on fossil fuels and a huge built environment of concrete and steel.
I sometimes take long hot showers.
3. We've got this personal responsibility for climate activities backwards. Don't take long hot showers.
There's easily half a million long hot showers in one electric car. We've got to develop different systems, not live like paupers in this one while Jeff Bezos fucks the sky.
I don't believe there is one agreed-upon definition of "an economy", but the one I like to base my reasoning on is "The means by which a society obtains and distributes the resources necessary for living to its members."
2. I have read that "economy" comes from the Greek for "housekeeping." Makes sense. Each household has to run itself, get food, water, shelter, clothing. These are the absolutes, our needs as biological creatures.
Our current economy is, by that definition, pretty poor.
3. Some people have enough resources to blast themselves, encased in a giant phallus, to the edge of the gravity well.
Some don't.
All in one country.
Piss poor economy, I'd say.
One of the major reasons it's against my rules to debate against internet talking points on energy and emissions is because no. I'm not selling a product. I'm not here to debate. I am offering a viewpoint based entirely within accepted science about climate.
2. I understand with a clarity you probably can't imagine that virtually all the world disagrees with me.
They all disagreed with Galileo, too.
If you would like to know a different view than the dominant one, based on concern that it doesn't appear to be working, I invite you.
3. If I am right, it is possible for humankind to get out of the mess we're in bent but not broken.
I don't think it's hopeless.
I just think we're going at it wrong.
If you disagree, that's fine. Please do not post links to internet talking points about the technological marvel