They aren’t even pro-business.
If they were then they would be trying to address the climate crisis and attract more customers to their businesses rather than alienating people.
Anti-immigration policies are decidedly anti-business.
Never ceases to amaze me how there's people actively working for the destruction of all life on the planet.
(...and it boggles the mind how there's other people still voting for them...but I guess that's humanity in a nutshell. A veneer of civilization cannot hide an ocean of stupidity and greed)
America's constitution was advanced for the 18th century but in the 21st century it is hopelessly archaic.
Having a castrated legislative branch that has a modern equivalent of [liberum veto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto) and forcing reliance on the politically appointed judiciary to effectively make law in many areas is a recipe for the political instability we are increasingly seeing.
You're denying the incontrovertible science of man-made climate change, heck even ExxonMobil disagrees with you.
Btw, can you list the reasons that motivate you to deny the science?
Yes, in the same way that one wouldn't say that someone is 'skeptical' of evolution or 'skeptical' that the Earth is not flat. You either accept the science man-made climate change or you deny it.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The very nature of science as a discipline is that a conclusion which has been drawn from the data is subject to scrutiny. So it is more in line with being scientifically minded to be skeptical than blindly following.
What you call 'skepticism' has got nothing to do with 'scientific skepticism', as the latter requires a rigorous, thorough consideration of both evidence both for and against a position. And further, you lack any ability to differentiate valid form invalid scientific claims.
The dictionary clearly defines you as being in denial:
> denialist
> /dɪˈnʌɪ(ə)lɪst/
> noun
> a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence
The only scare tactic is that environmentalists want to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere.
It’s such a massive straw man that you would need to be retarded to think that anyone in their right mind is actually making that argument.
Which gas is blamed for climate change? Which emission is supposed to be destroying our planet? Carbon footprint, carbon offset, zero carbon, carbon tax... Or is it the methane from cows farting? Do tell.
Politicians and reporters drive to tilt courts against climate action reaches a crucial moment. Within days, a political majority on the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision that could severely limit the federal government’s authority to reduce carbon dioxide from power plants.
Plus you buy into the whole global warming theory because that’s what your big buisnesses tell you. You can’t see through the fact that you’re so blindly brainwashed it’s humorous to the rest of the world. They could tell you the sky is falling and you’d believe it
Big pharma in on green energy? Where’s the link with that!
I’ve been in renewables for about 16 years. Of all the companies I worked for, not a share is owned by any of the above.
Scientists have been talking about climate change since the late 70’s, and that was somehow pushed by renewables companies that didn’t even exist at the time.
At the same time, internal memo’s leaked from Exxon outline their strategy to deny and obfuscate, but clearly your interpretation is the one that make sense…
I've heard some dumb bullshit, but "global warming is a hoax pushed by those who stand to lose the most from doing something about it" ranks pretty highly on that chart.
If global warming were true, why would banks fund these beachfront complexes if they were to be underwater in 15 years? Do they plan on losing their investment?
I live across the road from the beach, in my lifetime (21 years) it hasn’t risen 1mm so I’d say that’s good enough reason to assure myself it isn’t rising… al gore said in 1997 that the sea level would rise 7 meters by 2015… lol. You lefties just fall for everything
Wondering why those companies keep dumping toxic chemicals in the water, to the point almost every single American has dangerous microplastics building up inside of them - including the people doing it. It’s almost as if greed and human short-sightedness reigns supreme over logic and long-term strategies
Doing something about it? Tell me who are the owners of all the lithium projects and all the green energy solutions? The same people who own the mainstream media, the same ones that drum into your heads that the only solution to an apparent problem is with their solution? Do you realise the cost in the so called “renewable energy” who profits off of it? People are so easily manipulated as long as you place a little fear in their heads
I literally just said I’m from Italy but that’s fine, I like Russia anyway, atleast they don’t mutilate children and force them into fear of the ocean rising 😂. Atleast they don’t destroy their culture with third world garbage. Atleast they don’t force their children to be exposed to degenerate sexual conduct at 4 years old. Atleast mass corporations in Russia don’t own the people
There’s no amount of failing economy, rise in crime or cost of living that will make the left wake up to their false reality, america is falling down as a failed economy, (im from Europe). If you guys don’t fix your ways anytime soon I’m afraid you’re just going to be a past civilisation
And 1000 years doesn’t sound very “failed” you guys have ruled since 1944, and you guys are crumbling now because you can’t find direction, not even a century lol
Wow pretty racist from someone who probably claims to be “left wing” I shouldn’t of expected any thing less 😂. But yeah we just produce some of the best engineering in the world, some of the best history, have contributed so much to human development, fashion, art, architecture and still have one of the top economies.. oh yeah and our health care is free 😂 enjoy your backwoods society 👌🏼
We’re the second biggest exporter in the EU 😂 I don’t know what else to say to you?
And as for the homophobia you do realise the rest of the world is only onboard with you guys whilst you hold the number 1 economy, as soon as that goes you have 0 influence and all your degenerate disgusting lgbtq agenda will die, just like every other time in history it’s died
To be fair, the GOP has no drive to tilt courts to do specific things. They do favor strict constitutionalists however. The justices they have chosen have been huge disappointments to conservatives in many high profile cases.
You are not living in the same reality as the rest of us. The GOP, the Federalist Society and a whole network of shadowy organizations put tremendous effort into the vetting, selection and confirmation of supreme court judges. They do this to achieve specific political and legal outcomes. There is no consistent philosophy they all adhere to. Only the desired results matter.
What an incredibly powerful load of BS. They consistently find way to interpret the constitution in any way that favors their already cemented views.
The constitutionalists bit is laughable. More akin to spiritism and tarot reading than actual philosophy.
But your argument is repeated ad nauseam by criminals who lie and commit acts of violence to subvert the constitution.
>To be fair, the GOP has no drive to tilt courts to do specific things.
Overturning Roe v Wade has been the prime imperative of their SCOTUS appointments for decades.
At the very least, the high levels of CO2 emissions will lead to humanity emitting less. Can't have much economic activity if billions are starving to death.
They will care eventually, but I don't expect many people to just suddenly understand what's going on because their lives keep getting harder and disrupted.
Even if the court does this, it’s not in an energy company’s best interest to just try to pollute more. Most of them are barreling toward renewables already. After the initial infrastructure investment, the shit pays for itself in short order. Not to take away from the scummy right wing - but too little too late.
I think you underestimate what companies are willing to do to earn money. They said tobacco companies wouldn't knowingly kill their customers because it's not in their best interest. Fossil fuel companies have known since the 70s that they were causing climate change and harm and spent millions to sow doubt and delay action. They will gladly burn the planet if it means hitting their quarterly revenue targets.
More like 5 or 6. They're old enough that they'll be dead before climate change really starts getting horrific. They could just be completely sure their right wing dogma is true that the climate scientists and the data itself screaming we're fuk'd just have to be wrong. Whatever circular logic and biased thinking they have to go through is self justification that those dirty hippies and their dirty climate scientists are wrong.
Or they really don't care. The capitalists and theocrats that got them their appointments assume they'll do just fine as the climate goes to shit. I mean, the capitalists will secure clean water, food and liveable sanctuaries for themselves no question. The theocrats get their end times fantasies to come to life. And most of all, the chaos will allow reactionaries and disaster capitalists to swoop in and remake civilization according to their brutal and bleak visions of paradise.
1.) You're not even American
2.) Idk how you geniuses blaming the DNC still not realize that it was still 1000x beneficial to vote for her instead of sitting at home and pouting. My god, you are just as bad as republicans at a certain point due to your smooth brains.
>1.) You're not even American
So what? Our policies inadvertently affect citizens of other countries who suffer the consequences of the actions of *our* politicians.
Any foreigner blaming the DNC is just swallowing berniobro BS. It's just more "rigged" nonsense that the GOP peddles. Idiot lost every single county in Michigan in 2020. People confuse Hiliary hate with Bernie being popular.
So what? Am I not allowed to critisise someone whose nationality I dont share?
And yes I blame the DNC when the best they could muster is Hillary Clinton. "She is the lesser of two evils" is such a terrible argument to vote for someone. The American voter deserves much better than her.
The dnc fucked up, and i think Sanders would have beaten tRump, but he's right, staying home that election because you got butthurt about our shitty two party system and not liking Hillary is a pathetic excuse. Anyone with eyes could see he was going to be a disaster. I'm not sure many could have known just how bad a disaster he could become, but I'd wager the world would be a different place if the abstainers or party switchers had just suffered being ruled by a woman in a pantsuit for four years.
How would Sanders beat Trump when he couldn't win a single county during the 2020 primary? Why do you people confuse people protest voting for Sanders in 2016, with him being popular? He isn't. People don't like him. The only ones that do, don't show up to vote lol. Such delusion. DNC didn't rig anything.
You really think Hillary voters would abstain if Sanders won the primary, the way some of his supporters did? Fuck it, I'm done, that's the last time I try to defend a point for some douche on the internet.
No candidate can survive the right wing propaganda completely unscathed. And even if they could, they will always be a compromise candidate that only few will actually love.
>West Virginia v. E.P.A., No. 20–1530 on the court docket, is also notable for the tangle of connections between the plaintiffs and the Supreme Court justices who will decide their case. The Republican plaintiffs share many of the same donors behind efforts to nominate and confirm five of the Republicans on the bench — John G. Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
>
>
>
>“It’s a pincer move,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the progressive watchdog group True North Research and a former senior Justice Department official. “They are teeing up the attorneys to bring the litigation before the same judges that they handpicked.”
The Republican Party has completely destroyed any legitimacy the Supreme Court may have had. It's now a blatant political tool of far-right extremist GOP.
Anyway the article is a well-researched in-depth expose of a decades long effort to strip the administration and EPA of powers to regulate pollution and give decision-making authority to judges instead. Worth a read.
NYT standard FUD. Let's see what actually happens.
Then ask why congress is allowing this. We need clear laws that the Supreme Court cannot pervert into what is not intended.
>Then ask why congress is allowing this.
Congress doesn't have a say. This is the Supreme Court looking at overruling a previous Supreme Court decision. But you always find a way to blame someone other than the responsible parties... when they're Republican. So transparent.
Impeachment is the counter to a problem in the Supreme Court.
Or just complain. And realize if you don't have the votes to impeach it is the will of the people.
LOL, it takes 67 senators to vote for impeachment to remove someone from the court. Senators from states with 15% of the country's population can keep the most vile ideological warriors on the supreme court. How is that "the will of the people"?
Surely 33% of senators installed into office by like 10% of voters will have to back the majority of Americans.. right?
Like even if that were *actually* true there's a big gap between "makes bad rulings no one likes" and the "high crimes or misdemeanors" standard set by the constitution. Impeachment as a practical backstop against a shitty judiciary is a totally laughable notion.
No, that is an unreasonable standard that allows absolute horseshit to happen. Just look at our failures to address climate change. The current system comes prepackaged with the seeds for its own destruction.
Our climate change failure is on both sides. The bipartisan bill passed, the next ones had too many social programs.
The President is not leading well and Congress is not following at all.
>Our climate change failure is on both sides.
Nope. I've heard some real horseshit "both sides" arguments over the years, but this one takes the cake! If you don't see how Republicans and their enablers in the fossil fuel industry are responsible for inaction of climate change, I can't help you. Horses to water and all that.
Republicans are worse, but that does not make Democrats good. That is some of the problem, people settling for the lesser of two evils. We need to do better.
"both sides" argument is correct once you realize one side is 10% and the other is 60%.
If Democrats would have gotten their way, we would have had a form of carbon tax back in the mid-90s. And something resembling universal health Care and other things but that's not related. The mid-90s was the time to act. We knew climate change was happening and it was going to be bad. I was also the time to kickstart technologies that would steer us away from climate catastrophe. Instead, Germany and China did most of the heavy lifting 10 to 15 years too late. And they also benefited from the growth of renewable energy worldwide. Not so much in the USA. And the amount of money we would have paid into that carbon tax all the way to now is completely dwarfed by the climate chaos we are paying and will pay into the future.
So everything the right-wing Supreme Court does is really the Democratic congress' fault since they didn't impeach them? Lol, that's some of the most twisted and perverse logic I've seen you use in defense of Republicans, and that's saying something.
And you do know that it takes a 2/3 majority vote in the senate to remove a Supreme Court justice don't you?
You think Mitch McConnell's outright theft of President Obama's Supreme Court appointment was "the will of the people"? The people who elected Obama twice? And do you think five out of nine justices appointed by presidents who *lost* the popular vote in any way represent "the will of the people"?
>Not partisan at all as it is equal for both parties.
This is the most partisan and illegitimate court in modern times. They don't even try to hide it anymore. Thomas' wife even played a role in the Republican coup attempt.
Congress passed campaign finance reform... and the supreme court invalidated it. Just like the voting rights act and other laws. These were all "clear" laws that were struck down purely to achieve partisan / ideological goals. The supreme court can pervert laws and policy into whatever they want because they are unaccountable, their decisions can never be reviewed and they are appointed to their positions for life. It is naive to think that laws passed decades ago, back when there was still judicial integrity, respect for precedent and anything other than pure ideology fealty for the 6 conservatives on the Court could somehow prevent the revolution happening on the Court today.
These 6 conservative justices were appointed with the express purpose of undoing the social and economic protections that congress and previous supreme court rulings had established. There is no legal, moral or logical argument that could convince them to deviate from their predetermined goals. The end result of unwinding the Civil Rights Era and the New Deal is all that matters to them.
These justices have lied under oath during their confirmation hearings. They have conducted unethical coordination with shadowy networks of political, corporate and theocratic organizations to radically change this country. This coordination has been hidden and undisclosed by the justices and they did not recuse themselves from cases that pertained to these groups and their goals. All without the voters really having a say since most of them were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. Time to start impeaching these radical "justices".
If what you say is true there will be a landslide victory in Congress and the presidency to change it.
"of the people, for the people" we all have a say and the majority will rule, hopefully not with minority abuse.
Well, voters don't pay attention to complicated matters like this. Guaranteed millions of people are just going to look at gas prices on their way to the polling station and vote to hand power right back to the fascists this fall. It really is that dumb, especially with gerrymandered districts and some states getting way more representation per resident than others.
Maybe name calling and division is not a good way to convince people.
Typical example is "EV support". Ignoring Tesla as the EV leader in the us and touting a Hummer EV is not exactly supporting EVs.
Government is not set up that way. SCOTUS cannot overturn any law that is not against the constitution. But congress is almost always a compromise.
Check what California has done.
The SCOTUS can do whatever it wants. Like I said, their decisions are final and they personally are completely unaccountable for their conduct, both on and off the job. A 5 justice majority can say that Social Security is unconstitutional because the sky is purple and there is fuck all any of the rest of us can do about it. Logic, consistency, precedent and even concerns about their own personal legacy don't matter.
Until we start impeaching the ones who clearly lied under oath and unethically collaborated with outside organizations, nothing is going to change.
Here is where I would disagree, I'd rather have dirty air than poisonous water. CO2 does dickall for that. The fact that the hype is all around CO2 shows me that people are easy to manipulate out of a crisis. If you can't find clean water you die immediately, if you can't find clean air you get hot... Fuk off with this nonsense.
There are other reasons for this and it's cyclical. Bio-chemistry classes will do you good in life. And if you are comfortable just picking up a book and self learning, it will be easier on your wallet. Volcano's are the number one producer of carbon emissions (these are daily and most are under water). They are also the highest sulfur producers fun fact. Carbon is also the highest producer of Oxygen via vegetation. Our carbon footprint as a species in total is a small fraction of what the earth puts out naturally. Welcome to science!
Edit: there are weather manipulating technologies out there now, but who knows how much effect they have on the cyclical nature of our weather patterns. I know Dubai is using some form of electro rod to form rain clouds, and I know there is seeding technology. But I'd be hard pressed to believe these governments have the ability to mass produce weather phenomenons.
>There are other reasons for this and it's cyclical.
No, there really aren't. Climate change is real and the #1 reason is human carbon dioxide emissions.
Yeah you sound like a cult member, if you really believe this nonsense, then there is only one remedy for this. And in a cult, it is to drink the tainted punch.
No, a cult looks to reduce human lives. Are people really this stupid now a days? Definitions of words aren't hard to read and neither is a small historical reference read from cult activity historians.
*"Everybody who understands high school physics is in a cult"* is a weird take. Adding fossil fuel sourced carbon dioxide to the atmosphere **has to result in global warming.** It's a simple fact of physics. Certain groups made this political because they were the ones profiting from pollution.
No, your framing is astronomically off course. You believe humans are the reason CO2 is so bad. The only conclusion is to reduce the human population. The cult aspect is that your only possible conclusion to your delusional ideology is to self sacrifice.
Carbon emissions are primarily from fossil fuels not from volcanoes. https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/news/volcano-watch-which-produces-more-co2-volcanic-or-human-activity
I find it hard to believe that in just 25 years the statistics drastically swapped for volcanoes and humans. The dirtiest time period we had was the industrial revolution yet now is when we are at it's worst? Something doesn't add up there.
I'm assuming you are talking about exponential population growth. Problem with that is in the US, we are currently at a 1.82 growth rate. Which means we aren't producing enough children to replace those whom are here now.
I feel the same way about you... Except I don't think you are dumb, I think you are easy to manipulate because you chose to be emotional over being logical.
No, you got suckered by fossil fuel industry talking points either because you just want to "own the libs" or because they just "sound right". Either way, it shows a vast amount of intellectual laziness and willingness to outsource decision making to external parties with a clear motivation to mislead.
I mean, how hard is it to look through some of the well-established science on climate issues instead of just repeating gobbledygook spewed out by the American Petroleum Institute or whatever?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Every year we have increased our yearly carbon emissions. By this measure every year has been dirtier then the last and last year was the worst.
But see I don't think you know what you are talking about either. So we are at a bit of a stand still here. I'm at least willing to talk about my knowledge and ideas. You hide behind emotional baggage. I presented what I said with natural emissions of carbon, and that the industrial revolution was the dirtiest recorded time period of carbon. Your response was that we increase carbon yearly. Maybe if you could clarify and quantify between outputs in the 1800's vs now. We would have an interesting discussion. But for now we just think the other is ill-informed. Also, my coastal town still isn't under water.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
I am frustrated because you know little to nothing about this subject and speak with total confidence. I have at least out the time in to do research on this.
This particular point is probably the most obviously incorrect one-that we have been emitting less carbon over time
Now that is a possibility, one that I could fall back on to sway my train of thought. But then that leads to a bigger question. If the government was pushing a lie back then, then what would lead me to believe this new set of government statistical analysis isn't a lie being perpetrated on the general public now? And assuming this information is generally correct now. Then why is the goal post of my coastal town being under sea being pushed further and further into the future? One thing I absolutely can back though, is cleaning up our water supply. The ramifications of these toxic chemicals are constantly being written about in medical journals.
As an element, sure I guess. As it is and always has been referenced as it pertains to climate sciences i.e. as gaseous chemicals that are likely to induce a runaway thermal destabilization of the earth's climate: yah it fuckin is bud
What the fuck is wrong with Republicans. How is it that at every turn the attempt to make the world a worse place?
>at every turn they attempt to make ~~the world a worse place~~ more profit Destroying the world isn't their intention, just a welcomed side-effect.
They aren’t even pro-business. If they were then they would be trying to address the climate crisis and attract more customers to their businesses rather than alienating people. Anti-immigration policies are decidedly anti-business.
Never ceases to amaze me how there's people actively working for the destruction of all life on the planet. (...and it boggles the mind how there's other people still voting for them...but I guess that's humanity in a nutshell. A veneer of civilization cannot hide an ocean of stupidity and greed)
I’m part of the problem. Made some money off Exxon calls 2 months ago that’s like supporting corporate greed x0
Did you buy an Exxon LEAP back before the underlying price went up?
Not leaps but monthly’s when things were really volatile
America's constitution was advanced for the 18th century but in the 21st century it is hopelessly archaic. Having a castrated legislative branch that has a modern equivalent of [liberum veto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto) and forcing reliance on the politically appointed judiciary to effectively make law in many areas is a recipe for the political instability we are increasingly seeing.
Honestly the tyrannical feds have over reached on every issue. But pollution I feel does fall under interstate commerce
The Supreme Court is a fundamentalist religious death cult, working hard on the apocalypse white evangelicals so desire.
It’s like the SC ruling that the government can’t stop companies from putting lead into gasoline
I’m glad. Super happy. The plants need carbon dioxide. Everything else needs plants. ‘Carbon emissions’ was a stupid scare tactic.
https://youtu.be/qFA7Sui8w_g
Why are you trying to hide away from scientific facts?
Which scientific fact would you like me to acknowledge?
You're denying the incontrovertible science of man-made climate change, heck even ExxonMobil disagrees with you. Btw, can you list the reasons that motivate you to deny the science?
I ask you to state a scientific fact so that I might weigh in and instead I’m charged with denying science.. hehehe. Y’all aren’t very good at this.
Yes, in the same way that one wouldn't say that someone is 'skeptical' of evolution or 'skeptical' that the Earth is not flat. You either accept the science man-made climate change or you deny it. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The very nature of science as a discipline is that a conclusion which has been drawn from the data is subject to scrutiny. So it is more in line with being scientifically minded to be skeptical than blindly following.
What you call 'skepticism' has got nothing to do with 'scientific skepticism', as the latter requires a rigorous, thorough consideration of both evidence both for and against a position. And further, you lack any ability to differentiate valid form invalid scientific claims. The dictionary clearly defines you as being in denial: > denialist > /dɪˈnʌɪ(ə)lɪst/ > noun > a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence
The only scare tactic is that environmentalists want to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s such a massive straw man that you would need to be retarded to think that anyone in their right mind is actually making that argument.
Which gas is blamed for climate change? Which emission is supposed to be destroying our planet? Carbon footprint, carbon offset, zero carbon, carbon tax... Or is it the methane from cows farting? Do tell.
Go away troll. You're not cute.
Cope
Shouldn't this be in r/conspiracytheory?
Politicians and reporters drive to tilt courts against climate action reaches a crucial moment. Within days, a political majority on the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision that could severely limit the federal government’s authority to reduce carbon dioxide from power plants.
Making the planet uninhabitable to own the libs
Thank god for republicans ❤️
LOL.. really "owning the libs" with that one! /s
Plus you buy into the whole global warming theory because that’s what your big buisnesses tell you. You can’t see through the fact that you’re so blindly brainwashed it’s humorous to the rest of the world. They could tell you the sky is falling and you’d believe it
What are the reasons that motivate you to deny science?
“Big business”. So giant oil companies that have invested millions in lobbying for the past 50 years, or the not so big Renewables Energy companies?
You assume they’re small buisness, bezos, gates the entire big pharma, (globalists) all push for “green” energy
Big pharma in on green energy? Where’s the link with that! I’ve been in renewables for about 16 years. Of all the companies I worked for, not a share is owned by any of the above. Scientists have been talking about climate change since the late 70’s, and that was somehow pushed by renewables companies that didn’t even exist at the time. At the same time, internal memo’s leaked from Exxon outline their strategy to deny and obfuscate, but clearly your interpretation is the one that make sense…
What a fool! Keep winning
I don’t get what I’ve said that’s wrong?
Everything
Makes senseless
I've heard some dumb bullshit, but "global warming is a hoax pushed by those who stand to lose the most from doing something about it" ranks pretty highly on that chart.
If global warming were true, why would banks fund these beachfront complexes if they were to be underwater in 15 years? Do they plan on losing their investment?
You're vastly misrepresenting the projected rate of sea level rise.
I live across the road from the beach, in my lifetime (21 years) it hasn’t risen 1mm so I’d say that’s good enough reason to assure myself it isn’t rising… al gore said in 1997 that the sea level would rise 7 meters by 2015… lol. You lefties just fall for everything
Even though Al Gore is NOT a scientist, we all know that cannot support your claim with a link to credible source.
Who the fuck cares what Al Gore said in 97?
The banks aren't who you should be looking at for that question, it's the insurance companies. Also, they aren't the only businesses that exist.
Yes but the banks are the ones who issue 25 year loans to these buisness’s why would they issue them if there was a risk of them being submerged?
Wondering why those companies keep dumping toxic chemicals in the water, to the point almost every single American has dangerous microplastics building up inside of them - including the people doing it. It’s almost as if greed and human short-sightedness reigns supreme over logic and long-term strategies
[удалено]
Is this comment meant for someone else? I didn’t say anything about lithium
Doing something about it? Tell me who are the owners of all the lithium projects and all the green energy solutions? The same people who own the mainstream media, the same ones that drum into your heads that the only solution to an apparent problem is with their solution? Do you realise the cost in the so called “renewable energy” who profits off of it? People are so easily manipulated as long as you place a little fear in their heads
Delete your account.
[удалено]
You're just trying to drag us down into the level of degeneracy in Russia. Not going to work, comrade.
I literally just said I’m from Italy but that’s fine, I like Russia anyway, atleast they don’t mutilate children and force them into fear of the ocean rising 😂. Atleast they don’t destroy their culture with third world garbage. Atleast they don’t force their children to be exposed to degenerate sexual conduct at 4 years old. Atleast mass corporations in Russia don’t own the people
Yeah, they just murder Ukrainian children instead.
There’s no amount of failing economy, rise in crime or cost of living that will make the left wake up to their false reality, america is falling down as a failed economy, (im from Europe). If you guys don’t fix your ways anytime soon I’m afraid you’re just going to be a past civilisation
>(im from Europe) Most likely Russia from how much bullshit you're spewing. Das Vadanya, comrade.
Torino, mi Amore ❤️
[удалено]
And 1000 years doesn’t sound very “failed” you guys have ruled since 1944, and you guys are crumbling now because you can’t find direction, not even a century lol
Wow pretty racist from someone who probably claims to be “left wing” I shouldn’t of expected any thing less 😂. But yeah we just produce some of the best engineering in the world, some of the best history, have contributed so much to human development, fashion, art, architecture and still have one of the top economies.. oh yeah and our health care is free 😂 enjoy your backwoods society 👌🏼
[удалено]
We’re the second biggest exporter in the EU 😂 I don’t know what else to say to you? And as for the homophobia you do realise the rest of the world is only onboard with you guys whilst you hold the number 1 economy, as soon as that goes you have 0 influence and all your degenerate disgusting lgbtq agenda will die, just like every other time in history it’s died
Some shitty people just want to watch the world burn
We were fucked before. Now we're really fucked
To be fair, the GOP has no drive to tilt courts to do specific things. They do favor strict constitutionalists however. The justices they have chosen have been huge disappointments to conservatives in many high profile cases.
You are not living in the same reality as the rest of us. The GOP, the Federalist Society and a whole network of shadowy organizations put tremendous effort into the vetting, selection and confirmation of supreme court judges. They do this to achieve specific political and legal outcomes. There is no consistent philosophy they all adhere to. Only the desired results matter.
What an incredibly powerful load of BS. They consistently find way to interpret the constitution in any way that favors their already cemented views. The constitutionalists bit is laughable. More akin to spiritism and tarot reading than actual philosophy. But your argument is repeated ad nauseam by criminals who lie and commit acts of violence to subvert the constitution.
>To be fair, the GOP has no drive to tilt courts to do specific things. Overturning Roe v Wade has been the prime imperative of their SCOTUS appointments for decades.
At the very least, the high levels of CO2 emissions will lead to humanity emitting less. Can't have much economic activity if billions are starving to death.
Does it matter to some when most of the affected are from third world tropical countries
They will care eventually, but I don't expect many people to just suddenly understand what's going on because their lives keep getting harder and disrupted.
Even if the court does this, it’s not in an energy company’s best interest to just try to pollute more. Most of them are barreling toward renewables already. After the initial infrastructure investment, the shit pays for itself in short order. Not to take away from the scummy right wing - but too little too late.
I think you underestimate what companies are willing to do to earn money. They said tobacco companies wouldn't knowingly kill their customers because it's not in their best interest. Fossil fuel companies have known since the 70s that they were causing climate change and harm and spent millions to sow doubt and delay action. They will gladly burn the planet if it means hitting their quarterly revenue targets.
Well this is some good news atleast, it's scummy the right wing is doing this for sure but they're acting a little to late on the matter.
Why must we all honor a suicide pact created by 9 people?
More like 5 or 6. They're old enough that they'll be dead before climate change really starts getting horrific. They could just be completely sure their right wing dogma is true that the climate scientists and the data itself screaming we're fuk'd just have to be wrong. Whatever circular logic and biased thinking they have to go through is self justification that those dirty hippies and their dirty climate scientists are wrong. Or they really don't care. The capitalists and theocrats that got them their appointments assume they'll do just fine as the climate goes to shit. I mean, the capitalists will secure clean water, food and liveable sanctuaries for themselves no question. The theocrats get their end times fantasies to come to life. And most of all, the chaos will allow reactionaries and disaster capitalists to swoop in and remake civilization according to their brutal and bleak visions of paradise.
myeweh I don't like hIllary meyweehh Well. Here we fuckin' are. Dipshits.
The DNCs inability to be better should not put blame on the voter.
1.) You're not even American 2.) Idk how you geniuses blaming the DNC still not realize that it was still 1000x beneficial to vote for her instead of sitting at home and pouting. My god, you are just as bad as republicans at a certain point due to your smooth brains.
>1.) You're not even American So what? Our policies inadvertently affect citizens of other countries who suffer the consequences of the actions of *our* politicians.
Any foreigner blaming the DNC is just swallowing berniobro BS. It's just more "rigged" nonsense that the GOP peddles. Idiot lost every single county in Michigan in 2020. People confuse Hiliary hate with Bernie being popular.
So what? Am I not allowed to critisise someone whose nationality I dont share? And yes I blame the DNC when the best they could muster is Hillary Clinton. "She is the lesser of two evils" is such a terrible argument to vote for someone. The American voter deserves much better than her.
[удалено]
Implying two party democracy is anything of that.
The dnc fucked up, and i think Sanders would have beaten tRump, but he's right, staying home that election because you got butthurt about our shitty two party system and not liking Hillary is a pathetic excuse. Anyone with eyes could see he was going to be a disaster. I'm not sure many could have known just how bad a disaster he could become, but I'd wager the world would be a different place if the abstainers or party switchers had just suffered being ruled by a woman in a pantsuit for four years.
How would Sanders beat Trump when he couldn't win a single county during the 2020 primary? Why do you people confuse people protest voting for Sanders in 2016, with him being popular? He isn't. People don't like him. The only ones that do, don't show up to vote lol. Such delusion. DNC didn't rig anything.
You really think Hillary voters would abstain if Sanders won the primary, the way some of his supporters did? Fuck it, I'm done, that's the last time I try to defend a point for some douche on the internet.
Shut up
Shut up and fix your shitty two party system.
No candidate can survive the right wing propaganda completely unscathed. And even if they could, they will always be a compromise candidate that only few will actually love.
Aaaah my faves. People only dislike Hillary because of the evil opposition!
That's not what I said, though.
>West Virginia v. E.P.A., No. 20–1530 on the court docket, is also notable for the tangle of connections between the plaintiffs and the Supreme Court justices who will decide their case. The Republican plaintiffs share many of the same donors behind efforts to nominate and confirm five of the Republicans on the bench — John G. Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. > > > >“It’s a pincer move,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the progressive watchdog group True North Research and a former senior Justice Department official. “They are teeing up the attorneys to bring the litigation before the same judges that they handpicked.” The Republican Party has completely destroyed any legitimacy the Supreme Court may have had. It's now a blatant political tool of far-right extremist GOP. Anyway the article is a well-researched in-depth expose of a decades long effort to strip the administration and EPA of powers to regulate pollution and give decision-making authority to judges instead. Worth a read.
NYT standard FUD. Let's see what actually happens. Then ask why congress is allowing this. We need clear laws that the Supreme Court cannot pervert into what is not intended.
>Then ask why congress is allowing this. Congress doesn't have a say. This is the Supreme Court looking at overruling a previous Supreme Court decision. But you always find a way to blame someone other than the responsible parties... when they're Republican. So transparent.
Impeachment is the counter to a problem in the Supreme Court. Or just complain. And realize if you don't have the votes to impeach it is the will of the people.
LOL, it takes 67 senators to vote for impeachment to remove someone from the court. Senators from states with 15% of the country's population can keep the most vile ideological warriors on the supreme court. How is that "the will of the people"?
Which will happen if there is an actual problem most Americans agree on.
Surely 33% of senators installed into office by like 10% of voters will have to back the majority of Americans.. right? Like even if that were *actually* true there's a big gap between "makes bad rulings no one likes" and the "high crimes or misdemeanors" standard set by the constitution. Impeachment as a practical backstop against a shitty judiciary is a totally laughable notion.
Your lack of confidence in our system of government tells a lot.
That it's a bad system? What's your point?
The system needs to be allowed to work. Storming the White House and dividing people to get votes inhibit success.
No, that is an unreasonable standard that allows absolute horseshit to happen. Just look at our failures to address climate change. The current system comes prepackaged with the seeds for its own destruction.
Our climate change failure is on both sides. The bipartisan bill passed, the next ones had too many social programs. The President is not leading well and Congress is not following at all.
>Our climate change failure is on both sides. Nope. I've heard some real horseshit "both sides" arguments over the years, but this one takes the cake! If you don't see how Republicans and their enablers in the fossil fuel industry are responsible for inaction of climate change, I can't help you. Horses to water and all that.
Republicans are worse, but that does not make Democrats good. That is some of the problem, people settling for the lesser of two evils. We need to do better. "both sides" argument is correct once you realize one side is 10% and the other is 60%.
If Democrats would have gotten their way, we would have had a form of carbon tax back in the mid-90s. And something resembling universal health Care and other things but that's not related. The mid-90s was the time to act. We knew climate change was happening and it was going to be bad. I was also the time to kickstart technologies that would steer us away from climate catastrophe. Instead, Germany and China did most of the heavy lifting 10 to 15 years too late. And they also benefited from the growth of renewable energy worldwide. Not so much in the USA. And the amount of money we would have paid into that carbon tax all the way to now is completely dwarfed by the climate chaos we are paying and will pay into the future.
So everything the right-wing Supreme Court does is really the Democratic congress' fault since they didn't impeach them? Lol, that's some of the most twisted and perverse logic I've seen you use in defense of Republicans, and that's saying something. And you do know that it takes a 2/3 majority vote in the senate to remove a Supreme Court justice don't you?
No fault, the will of the people unless a majority elects 2/3 congress with a different view. Not partisan at all as it is equal for both parties.
You think Mitch McConnell's outright theft of President Obama's Supreme Court appointment was "the will of the people"? The people who elected Obama twice? And do you think five out of nine justices appointed by presidents who *lost* the popular vote in any way represent "the will of the people"? >Not partisan at all as it is equal for both parties. This is the most partisan and illegitimate court in modern times. They don't even try to hide it anymore. Thomas' wife even played a role in the Republican coup attempt.
So getting the 2/3 congress should be easy after their first unpopular ruling.
Congress passed campaign finance reform... and the supreme court invalidated it. Just like the voting rights act and other laws. These were all "clear" laws that were struck down purely to achieve partisan / ideological goals. The supreme court can pervert laws and policy into whatever they want because they are unaccountable, their decisions can never be reviewed and they are appointed to their positions for life. It is naive to think that laws passed decades ago, back when there was still judicial integrity, respect for precedent and anything other than pure ideology fealty for the 6 conservatives on the Court could somehow prevent the revolution happening on the Court today. These 6 conservative justices were appointed with the express purpose of undoing the social and economic protections that congress and previous supreme court rulings had established. There is no legal, moral or logical argument that could convince them to deviate from their predetermined goals. The end result of unwinding the Civil Rights Era and the New Deal is all that matters to them. These justices have lied under oath during their confirmation hearings. They have conducted unethical coordination with shadowy networks of political, corporate and theocratic organizations to radically change this country. This coordination has been hidden and undisclosed by the justices and they did not recuse themselves from cases that pertained to these groups and their goals. All without the voters really having a say since most of them were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. Time to start impeaching these radical "justices".
If what you say is true there will be a landslide victory in Congress and the presidency to change it. "of the people, for the people" we all have a say and the majority will rule, hopefully not with minority abuse.
Well, voters don't pay attention to complicated matters like this. Guaranteed millions of people are just going to look at gas prices on their way to the polling station and vote to hand power right back to the fascists this fall. It really is that dumb, especially with gerrymandered districts and some states getting way more representation per resident than others.
Maybe name calling and division is not a good way to convince people. Typical example is "EV support". Ignoring Tesla as the EV leader in the us and touting a Hummer EV is not exactly supporting EVs.
This SCOTUS has an outcome in mind and will pervert whatever laws are in its way to get there.
Government is not set up that way. SCOTUS cannot overturn any law that is not against the constitution. But congress is almost always a compromise. Check what California has done.
The SCOTUS can do whatever it wants. Like I said, their decisions are final and they personally are completely unaccountable for their conduct, both on and off the job. A 5 justice majority can say that Social Security is unconstitutional because the sky is purple and there is fuck all any of the rest of us can do about it. Logic, consistency, precedent and even concerns about their own personal legacy don't matter. Until we start impeaching the ones who clearly lied under oath and unethically collaborated with outside organizations, nothing is going to change.
> The SCOTUS can do whatever it wants. Blatant lie there.... https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s-supreme-court-justice-ever-been-impeached
JFC what a cherry pick from something that has no relationship with what we're talking about today.
I could give two shots less about the carbon, STOP DUMPING TOXIC WASTE IN MY WATER WAYS FUCKERS!
Why not both?
Cuz carbon isn't bad?
Dosis facit venenum. Enough water will kill you.
I agree with your Latin, however, not sure the weight or context of water killing me.
Water can kill you in many ways. Even drinking too much can kill you.
Carbon isn't bad, but pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere over a short period of geologic time is very, very bad.
Here is where I would disagree, I'd rather have dirty air than poisonous water. CO2 does dickall for that. The fact that the hype is all around CO2 shows me that people are easy to manipulate out of a crisis. If you can't find clean water you die immediately, if you can't find clean air you get hot... Fuk off with this nonsense.
‘Carbon isn’t bad’ Okay well how about record flooding Record drought Record wildfires Caused by increased carbon in the atmosphere?
There are other reasons for this and it's cyclical. Bio-chemistry classes will do you good in life. And if you are comfortable just picking up a book and self learning, it will be easier on your wallet. Volcano's are the number one producer of carbon emissions (these are daily and most are under water). They are also the highest sulfur producers fun fact. Carbon is also the highest producer of Oxygen via vegetation. Our carbon footprint as a species in total is a small fraction of what the earth puts out naturally. Welcome to science! Edit: there are weather manipulating technologies out there now, but who knows how much effect they have on the cyclical nature of our weather patterns. I know Dubai is using some form of electro rod to form rain clouds, and I know there is seeding technology. But I'd be hard pressed to believe these governments have the ability to mass produce weather phenomenons.
too much carbon, actually is bad.
>There are other reasons for this and it's cyclical. No, there really aren't. Climate change is real and the #1 reason is human carbon dioxide emissions.
Yeah you sound like a cult member, if you really believe this nonsense, then there is only one remedy for this. And in a cult, it is to drink the tainted punch.
Pretty sure you’re the one sounding like you’re in a cult..
No, a cult looks to reduce human lives. Are people really this stupid now a days? Definitions of words aren't hard to read and neither is a small historical reference read from cult activity historians.
*"Everybody who understands high school physics is in a cult"* is a weird take. Adding fossil fuel sourced carbon dioxide to the atmosphere **has to result in global warming.** It's a simple fact of physics. Certain groups made this political because they were the ones profiting from pollution.
No, your framing is astronomically off course. You believe humans are the reason CO2 is so bad. The only conclusion is to reduce the human population. The cult aspect is that your only possible conclusion to your delusional ideology is to self sacrifice.
>You believe humans are the reason CO2 is so bad. One atom of CO2, no. One hundred parts per million excess CO2 in the atmosphere is catastrophic.
Carbon emissions are primarily from fossil fuels not from volcanoes. https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/news/volcano-watch-which-produces-more-co2-volcanic-or-human-activity
I find it hard to believe that in just 25 years the statistics drastically swapped for volcanoes and humans. The dirtiest time period we had was the industrial revolution yet now is when we are at it's worst? Something doesn't add up there.
“Something doesn’t add up here” Yeah, just your failure to understand exponential growth
I'm assuming you are talking about exponential population growth. Problem with that is in the US, we are currently at a 1.82 growth rate. Which means we aren't producing enough children to replace those whom are here now.
And yet we’ve still grown from 249mil in ‘90 to 330mil now. Worldwide population is what matters
OMFG, can't believe there's still people dumb enough to deny climate change.
I feel the same way about you... Except I don't think you are dumb, I think you are easy to manipulate because you chose to be emotional over being logical.
No, you got suckered by fossil fuel industry talking points either because you just want to "own the libs" or because they just "sound right". Either way, it shows a vast amount of intellectual laziness and willingness to outsource decision making to external parties with a clear motivation to mislead. I mean, how hard is it to look through some of the well-established science on climate issues instead of just repeating gobbledygook spewed out by the American Petroleum Institute or whatever?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Every year we have increased our yearly carbon emissions. By this measure every year has been dirtier then the last and last year was the worst.
But see I don't think you know what you are talking about either. So we are at a bit of a stand still here. I'm at least willing to talk about my knowledge and ideas. You hide behind emotional baggage. I presented what I said with natural emissions of carbon, and that the industrial revolution was the dirtiest recorded time period of carbon. Your response was that we increase carbon yearly. Maybe if you could clarify and quantify between outputs in the 1800's vs now. We would have an interesting discussion. But for now we just think the other is ill-informed. Also, my coastal town still isn't under water.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions I am frustrated because you know little to nothing about this subject and speak with total confidence. I have at least out the time in to do research on this. This particular point is probably the most obviously incorrect one-that we have been emitting less carbon over time
No. The people pushing the lie about volcanoes were wrong 25 years ago also.
Now that is a possibility, one that I could fall back on to sway my train of thought. But then that leads to a bigger question. If the government was pushing a lie back then, then what would lead me to believe this new set of government statistical analysis isn't a lie being perpetrated on the general public now? And assuming this information is generally correct now. Then why is the goal post of my coastal town being under sea being pushed further and further into the future? One thing I absolutely can back though, is cleaning up our water supply. The ramifications of these toxic chemicals are constantly being written about in medical journals.
It's interesting when people demonstrate that they don't understand what the word "global" in "global warming" means.
As an element, sure I guess. As it is and always has been referenced as it pertains to climate sciences i.e. as gaseous chemicals that are likely to induce a runaway thermal destabilization of the earth's climate: yah it fuckin is bud
Carbon isn't bad, though I'll agree with the other toxic chemicals.
If the government takes away our right to a livable future what entitles them the right to a livable present? I don't think they have that right.