Six Big US Banks Quit Net Zero Alliance (theguardian.com) 136
An anonymous reader shares a report: The six biggest banks in the US have all quit the global banking industry's net zero target-setting group, with the imminent inauguration of Donald Trump as president expected to bring political backlash against climate action.
JP Morgan is the latest to withdraw from the UN-sponsored net zero banking alliance (NZBA), following Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs. All six have left since the start of December. Analysts have said the withdrawals are an attempt to head off "anti-woke" attacks from rightwing US politicians, which are expected to escalate when Trump is sworn in as the country's 47th president in just under a fortnight. Trump's vows to deregulate the energy sector, dismantle environmental rules and "drill, baby, drill," were a big part of his campaign platform and are expected to form a key part of his blueprint for governing the US, the world's biggest oil and gas producer.
JP Morgan is the latest to withdraw from the UN-sponsored net zero banking alliance (NZBA), following Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs. All six have left since the start of December. Analysts have said the withdrawals are an attempt to head off "anti-woke" attacks from rightwing US politicians, which are expected to escalate when Trump is sworn in as the country's 47th president in just under a fortnight. Trump's vows to deregulate the energy sector, dismantle environmental rules and "drill, baby, drill," were a big part of his campaign platform and are expected to form a key part of his blueprint for governing the US, the world's biggest oil and gas producer.
Credit unions. (Score:5, Informative)
Take your money out of big banks, and switch to credit unions. NCUA instead of FDIC insured, but you're still insured, and you're not functionally loaning your money to a giant multinational conglomerate.
Re: (Score:3)
Fees are much lower at credit unions too. There's no way I would use a big bank now.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Credit unions. (Score:4, Interesting)
This illustrates the dilemma: now vs the future; my selfish interests vs what is best for all humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
This illustrates the dilemma: now vs the future; my selfish interests vs what is best for all humanity.
There are "ethical funds" you can invest in if you so choose. I have no issue with my bank financing and profiting on legal (and indispensable) products I use myself every day. Indeed I'd take my investments elsewhere if they stopped.
Re: (Score:3)
Having a world to comfortably enjoy your retirement in is dependent on those big companies not destroying the environment. Long term planning is important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think i'm worried about "the end", you're insane. I'm worried about observed current effects, and near to medium term trends.
Re: (Score:2)
And people who think "as long as it's not the end, it's fine"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm worried about observed current effects, and near to medium term trends.
Well by all means switch to a credit union then if it makes you feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone's plan is a bet. Whether it is invested in the stock market through a fund, backed by the government with the hope that it isn't tampered with through legislation, or stuffed in your pillowcase hoping that the US national debt doesn't get called in for collection causing it to disintegrate in hyper inflation.
Net Zero is insufficient anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Net Zero is far from the target we need to aim for to solve climate breakdown.
Its bad that were not even going to aim that high.
Folks Im telling you, its time to get prepping! Our future is toast.
Re: (Score:1)
It is rather unlikely that prepping will do anything. But yes, currently it looks like high-tech civilization is done for (possibly permanently) and extinction becomes more and more likely.
Re: (Score:1)
It is rather unlikely that prepping will do anything.
If there's a population die back, those who are prepared will be the survivors.
Prepping is a no-brainer because we win either way.
If a catastrophe happens, we survive because we're prepared.
If there is no catastrophe, we still save money by buying in bulk. When peanut butter is on sale, you might buy an extra jar. I buy an extra case.
extinction becomes more and more likely.
Speak for yourself. Defeatism will get you nothing.
Re:Net Zero is insufficient anyway (Score:4, Informative)
I don't consider myself a prepper.
I don't think the world is headed for some sort of imminent catastrophe with any meaningful probability.
But man, I still love buying in bulk ;) I have a giant patio chest freezer and am thinking about buying another. I buy grains by the sack, spices by the litre (kept frozen) and cheese by the wheel. I love having everything on-hand, love the discounts you get from bulk purchases, and hate going to the store. If you buy in big enough bulk, some suppliers even provide free shipping at no extra cost.
The main downside is that there's certain things you can't get frozen / canned / otherwise preserved, namely fresh greens and the like**. But that's what a garden / greenhouse / etc are for. In general, you just have to be careful to properly estimate your consumption rate relative to the food's longevity relative to how you store it.
** But you can freeze more things than most people suspect. For example, you can freeze most dairy - the texture can change, but not in any way that's relevant if you use it for cooking. I get UHT milk, which is good for 6-12 months without refrigeration, and I also have powdered milk (lasts years until you open it, and is delicious fresh, but you should use it within a few months of opening or the taste starts to go off).
Re: (Score:3)
You're a prepper.
You're just in denial.
Re: Net Zero is insufficient anyway (Score:2)
A prepper is prepping for something. By thevdefinition of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a prepper.
You're just in denial.
Not unless there's backup power for the freezers.
Re: (Score:2)
When peanut butter is on sale, you might buy an extra jar. I buy an extra case.
I don't think I can't buy insulin by the case, those pesky organic molecules don't store well. Tylenol however lasts over 30 years so there's that. I don't usually buy more than a years worth of most things on sale, have been considering a solar storage system though. Yes I could raise pigs and harvest insulin, but it sounds risky and expensive. At 67 I think I'll just buy bullets and popcorn, enjoy the show and go out shooting. Must remember to dig a pit and get shitload of quicklime the smell of decaying bodies is terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Must remember to dig a pit and get shitload of quicklime the smell of decaying bodies is terrible.
Nah, just toss the bodies in Mel's Hole...
Re: Net Zero is insufficient anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot prep for the end of civilization, period. It's not possible. IRL the breakdown of society does not look like "mad Max", it looks like some dumb ass with no fuel, no electricity and quickly disappearing or rotting stocks.
Piling enough food for one person for a year is already a stupid proposition, imagine a decade and then two or three, for all of your extended family. Even if you had the land and manual tools, being a subsistence farmer is a profession the you are not trained or physically fit enough for. And then your have to upkeep whatever you have at the start for a few decades by repairing, rebuilding and replacing what is worn down.
Stop waiting for the collapse and start correcting what we already have to avert it.
Re: (Score:2)
it looks like some dumb ass with no fuel
I don't need fuel. My car is an EV. My heater is a heat pump.
I use zero fossil fuels.
no electricity
I have solar panels on my roof.
quickly disappearing or rotting stocks.
Plenty of food has an extended shelf live. Dried pinto beans from Costco can last for decades.
I grow potatoes, pumpkins, beans, and corn in my backyard. I have a dozen fruit trees. I have a flock of chickens.
Stop waiting for the collapse and start correcting what we already have to avert it.
See above. I'm not causing the problem. My environmental footprint is about as small as it can be for a first-worlder.
Prepping is not an alternative to reducing our impact. It's a method o
Re: Net Zero is insufficient anyway (Score:2)
Whatever you go get at the store got there by ICE truck. Your seed and fertilizer came to you the same way.
Your tires are made of fuel and have a shelf life of a decade at most before they dry rot.
Your heat pump is filled with a hydrocarbon refrigerant, maybe even straight propane (R-290, HC-12a or HC-22a), which you won't be able to refill without a petrochemical plant.
Your solar installation probably shuts down if the power lines go dead, and is probably not powerful enough to charge your car, heat the h
Re: (Score:2)
He's also going to be 1 of what 1000 or maybe even 10,000 or shit 100,000 that is prepping. The hoard will come steal everything you have anyway. I don't care how much ammo you have. They'll have just as much but they'll be a hoard of them. They'll be starving and they'll be desperate. Good Luck!
Re: (Score:2)
the breakdown of society does not look like "mad Max"
Actually what you see from Mad Max is that society is reduced to an tiny rounding error of a percentage of what it was before, precisely due to some of the things you are describing.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. "Prepping" is merely a psychological coping mechanism for those unwilling or incapable to do anything about stopping or reducing the disaster before it happens. It is essentially an elaborate form of denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that'll get you over a hiccup in the supply chain. If you had a garage full of toilet paper at the start of the pandemic you'd have been sitting pretty.
That's representative of what prepping can feasibly accomplish for you. It can't do anything about long-term problems -- like civilization collapsing, or having to adapt to climate change. That extended cab 4x4 F-350 is going to be useful for a very limited time in a world without oil refineries. Once you run through that closet full of cans of Di
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that'll get you over a hiccup in the supply chain. If you had a garage full of toilet paper at the start of the pandemic you'd have been sitting pretty.
That's representative of what prepping can feasibly accomplish for you. It can't do anything about long-term problems -- like civilization collapsing, or having to adapt to climate change. That extended cab 4x4 F-350 is going to be useful for a very limited time in a world without oil refineries. Once you run through that closet full of cans of Dinty Moore beef stew, you're relying someone else fixing whatever went wrong with civilization.
The fantasy of being prepped for the fall of civilization is like the fantasy going to the gym to get jacked. It's true that anyone *could* do it, but for most of us it takes too much time, hard work and dedication for most people to achieve. Sure, a lot of us go to the gym, futz around semi-seriously and really do get a lot of benefit out of it, but nobody is ever going to mistake us for a fitness model. To survive in a post apocalyptic world you need to spend serious time acquiring skills that have little practicality in modern life. Blacksmithing, anyone?
Indeed. "Preppers" are deep in denial and all that they will do is die a little later. It gives them an illusion of having thing in in hand and being in control, when deep down, they know that is not even slightly true.
Yes, sure, have enough stocked up food for a few weeks, and water for a few days. But beyond that, either help will arrive or it really does not matter.
That said, climate change as envisioned by scientists doesn't look like an apocalyptic scenario. It's just going to be very expensive to deal with, and we can reasonably expect many temporary disruptions due to extreme climate events.
Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that. Societies will not be able to cope, will stay in denial to long and will find that they have money
Re: (Score:2)
It is rather unlikely that prepping will do anything.
If there's a population die back, those who are prepared will be the survivors.
If technological civilization collapses, those who survive will be: the Amish, who have put together a lifestyle that is self-sufficient in food without relying to technological civilization.
but I see no reason to think it will collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not be so sure. There is an adjacent Amish community to where I live, with a couple families just down the road. One of them owns a wood shop. We are fairly friendly and he has shown me around his operation.
He and his crew do use a lot of hand tools, the also use a lot modern tools. Surprisingly they use a lot of power tools you could go buy at your local Home Depot right now. They literally buy them, remove the electric motor and attach a belt they can drive with little stationary engines, you k
Re: (Score:2)
The Amish have no chance. They are not even a valid breeding pool due to too much inbreeding. And they will not get anything from their field anymore, same as everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Letting anyone know you hoarded all that food will also put a target on yourself if it ever actually becomes needed, nice one.
How many rolls of toilet paper do you have left from covid? I hope your hoarding wasn't part of the shortage.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just use my guns and friends with guns to come steal your shit. The mob will win over the preppers because of sheer numbers.
We're all screwed, prepper or not.
Prepare for it [Re:Net Zero is insufficient an...] (Score:2)
... Folks Im telling you, its time to get prepping! Our future is toast.
It is rather unlikely that prepping will do anything.
Depends on, prepping for what?
If you mean, prepping for the mad-Max scenario-- stockpiling weapons and put together secure underground bunkers-- correct, won't do much.
If you mean, preparing for a future in which sea levels gradually continue to rise, summers continue to get hotter particularly in tropical and subtropical areas, storms get more intense, and some food-growing regions experience droughts or floods while others move north, yes, getting ready for that would be valuable.
But yes, currently it looks like high-tech civilization is done for (possibly permanently) and extinction becomes more and more likely.
No. Don't forget, while
Re: (Score:2)
No. Don't forget, while climate change is inexorable, it is slow. It will have costs, it will damage ecosystems, it will cause upheavals and populations fleeing some of the worst hit areas, but no, it won't be the end of high-tech civilization, and no, extinction is not likely.
You are overlooking a key fact there: Collapse of society is _not_ slow. It happens when society fails to adapt and the trigger point gets reached. You think society will adapt? Just look at the complete inability of society to prevent this disaster and you know how realistic that is.
Re: (Score:2)
And you pulled those numbers straight out of your ass, I take it? They smell like that too.
Silver lining to climate backtracking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the government does control the Corporations
I think this is more complicated that that. Trump has a political mandate to accomplish some things as a consequence of a definitive victory in a cultural war. So it is a combination of politics and populism that control corporations but only insofar as cultural issues.
Re: (Score:1)
I think this is more complicated that that. Trump has a political mandate to accomplish some things as a consequence of a definitive victory in a cultural war. So it is a combination of politics and populism that control corporations but only insofar as cultural issues.
People seem to think that Trump voters are giving him a blank check to become an actual dictator (not the line every clearly takes out of context thanks to media clowns). Every time that clown goes overboard, his own supporters rip him. He's supported mostly by folks who like to read the constitution literally instead of interpreting it (plus the random crazy person here and there (much like the democrats)). As soon as/if he crosses a constitutional line (a real one, not a manufactured one... Schiff), his "
Re: (Score:2)
Most major corporations weren't doing much meaningful work towards CO2 emissions reduction anyway, and were just posting the occasional greenwashing price to pretend that they gave a damn about the environment. Pretending that your product is "recyclable" while knowing that most recycling centers can't actually do so was a personal favorite of the packaged goods industries, for example.
Now that Trump is back in office, they don't even feel the need to bother with the frequent greenwashing statements anymore
Targets were never real to begin with (Score:4, Insightful)
net zero (Score:2, Insightful)
Net Zero has shown itself to be a net zero.
They were never really doing anything for it (Score:4, Insightful)
"Oh, we have an excuse to stop posturing?" (Score:2)
"Great! I'll let my belly out again for a bit. I was tired of holding it in."
Guessing an AI would do a better job than them of picking profitable projects, and then they wouldn't have to even pretend they're using empathy in their decisions.
Plenty of other options (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a bank account. I have a brokerage account. My paycheck and savings are automatically deposited in the account and automatically invested in a a money market fund where 99.5% of the fund's total assets in cash, U.S. Government securities and/or repurchase agreements that are collateralized fully (i.e., collateralized by cash or government securities).The fund has consistently maintained a stable net asset value (NAV) of $1 per share and has never “broken the buck,” meaning its NAV h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I use one of the largest brokers in the world, so it's a very small risk. It would also wipe out my retirement and investments should that happen (as we 10's of millions of other Americans if not more). I do have a secondary brokerage account at a competitor only to prevent compromise of my account draining my emergency fund. It's the same setup only using their version of the that fund. That one also has about 20% of my emergency fund invested in a total US market index fund (which is an agressive slant).
I
Re: (Score:2)
You can get close to 5% with a money market deposit account that is FDIC insured up to $250K. I have one at totalbank.com. I won't claim fantastic customer service and do have to transfer funds into there, but the balance goes up as it should.
Re: (Score:2)
I've done things like that before but they usually put restrictions on money market accounts that brokers do not (number of withdrawls per month for example).
They were never woke (Score:5, Insightful)
Big banks were never woke. They simply did the math and picked a path they felt would make them the most money. They did the math again and changed directions. They don't actually care about any of this, they are corperations. They want money.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be prudent for the Left to remember that corporate interests are not their natural ideological allies and that abandoning working class in favor of corporate interest left them with no allies in the end. The future of Democrats is in the direction of Bernie Sanders populism and not Clinton style corporatism.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To them, Woke was always a tool to exert control. It was discarded once its usefulness run out.
"Woke" is just a term used by sociopaths to refer to anyone who isn't a sociopath. Please don't pretend it has any meaning beyond that. It isn't and has never been a policy or a position adopted by anyone. It has no meaning beyond not acting like a sociopath and putting self interest above everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Big banks were never woke. They simply did the math and picked a path they felt would make them the most money. They did the math again and changed directions. They don't actually care about any of this, they are corporations. They want money.
Sure, sure. That's not what's concerning here.
What's concerning is that they, and Facebook, and many others, are making changes out of fear of the new administration. That is something I've never seen in my lifetime. Yes, all sorts of organizations shift with the Overton window to try to stay relevant and look forward-thinking, but not like this, not in response to an election outcome. They're doing it because they've -- probably correctly -- decided that the incoming administration is going to actively
It's an almost believable excuse. (Score:2)
"Yeah, that sounds logical."
Wonder what would happen if these so called "news outlets" stopped reporting anything known to be false. "They can offer their own PR, I don't need to pretend I wrote what they handed me too." But that won't happen while nobody gets full credit (or punishment) from what they do.
Re: (Score:2)
We can alter the equation though. Incentives, punishments.
political backlash (Score:1)
Political backlash you say? Did we not elect a member of the party of small government? Why is he concerned with what private businesses are doing? Can anyone explain?
Re:political backlash (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is he concerned with what private businesses are doing?
It's just a conditioned response by this time. The last party in power wanted things their way (or else). That and the banks would really not have to deal with non financial inputs to their business decisions anyway. So, good riddance for all the last administrations meddling. Things are finally getting sane again.
Huh. (Score:2)
You know...
I think....
Maybe we need to...
Actually, I'm going to go finish learning the last few bars of "Money for Nothing" on my Les Paul. Fuck all y'alls.
The real story (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
With Tesla being once of the biggest users, I highly doubt that.
Winds of change (Score:1, Troll)
The whole point of the NZBA was to attempt to deny banking services to any org, or person, that didn't sign on with the UN policies that are mostly driven buy fringe US environmentalists that briefly held favor with the authoritarian Democratic administration. Now that the authoritarian in power has switched to the Republicans the banks are making appropriate changes. Ultimately we need to remove the authority that's resident in these large govermentmt institutions like the UN, US and others. If you want to
Two possibilities (Score:2)
We need to pollute more (Score:2)
Whose bingo card had this?
"We need to pollute more, or else far-left 'conservative', big-government 'libertarian', revenue-decreasing-but-tax-increasing Republicans will molest us."
If you had that and your bingo card was printed prior to 2016, I accuse you of witchcraft (or time-travel, same thing).
Re:Trump, the president of death (Score:5, Funny)
Orangenheimer: "Now I am become beautiful Death, destroyer of the very best Worlds! Everyone says so, even dead people!"
Re: (Score:2)
I like the joke, but I wish it was funnier. My basic reaction to the story is "We already knew bankers were evil, so where's the news here?"
Re:Trump, the president of death (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not any particularly political thing bothers me about this - corporations pursuing whatever policy suites them, whatever, that's capitalism for you. What bothers me is the general issue that almost every major corporate leader is preemptively bowing down all at once to the specific political whims of the new US president who's not even in office yet. Everyone changing their policies to whatever they think he'll like, all the major tech leaders donating millions to his inauguration, on and on.... virtually everyone powerful acting like courtiers. I've never seen anything like this.
It feels... Russian. It feels like Putin's relationship with the Russian oligarchs. "You do whatever makes the Tsar happy, and you're allowed to accumulate vast wealth, even if you break the law - but if you ever do anything he doesn't like, he'll make the system crush you, regardless of whether you've actually committed a crime."
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really believe this is new?
I don't think it is. I think it is just more apparent with the culture war issues than say when more MIC related issues were driving politics. Look at the 80s don't you think a lot of those 'wholesomeness' by corporate America was just courting the moral majority, and trying to avoid the ire of Reganite politicians?
Look at the 90s and 2000s and all the excitement about BRICs investment. Sure the finance guys did see real growth potential there, but don't think a lot of th
Re: Trump, the president of death (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really believe this is new?
It *is* new.
Of the tech billionaires donating to Trump's inauguration, of whom maybe *one* could actually be said to like Trump, only two gave *anything* to recent inaugurations, and far less.
I've *never* seem a rash of complete moderation policy reversals across the board just because a certain candidate was elected
I've *never* seen banks and major corps en masse alter their ESG policies just because a given candidate was elected.
God, even the visuals. Like Zuck standing there with his hand over his heart while January 6th prisoners sang the national anthem.. I can't think of anything even remotely comparable. Bezos meanwhile stopped the Washington Post's editorial board from endorsing for the first time in 36 years, put of fear of offending Trump.
I have never, ever, seen powerful figures in the US or anywhere else all en masse act like they're terrified that if they don't massively suck up to the president elect, the system will be weaponized against them.
And it's not like there has been some sort of massive shift in public views. Trump won with 49,9% of the vote, to 48,4%. Yet the cowtowing resembles something you normally only see in dictatorships. It's *not normal* behavior in a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wasn't anyone thinking of this when the banksters signed on to Net Zero in the first place? Why did anyone take them seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Death of the human race, that is. What a repulsive piece of shit.
America's culmination. Democracy will be derided for centuries based on our performance, if we survive as a species that long. Our example will prove to the world that allowing the populace a voice is a catastrophe waiting to happen. We're proving it, in real time right now. Horrible to see Reagan's prediction of the end of the world in our lifetimes actually coming to fruition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to what? What governmental system is going to produce a better result?
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to what? What governmental system is going to produce a better result?
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
I'm not claiming I have the answer to that. I'm saying we're going to be held up as an example of what to expect from democracy by those wanting to implement other forms of government. We literally fucked ourselves raw, and we will be used as an example of what goes wrong when you allow the people a voice. Full-stop. I'm not saying there's some other form of government that's better. Most are demonstrably worse. But I can see a despot of the future making a big political speech decrying the democratic exper
Re: (Score:2)
So "democracy will be derided for centuries based on our performance..." by dictators? I hate to break this to you, but dictators have been railing against democracy for a very long time and have used any and every excuse imaginable. Suggesting that "climate change" is going to be what should and will put the nail in the coffin of democracy forever is borderline lunacy.
You shrugged when I asked what better alternative would be, but I'm putting the question to you again. Pick from the powers today or thro
Re: (Score:2)
So "democracy will be derided for centuries based on our performance..." by dictators? I hate to break this to you, but dictators have been railing against democracy for a very long time and have used any and every excuse imaginable. Suggesting that "climate change" is going to be what should and will put the nail in the coffin of democracy forever is borderline lunacy.
You shrugged when I asked what better alternative would be, but I'm putting the question to you again. Pick from the powers today or throughout human history and their systems of government tell us all what would have done better. Better yet, point at any of those systems of government that didn't have a role in the way things are today.
You're trying to stuff words in my mouth by saying that I'm saying Democracy is bad. I didn't say that. And I'm not at all interested in arguing with you about something I didn't fucking say.
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to stuff words in my mouth by saying that I'm saying Democracy is bad. I didn't say that. And I'm not at all interested in arguing with you about something I didn't fucking say.
This is what you said:
Our example will prove to the world that allowing the populace a voice is a catastrophe waiting to happen. We're proving it, in real time right now.
Then this:
We literally fucked ourselves raw, and we will be used as an example of what goes wrong when you allow the people a voice. Full-stop.
Not quite sure how to take that as anything other than an argument that democracy has led us to the current situation, but sure, let's go with the idea that I'm misunderstanding you. What, then, are you actually trying to say?
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to stuff words in my mouth by saying that I'm saying Democracy is bad. I didn't say that. And I'm not at all interested in arguing with you about something I didn't fucking say.
This is what you said:
Our example will prove to the world that allowing the populace a voice is a catastrophe waiting to happen. We're proving it, in real time right now.
Then this:
We literally fucked ourselves raw, and we will be used as an example of what goes wrong when you allow the people a voice. Full-stop.
Not quite sure how to take that as anything other than an argument that democracy has led us to the current situation, but sure, let's go with the idea that I'm misunderstanding you. What, then, are you actually trying to say?
Well, I did skip over the all important, "Let's gut education for the sake of keeping the populace in line" that's required to put us in the position we're in. What I was getting at was, we're "proof" to those that want to decry democracy that it truly is a fucked up mess. Can you argue against that? Because looking at what we've done, I can't say that we haven't created a mess of it. That's through choices made over the last forty years, starting with Reagan gutting education, throwing mental institutions
Re: (Score:2)
There's different types of democracy. Perhaps a form of it that doesn't give such power to oligarchs would have better results.
Re: Trump, the president of death (Score:1)
Reagan the economist?
Reagan the chemist?
Oh, Reagan the actor.
Yep, we really can rely on his predictions being based on good data and wise assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, like the kings and queens of old where so wise. If you think the populace has any significant say in how the world is run you are quite frankly dreaming.
All that modern democracies do is give a slight impression that you might have some influence in a possible outcome. There where idiot rulers before democracy and our pretend democracies will do nothing to change that. The rich rule and walk over the little people like they always have. Trump is quite dumb so he is just more obvious about it than most.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, like the kings and queens of old where so wise. If you think the populace has any significant say in how the world is run you are quite frankly dreaming.
All that modern democracies do is give a slight impression that you might have some influence in a possible outcome. There where idiot rulers before democracy and our pretend democracies will do nothing to change that. The rich rule and walk over the little people like they always have. Trump is quite dumb so he is just more obvious about it than most.
Why do you think people voted for Trump? I think it because of the decades of listening to the old establishment and being told how if there was only more free trade, etc their lives would be so much better while watching their lives get worse. Do I think Trump is going to help? Most likely not, but he is not the end of the world, or at least I don't think its not coming significantly faster with him than anyone else. All the "smart" leaders have made such great strides in helping the environment /sarcasm. No matter what hysterical people like the original post says.
Trump himself won't end the world. But he'll put the finishing touches on the plans that will eventually lead to the end of the human species being a technological one. Whether that comes during his term or not is probably a coin toss. He's just going to drop the few guardrails the oligarchs have allowed us over the last few decades and make the rush towards oblivion that much faster. With the complete disregard to climate change, and the worship of the coming AI overlords in full swing, on top of Musk's in
Re: (Score:2)
Trump himself won't end the world. But he'll put the finishing touches on the plans that will eventually lead to the end of the human species being a technological one. Whether that comes during his term or not is probably a coin toss. He's just going to drop the few guardrails the oligarchs have allowed us over the last few decades and make the rush towards oblivion that much faster. With the complete disregard to climate change, and the worship of the coming AI overlords in full swing, on top of Musk's insistence that we gut all spending on frivolous nonsense that benefits normies, like Social Security and such, it'll be a slalom course of gluttony for the elite, while the rest of us slowly suffer a dwindling bit of the pie. Until the elite manage to fuck up so royally they themselves start to see consequences. Us little people are too far removed from them at this point to be the cause of those consequences today. It'll likely be the AI systems they want to use to replace us that'll pop them off their wobbly pedestals. Or some environmental cascading effect we've been warned could be coming that takes us all down. Except for those "smart" (i.e. rich) enough to have built giant bunkers to keep them alive a little longer than the rest.
There just seems to be way too many end-game looking scenarios looming right at the moment, and Trump's election is only another symptom of all this nonsense. We as a people are pretty stupid. As my boss is fond of saying, "None of is is as dumb as all of us." America has proven that one out quite stoutly.
That nicely sums it up. If I were sent here are an evaluator for the human race, my verdict would be "too dumb to deserve survival".
Re: Trump, the president of death (Score:2)
Net zero does not mean collapse. There are many definitions of net zero.
Maybe we need to talk sustainable rate. You can consume in a year what the earth can produce in a year. No more using up limited resources at a rate greater than the earth can produce them. Otherwise, your just "borrowing" at an unsustainable rate, and there isn't really an Earth Bankruptcy Court to painlessly let you wipe clean your debts and start over.
When the Piper comes to get paid it will be hard on most, but the richest will p
Re: There is only one environmentalist act (Score:2)
OK, Thanos.
So, how exactly would one implement this plan?
Re: There is only one environmentalist act (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump is working on WW3, this will address the issue.
Re: There is only one environmentalist act (Score:5, Insightful)
The government causes problems, it doesn't resolve them. If you want fixes to the environmental issues, they're all going to come through innovation, not policy.
I don't think the evidence supports that claim. Why were 88.9% of cars sold in Norway last year electric [slashdot.org], compared to only 8.9% of cars sold in the US [eia.gov]? Is that because Norway has better technology and more innovation in cars? Of course not. It's because of government policy, plain and simple.
When government sets policies to protect the environment, the whole country follows along. When they don't, industry does whatever promotes its short term self interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... Because a country with 10 million people (that all look the same, speak the same, etc) versus USA with 330 million people that come from every corner of the planet, speak who knows what language and look nothing alike have the exact same challenges and the solutions for one surely will scale for the other.
Great comparison!
Besides, most of Norway's national money comes from drilling oil. But yeah, those people are just fabulous. Far as I'm concerned, Norway is just as responsible for climate change a
Re: (Score:2)
Wait did you just say the USA has 33x the amount of resources available to solve the problem? I mean yeah only if the GDP per capita is the same, which it's not, which favours the USA even more...
Wow and you still can't solve the problem. Embarrassing.
Re: (Score:3)
You're using a non-sequitor to distract attention. The GP claimed that solutions to environmental problems only come from innovation, not ever from government policy. I cited one example where government policy is making a huge difference. You want another example? Sure.
Let's look at per-capita energy use [eia.gov] among US states. Let's compare California and Texas, since they have so much in common. Large states with a mix of large cities and huge, sparsely populated rural areas. Very diverse populations, in
Re: (Score:2)
I live in California and I compare prices with relatives in other states, though not Texas. California pays a fortune per KwH of electricity used when compared to ID or AZ.
I can't speak on electricity costs in Texas but I imagine if the cost were equal to Ca, then you would see a lot less energy being used per capita in Texas.
Also, there are different biomes in each state. South East Texas is essentially unlivable without AC on half the year with the heat and humidity. In Southern California, it gets hot bu
Re: (Score:2)
You're still doing it: looking for excuses to ignore the evidence rather than looking at the evidence. "We can't compare Norway to the US--the cultures are different." "We can't compare California to Texas--the climates are different." No matter what data someone presents, you'll come up with some excuse to discount it, which is classic motivated reasoning.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
From the abstract: "The 2-Steps System GMM is applied to 26 OECD countries' data from 1996 to 2019 to analyze the rel
Re: (Score:3)
It'd cost less to put solar panels on most roofs in the US than to fund a single war for a year, and not a whole lot more to then include local storage/charging. This is ignoring bets we could fund and build out on community or grid storage.
I think you grossly overestimate the required investment for usual/normal use as compared to the cost of keeping the alternative going, and paying for its effects.
We've had the ability to solve the logistical problem for years. The will? Nah. No, and especially no since
Re: (Score:3)
Norway is a smaller and less diverse population. That would destroy our power grid to attempt that. Logistics is a big part of running large countries.
Did you just say Norway is in a good position because they collect less tax dollars and have less funding to solve their problems due to the lower number of people living their and their significantly lower GDP?
Yes I love calling out people who compare size without considering the variables involved and how they actively work against their own argument. You look silly.
end stage Crapitalism has solved the problem (Score:2)
I'm sure there will be no unexpected consequences of such a policy.
Re: (Score:1)
My city can't even follow through with promises of denying building permits to tech billionaires and multinational companies.
The Half Earth thing would be two halves, the rich half and the illegal half.
Re: (Score:1)
That would actually be an improvement over the truth - that they were always evil, and they only pretended to care while they had to.
Re: (Score:2)
At the bottom of the ride is the house of cards economy, and we have no brakes.