Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The cheapest new electric car is around $23,000 after a $$7500 gov. rebate.  This probably doesn't included used electric cars.  The amount also decreases after the first 200,000 rebates.

The cheapest new regular car I could find was $15,000.

I found this article interesting

https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-true-cost-of-powering-an-electric-car.html

Until it becomes affordable to the lower income individual, I can't see how they can insist on banning gas powered cars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they will need to go to standardized batteries before it all goes off..

 

 Imagine not needing to charge, but instead, going to a service station, swapping your battery for a fully charged one for a fee then going on your way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Until it becomes affordable to the lower income individual, I can't see how they can insist on banning gas powered cars.

Banning new ones. A person who can't afford a new car and has their existing car die will be in the same situation they would be today: needing to buy an affordable used one.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sorciaa said:

I think they will need to go to standardized batteries before it all goes off..

 

 Imagine not needing to charge, but instead, going to a service station, swapping your battery for a fully charged one for a fee then going on your way.

I think there's all kinds of ways to charge the battery. Hybrids already charge themselves when they are in gas mode. Friction from roads could also charge batteries. I like the idea of parking spaces charging your battery as you are in the store shopping or whatever. Kind of like those pads some places have to charge your phones on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doris Johnsky said:

Additionally, how do you create said electricity to power all these electric cars?  You don't want coal fired, you don't want nukes, wind and solar can't create that much power.

I may not be the right person to answer here since it's not an issue I as a Norwegian am familiar with first hand. It's all hydroelectric power here and it's always been that way.

But ten years ago solar energy was the most expensive energy source costing about USD 396/MWh according to the US Department of Energy. Today it's the cheapest, costing only USD 20-60/MWh according to the International Energy Agency. Building new coal fueled or nuclear power plant isn't cost effective anymore and in many places in the world it's even cheaper to build new solar power plants than to run and maintain existing coal powered ones.

I do not believe solar power is the magic bullet that will solve all energy and carbon emission issues though. There is no magic bullet; what we need is a variety of energy sources, not one single big one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/news/are-evs-really-saving-the-world/ar-AAKVIoV

 

Although EVs have many benefits and are better for the environment in the long-term, the truth is that ICE vehicles currently have a cleaner production process, although EVs have a far cleaner operational stage. 

Overall, EVs are the more environmentally friendly choice of the two, although drivers would be wise to seek out electricity that comes from renewable energy sources like wind and solar, or from low-carbon power sources like nuclear energy and hydropower, if they’re to significantly reduce their carbon footprint. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaning up the atmosphere.  Until quite a few issues are addressed, however, simply buying an electric car thinking you're doing your part is unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/news/are-evs-really-saving-the-world/ar-AAKVIoV

 

Although EVs have many benefits and are better for the environment in the long-term, the truth is that ICE vehicles currently have a cleaner production process, although EVs have a far cleaner operational stage. 

Overall, EVs are the more environmentally friendly choice of the two, although drivers would be wise to seek out electricity that comes from renewable energy sources like wind and solar, or from low-carbon power sources like nuclear energy and hydropower, if they’re to significantly reduce their carbon footprint. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaning up the atmosphere.  Until quite a few issues are addressed, however, simply buying an electric car thinking you're doing your part is unrealistic.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/26/renewable-energy-hydro-wind-solar-power-produced-by-each-state/39801879/

This is from 2 years ago. Since then Mass  has went from 10% renewable to 25% renewable. There already has been a steady progress towards more renewables and hydro-electric has been a thing for a while now. It's plugging along as much as the electric powered cars are.

Edited by Finite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I'd probably say if anything, deforesting is the largest contributor..

It is a major factor, yes.

I'm in the danger of becoming overly patriotic here (sorry) but wood used to be one of Norway's main export products and forestry is still an important part of our economy. One of the most important commercial tree species historically is even named norway spruce in English.

There is no such thing as deforesting in Norway, the forest area has actually tripled over the last 90 years. It's not even about enviromental preservation, at least it wasn't at first. Deforesting simply doesn't make economical sense in the long run. Chop down all the trees and let the soil erode away. Thirty years later you have a desolate wasteland. Chop down most of the trees but keep enough of them to stabilize the soil. Thrirty years later you have a new crop to harvest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaning up the atmosphere.  Until quite a few issues are addressed, however, simply buying an electric car thinking you're doing your part is unrealistic.

There is more to oil than just fuel. it's a limited resource and we depend on a whole mess of petrochemicals that just don't have simple alternatives, everything from solvents to plastics to pharmaceuticals.

Burning 80% of the oil piped out the ground as fuel is about the most short sighted thing we could be doing with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemical

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

It's pretty clear that the human population can't grow forever, so we will eventually have to learn to live with a static or declining population. The more time we have to figure this out, the less painful it will be.

And just when will that growth end as they have been forecasting reduction for many years since well before the end of the 20th century? In 1997 it was estimated that by 2050 Australia would have a population of 25million. Great maths and planning that was...only missed that mark by 32 years and met that number in 2018. It is now estimated that Australia would have by 2050 38million people. Now lets not forget that Australia's optimal population for sustainability is only 15million.

From the discovery of germs in the mid 19th century our population went from about 1.6 billion (took 10,000 years to reach that level) to a rounded up 6.1 Billion at the end of the 20th Century (150 years). In the first 20 years of this century (21st) our population has grown to 7.8 billion rounded up. So pre 19th century it increased per year by 160,000 (this is our average daily population growth now). In the 20th Century it increased by about 45,000,000 per year. Currently (20 years in) in the 21st Century we are increasing population by 85,000,000 per year with no sign of it reducing.

Currently per person it takes 2.7hactares of land to live except our planet at the current population to keep ecosystems around only allows for 1 hectare per person. In other words we need 3 earth size planets to sustain our current population. Urban sprawl currently is having an impact on food production because of housing taking up farmland not to mention essential ecosystems to manage the environment like forests. Rivers that are essential for ecosystems are being dammed for water supply or electricity generation The Largest Lake in the Middle East Has Nearly Disappeared. The list goes on.

Deforestation is increasing because they need more farmland to supply the food as housing takes over food production areas. Timber is also needed so badly that currently and for the foreseeable future there is a global shortage which has seen prices soar and delays in the building industry with order times of 8 months or more. Animals are becoming extinct because of urban sprawl and a reduction of their habitats.

But sure as you say it will decline eventually... 🙄 Is the entire world going to do what China did and limit births to 1? (not forgetting China is now allowing 2 births).

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

But ten years ago solar energy was the most expensive energy source costing about USD 396/MWh according to the US Department of Energy. Today it's the cheapest, costing only USD 20-60/MWh according to the International Energy Agency. Building new coal fueled or nuclear power plant isn't cost effective anymore and in many places in the world it's even cheaper to build new solar power plants than to run and maintain existing coal powered ones.

It takes a coal fired power plant, Gas, or nuclear 12 acres of land to produce 1MW of energy. Solar it takes 43.5 acres to produce 1MW. Wind it takes 70.6MW. Hydroelectric it takes 315.2 acres. 'The Footprint of Energy

So, how much of the environment and ecosystems are you willing to destroy to have non polluting energy? It is always a give or take. You always hear lets go solar, lets go wind its good for the environment it doesn't pollute. Sure it may not pollute but what's the point if there is no environment left to pollute.

I am all for reducing our impact on the environment pollution wise but not at the expense of the environment itself.

Edited by Drayke Newall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Drayke Newall said:

It takes a coal fired power plant, Gas, or nuclear 12 acres of land to produce 1MW of energy. Solar it takes 43.5 acres to produce 1MW. Wind it takes 70.6MW. Hydroelectric it takes 315.2 acres.

Yes, and that's why I said there is no "magic bullet", not one single solution to the problem.

However, think of this for example: Take a fairly small house - let's say 50 m2 - in a reasonably sunny location. Fill up half the roof with solar panels. Estimated power production: 1,800 kWh/month. That is twice as much as the average US household consumes.

Most buildings in the world can be converted from electricity consumers to net electricity producers and it won't take up any space that is useable for anything else. But at the moment there is one problem and one "problem" with it.

The problem is that although it's very cost effective and environmental friendly in the long run, the initial investment both in terms of capital and carbon footprint from manufacturing is rather high. This is changing fast though.

The "problem" is that it democratizes the world's resources. More power (literally and metaphorically) to the people means less to authorities and big business. There's quite a lot of resitance against that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

It is a major factor, yes.

I'm in the danger of becoming overly patriotic here (sorry) but wood used to be one of Norway's main export products and forestry is still an important part of our economy. One of the most important commercial tree species historically is even named norway spruce in English.

There is no such thing as deforesting in Norway, the forest area has actually tripled over the last 90 years. It's not even about enviromental preservation, at least it wasn't at first. Deforesting simply doesn't make economical sense in the long run. Chop down all the trees and let the soil erode away. Thirty years later you have a desolate wasteland. Chop down most of the trees but keep enough of them to stabilize the soil. Thrirty years later you have a new crop to harvest.

These campaigns for saving the forests usually draw the attention to the trees being lost and CO2, when there is much more to a forest that gets lost than just the trees..

Honestly, CO2 is probably the last thing on my mind when it comes to a forest getting torn up.

I don't harp on it too much, but do think  those time lapse videos give a pretty good visual..

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

However, think of this for example: Take a fairly small house - let's say 50 m2 - in a reasonably sunny location. Fill up half the roof with solar panels. Estimated power production: 1,800 kWh/month. That is twice as much as the average US household consumes.

True, however it is not practical. South Australia is the first major jurisdiction in the world (population 1.7million) to be able to generate enough power from renewables to supply the entire state for 1 day of the year in October 2020 and 1 day in December 2020. Those days were perfect days with wind and sun. South Australia has one of the highest solar panel uptakes in the world with over 1 third of its houses' covered in solar panels, 2 massive 10 hectare solar farms and 17 windfarms over 50 hectares each and 1 small hydro dam. South Australia also has the largest lithium ion battery farm in the world.

With all that as well as being located in one of the sunniest places on earth, it has only met power production for 2 days fully on renewables in the year. We cant even meet 365 days a year with renewables so how are we going to meet 100% when the population keeps increasing?

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

The problem is that although it's very cost effective and environmental friendly in the long run, the initial investment both in terms of capital and carbon footprint from manufacturing is rather high. This is changing fast though.

Forget carbon footprint, solar panels are one of the most environmentally damaging renewables out there. As I mentioned we are running out of sand on earth (Why the world is running out of sand) for construction and glass construction is one of them. Are we going to mine all the sand in the world to create glass for solar panels for 7.8 billion people and growing? What impact is that going to have on the rivers of the world, coral ecosystems, forests etc? The sand we use for glass is specific. It cant be desert sand, especially with solar panels as they require high density silica sands only found on river beds. 

That dredging of sand for glass (as well as housing, computer chips, concrete, aggregate, mortar etc) destroys rivers, ecosystems, forests, coral reefs, forests, beaches, animals. You name it and it is destroyed by sand dredging. The 'Greeny' worlds response? Dig up more for solar panels because pollution is bad but dredging isn't.

I just find it so ironic that people tout on about pollution this and pollution that, renewable energy this renewable energy that yet, fail to understand that you can convert the world to 100% renewable energy but the impact on the actual world will be astronomical. Yet this is completely ignored by those that want it. Just like population is completely ignored yet is the major contributing factor to everything.

Unfortunately as @Alwin Alcott said, the only way to save the world is to decimate the population or remove the luxuries like technology and go back to a less 'sophisticated' world. Those two are the 'magic bullet' you mention however we all know those two options will never happen.

Edited by Drayke Newall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

The cheapest new electric car is around $23,000 after a $$7500 gov. rebate.  This probably doesn't included used electric cars.  The amount also decreases after the first 200,000 rebates.

The cheapest new regular car I could find was $15,000.

I found this article interesting

https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-true-cost-of-powering-an-electric-car.html

Until it becomes affordable to the lower income individual, I can't see how they can insist on banning gas powered cars.

There's a concept in economics called the s-curve, which refers to the rate at which technological innovations are adopted over time, as the technology becomes more advanced and cheaper -- think of how smartphones and computers have changed in spec and price over the last 20 years, and how many people have them now compared with 20 years ago.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

A tyrannical regime that oppresses . . . the rights of privileged white men to play with their expensive toys.

I kinda find the societal climate change that makes everything offensive and the fact that thoughts like the one expressed above are swiftly becoming mainstream and not only okay, but applauded, far worse that the threat of the weather climate change.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the entire science behind "global warming" was based on fraud in the first place "Hide the decline!" and btw it is now 2021 - it was proclaimed that by 2013 the artic would be Ice free in the summers. And that children soon would even know what snow was any more. ANY "science" that shuts down debate, uses scare tactics, manipulates data, or, indoctrinates children at young ages to believe in a Climate Change fairy is not science at all but rather an agenda using "science" as a mask. I'm all for renewable energy, electric cars and all, but it doesn't NEED to replace fossil fuels. they can co-exist quite nicely. But the minute I get told I have to consume less meat to "save the planet" - well, we got a problem there!

There is NO, NONE, nada. zip "planetary emergency" or whatever scary catch phrase they can come up with next. It wasn't but a few hundred thousand years ago much of  of north America was covered with a glacier - all that melted long before hamburger eating man driving his gas guzzling SUV arrived on scene

Edited by Jackson Redstar
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jackson Redstar said:

- it was proclaimed that by 2013 the artic would be Ice free in the summers.

When, and by whom, and how widely was it believed, and was it actually a prediction or simply one possible outcome based on a a range of possible inputs and assumptions?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

There's a concept in economics called the s-curve, which refers to the rate at which technological innovations are adopted over time, as the technology becomes more advanced and cheaper -- think of how smartphones and computers have changed in spec and price over the last 20 years, and how many people have them now compared with 20 years ago.  

 

 

Let's hope you're right.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/25/the-osborne-effect-on-the-auto-industry/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt there's going to be some sort of collapse in our future. I see some of the solutions mentioned on this thread not as ways to prevent the collapse but rather as possible ways we might mitigate it. I'm reading an interesting book (The End Of The MegaMachine) that speaks to what I see as the root problem of our planetary crisis -- the system we've developed over the centuries called the MegaMachine that attempts to achieve endless growth on a finite planet: 

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/12/03/megamachine-and-roots-planetary-crisis

"And the truth is that we are part of the most dangerous social system humankind has ever created. Since the emergence of the first structures of domination in Mesopotamia 5000 years ago, many brutal and destructive civilizations have followed one another. But none of them has reached, neither near nor far, such a potential for annihilation.

Yet it is precisely Western civilization—which encompasses the entire planet today—that is usually regarded as the pinnacle and crown of human history. According to this interpretation, it is to her that we owe the Enlightenment, democracy, and prosperity. In this narrative, the destructive forces that threaten the future of life on Earth came about more or less by accident.

To understand the roots of the ongoing destruction, however, we must move beyond the myths of the West and of modernity. It is true that Western expansion has brought enormous wealth to a part of the world's population. But this story has been at the same time, and from its beginning, that of a series of genocides. For the indigenous peoples of the Americas, for example, the arrival of the European colonizers was, literally, the beginning of the end of the world. In Europe itself, since the 16th century, wars, state terror against the poor and dissidents, torture, witch hunts and the inquisition have turned the continent into a bloody theater. These phenomena did not reach their climax in the Middle Ages—as the myth of modernity suggests—but in modern times, with the emergence of the capitalist system.

For a very large part of the world's population, the worst has already happened. For the rest of humanity and the planet, the worst is imminent. Imminent, however, does not necessarily mean inevitable.

But to avoid the worst, our ultimate annihilation, we must understand the origins of evil: the system that formed five hundred years ago in Europe. It is known by different names: the "modern world-system," "capitalism," or the "megamachine," a term coined by Lewis Mumford more than 50 years ago. The fundamental principle of the megamachine is the endless accumulation of capital. In other words, it's about making the money grow in an eternal cycle of profit and reinvestment. This principle is embedded, among others, at the heart of the most powerful economic institutions in the world: the large joint-stock companies, the first of which were created 400 years ago. Today, the world's 500 largest corporations—most of them limited companies—control 40 percent of global GDP and two-thirds of trade.

These institutions have, in their legal constitution, only one goal: to increase the capital of shareholders, and that at all costs—even if it is the annihilation of life on Earth.

Their products—cars or drugs, pacifiers or machine guns, fodder or electricity—are interchangeable means for this purpose. Once the demand for certain products is satisfied, new demands must be created. That is why it is essential to transform citizens into consumers, whose contribution to social life is reduced to buying things. This logic is the engine of the aggressive expansion and permanent growth that the system needs to exist. New markets and new sources of energy must be made accessible by all means and ever larger natural spaces are being exploited. According to this logic, any pause, any deceleration or moderation is equivalent to a crisis and, ultimately, collapse.

"We need an ecological and social transition program which not only replaces fossil fuels with renewable energies, but which transforms the basis of our civilization. Such a program seems, at first glance, unrealistic. But the system that brought humankind to the brink of the abyss is increasingly unstable."

However, the economic machine cannot exist without another supporting pillar: the modern state, which has developed in a co-evolutionary manner with capital. In early modern times, the state was an almost purely military institution. To buy guns and armies of mercenaries on which their power rested, rulers got into debt with merchants and bankers. The business model was based on the war industry: credits were given so that rulers could invade and sack other countries; the spoils of these lootings were used for the return on investment of the creditors. This has been the driving force behind the increasingly cataclysmic wars that raged in Europe and the genocidal colonization elsewhere. The modern state and the accumulation of capital were inseparable from the start.

Today, that connection manifests itself in the fact that most of the world's 500 largest corporations could not survive without huge subsidies. The International Monetary Fund has calculated that states subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of five trillion dollars each year. That is, taxpayers finance the destruction of the planet to maintain the profits of the fossil fuel industry. The same goes for the automotive industry, aviation, big banks, and industrial agriculture.

To avoid the worst, we must dismantle the foundations of the megamachine and replace them with other economic institutions that do not serve profit but the common good. This requires transforming the state and dissociating it from capital, so that it can help orchestrating the transition.

In practice, this means that we need an ecological and social transition program which not only replaces fossil fuels with renewable energies, but which transforms the basis of our civilization. Such a program seems, at first glance, unrealistic. But the system that brought humankind to the brink of the abyss is increasingly unstable.

Crises will continue to multiply—financial crises, pandemics, failing states, ecological catastrophes—and each crisis will force us to make choices. When old institutions break down, when political and economic leaders are in disarray, when the great myth of the West cracks, social and ecological movements—indeed all engaged citizens—can exert tremendous influence over decisions, especially when they are well organized, well prepared and able to forge strong alliances.

The chaotic phase that awaits us will entail a cascade of bifurcations (large and small) for several decades. It can lead us to complete collapse or to a more just society that will have learned to cooperate with nature instead of destroying it".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

When, and by whom, and how widely was it believed, and was it actually a prediction or simply one possible outcome based on a a range of possible inputs and assumptions?

 

By "they" and "them" and "those people" of course. Who else?

but anyways this is the only definitive answer I could find.

We lose Arctic sea ice at a rate of almost 13% per decade, and over the past 30 years, the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic has declined by a stunning 95%. If emissions continue to rise unchecked, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/six-ways-loss-of-arctic-ice-impacts-everyone

I think it's pointless to argue with denialism and what abouts. What's funny is when the ocean swells and the bigger cities on the coasts are under water, guess where all us "big bad libs" will end up... Texas seems nice. Maybe I'll get some border property and put a door in my wall and sing kumbaya with all my new neighbors.

Edited by Finite
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

The major European car manufacturers are certainly planning for that:

Quote

VW targets 1 million electric-vehicle sales this year and aims to become the global EV market leader by 2025 at the latest, the company said. By 2030, the share of fully electric vehicles in Europe is set to rise to as much as 60 percent of group deliveries.

https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/vw-targets-electric-car-lead-2025-platform-push

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

When, and by whom, and how widely was it believed, and was it actually a prediction or simply one possible outcome based on a a range of possible inputs and assumptions?

 

Al Gore citing a 2007 presentation by Wieslaw MaslowskI. Of course it’s a cherry picked example of the most aggressive prediction and has never been the consensus. Oops, one guy made a prediction that was at odds with everyone else and it didn’t pan out so climate change is a lie! Checkmate libtards! 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 12:18 PM, Luna Bliss said:

We seriously need to tackle climate change. I'm relieved to discover brilliant governmental officials in The U.S. who will lead the way:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/09/texas-republican-louie-gohmert-climate-change

* But on a serious note, are you worried about climate change? And do you believe there is a solution?

Climate change (they stopped calling it "global warming") is indeed real. At the UN, I would see how certain island nations were literally in danger of disappearing into the sea and suffering all kinds of loss of livelihoods and homes. In my own home on the East River, I saw how first one hurricane, then another undermined it, and then Hurricane Sandy forced us out of our homes for weeks. Some of us had to come back and live in those dark rat-infested towers when the waters receded because the relatives' homes we fled to were also inundated. There were literally people who tried to drive their way out on the FDR drive who swam up to the plaza of our building which is technically on the third floor above street level. My son, who remained behind when we all fled because he thought it was a fascinating photo opp, helped pull them out and find them dry clothes and soup on a bunsen burner. To this day, they are struggling with huge sinkholes and now a coastal reclamation project which has paralyzed all the nice walks we used to take for miles. It's real, it's a thing.

The question is how you respond, and whether you do this with hysterical far leftist politics that are more about anti-capitalism and anti-freedom than they really are about actually saving the earth and mitigating climate change. And communities don't always have choices given the huge cost. For example, there was a tree-hugging version of saving our East River which involved a laborious shoring up with landfills of a certain soil, planting hearty plants that can hold the soil, etc. but this would take years and was quite expensive in fact. So if they resort to other quicker, industrial solutions using plastic or whatever, puritans get upset, but then no one wants to be flooded out of their homes for weeks on end. FEMA does not always come to the rescue. 

It's also the case that the leftist environmental movements always focus on the West, where they live and are free to act, and where they feel everything is the worst, and completely ignore Russia, China or even India or Brazil where in fact environmentalists can be persecuted and where authoritarians can completely ruin the environment even as they sign every international treaty the US won't sign because it's more conscious of the rule of law and really following it. The West has reduced pollution significantly with all kinds of movements and laws, and even Trump refusing to sign the climate treaty couldn't stop that trend. Meanwhile, the communist and other authoritarian post-communist and right-wing governments don't make this progress and feel no pressure from Western movements.

A lot of people are bothered by Greta and her histrionics but she actually didn't bother me. Let her get out her message, let the adults who manipulated her have a conscience, but basically, the message is one that isn't wrong and might have an effect.

I will say that the organization that took her up in the US called 350 has been an utter disappointment, even a fraud. I originally signed up for it and went on their activist phone calls thinking, "Maybe here they will tell you something concrete to do." This group was heavy on pretty web sites and fundraising and slight on practical advice, not even telling you to recycle or shower less or something. They had nothing. The world could only be saved by overthrowing governments. That's your first clue something is wrong. Eventually I saw this group utterly switch over to flogging certain political candidates and not even bothering with the green message -- and actually violating their 501-c-3 status by doing so, although likely no one will bother to question them for fear of cancellation.

I'm pretty jaded at all the leftists over the years who took up this cause. I guess my biggest life disappointment was in Petra Kelly, whom I met a number of times and whom I appreciated for her willingness to question Western as well as Soviet missiles. She and her partner died by suicide.

There is something every single person can do even at their individual level and if a movement can't tell you that and be reasonable about it, beware.

A movement that is brittle and rigid in ideology does not succeed, as we have seen with all this AOC nonsense about "green jobs". There has to be willingness to work through the democratic process and make compromises.

Edited by Prokofy Neva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...