https://apple.news/Agflj-RlpQOyvlqh5rcvVyQ

More sickening news.

So you don't see removal of barriers as part of the solution? What distinguishes the two for you? — Isaac

Removal of barriers to reach an end is not completely separate, but not the same either. In the post I linked to, I touched on some of them. But what was asked about concerned actions and solutions to climate change. So I gave a few, collective and individual. Some areas there's been real progress, others less so.

If we want to go into detail about how to achieve one in particular, we can. Lately I've been focused primarily on unionization and strikes -- we can get into the strategies and methods that work. But there's all kinds of others -- I mentioned public utility commissions, for example. Plenty of work to be done there; worth getting into if you're interested. There's also efforts to mobilize voters, and the most effective ways to do so. I particularly like deep canvassing, of which there are groups you can join that will train you to learn, if that fits your personality.

Happy to have the discussion, but the post to which you're reacting to was mostly confined to general solutions, since that's what was asked -- not about the detailed strategy, methodology, and tactics involved in achieving them.

What's the point in rehashing the solutions whilst you know full well the barriers to achieving them are as firm as ever. — Isaac

Because I was asked.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720896

I’ve heard a YouTube lecture from Mayer on this but never read the book.

And the answer for many is “nothing, because it’s a hoax.” But somehow this counts as “knowing” about it? Then yes, everyone in the world has most likely heard the words “climate change.” Was that really your point?
— Xtrix

Yes. — Isaac

So the point is that nearly everywhere has heard the words. Fine. Completely irrelevant to anything I was talking about. But then again, that really wasn’t the point:

I doubt there's a single person in the Western world who doesn't know about climate change and what they ought to do to help. Yet they're not doing it. So knowing what to do to help clearly isn't the problem. People already know and are not doing it. — Isaac

No, people don’t know what they ought to do to help, because they think it’s a hoax.

Why do we prefer campaigns to actually working out what needs doing? — Isaac

I was asked about solutions. If what you’re asking is how we make progress towards those ends, overcoming barriers, etc., there’s plenty to be said about it.

If you want my personal opinion, I think that because progress requires people, and lots of them, coming together in solidarity— the answer ultimately involves things like awareness, empathy, listening, finding common ground, and genuine respect for working people. That could be my psychotherapy background talking, but these are the factors involved in any growth and change I’ve ever witnessed. People don’t change by being lectured.

Jane McAlevey has written extensively on this, and comes to similar conclusions— focusing on labor unions, but the principles are the same. She’s had win after win. Worth reading.

Denial is not the same as not knowing. — Isaac

I can't think of a single person I meet who would look at me with puzzlement if I asked what we ought do about climate change. — Isaac

And the answer for many is “nothing, because it’s a hoax.” But somehow this counts as “knowing” about it? Then yes, everyone in the world has most likely heard the words “climate change.” Was that really your point?

Also, you didn’t mention simply “knowing,” you stated that everyone knows both about climate change and what we should do about climate change. That’s not the case in the West. Climate denial is rampant.

But keep arguing it, by all means.

It’s been beaten into our heads that we can’t change anything, that we’re alone, that we shouldn’t bother and look after ourselves
— Xtrix — Isaac

Has it? — Isaac

Yes.

If you don’t see it, that’s OK.

Because the problem seems overwhelming, for one. But mostly because those in power seem immovable and remote— that this is just the way if things. It’s been beaten into our heads that we can’t change anything, that we’re alone, that we shouldn’t bother and look after ourselves— rugged individualism, natural law, human nature, etc.

All complete bullshit, sure. But if you ask people what they think can be done, you’ll get variations of this theme. It’s just feeling powerless. I see it when talking to workers too — they internalize the feeling that to ask for more is greedy and that they’re undeserving — and probably don’t understand the decisions being made anyway.

Because I’m not talking about history, I’m talking about solutions to climate change — which was what was asked for. Read it through again if you like.

The US’s responsibility in all this has nothing to do with available solutions, of which there are plenty. Whether they get implemented — yes indeed. But the question was about solutions.

Refresher:

Why don't you get a go at it? What are these real actions and solutions? — Olivier5

Building strong unions, for one. In strategic industries, with strike-ready supermajorities. All that's required in that case is people talking to each other, finding common ground, and using a little empathy. And it's happening all across the US and the world, all the time. — Xtrix

Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled. — Xtrix

I stand by all of that, and am in fact involved in them.

Really? I did caveat the claim with 'in the Western world'. — Isaac

Where climate denial is rampant, as you know.

OK, interesting. Can you say more about what makes you think that? — Isaac

Sure — I’ll respond later though.

Energy networks are complex and balancing in- and output is an issue that goes far beyond putting different cables in the ground and tweaking power stations. — Benkei

Not tweaking— building new ones. Building new transmission lines as well. A major undertaking, but doable. (I’m talking here about electricity, by the way.) Plenty of information out there about this.

It’s far from missing the point — it is the point. At least the one I was making. If you’re talking about something else, fine.

I think it is the reason we are in this mess. — Olivier5

I think so too.

You mind giving us a few examples? — Olivier5

Plenty of examples— but let’s be clear about what I’m saying: if the government is essentially controlled by corporate America, then the best chance we have of moving them is by getting corporate America to give the OK. That’ll only happen through public pressure, especially in the form of unions. There’s a lot of history worth reviewing from the 1930s, etc.

I’m not talking exclusively about fossil fuel companies. Although that’s a key industry, of course.

There's no way to move to renewables at current energy usage levels. Energy networks can deal with at most a 10-15% shift in energy production — Benkei

We need new transmission lines and power plants, yes. The grid needs updating to handle larger electric loads. What’s the point?

If everyone already knows the idea but isn't doing anything in accordance with it, then something else must be in the way. — Isaac

Everyone already knows about climate change — Isaac

That’s really not true.

Of those who do, I think the problem is powerlessness and hopelessness.

And what I was talking about was that the US does not actually want to decarbonize — Olivier5

Which is irrelevant.

There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming. — Olivier5

There’s every reason to believe it in fact.

What you seem to take issue with is, again without disagreeing, my laying out the reality in blunt terms (as I see it). — boethius

No, I took issue with the emphasis. It's not that you're wrong in what you point out, it's that it can be a preventative to much-needed action -- it encourages despair and apathy. I see a lot of this going on right now because of Manchin's obstruction, and I think it should be tempered.

Yes, I agree we are only really debating emphasis. — boethius

:up:

Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled. I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well. — Xtrix

What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere. The climate Armageddon was literally made in the USA. It is because of the constant opposition of your country, your politicians and media, including those pretending to be "democrat", that the whole world is now doomed. You own this one. For three decades now, you guys did everything in your vast power to frustrate the efforts of those trying to address the issue, and you consume 3 or 4 times more carbon by person than Europeans do, on average. — Olivier5

Mostly true, but irrelevant to what I was talking about -- as quoted above. The solutions I mentioned mostly apply where people/governments want to decarbonize -- not 100% everywhere, but it generalizes well enough.

So by all means, do do something! Better late than never. Do unionize for instance, although we in Europe have had labor unions for a long while, and they don't do much that I can see against climate change... — Olivier5

That's why I mentioned strike-ready supermajorities. Without strikes, or the threat of strikes, nothing will happen. So if European unions aren't doing that, then yes -- what's the point? If they do strike, but simply don't do so in the necessary industries for climate-related legislation, that too is a problem -- and one we have in the US as well.

Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. All very cost effective. E-bikes are great if you live close to your job or supermarket. Electric cars are a good choice too, but still probably too expensive for people -- and we should be pushing more for public transit anyway.
— Xtrix

All aimed at maintaining current wealth levels. — Benkei

It has nothing to do with wealth. Maintaining the same standards of living, yes. Which, it's true, is excessive, wasteful, and overly comfortable in the US. That needs to change.

In the meantime, electrifying these things is good and will bring emissions down. They're not at all exhaustive.

Fuck cars and the idea that individual transportation should be a thing. Prohibit them in cities and large towns and invest in public transportation. — Benkei

Yes. Congestion pricing and even increasing bike-paths is a step in this direction, but the best choice is investing in better public transportation.

Lawnmowers? You can mow by hand, which also require a lot less maintenance as they rarely break down. — Benkei

Good point -- I regret I didn't include it.

Heat pumps are useless in badly isolated houses. What are the Rc requirements in the US in Wisconsin for instance? Is there a maximum in energy use defined per square or cubic meter? Even in the Netherlands isolation helps more than installing heat pumps, which in any case should be coupled with solar panels to be effective. — Benkei

Yeah, heat pumps aren't a panacea. They don't work in very areas that get very cold, and often you'll need fossil fuel back-up. But in warmer areas they work very well, and are becoming much less expensive and more efficient. A much better choice than oil and gas, even if for the immediate health benefits. But yes, for maximal impact they should be coupled with solar panels -- no doubt.

I'm emphasizing electrifying on the individual level because it will be much easy to decarbonize the electric grid down the road if we start now. Right now, of course, electricity is still mostly generated by natural gas/coal in the US (about 60%). Electricity, combined with transportation, accounts for more than half of all emissions. If you include some commercial and residential emissions (heating and cooling), then then you're over 60% of all emissions. That's mainly the focus, in my view.

Industry (steel, cement, etc) and agriculture are harder. I suppose consuming less meat, and consuming less generally, is a good idea for individuals.

Building strong unions
— Xtrix

But we haven't, so the problem doesn't seem to be with the idea. The problem seems to be with whatever is in the way. — Isaac

But we have. We're currently in the middle of a surge, in fact. At least in the US.

Regardless, I think the problem is often the very idea -- that's been beaten out of people's heads. Lots of propaganda against unions. It's also other obstacles -- like how difficult employers have made unionization.

Again, we haven't. So the idea doesn't seem to be the problem rather than whatever is in the way. — Isaac

I'm really not seeing the point here. The fact that something hasn't happened (which is somewhat untrue) means that the problem is with the "idea"? Says who?

What's in the way could very much be the ideas. That seems to be the case, in fact. There are many other obstacles as well even after the ideas are accepted.

People already know and are not doing it.

The problem runs far deeper than just consumer choices or unionism. It's about the people we've become. — Isaac

What we've become is despairing, polarized, confused, and angry. That's not an accident. But yes, that's a situation to be overcome.

Wrong. Not at current energy use levels. — Benkei

Yes, at current levels. The current problem is scale.

As the population grows and more energy — specifically, electricity and the materials needed to make solar panels, batteries, wires, etc.— is demanded, that will be a problem. No one is denying that.

That’s a different issue from lowering emissions, which is the driver of climate change— the issue at hand.

It doesn't happen often because it is in fact very difficult for any large group to unite in solidarity around radical change and a plan's execution. It also doesn't happen often because the elite is well defended--not just by guns, but by propaganda machines. — Bitter Crank

This says it all— yes indeed.

That's precisely what's needed — Benkei

But it isn’t. At least in my view. If I’m naive, and that’s truly what’s needed — then yes, we’re probably doomed. In that case we should immediately take up arms.

Greed.

A little good news:

https://www.eenews.net/articles/patrick-michaels-influential-climate-denier-dies-at-72/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-planet&utm_content=20220720&utm_term=The%20Weekly%20Planet%20-%20USA%20ONLY

Not supposed to cheer people’s deaths, of course, but when you think of how many people will suffer and die for one person’s stupidity and corruption, their passing is a deliverance.

A Collective Bargain: Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy By Jane McAlevey

So far it’s fantastic.

Yes. Here's another doozy:

So it has gone with the Republican Party, where warnings of a catastrophe are mocked as hyperbole, where technologies that do not exist on a viable scale, such as “carbon capture and storage” and “clean coal,” are hailed as saviors. At the same time, those that do, such as wind and solar power and electric vehicles, are dismissed as unreliable and overly expensive. American leadership on a global problem is seen as a fool’s errand, kneecapping the domestic economy while Indian and Chinese coal bury America’s good intentions in soot.

“When China gets our good air, their bad air’s got to move,” Herschel Walker, a former football star and now a Republican candidate in Georgia for the Senate, explained last week. “So it moves over to our good air space. Then now we’ve got to clean that back up.”

Not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Delay as the New Denial: The Latest Republican Tactic to Block Climate Action

You'd think it was something out of the Onion after reading Graham's statement:

The party has largely moved beyond denying the existence of climate change but continues to oppose dramatic action to halt it, worried about the short-term economic consequences.

One hundred million Americans from Arizona to Boston are under heat emergency warnings, and the drought in the West is nearing Dust Bowl proportions. Britain declared a climate emergency as temperatures soared above 100 degrees Fahrenheit and parts of blistering Europe are ablaze.

But on Capitol Hill this week, Republicans were warning against rash action in response to the burning planet.

“I don’t want to be lectured about what we need to do to destroy our economy in the name of climate change,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

One Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, last week blocked what could have been the country’s most far-reaching American response to climate change. But lost in the recriminations and finger-pointing is the other side of the aisle: All 50 Republicans in the Senate have been as opposed to decisive action to confront planetary warming.
Few Republicans in Congress now outwardly dismiss the scientific evidence that human activities — the burning of oil, gas and coal — have produced gases that are dangerously heating the Earth.

But for many, denial of the cause of global temperature rise has been replaced by an insistence that the solution — replacing fossil fuels over time with wind, solar and other nonpolluting energy sources — will hurt the economy.

In short, delay is the new denial.

I think this further nails it:

Overwhelmingly, Republicans on Capitol Hill say that they believe that the United States should be drilling and burning more American oil, gas and coal, and that market forces would somehow develop solutions to the carbon dioxide that has been building in the atmosphere, trapping heat like a blanket around a sweltering Earth.

Exactly. So no more outright denial -- just that we can't do anything about it, it's hopeless, China and India need to do more and so anything we do won't matter anyway, etc. Why put ourselves at a "disadvantage"? Why be the bigger person?

It's as good as outright denial. In both cases, the outcome is the same: do nothing. Keep drilling. What else justifies this? The "market," of course! Market fundamentalism. The wonderful market, that will automatically guide the world in the right direction. Whatever the market decides, that's the way forward. It's like consulting magic bones.

Unfortunately our (human) nature got in the way - we drink until we pass out, we eat until we die of heart ailments, we drive past the speed limit and die in a collision, you get the idea. — Agent Smith

I completely reject that view of human beings. It's silly and simplistic, and for some reason chooses to elevate our vices and paint all of "human nature" by them.

I know this thread is about global warming but it's a bit idiotic to decouple it from what really is the point, which is extracting more than nature can sustain. — Benkei

Destroying capitalism could likewise be thought of as "really the point." But I'm not interested in fantasies, I'm interested in real solutions to a real problem -- solutions we already have and, if there's sufficient popular pressure, can employ immediately. Renewable energy is sustainable. If we have to wait around for something much more drastic, then we're likely doomed.

But we don't. That's a long-term project, and a necessary one, but not at all a requirement for this particular issue. If you're convinced it is, fine -- that's your prerogative and I wouldn't try to dissuade you from acting accordingly. But I see little evidence for it.

Why don't you get a go at it? What are these real actions and solutions? — Olivier5

Building strong unions, for one. In strategic industries, with strike-ready supermajorities. All that's required in that case is people talking to each other, finding common ground, and using a little empathy. And it's happening all across the US and the world, all the time. Since the corporations own the government (Joe Manchin a good example), the only way things change in time is if the corporations give the "OK," and that only happens if they're facing a real crisis. One way to create that crisis is workers walking off the job. With the energy industry, that's going to be hard -- but not impossible. Other industries can help as well -- Amazon, Apple, Starbucks. We're seeing unions pop up everywhere, against great odds. It's very exciting and inspiring indeed.

Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled. I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well.

Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. All very cost effective. E-bikes are great if you live close to your job or supermarket. Electric cars are a good choice too, but still probably too expensive for people -- and we should be pushing more for public transit anyway.

Regarding unions:

After decades of decline in the United States, unions may be poised for a comeback.
Every month seems to bring more promising news for organized labor. Workers at Starbucks have organized roughly 100 stores from coast to coast since last fall. REI employees formed the outdoor retailer’s very first union. Amazon employees defied all the odds and won an 8,000-worker union election in New York City. And an Apple Store in Towson, Maryland, became the first to unionize last month.

Just 1 in 10 U.S. workers now belongs to a union, down from roughly 1 in 3 in the period following World War II. Yet the labor movement is showing more muscle now than it has in years. Emboldened by a tight labor market and two years of toiling through a pandemic, workers are succeeding in organizing companies that have staunchly resisted unionization, and many of them are doing it practically on their own.

--Reference

I'm not trying to "justify doing nothing". — Olivier5

A miracle may still happen, I guess. — Olivier5

hoping for the best of course — Olivier5

Beg your pardon, but it reeks of defeatism. I realize you feel it's 'realism,' but the truth is that things can turn around very quickly indeed, and even heal. The window is shutting, true -- so all the more reason to do something.

Recognising the damage already done and also baked in, is not a "I can't do anything". — boethius

It seems to me that this gets "recognized" over and over again on this forum and in this thread. I don't see much recognition of real actions and solutions. The underlying message is: it's hopeless. I don't see how anyone can read these comments and not have that be the takeaway.

What I'm not wasting time on anymore is trying to move politicians and rich assholes to do what is necessary. The idea of global warming is finally landing but 20 years too late and the solutions are still non-solutions. Anything not embracing degrowth will fail. — Benkei

I'm in favor of de-growth, but there's no reason to believe anything short of that will fail. Might as well make the claim that anything short of the destruction of capitalism will fail. Sure, if that's the case then it's very unlikely -- but we should fight for it still.

But it's really not the case. We've already brought projected emissions down a great deal. Attention and movements have begun to form, the next generation is very concerned, and people are now seeing and living with the effects of inaction as we speak. It's estimated that about 3% of US GDP a year would get us to where we need to be. That's hardly impossible.

However, denying the scale of the horror once it happens is not useful either, and certainly has an emotional impact. — boethius

The only ones denying the horrors of climate change are climate deniers.

I'm not claiming anything said is false, I'm questioning the emphasis. Yes, we should have acted -- yes, it's bad right now and will get worse -- yes, it's a very hard path ahead.

That being said, let's move on. Dwelling on it does no good, and in fact can have the opposite effect -- i.e., of retarding action.

Once the number of Homo sapiens on the planet is severely reduced due to the consequences of climate change -- as is bound to happen in the coming decades or at best centuries -- the forces driving CC will then progressively abate. — Olivier5

There are no short term solution that I can see. — Olivier5

There are plenty of solutions, and people working very hard at those solutions -- and making progress. All while being told that there "are not solutions," that we're already doomed, that there's nothing we can do except continue with the status quo because leaders won't listen and corporations are too powerful, etc. The typical defeatist, hopelessness-encouraging bullshit you can see daily in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

So sure, we can go with your narrative and thus justify doing nothing. I'm sure people argued the exact same way when it came to slavery, child labor, the oppression of women, the rise of Nazism, etc. That's a choice. The alternative is to do hard work, in the tradition of the movements I mentioned above -- workers rights, civil rights, women's rights, etc. -- and shift the direction we're going in, and rapidly. There's no reason it can't happen -- none.

It seems we're getting ever closer to the real cause of all our problems viz. ourselves; some call it human nature I believe. — Agent Smith

But today, it at least feels, time has run out on this humanity. — boethius

to say there's still hope to avoid disaster is to say the pile of bodies we already have doesn't count, and we'll start counting later for some reason. — boethius

But in terms of evaluating prospects, certainly seems to me now that we'd need a miracle to preserve anything remotely resembling "normal" — boethius

I'll be dammed if I'm contributing any further. — Benkei

Another tactic that gets deliberately perpetuated is the sense of hopelessness and helplessness. "I can't do anything; It's too big; nothing will change anyway; it's already over." This is true not only of climate change but of many other issues; it was true for women's rights and civil rights and gay rights.

When we start seeing things as hopeless, and then start attributing the causes to "human nature," as if this were an inevitable outgrowth of genetics, we conveniently remove ourselves from doing anything about it -- things that involve interacting with others, things that are hard.

Joe Manchin sinking this legislation is a big blow, but not unexpected. On October 15th, 2021, it was already over. That's when he gutted the CEPP. It was clear then to me it was over -- I wrote about it on this forum. It should have been clear sooner -- for example, when the Exxon executive all but said Manchin is "our guy" and nothing will happen, in the spring of 2021.

So this isn't a huge shock. There's ways around all of this -- around the Supreme Court, around Congress. The solutions are not only technological -- which is happening slowly (the cost of renewables, the rise of EVs, etc) -- but also involves the labor movement. We see unionizations and strikes happening all over the place, for the last several years in fact. We've lowered our potential outcomes from 3.0-4.0 degree C to between 2.0-2.7 degree C. Not great, but a real improvement. We have younger people coming into power who are very aware of the stakes (even to the point of "climate anxiety"), out there protesting in the streets.

Nothing ever comes as gifts from above. Ever. When our institutions and our leaders fail, we work harder to circumvent them and create a crisis for them. I don't see any alternative beyond giving up and guaranteeing the worst case happens.

But the fact that people can be so easily manipulated like this is also part of reason why I said I've lost faith in humanity. The rise of Nazi Germany has shown us all that people can be duped into hating and committing heinous atrocities against one another with just the right amount of persuasion, and the fact that people can just let someone like Hitler come into power terrifies the hell out of me. — Mr Bee

I wouldn’t lose faith. I’d be on the right side of history and do all we can to fight it. Hitler eventually got his ass kicked— and was persuasive, yes, but only because the German people were desperate and angry, and not enough stood up to the rise of nazism.

History repeats itself. I see us as coming out of the new gilded age, or perhaps the 1920s. The result will depend on us: do we fall into authoritarianism, like Germany did, or do we go the way of trust-busting and the New Deal — or even the movements of the 30s and 60s.

I’ve been learning more about the labor movement of the 1930s lately. Fascinating and little-known history there. So much attention is given to the 60s (not unjustifiably), but the 30s set the stage for those movements in many ways, with oppressed people (workers) joining together and causing real pressure on those with their hands on the levers of power.

We’ll have to do this again. It involves solidarity, unions, strikes— which means overcoming differences and (gasp) practicing love and empathy and understanding— which, as we know from psychotherapy — are the key conditions that facilitate change and growth.

Sure you can say we're not the primary cause of alot of our problems, but we aren't entirely blameless. Alot of the corrupt politicians are there because we are duped into voting for them and against our own interests. We can easily topple over the oligarchs if we actually unite together, but instead we're more interested in fighting amongst ourselves. Alot of people are actually celebrating the death of the US climate bill right now, primarily because the issue has been so politicized — Mr Bee

Everything you mention is true, and also designed/engineered. By whom?

By a class of people -- the wealthy, the plutocracy -- who buy or appropriate academics, clergy, politicians, and journalists. They establish and fund think tanks, own and control mass media companies, infiltrate colleges and universities, and deliberately use all of it as a means of control by sowing discord and confusion among the employees, among the poor, working and middle classes.

The plutocracy have also undermined, weakened, polarized, or destroyed social and civic institutions; most importantly, labor unions. That was one of the first things to wage harsh war against and to stamp out as best as possible. A very smart, strategic move on their part. But it reveals how much of a threat and a nuisance to their power labor unions were (and are). Education, access to knowledge and information, was also a threat and still is -- but it can be owned, censored, filtered, skewed.

The point being that yes, we can indeed topple them -- and they know it. The power always lies in the hands of those with greater number...and there's simply more of us than them. Look all around the world, currently and historically, for examples of people rising up and taking over. This is a great fear of any ruling class, and it's a great fear of the plutocracy. So they do everything they can to divide, polarize, distract, deflect, etc. -- all that you mentioned. Are the people to blame for this? The power imbalance corresponds to level of responsibility, in my view -- and the imbalance is very, very skewed towards the wealthy.

We have to fight it through love and empathy and listening. Because they've won over too many people -- and if we all dig in our heals, and no one breaks the ice (or tries), then we're doomed.

:100:

A new report on the 2020 election, written by a group of eight prominent Republicans, struck a familiar chord: A review of more than 60 court challenges from six battleground states found no evidence that the election was stolen from former President Donald J. Trump.

The 72-page report released last Thursday urged Mr. Trump’s supporters to stop propagating election falsehoods that continue to smolder ahead of the midterms.

The report examined Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, battleground states that were all won by Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“There is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 presidential election on the magnitude necessary to shift the result in any state, let alone the nation as a whole,” the report said. “We urge our fellow conservatives to cease obsessing over the results of the 2020 election, and to focus instead on presenting candidates and ideas that offer a positive vision for overcoming our current difficulties and bringing greater peace, prosperity and liberty to our nation.”

What a shocker!

Yet another good summary from the New York Times’ Krugman:

There’s an obvious parallel between the politics of green energy and the politics of Covid-19. Many people chafed at the restrictions imposed to limit the pandemic’s spread; even mask requirements involve a bit of inconvenience. But vaccination seemed to offer a win-win solution, letting Americans protect themselves as well as others. Who could possibly object?

The answer was, much of the G.O.P. Vaccination became and remains an intensely partisan issue, with deadly consequences: Death rates since vaccines became widely available have been far higher in strongly Republican areas than in Democratic areas.

The fact is that one of America’s two major political parties appears to be viscerally opposed to any policy that seems to serve the public good. Overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of such policies doesn’t help — if anything, it hurts, because the modern G.O.P. is hostile to science and scientists.
And that hostility, rather than the personal quirks of one small-state senator, is the fundamental reason we appear set to do nothing while the planet burns.

And from the UN:

“Humanity faces ‘collective suicide’ over climate crisis, warns UN chief“

Running out of precious metals to make phones doesn't affect the climate. — Tate

Yes it does.

It’s not just cell phones. If we delete the supply of metals, we’re in serious trouble. Especially when do much green technology rests on these commodities.

That’s exactly the one I was talking about here. Terrifying.

Some people want to reproduce, others don't. There is no one rule or one set of acceptable conditions that should govern everyone's decision as to whether or not to procreate. It's self-righteous nonsense to imagine there could be — Janus

:clap:

None of these changes has nearly the impact that federal action would. But smaller changes can still add up — and even foster broader changes. Consider the vehicle market: By mandating electric vehicles, California and other states will lead automakers to build many more of them, likely spurring innovations and economies of scale that will reduce costs for everybody and thereby increase their use around the country.

It’s a reminder that climate change is one of those issues on which activists may be able to make more progress by focusing on grass-roots organizing than top-down change from Washington, especially in the current era of polarization. Locally, the politics of climate change can sometimes be less partisan than they are nationally, as Maggie Astor, a climate reporter at The Times, has written.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/briefing/extreme-heat-climate-fight-us-government.html

This is what I’ve been saying for several months now: local and state action.

The republicans — representing not only a small minority generally but a minority of voters — have managed to block every federal avenue for change on this issue, a particularly deadly one.

They have the judiciary and the congress. Whatever executive actions the president may take, it’s fairly short term and can be overridden.

They also have, since 2010, most state legislatures and have gerrymandered their way to keeping them for another 10 years at least (another huge story of the 2020 election that barely got coverage, but the results of which are now being felt— so much for focusing solely on national politics). They have the Majority of governorships.

So given this scenario, what else CAN be done other than work locally, within your state? New York and California are major players. Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico— all blue states, all can be pushed farther. Ditto the East cost, where I live: New England can do more. Massachusetts, yes — but also and particularly New Hampshire, the only “swing” state in the region.

There’s town councils, city councils, and a range of commissions that can be appealed to or taken over. There are plenty of groups to join, protests to be made, direct actions to take— hopefully with help from the local media. Disruption and crisis needs to be created for them before they start listening.

Lastly, the labor movement needs to continue making gains and forming unions that are strike-ready. I would love to see more strikes for climate — not for wages or conditions, which are important too, but for climate action.

A lot of this, once narrowed down from the overwhelming and vague level of national drama, can be done.

What's even the proposed connection between "faltering" wind power and a heat wave? — boethius

The claim is that renewables are bringing down the grid because they’re failing and putting pressure on the rest, which also fail.

They blamed the freeze last winter on renewables too, when it was actually refineries.

Just more fossil fuel propaganda, as usual.

I just wanted to point out the relationship between mortgage rates and home prices. Lower rates push prices higher. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I know you’re not implying one thing, but emphasis is important. So yes, I’d be a fool not to notice interest rates has a very real effect on the housing market. But what I’m ultimately fighting against is the idea that inflation is a matter of too much money in the economy. It’s just used as a cover to criticize increases in wages and working people getting a little money— god forbid.

My main point was simply that low rates are generally seen as good for working class people. This isn't necessarily true. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Low or high rates really don’t matter much for working people. They’re screwed one or another. The majority of benefits goes to the wealthy. That’s my point.

This is the kind of nonsense narrative being spewed to millions of Americans:

Temperatures in Texas climbed into the triple digits this week but this isn’t unusual. The problem is that wind power faltered, as it often does during hot spells.

From the WSJ.

Unprecedented heatwaves and wildfires: not unusual. Definitely not climate change related.

The problem? Renewable energy. So let’s dig for even MORE oil and gas and coal, and guarantee these scenarios continue and the world burns to the ground.

Did you warn Jackson at least once, or did you simply ban him? — jgill

Yes, he was warned.

High interest rates aren't the worst thing in the world. Think about the effects on housing. When interest rates on mortgages fall, home prices get bid up because people can afford larger mortgages. What we saw early in the pandemic was historic, rock bottom interest rates helping to spike home prices. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It wasn’t just low interest rates. It was also low inventory. Ask any realtor. New construction hasn’t kept up for years, and people who did own a home were reluctant to sell during the pandemic.

Research on the effects of long term low interest rates appears to show that they are a major driver of inequality. This is something that was only investigated recently, because low rates were thought to be fairly benign. — Count Timothy von Icarus

They are— yes. Why? Because it ultimately leads to increased stock prices, and the top 10% own more than 80% of the stocks. So that will increase their wealth. Meanwhile the 90%, whose real wages have stagnated for decades, simply have less interest to pay on mortgages and credit cards and car loans.

That doesn’t mean raising interest rates will help either. The wealthy will find alternatives. They will be fine one way or another. If workers wages rise 5%, inflation goes up 8% — they increase the prices of their product. If stocks take a dive, they’ll invest in bonds or commodities or emerging markets. Or lobby the government for more aid, or more tax cuts, or find a way to avoid paying taxes altogether. Plenty of options for the wealthy — they will do just fine, and inequality will continue to rise long after the Fed hikes rates.

Real wages have continued to stagnate/decline, and now the borrowing/debt that fills in the gap between household income and the kind of expenditures that sustain a “middle class” life (house, car) or working class life (rent, car, food, gas, utilities, healthcare) will simply be more expensive over the long run. So the 90% will be asked to tighten their belts, work harder, give up any dream of being debt-free or owning property, forget buying a house and probably forget having kids. This is in fact what we’ve already seen.

So there’s no chance the Fed raising rates will change inequality. There’s little chance it even brings down general inflation, come to think of it, since the money they created didn’t go to people, it went to companies — so that they could use it to boost the wealth of the elites who own 80% of their stocks. So it may lower equity markets. It will probably lower housing markets too.

Otherwise there’s little that the Fed can do about wages, about price gouging, about stock buybacks, about supply chain disruptions, commodity shortages, climate change or wars. Inflation is global right now, for global reasons.