Green Capitalism: The God That Failed

[be cause]

For several decades you could buy a better computer by waiting a few years. People still bought computers.

 .. but I refused to .. until @ 2006 .. in 2007 I watched Cryosphere Today load more slowjy than the ice melted .. b.c.

[nanning]

<snip>

NeilT I want to politely ask you to watch this "Brave New Ocean Lecture" from 58m10 thru 59m52. Under 2 minutes of your time.



I am curious what your thoughts about that answer of Jeremy Jackson are.

I'm really sorry if I have been hard on you with my previous post, it's my strong feeling about moral justice.

[philopek]

I'm really sorry if I have been hard on you with my previous post, it's my strong feeling about moral justice.

No need to apologize for telling the truth, at least shouldn't be.

You know, some people feel great because they stopped hyping ICEs like Mercedes and other fancy stuff and now hype cars like Tesla.

Obviously if indeed every ICE car on planet earth will be replaced with a BEV we shall have simply exchanged one killing method by another, something tells me that current battery tech used for this will cause similar or even more issues long term than fossil fuel ever did.

We have to change our frequency and means of transportation generally, less individual, more shared and/or public and less overall.

[nanning]

Thanks philopek.
People shouldn't put the truth message in a nasty wrapping
And I agree with the rest.

[TerryM]

I'm really sorry if I have been hard on you with my previous post, it's my strong feeling about moral justice.

No need to apologize for telling the truth, at least shouldn't be.

You know, some people feel great because they stopped hyping ICEs like Mercedes and other fancy stuff and now hype cars like Tesla.

Obviously if indeed every ICE car on planet earth will be replaced with a BEV we shall have simply exchanged one killing method by another, something tells me that current battery tech used for this will cause similar or even more issues long term than fossil fuel ever did.

We have to change our frequency and means of transportation generally, less individual, more shared and/or public and less overall.

Could not be more in agreement. Even my dream of fleets of free E-buses, backed by very, very cheap E-Trolleys and E-trains won't be enough of a change to do more than kick the can down the road, and possibly buy us a few years.


We had plenty of warnings when their was sufficient time to act, but having a new Hummer, a new Mercedes, or a new Tesla has distracted us for so long that the die is now cast. I don't know when it comes crashing down - but I believe it's a question of when, not if.


Terry

[Neven]

If green capitalism can't solve the problem nothing can. Meaning if green capitalism can't solve it, nothing will. The chaos that would ensue with any significant overturning of capitalism would make anything bad happening from climate change look like a walk in the park, and at a much higher rate.

Many people here, leftist and all, would agree with that statement.

[DrTskoul]

If green capitalism can't solve the problem nothing can. Meaning if green capitalism can't solve it, nothing will. The chaos that would ensue with any significant overturning of capitalism would make anything bad happening from climate change look like a walk in the park, and at a much higher rate.

Many people here, leftist and all, would agree with that statement.

Sure...revolutions are not pretty. Doing that in the midst of climate, food, water, environment distress it will be nasty..collapse will come sooner with that..

[Pmt111500]

Are there any adherents of this religion? Never heard of such a god.

[Neven]

Are there any adherents of this religion? Never heard of such a god.

Al Gore is the high priest, and Gumbercules has to put all of his faith in him to save capitalism as we know it (by making it 'green').

[TerryM]

If green capitalism can't solve the problem nothing can. Meaning if green capitalism can't solve it, nothing will. The chaos that would ensue with any significant overturning of capitalism would make anything bad happening from climate change look like a walk in the park, and at a much higher rate.

Many people here, leftist and all, would agree with that statement.

Sure...revolutions are not pretty. Doing that in the midst of climate, food, water, environment distress it will be nasty..collapse will come sooner with that..

As I see it we're damned if we do, & damned if we don't.


The capitalists will cook us in their quest for profit.
The revolution will cook us in the name of equality.
The struggle will cook us as a temporary expedient.


If you see a way out
I need a session with your oculist
or, you need to toss the rose hued lenses.
Terry

[Neven]

If you see a way out

Put a cap on personal wealth. That's the first step, an absolute prerequisite if there are to be next steps.

[TerryM]

If you see a way out

Put a cap on personal wealth. That's the first step, an absolute prerequisite if there are to be next steps.

Thanks for nothing.
Now I'm poorer - but the seas are still rising and now I can't afford to move.


I can still afford a few congressmen to negate your nefarious scheme, and I can still call the commissioner to toss your ilk into my private Corporate Prisons, perhaps I'll close down one of the beach houses - but you'll never pry the Jet Stream's Controls from these aged, wrinkled claws without a fight.


My mercenaries will adopt a scorched earth policy that will make Sherman's March to the Sea look like a Boy Scout Charity Parade. My Politicians, Police and Preachers will Denounce your Treasonous Trope, waterboard everyone you've ever associated with and the Sermons against you will have mothers shielding their daughters ears.


If you play hardball, I'll level the Stadium. If you play for keeps, I'll fill the keep with your ilk. If you attack my millions, I'll liquidate your minions,


If you dare to cap my wealth, I'll pull your cap down to your neck and strangle you with the brim!


This is how those with "Capable" Wealth will react to proposals to "Cap their Wealth".


We can't fight - because revolution will destroy any hope of addressing climate change.
We can't stand down as they'll ratchet up their environmentally destroying schemes.
With acceptance we'll go quietly into a hellish future.
As activists we can watch hell unfolding from our cell.


Easy answers are easily dismissed - ask Pelosi.


A rather discouraged wannabe disciple in search of a god whose feed won't melt in the morning dew .
Terry

[rboyd]

The core problem: Corporations are Psychopaths

They need democratic oversight, not "freed" from government regulation.

If corporations are indeed "persons," their mental condition can accurately be described as pathological. Corporations have no innate moral impulses, and in fact they exist solely for the purpose of making money. As such, these "persons" are systemically driven to do whatever is necessary to increase revenues and profits, with no regard for ethical issues that might nag real people.

But, you say, corporations are owned and managed by real people, so surely immoral corporate actions might be inhibited by them? Well, not really. First of all, the officers and directors who run corporations are actually duty-bound to act in the corporation's best financial interest, and that means they are obliged to do whatever they can within the law to make money. Thus, this fiduciary duty requires corporate management to set aside ethical niceties when they get in the way of corporate profits. This is why tobacco companies market their products to kids when they can - only laws prohibiting such conduct will keep them from doing so.

Thus, the entity is a "person" with a totally self-absorbed psyche, a narcissistic "person" that has enormous resources to advertise and market itself to the public, to hire professionals of all types to influence public opinion, to litigate and lobby as needed, to ruthlessly pursue its goal of revenue and profit, and to join other corporations and industry associations in crushing any opposition posed by mere individuals or public interest groups.

Corporate libertarians would have you believe that somehow corporate dominance is entirely consistent with the values and vision of the Founding Fathers, but this is pure myth. The framers believed in limited government and free markets, but corporations were almost non-existent in the early days of the Republic. Unlike today, one could not form a corporation simply by filing a few papers with a government office; instead, permission from the government was needed (usually via an act of the Legislature) and was granted only upon a showing that the proposed corporation would be in the public interest. When corporate formation was allowed, strict terms and limitations were demanded.

Corporate formation was viewed skeptically in those days because corporations were correctly recognized as dangerous. Unlike sole proprietorships or partnerships, corporations allow investors to pool huge sums of capital and pursue profits while remaining immune from personal liability. Thus, if I own shares of XYZ Corporation and the company breaches a $10 million contract obligation, there is no chance that I will be personally liable on the contract. If I own a sole proprietorship or partnership that breaches such a contract, my personal assets are at risk.

This immunity makes the corporate structure extremely attractive to investors, even absentee investors, which means publicly traded corporations can attract enormous amounts of capital, which in turn results in their wielding great economic power. In modern society where corporations are widespread and commonplace, this economic power enables them to have great social and cultural influence, defining to a large degree how we live our lives and even the values we hold as a society. And of course economic power easily translates to political power as well.

It wasn't until the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, long after the framers were dead, that corporate interests began to reshape the social, legal, and political environment so that their interests became paramount, far more important to politicians than the interests of ordinary citizens. Corporate personhood was a key part of this scheme.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/why-corporations-are-psychotic

Great documentary on this (its long so get your popcorn and drinks ready), covering the history of how corporations are psychopathic and how they gained the power that they currently have:

[blumenkraft]

They [corporations] need democratic oversight, not "freed" from government regulation.

So much this!!

[nanning]

Great quotes rboyd. Close to my understanding. Thanks.

"pursue profits while remaining immune from personal liability"
"Corporate personhood was a key part of this scheme." (legal entity)

I wonder what the entrepreneurs, the 'wealth creators' (*cough*) tell their children?

[nanning]

TerryM, a solution would be if all people let go and live like I do; without wants and only basic possessions, old fashioned. That requires individual responsiblity and independent thinking and deeds. Honesty, respect and peace.

But, in my observations, there are hardly any individuals in this human world. There is only the herd. And they won't be led.
So what remains is acceptance. If you look hard enough it is already a deep hell.

edit: if you're poor, you can still move! More easily I'd say. Except for the infirm etc. of course

[TerryM]

TerryM, a solution would be if all people let go and live like I do; without wants and only basic possessions, old fashioned. That requires individual responsiblity and independent thinking and deeds. Honesty, respect and peace.

But, in my observations, there are hardly any individuals in this human world. There is only the herd. And they won't be led.
So what remains is acceptance. If you look hard enough it is already a deep hell.

edit: if you're poor, you can still move! More easily I'd say. Except for the infirm etc. of course

Ramen


Life's easier when you're not poor.


I'm not suggesting devoting your life to the almighty dollar, but my experiences indicate a life of poverty is more difficult to maintain than one that allows the benefits of a steady paycheck.


Having accepted the inevitability of collapse, why not relax with a low stress job, co-workers to share a beer with - and the freedom that a small stash provides.


Not Preaching, just suggesting.
Terry

[nanning]

Thanks Terry. I really appreciate your ideas.

a low stress job, co-workers to share a beer with - and the freedom that a small stash provides.

In my experience and observations these kind of jobs hardly exist anymore for low paid jobs. I'm not referring to you here but many older people erroneously think the job market is the same as 30 years ago. Perhaps it still is for high paying, high diplomas jobs.
I have no diplomas so for me there's only low paid work if I'm lucky but I won't betray my principles (don't participate in the destructive culture) which leaves very few possible jobs. I won't mow the grass, won't kill insects etc. I let the wasps crawl over my face now. I wrestled with the idea of potted plants. Should I free them? I feel so stupid when I have to give them water.

Small pile of cash. In all honesty, I could use a little bit because of the expense of me moving from Amsterdam last year put me in debt which I really don't like. i will get rid of it in a couple of years by being even more frugal. Most bottom lines don't lie on the bottom.

I much prefer difficult and frugal over having it easy and be shielded from reality. I can make hard choices which gives me a lot of freedom. See my footquote .

[nanning]

@Terry
To add:
I'm not uncomfortable in my situation, being poor. Not deprived. I can buy high quality food. Not much else though, besides marihuana and beer. The price of marihuana makes or breaks my budget.
It is an intenser life.
Within constraints I have it easy, I can make it easy by being efficient and creative. And that resembles the way living nature has to live within constraints<edit>.
With money you can buy yourself out of that difficulty, the constraints. By having affluence. Then you have no constraints and are shielded from reality.
I think that's not a real life.

edit: deleted ",in ecosystems"

[philopek]

@Terry
To add:
I'm not uncomfortable in my situation, being poor. Not deprived. I can buy high quality food. Not much else though, besides marihuana and beer. The price of marihuana makes or breaks my budget.
It is an intenser life.
Within constraints I have it easy, I can make it easy by being efficient and creative. And that resembles the way living nature has to live within constraints, in ecosystems.
With money you can buy yourself out of that difficulty, the constraints. By having affluence. Then you have no constraints and are shielded from reality.
I think that's not a real life.

Wealth is so subjective, in real and in how we feel.

Real wealth comes from inside us and as many or even more are so eager to take it away from those who experience it like if it were money

On the other hand I believe that those who can accept and enjoy some good stuff that comes with money, (like top quality food, my criteria as well) but don't need it are best off.

Enjoy what life gives but no whining if it doesnt. I always say that I like certain things but don't need them and that applies to almost all thing but a few like a hygienic and an appealing environment, home and landscape, as well as sufficient sunlight and the associated color set.

[nanning]

Thank you philopek.

Sorry but these two things are wrong I think. Also I think these are important.

Wealth is so subjective, in real and in how we feel.
<snip>
Enjoy what life gives

First, I think wealth (affluence) is not subjective. It is having and taking more than you need. To be farther away from being in living nature as an animal. To use magic (money in affluence) to shield yourself.
I don't see that 'how we feel' influences the meaning of wealth (affluence). Wealth and affluence are synonym. "how we feel" is certainly subjective .

Second, 'Life' doesn't exist as an entity and doesn't 'give'anything. That's anthropomorphism, sorry.
Reality = child mortality.

[philopek]

Thank you philopek.

Sorry but these two things are wrong I think. Also I think these are important.

Wealth is so subjective, in real and in how we feel.
<snip>
Enjoy what life gives

First, I think wealth (affluence) is not subjective. It is having and taking more than you need. To be farther away from being in living nature as an animal. To use magic (money in affluence) to shield yourself.
I don't see that 'how we feel' influences the meaning of wealth (affluence). Wealth and affluence are synonym. "how we feel" is certainly subjective .

Second, 'Life' doesn't exist as an entity and doesn't 'give'anything. That's anthropomorphism, sorry.
Reality = child mortality.

They are not wrong of course, only wrongly translated or understood. Of course life gives nothing "literally" it's a term used to say be happy with what have and don't become discontent by pondering permanently over what not.

Now that i said it's about language barrier, I don't know whether I translated wrong from my mother tongue or if you translated wrong from english. Third possibility which i don't assume, would be another of those nitpicking attempts but then that doesn't seem plausible in your case, hence back to language barriere.

Try to understand what I wanted to say, the deeper meaning and all is good.

Basically I agree with what you said, just wanted to add something and it's always a bit frustrating to see "NOPE" and such things even though there is 99% agreement.

As to wealth, i know very rich people in their environment, i.e. among bushmen or other natural tribes and if i had what they do i felt poor. IT IS relative of course and always has been.

A man in a poor country who own a 20 year old Mercedes is perhaps the richest in town while if you own the same car here many feel ashamed  because poverty is so obvious.

What's that if not relative ?

No it's your choice, try to get the meaning or ripping apart a well meant statement.
I won't say more on the topic either way because it was just a remark and of no significant importance in the context of this thread.

[TerryM]

I've driven trucks - good wages, lots of time to think, low stress once the basics are learned.
I've driven heavy equipment - very good wages, low stress, lots of time to think.
I've driven cab - very good wages, people to interact with, long hours. time to think.
Repair plumbing - good wages, lots of time to think, very low stress.
Repair HVAC - good wages, low stress, interesting problems to be solved.
Commercial Refrigeration - great wages, low stress, very interesting problems.
Programming - fair wages, low stress, very interesting problems.
Mid Management - fair wages, very high stress, unsolvable problems.
Upper Management - good/great wages, interesting problems, no time for anything.
Ownership - wages?, problems are as difficult as you think you can handle, stress is off the scale.


I've done all of these and more - in part because of drug involvement at an early age.


None require formal degrees.
None require much in the way of background checks. (if you work your way up once you're in the door)
Any can pay enough to attract the jealousy of peers.


Buying and holding real estate can assure a painless path to wealth (money that requires little supervision to maintain or grow)
I've lived on the street twice - high stress, low self esteem, no wages, the hardest jobs I've ever held.


Are things so different today?
Terry


Many years ago my wife at the time paid my bail for a drunk driving infraction. The jailer after scanning a 14 page FBI report said "That's some sweetheart you've got."
She responded that he ought to look up my work history.

[nanning]

<snip>
Basically I agree with what you said, just wanted to add something and it's always a bit frustrating to see "NOPE" and such things even though there is 99% agreement.

My sincere apologies philopek for giving that impression and to have offended you!

I didn't mean to say "NOPE" in any way and should have written that post better. I don't translate when talking&reading&writing English, so the only language barrier is our interpretation I think. I'm not native english speaking and I miss certain things from anglosaxon culture.

Indeed I don't want to nitpick but I think people should be very careful with using antropomorphism. It is a veil and makes people think not straight. If fantasy is the goal then no pro, but it is important to be aware. It is a fundamental error of all brains.
I'll try to be more careful next time.

[nanning]

<snip>
Are things so different today?
Terry

Nice to get to know you a little.
You had a very interesting life up until now. Glad to read you made it through difficult times. And that you had support.

I've worked for 33 years doing all kinds of jobs and almost none of those jobs required a diploma. Now I'm over 50 and I can't do that anymore. Age discrimination is strong and everywhere. Here the job market has changed a lot in the past 20 years.
My last job was teaching mathematics to first year BSc (natural sciences) students which I really liked. After 4 years I was still on an 'uitzendcontract' (with a human resource consulting firm, outsourced). These were temporary contracts for the duration of 1 course, so for 3 months only. New course, new contract and new passkeys to open the classroom doors (many times I got the keys too late). I was outside of the university staff, doing university work. I never spoke with the human resource department in that time.

Yes, having read your list I think it is very different today. In the 80s and 90s I had no problem at all in getting jobs. And got fair wages. That's gone too. Man, I had so much freedom in the 80s. And that's only 30 years ago.
"Working your way up once you're in the door". That's how it used to be in most companies but not anymore.
Hierarchy has gotten much stronger. Costs have been cut. Rights eroded.
The evil stinking morality-destroying finger of neoliberalism has touched all management and finance.

Automation. The local government has records on all unemployed. I'm quite good with physics and mathematics so you would suppose that that's in my record. But no, it only states the highest diploma. Which for me is a sort of high school. I'll never be found by potential employers.
Dehumanization. I'm fed up with it.

On the positive side, I now have time to learn and try to match your beautiful way with words. 

[TerryM]

Thanks for the kind remarks.

The closest I got to teaching was an offer to front a few classes in Fortran at a community college in Nevada. I couldn't figure out how to pay the bills with what they were offering. The co-eds probably would have been a distraction anyway.

I refused to take Nevada Constitutional law and some other BS course, so I never received any kind of sheepskin.

I've usually worked for very small companies. Owners appreciate smart employees - managers not so much. Another advantage is that small companies often have high turnover (and they go broke).

After a few years most in the business know who you are & call up when they hear you're available. Drove one wife straight up the wall, She thought I was just running out my unemployment insurance, and then a decent offer would show up just before the dole ran out. She insisted that I'd just never learned how to look for a job.

My experiences with job offers from the paper or from the unemployment office were always negative. The decent jobs go to employees friends.

I worked until 2000 when I was almost 55 - seemed a reasonable time to kick back, but my health failed within a few years - bummer.


If I'd been able to put up with any of the first 4 wives I might be rich. Every one insisted on at least one house.   The present one's been hanging in since the mid 80's though and the houses finally paid off.


What field of Physics holds your interest?
I always liked Math, but the little bit of Physics I've absorbed was self taught, and always related to some problem I was working on.


The sun's up.
Time to think about bed.
Have Funn nanning! Appreciate your posts.
Terry

[ruffed]

It's not your genuine posts, it's the incessant one liners on almost any thread.

[nanning]

@ruffed
Are you talking to me?
In that case I'm sorry that my style annoys you.
"on almost any thread" huh?
If you have specific arguments you can PM me.
How should I change my style? Should I? It's difficult to not ruffle someones feathers.

[nanning]

<snip>

Thank you.
Great to read your personal stories Terry. Interesting.

First I want to say that my English is not good enough to fully understand all your writings. Some subtle information may not get through to me.


Fortran! Those were the good times for curious human beings .
Back then you still had 'nibble's, a 'word' of 4 bits.

 "The present one's been hanging in since the mid 80's though"
I'm curious, is that the one who supported you in difficult times?


 "What field of Physics holds your interest?"
No specific field. I just wanted to know a bit of physics to understand the world better, to have some foundations, some calibration, limits of reality.
Some fields I like are particle physics, atomic/EM physics, astronomy, quantummechanics in general. I love reading Feynman.

When I was younger I wanted to know how all things actually work in detail. I have done middle technical school (electronics) (16-19yo) and I really didn't understand the transistor. Frustrating. Had to wait for university physics quantummechanics courses for that.

When I found out my IQ at a mensa test in 1988, I knew I could do any university study I wanted. After a year of working and thinking, I chose physics and signed up with the university of Amsterdam.
My physics knowledge then was very bad because I have had in my teenage years education for people with a below average IQ (I don't mean mentally challenged, just very low level). So, I had to do an entrance exam that's called 'colloqium doctum'. In july1990 I self taught all that in 4 weeks and got a 9 on the exam . I did away with my house, car and good wage to go study in Amsterdam where I have lived until last year.


We can move our talk to PM, what do you think? Because I fear it is getting a bit too far off-topic. On the other hand, I don't expect this to be an important thread for Neven or others.

[TerryM]

<snipped>
We can move our talk to PM, what do you think? Because I fear it is getting a bit too far off-topic. On the other hand, I don't expect this to be an important thread for Neven or others.

Let's give it a go.
I've shied away from PM when arguments are being debated as I've felt that those following deserved to be privy to the full discussion, but you and I seem to be in agreement in most instances.


I've very little experience with PM, so forgive me if a make any gaffs.
Terry

[rboyd]

WHY CENTRAL BANKS NEED TO STEP UP ON GLOBAL WARMING
A decade after the world bailed out finance, it’s time for finance to bail out the world.

The kind of idiocy that is counted as elite intelligent discourse these days ... any real reduction in GHG emissions will require cuts in energy use, and therefore a recession, and collapsing fossil fuel and growth-dependent companies (e.g. the whole banking system). But central bank funded Green Capitalism will save us! Brought to you by the very elites that have put off dealing with the problem for over three decades.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/20/why-central-banks-need-to-step-up-on-global-warming/

[philopek]

<snip>
Basically I agree with what you said, just wanted to add something and it's always a bit frustrating to see "NOPE" and such things even though there is 99% agreement.

My sincere apologies philopek for giving that impression and to have offended you!

I didn't mean to say "NOPE" in any way and should have written that post better. I don't translate when talking&reading&writing English, so the only language barrier is our interpretation I think. I'm not native english speaking and I miss certain things from anglosaxon culture.

Indeed I don't want to nitpick but I think people should be very careful with using antropomorphism. It is a veil and makes people think not straight. If fantasy is the goal then no pro, but it is important to be aware. It is a fundamental error of all brains.
I'll try to be more careful next time.

No worries, i'm not offended and a certain frustration about some really overwhelming attitudes of which nitpicking and permanently trying to split topics into tiny niches while in fact they belong together and cannot be discussed separately without ending OT, has nothing to do with you.

In fact i replied to you because you're normally exactly not one of those and i got caught cold on the wrong foot. Was kind of surprised and shot back from the hip. (but with a water gun haha...)

all god over here no worries, keep goin' and enjoy.

The learning curve is infinite hence it's always worth to get our wits together and continue our
hopeless journey to understand more than a tiny fraction of all know things and even tinier when
considering the huge amount of yet unknown things

good night

And yes, it's a pleasure to read Terry's posts, good language skills and knows things from real life and not only from the campus desk.

[nanning]

<snip>
good night

Goodmorning!

Thank you philopek! Very nice to read your personal analysis, and compliment to me.
We are on the same side . I had no worries but have thought about sending you a friendly PM to even out some possible misunderstanding.
I appreciate your posts and views. And your morality.

At least our learning curve is one positive trend we can influence. 

I'll try to be more careful in constructing my replies.

[nanning]

   Shop less, live more – save the planet. It doesn’t sound that bad to me

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/31/shop-less-green-future-sustainable-environment-retail
by Gaby Hinsliff

Some quotes with bolding by me:

Now the sheer scale of choice feels exhausting, while the business of piling up stuff at home for the sake of it – yet another cushion, dress or lipstick – increasingly borders on the obscene.

getting to zero emissions means not just consuming differently – switching to sustainable cotton T-shirts, say – but consuming far less

Too much advice about going green involves pushing slightly less toxic alternatives to things we don’t particularly need, to distract us from thinking about whether they were necessary in the first place.

In the end, a life is made up of the things we have done, not the things we have bought.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Bill Gates explains why he’s backing companies that change how we build
https://www.fastcompany.com/90396842/bill-gates-explains-why-hes-backing-companies-that-change-how-we-build

Bill Gates loves to make solving complex problems sound fairly straightforward. Take the fact that the manufacturing sector accounts for roughly one-fifth of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. To create the basic building blocks of urbanized society—steel, cement, plastic, glass, aluminum, and even paper—we are slowly destroying it.

That’s a problem that will only grow as societies become more developed, as Gates has made clear before: One of his stats is that the world is projected to add the equivalent of one New York City per month for the next 40 years, with city space doubling by 2060.

Gates’s answer: Why not just reboot those old manufacturing processes? “If we’re going to get to zero carbon emissions overall, we have a lot of inventing to do,” he says in a new post on his GatesNotes blog. That’s in addition to rethinking how things get used.

“There are definitely steps we should take to use less by recycling more and increasing efficiency,” he adds. “But that won’t be enough to offset the fact that the world’s population is growing and getting richer; as the middle class expands, so will our use of materials.”

[Tom_Mazanec]

How Workers Can Demand Climate Justice
https://prospect.org/article/how-workers-can-demand-climate-justice

We no longer have time to continue the “jobs versus environment” debate that has distracted us from acting with the boldness this moment requires. Saving our deteriorating environment is the job of our time. The Green New Deal resolution introduced to Congress by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey has spurred a wave of activism. And while it is important to channel that energy into electing a president and Senate that will treat the crisis as a crisis, it’s equally important that we fight climate change locally, from below.

Workers, people of color, Native peoples, and the poor have borne and will continue to bear the brunt of this crisis if we don’t find the means to avert it. We must forge alliances that can fight for climate justice and a sustainable and resilient future. That will require working together across movements and organizations toward a common purpose.