Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - wili

Pages: 1 2 [3]
101
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: August 06, 2018, 08:41:02 PM »
My list might look a little different,
 Don't eat beef, goats , buffalo , or sheep
 Don't fly
 Don't eat food that used air transport
 Install solar panels
 Grow as much of your own food as possible
 Eat foods that are in season and local or bulk dried and transported ideally by rail or ship
 Every 100 gallons of gas is another ton of CO2 - remember that as you fill up the tank
 Very small family ... Or family plans
 Get your children on board with the above list
 
We in the 10% could change our destructive habits and our lives wouldn't be much different than they are currently until the effects of the last fifty years of accumulated extravagance finally catches up with us.

102
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: August 06, 2018, 07:11:47 PM »
SH,
Thanks for pulling that data together!  I firmly believe that over the next decade or two, meat will fall out of favor in the developed world, as alternatives that are healthier for people and the planet are improved and made more available.  As with the tide turning against fossil fuels, I think it will be individuals and small businesses making better and more informed choices who will lead the way.

Episodes like the blue-green tide in South Florida, tied to agricultural runoff...
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,428.msg166019.html#msg166019

...or the lawsuits against North Carolina pig farms I posted just above... make the public more aware of the problem of Big Ag, and help to sway public opinion and encourage examination of one’s own habits and adoption of alternatives.

103
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: August 06, 2018, 04:35:17 PM »
When we look at the lack of progress with regards to emissions of greenhouse gases, it is understandable that we get a little depressed. Despite this lack of progress, I am actually quite optimistic that we can quickly and drastically reduce emissions of all manner of greenhouse gases, reductions so large as to avoid the worst effects.

While technology and political progress are necessary avenues to achieve the reductions we need, progress here is far too slow and reliance on these methods will doom us. Why am I optimistic? The simple fact is that we have it within our power as individuals to collectively cut emissions almost instantly by perhaps 50%.

What I posted above is one method. Stop eating meat. Collectively we could reduce global emissions tomorrow by 18%.

There are other methods just as powerful which could reduce emissions immediately.

104
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: July 31, 2018, 07:36:24 PM »
Apocalypse 4 Real posted a summary ten days ago:  A World of Fire and Smoke - A July 20 2018 Snapshot --
from Oregon wheat field wildfires to Central African charcoal making to probably un-fightable (due to years of drought) Siberian fires.

A4R's occasional posts are always well worth reading.

105
And criminal James Comey is also playing right into Martin's fear:



If people like Comey tell you to do one thing, do the opposite.

106
The rest / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: July 20, 2018, 05:31:19 PM »
Logic from a reformed 'Russiagate Skeptic':

Title: "Why I’m No Longer a Russiagate Skeptic"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/20/confession-of-a-no-longer-russiagate-skeptic-219022

Extract: "Facts are piling up, and it’s getting harder to deny what’s staring us in the face.
...
When I wrote, back in February, that I was skeptical that President Donald Trump would ever be proved to have secretly colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election in his favor, I mistyped.

What I meant to write was that I wasn’t skeptical.

107
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: July 17, 2018, 06:49:23 PM »
Trump left the Paris agreement.

He appointed Pruitt to EPA changing policies so they hurt the environment (and kill more American citizens). Appointed Zinke to wreck national parks because private gain is so much more sexy then societal gain.

Also Trump does not fix things, he makes money of them. Sometimes.

109
I was surprised to see that despicable Joe Crowley guy be so sportsmanlike after losing to Ocasio-Cortez in the NY primary, him dedicating a Bruce Springsteen song to him and everything. But now this:



If it is what it looks like, it's a perfect example of what it is Corporate Democrats do. They don't care about you, all they care about is their donors and the gravy train.

The media went nuts over Ocasio-Cortez. Will they take her side on this? Will they even report?

110
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: July 10, 2018, 02:03:23 AM »
I love all types of fish and seafood. I have quit eating it because we are destroying fisheries across the planet and I don't want to contribute to this.

My main sources of meat protein are organic chicken and beef.

112
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 08, 2018, 05:18:47 AM »
Neven please do something about bbr, like remove him or something. Pagophilus is right, this is starting to get unscientific.

113
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 08, 2018, 04:31:46 AM »
I'm no saint, no prude and no stranger to vulgarities, but I can say definitively that I believe this sort of language and 'humor' has zero place in any scientific discussion.  Furthermore, I can see this sort of thing as being particularly distasteful to women, or to persons who have been victims of sexual assault or those who have loved ones who have suffered such assault. 

It doesn't matter if some people say "Oh, it's alright with me" -- all members of the forum need to be considered.  Nor is the intent relevant, nor I am interested in castigating who wrote it -- it is the presence of such language, used in this manner.  Neven, I respectfully request that you draw the line here. 


I think he meant ANALysis.

As in, ANALrapist.


114
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: July 06, 2018, 11:07:08 PM »
It has become a bit more denialist-free again.
Finally, thanks Neven. DB was a "soft" denier but a denier nonetheless, and it was kinda tiring to keep countering him. I think when you constantly read compromised sources (intentionally or unintentionally) you become compromised yourself.

115
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: July 06, 2018, 10:37:04 PM »
Still wondering why the great and powerful N has not yet banned his @$$...I thought this was mostly a denialist-free zone...

It has become a bit more denialist-free again. Claiming 'shoot the messenger' with regard to a coward like Michaels and his trickery from 15 years ago is a bit too much, even for me.

116
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: July 06, 2018, 07:30:24 PM »
The other papers in Daniel B's post above are from 2007 and 2009.  There has been a lot more data collected since then, and the data doesn't support the conclusions he reached.  In the past decade it's become apparent that tropical storms are becoming stronger due to global warming.

Here's a peer-reviewed study from 2016, published in Science:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/242.full

Quote
Observed trends

The detection of long-term trends in TC activity has been a subject of considerable debate. The validity of data from the earlier periods in the longest-term observational data sets has been strongly questioned [e.g., (55–58)], making any trends computed from records that include those periods disputable. Large natural variability, including substantial components with decadal and longer frequencies, further confounds trend detection in records, which in many cases are only a few decades long. These difficulties have led to findings of low confidence in observed TC trends in consensus assessment reports (7, 59).

Perhaps the most persistent and provocative [though not unchallenged (58)] findings are that intensity increased in the past few decades at the upper end of the observed range, implying an increasing frequency of storms in categories 4 and 5 on the commonly used Saffir-Simpson scale (60–62), and that overall activity increased in the North Atlantic over a period of roughly three decades, beginning in the 1970s (63, 64).

117
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: July 06, 2018, 07:11:58 PM »

And yet the research supports this.  Are you saying that the scientific research is completely false?

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/SeaSurface.pdf

"We also found that 28˚C is an important threshold for the development of major hurricanes (Categories 3, 4, or 5) but, above that threshold there is no increase in intensity that is proportional to SST."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL027969

"Apparently, the warming trends of the three tropical oceans cancel with respect to their effects on the vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic, so that the tropical cyclone activity remained rather stable and mostly within the range of the natural multidecadal variability."

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI2930.1

"We summarize our most important findings as follows:  For the multidecadal trend, changes in the seasonal mean thermodynamic environment account for more than half of the observed increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone numbers and in the cumulative statistics, ACE and PDI. For the 21st-century climate change scenario, the model’s projected reduction in Atlantic tropical cyclone activity appears driven mostly by circulation changes, notably the increased seasonal mean vertical shear in the western Atlantic and Caribbean."

Daniel B.

Your first source is a paper whose lead author, Patrick J. Michaels, is a notorious science denier.  He wrote this while employed at the CATO Institute, a "think tank" that supports climate deniers.  I can't find a date on the paper or what publication it was published in, so it may not have been peer-reviewed.  The paper studied storms from 1982 to 2003, which obviously missed out on the 2004 and 2005 seasons, so they may have cherry-picked the dates.  Since other studies that include a fuller data set (starting from 1979 when geo-stationary satellites provided global coverage), this paper is at best out of date, if not intentionally misleading.

You may want to be careful about reposting papers from known deniers.  People might start assuming you're a denier as well.

More on Patrick J. Michaels of the CATO Institute here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-history-getting-climate-wrong.html

Quote
A review of claims made by the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry.

Quote
Michaels Estimated That 40 Percent Of His Funding Comes From Fossil Fuel Industries. In 2010, Patrick Michaels estimated that about 40 percent of his funding comes from fossil fuel industries:


FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?

PATRICK MICHAELS: I don't know. Forty percent? I don't know. [CNN, Fareed Zakaria GPS, 8/15/10, via Think Progress]

Michaels Initially Did Not Disclose His Publication Was Funded By Coal Industry Association. The Society of Environmental Journalists reported in 2007 that Michaels initially did not disclose that World Climate Report, published by Michaels' PR firm New Hope Environmental Services, was partially funded by the Western Fuels Association, an association of coal mining companies and coal-fired utilities:

118
The rest / Re: I'm a fool
« on: July 05, 2018, 11:51:27 PM »
I'm a fool because sometimes I tell my boss what he should do, because I don't believe that the president is a king, because I believe in democracy and human rights... but sometimes miracles happen, and some people resign : thank you for leaving Mr Pruitt.



 

119
The rest / Re: I'm a fool
« on: July 05, 2018, 10:48:27 PM »
Heck, why not? If only for the chorus.



But what a fool believes, he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing
Than nothing at all

120
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: July 05, 2018, 06:23:44 AM »
In an environment void of shear & >5° latitude of the equator the limiting factor for a TC is SST or OHC.  Tropical cyclones are heat/Carnot engines.  To say otherwise is silly.


Don't be silly Daniel of course water temps impact storms! Why do you think we have a water temp above which Hurricanes can form?

The warmer the water the faster it puts moisture into the atmosphere. All storms are driven by convection and part of the 'extra boost' is when the water condenses back out and brings us the dry adiabatic lapse rate aloft that allows for the explosive convection.

The fiercer the convection the fiercer that storm but the worst the downgraughts that eventually destroy the structure. Only storms able to overpower such survive so , to me, the warmer it gets we see the evolution of the biggest of the storms into beast we are unfamiliar with where the bulk end up short , sharp , shocks ( though the destabilised air mass may then grow another storm and so give the impression of a long storm over one location?).

Here in europe we are moving closer to these 'superstorms' as some of our recent storm flooding attests to!

There is nothing silly about warmer water generating more storms.  Research shows that.  Once formed, storm intensity is largely independent of water temperature.  Water temperature can add more moisture, but has little effect on wind speed.  Both the national weather service and hurricane experts state that the current warmer has had little effect on hurricane strength.

121
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: July 04, 2018, 09:50:34 PM »
Don't be silly Daniel of course water temps impact storms! Why do you think we have a water temp above which Hurricanes can form?

The warmer the water the faster it puts moisture into the atmosphere. All storms are driven by convection and part of the 'extra boost' is when the water condenses back out and brings us the dry adiabatic lapse rate aloft that allows for the explosive convection.

The fiercer the convection the fiercer that storm but the worst the downgraughts that eventually destroy the structure. Only storms able to overpower such survive so , to me, the warmer it gets we see the evolution of the biggest of the storms into beast we are unfamiliar with where the bulk end up short , sharp , shocks ( though the destabilised air mass may then grow another storm and so give the impression of a long storm over one location?).

Here in europe we are moving closer to these 'superstorms' as some of our recent storm flooding attests to!

122
I live in Chicago...mid 90's through the weekend with high humidity...no air conditioning...will do fine.

In times gone by, we had no air conditioning to cope with 90-degree temperatures, and we coped.

Sorry, pressed post too soon:

Wow so much either a lack of appreciation of the conditions in the past or lack of empathy. How much of each I don't know - you decide. How to respond depends on what you take as "times gone by" (Time isn't split into two parts, the now and a homogeneous past ), what is meant by "we" and what is meant by "coped" 

1) Well no, on average, people wouldn't have had to cope with 90-degree temperatures so often. And on average the humidity wouldn't have been so high. Most importantly they wouldn't have had to suffer high temperatures for so long - which is the big killer - and they wouldn't have had to cope with such high temperatures at night which means there is little recovery period. 

2) A lot depends on how far you go back. For this topic it is fair to take pre-industrialisation as one time period. Here people had more flexibility in work so if it was too hot they could move or do something else or do nothing.  In southern Europe they still have siestas although they are less common and shorter than previously. Stupidly, Anglo-Saxons have migrated to warm environments e.g. southern USA but not picked up this culture. Also buildings/caves etc. were cooler: Remember warmer in cold usually means cooler in heat so best location for most extremes. Thick stone walls and small windows tends to be cool.  We could design our buildings that way but it would most likely be a lot more expensive - are you willing to pay the price - both economically and aesthetically? Maybe we won't have a choice.

3)  Post-industrialisation: Well, either you succumbed to the heat, in which case they literally stepped over your lifeless body and got somebody else keen for the work. I'd like to think we place a higher value on human life now. Or you grinned and bore it - but the stress placed on the body (along with all the other stresses) meant you were lucky to make it to 50.
Even in recent  western history, in many ways it was easier to cope. A short commute walking or cycling to work. Large, cool offices - typewriters don't generate much heat. In the heat of the day, many streets would be deserted - everybody would either be at work, school or at home. Now the movement is constant, sitting in traffic jams delivering packages, take-aways etc. usually on a tight deadline and no chance for a break. 

4) of course it depends who is meant by the "we". In the past, if you were the upper-middle or higher classes then of course you could stand the heat. It's easy if you don't have to do anything or there is a servant there constantly waving a fan or providing cool drinks. And in summer they generally moved to cooler climes e.g. the Raj in India going to the foothills of the Himalayas and Russian court going to St Petersburg.  Commonly this is where we get our history from so of course, stress from heat isn't mentioned much.   

123
Nader nails it again:

"Would be nice if Laura Bush and Michelle Obama had expressed similar heartfelt concern for the tens of thousands of children killed or seriously maimed by the wars of their husbands in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. -R "

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/22/ralph-nader-asks-former-first-ladies-why-no-heartfelt-concern-tens-thousands

sidd

124
OK, so it is is goodbye to vehicles powered by the Internal Combustion Engine, and hullo to vehicles powered by electricity, with a commensurate reduction in urban and interstate highway pollution and CO2 emissions.

Just about all the debate in this thread is concentrated on the timing thereof. Even if driver-less cars and car sharing become the norm - personal transport / personal mobility stays king.

As a pedestrian occasionally dependent on the UK's declining public transport system, why do I find that all a bit depressing?





125
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 20, 2018, 11:01:47 PM »
Hansen made a rookie mistake.  He started talking about a field in which he had no experience, no expertise, without first reading even the basic literature.

Early on he declared that fighting global warming would require nuclear energy.  That it was impossible to power a grid with renewable energy.  There were multiple published papers which proved his claim wrong.

126
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 20, 2018, 10:34:27 PM »
I think Dr. Hansen adopted his stance on nuclear energy about a decade ago, when it's prospects were somewhat brighter.  The last decade has seen the tremendous growth of fracked natural gas and advances in wind and solar power that has greatly reduced the cost of electricity generation worldwide.  With the continued increase in the cost of building new nuclear power plants, the fact that existing power plants cant recoup their operating costs from current electricity prices and the continued decrease in prices for renewables, large nuclear power plants are uneconomic.

The hope of the nuclear industry has shifted to small modular reactors.  However, even the most optimistic projections of costs make the technology obsolete before it's even built.  Here's a rah-rah article on SMRs:

https://www.power-eng.com/articles/2018/06/can-smr-technology-revitalize-the-business-of-nuclear-power.html

Here are the relevant excerpts about costs:

Quote
Meanwhile, NuScale said this month it has found a way to generate 20 percent more power from its SMR design. The revelation stems from advanced testing and modeling tools designed to optimize performance for UAMPS’ 12-unit SMR plant in Idaho. What’s more, the uprate would lower the cost of generation from $5,000/kWh to $4,200/kWh, and the levelized cost of electricity would also fall by as much as 18 percent.

Note that the project costs are before anything is built.  With nuclear, the price is almost guaranteed to be higher, especially for the first units build.  They will have to produce many SMRs to achieve substantial per unit savings for building out the initial production facilities.

In the meantime, solar power is currently less expensive than those project costs:

https://www.greenmatters.com/news/2018/06/13/t61v6/solar-technology-costs-tumble-china-shifts

Quote
Not long after China’s announcement, the United States has already implemented some of the lowest public solar power contracts ever. The Central Arizona Project approved a 20-year purchase power agreement with AZ Solar 1 at just under 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour beginning at the end of 2020.

That’s half the price of the coal-fired power plant that’s going to be shut down along with it at the Navajo Generating Station. Greentech Media notes that an even lower deal could have taken place in Austin, Texas, at 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour, but details of that private contract don’t have an official listing.

“We are consistently seeing utility solar PPA prices under $30 [per megawatt-hour],” said Colin Smith, senior solar analyst at GTM Research. “While this is aggressive, this is not out of line with our expectations of where PPA prices are going.”

127
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 20, 2018, 10:27:19 PM »
Don't say you're serious when you're not. That's trolling.

Speaking of which, tombond, your repetitive comments about France and nuclear are also starting to wear thin.

128
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 20, 2018, 06:37:16 PM »
Bob is smarter than Hansen
I find your ad-hominem statement repugnant. At this level of discussion we are not going to get very far.

129
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 20, 2018, 03:31:22 PM »
James still hasn't learned about the economics of electricity. 

France made an economic decision when it decided to quit using oil to generate electricity.  France would not make the same decision today.  There are now much cheaper alternatives.


130
What are towns, cities, counties...doing in your region to encourage biking and pedestrians and to discourage driving?

At the risk of drifting off topic, Exeter UK:

https://www.co-bikes.co.uk/

Perhaps more on topic, the Renault ZOEs at:

https://www.co-cars.co.uk/

131

The biggest missing factor here may be:  what does autonomous driving do to the global vehicle fleet?  Does it sharply reduce the need for personal vehicles?  Does it sharply increase the number of “fleet vehicles” providing transport services? 

If hyperloops become common in populated regions, how much will road transportation be reduced?


It’s hard to say what total vehicle sales will look like in ten years, but I have a feeling EVs won’t be replacing ICE cars one-for-one.

I agree. We need to imagine a future where meeting the mobility needs for individuals can be done with far fewer vehicles on the road. Not as easy as it sounds as our built infrastructure assumes the kind of mobility that autos afforded us in the 20th century. And in the U.S., there is an entire mystique around your car, the ability to just get up and go.

This graph for car production, highlights the challenge.

132
The rest / Re: Mueller Investigation & Cohen Investigation
« on: June 13, 2018, 02:05:54 AM »
Mueller is required to take the high road, while the parties that he is pursuing (including Russia) are free to take the low road.  The system is rigged in favor of the bad doers:

Title: "Mueller worries Russia could use court case to spy on probe"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-worries-russia-could-use-court-case-to-spy-on-probe/ar-AAyyupR?ocid=spartandhp

Extract: "Special counsel Robert Mueller's team is worried that Russian intelligence services will use a criminal case in Washington to gather information about its investigation and U.S. intelligence-gathering methods.

In court papers filed Tuesday, prosecutors are asking a federal judge to impose limits on the information that can be shared by attorneys in the first criminal case directly related to Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

So far, only one defendant, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, has appeared in the case, and prosecutors say they're worried information they provide to the company's attorneys could end up in the hands of other defendants or Russian spy agencies."

133
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: June 09, 2018, 08:10:23 PM »
It still amazes me how even intelligent people such as on this forum cannot see the inherent destruction of industrial society.
Population, extinction rates, pollution of all kinds, greenhouse gases, casualties of war and atrocities etc all explode upon industrialization just as the famous Mann "hockeystick" does.
It still amazes me how intelligent people make wrong assumptions about other intelligent people.
What if we do see the inherent problems? What is it that you suggest in practice?


And we are here today , intelligent and educated, alive because of that industrialization, able to contemplate and share our opinion through this medium, not dying from deseases like prior to that industrialization. And extinction, pollution, large scale altering of local environments has been happening since the dawn of civilization. All the forests you see now in Europe are there because people found alternative source of energy instead of cutting every single bit down. They did not need industrial revolution to destroy their environment. The fact that we are contemplating clean sources of energy exists because of industrialization. The problem is that humans still act on a personal selfish level. Unless tgey can transcend that instinct and think about the whole , behaviors won't change. They can only be regulated, but such regulation as we are won't go down easily without a fight...

Oh come on guys, admittedly i generalized but now i see cherry picking and failure to address the content of what i said.
I mentioned the hockey stick graphs of most problems coinciding with industrialization, because with everything it is important to see cause and effect.
I did not claim there are solutions i know of.
Are there solutions to all the biodiversity lost already?
Of course not, they are gone.

DrTskoul's little piece is so full of false assumptions it is hard to even begin on that.
- intelligence equated to industrialization is stupidity.
- some diseases are better, many more worse or brand new ones as a result of industrialization..how nice! Even the damm air is killing and torturing us now... yippy hurray for industrial progress and medicine!
- the forests of Europe are dieing mate, and they did recover indeed somewhat after past stupidity. They also screwed over a whole new continent in the process, and still do.
Europe is an industrial nature management factory based on stupid ideals from centuries long gone while climate won't even allow it. Shocking extinction is the case more than ever no matter how many damm trees they plant or import. The true old forest such as Romania or a little shitty bit left in Poland is being destroyed by industrial might.
- whatever destruction medieval Europeans caused and did or not somehow mitigate dwarfs in comparison.
- European period of the time is the worst example of health/longevity anyway. Those idiots lived in their own filth while inbreeding, using religion as medicine and working the 90% poor to death.
Small wonder then that "primitive humans" have enjoyed better health and long life and still do without industry or agrarian civilization.
- there are no clean, green, renewable sources of energy or however people want to call it gonna make a damm bit of difference because they are all industrial and inherently and exponentially  destructive and depleting.
That is a marketing strategy of cult-like proportions.
- after stacking false assumptions one on top of the other you fantasize about some industrial forced human regulation...and conflict required?
Yeah...that will be a paradise with a smiling Arctic ice cover and happy plants & animals everywhere i'll bet lol  :P

134
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 04, 2018, 06:27:18 AM »
Solid proof that Germany has not decreased its CO2 emissions....


135
Policy and solutions / Re: Becoming Vegan.
« on: June 04, 2018, 05:10:57 AM »
Ecotricity sponsers a football team, the Forest Hill Rangers, which they say is the only Vegan football club. They talk about this and the all wood stadium they plan to build:



Food sold at the stadium is vegan and the players are fed vegan food at practices and games.

136
The rest / Re: Empire - America and the future
« on: May 20, 2018, 08:13:20 PM »
Susan, your platitudes about allying together to fight evils doesn't hold much weight for me, and many other (especially young) leftists.
Many people on this forum are old beneficiaries of the empire. And it is rare to find any meaningful critique of a system from people that have greatly reaped its rewards. And it is only now, that due to climate change & deteriorating economic conditions, that liberals find themselves advocating for change.

It's so convenient. That for years your generation has accumulated wealth stolen from minorities, foreigners, and future generations. That only now, as the problems of nationalism and environmental destruction creep into your daily lives, you decide to speak up. And what do you have to say? That we must change within the system.

The only change that can solve our problems is a radical transformation of our society, anything else will continue to perpetuate the suffering & environmental destruction caused by the inherently exploitative economic system that permeates throughout the globe.

So many of the problems discussed on these forums, from climate change to violent imperialism to the rise of fascism, have been warned about by leftists for decades. And rather than learning from those people, you retreat to the same 'ol strategy: how can we fix these problems while maintaining the system that benefits me? It reeks of selfishness, arrogance, and ignorance.  Your attitude towards the problem isn’t the attitude I want in an ally.

What sacrifice is your generation doing to solve our problems?

Are you finding homes for the homeless? Or do you keep collecting rent on your properties?

Are you protesting when a cop murders another minority? Or do you thank them for their service as they walk by?

Do you confront your friends at dinner parties? The businesspeople, bankers, lawyers, engineers speculators? Or would you rather avoid uncomfortable conversations?

Do you provide reparations to indigenous people? Or do you quietly enjoy the warmth and comfort of your home built on their stolen land?

How do you show solidarity to the working people of this world? Do you fight tooth and nail for equal pay? Or do suggest we soften their suffering with minimum wage, basic income and Medicare?

How do you suggest we put a stop to decades of violent imperialism inflicted to so much of the world? Are you willing to pay reparations? How much sacrifice are you willing to make to the families of murdered Palestinians? Do you think voting democrat will do much healing for the dismembered limbs shot by American allies using American Weapons?


What sort of sacrifice are you actually willing to make in your life to end the suffering and exploitation caused by your country? Because if it’s something a long the lines of: "I’m willing to pay our friendly capitalist Elon Musk for one of his fancy toys, and I’ll vote for one of the good democrats". Then you aren’t making a sacrifice. You're just saving yourself embarrassment at dinner parties.

Pages: 1 2 [3]