• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Opinion WP: Environmentalists make good movie villains because they want to make your real life worse

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,996
9,136
640
I don’t care if the science is real, the entire thing hinges on the idea that we can engineer our way out of this entirely. Which seems incredibly naive. The same people that fucked up the planet are suddenly gonna save it we just have to give them a bunch of money ok

I agree that humans have an impact on the climate, I DONT agree that the same humans can save the entire world from dangerous weather in the future.

Hurricanes droughts etc the implication is climate scientists will stop these from happening. Which seems like a baffling proposal. In fact it seems far more likely they would fuck up geo engineering and end up making things worse. You know, cos of all the data showing us how we have done nothing but make things worse until now.

As far as resource issues, hunger, water, etc wouldn’t the thing to do be tackle those problems head on? They will be there whether we “save the planet” or not
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,549
5,764
420



They are not targeting the US, at least in this lawsuit.
Why do you take everything at face value? The purpose of the lawsuit is this

forge binding emissions’ reduction targets,
which the US would be binded to. the lawsuit is just attempt to add legal cover. It could be any 5 countries

How full of shit are you being right now?
"I know we have multiple world leaders, presidential candidates and worldwide activist strikes all saying the same thing, but we don't really mean it. Don't hold us to our hyperbolic nonsense."
 
Last edited:

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,175
3,001
1,600
I don’t care if the science is real, the entire thing hinges on the idea that we can engineer our way out of this entirely.

I agree that humans have an impact on the climate, I DONT agree that the same humans can save the entire world from dangerous weather in the future.

Hurricanes droughts etc the implication is climate scientists will stop these from happening. Which seems like a baffling proposal. In fact it seems far more likely they would fuck up geo engineering and end up making things worse. You know, cos of all the data showing us how we have done nothing but make things worse until now
Trying to prevent natural disasters wholesale is fairy magic bullshit. There is some belief that climate change will make the occurrence of those things accelerate in fairly noticeable amount.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,841
2,294
550
Why do you take everything at face value? The purpose of the lawsuit is this



which the US would be binded to. the lawsuit is just attempt to add legal cover. It could be any 5 countries



"I know we have multiple world leaders, presidential candidates and worldwide activist strikes all saying the same thing, but we don't really mean it. Don't hold us to our hyperbolic nonsense."
I was just responding at people saying other countries that pollute are not targeted. Well this lawsuit then targets everyone and is not discriminating.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,614
830
Brampton, Ontario
They are not targeting the US, at least in this lawsuit.
My idea of a crisis is you try and stem these countries from bringing millions of people into the world (and thus acting as future "refugees) instead of relying on a lawsuit and praying that's what's going to save them.
 

Vicetrailia

Member
Mar 12, 2019
623
278
335
NPC fragility.

That's how it feels to have your paradigm challenged.
Not you too.

I'm more aligned with #Phonepunk# #Phonepunk# . We'll have consequences that we wish we prevented, but we'll survive and technology will come though.

But some of the stuff said here is bizzaroworld retarded. It's not a challenge, it's clown world anti-science.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,175
3,001
1,600
"I know we have multiple world leaders, presidential candidates and worldwide activist strikes all saying the same thing, but we don't really mean it. Don't hold us to our hyperbolic nonsense."
A small group of people trying to make some sensible contributions to limiting climate change, a small group of presidential candidates, and activists (which you know are always a barometer for the average person /s)

That's everybody to you? What about actual scientists? Nolte's piece was specifically about ridiculing scientists and scientific consensus based on cherry picked absurd speculations.

You posted this reply

He isn't the one screaming the end of the world is coming.
If your assertion was correct, I'd be screaming the end of the world is coming.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,307
29,356
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Not you too.

I'm more aligned with #Phonepunk# #Phonepunk# . We'll have consequences that we wish we prevented, but we'll survive and technology will come though.

But some of the stuff said here is bizzaroworld retarded. It's not a challenge, it's clown world anti-science.
You seem more concerned -- fearful, even -- with people who don't believe the narrative on climate change than you do about countering their suppositions. And you don't seem self-aware enough to spot your own zealousness.

The "prevailing scientific consensus" that we are sold is not accurate. This doesn't make one pro- or anti-climate change, it merely calls into question the academic body trying to convince us of particular facts. One can hate their teacher but love learning. One can disagree with the Church and still find God.

What's remarkable to me is the emotional reaction when any aspect of the climate change narrative is questioned. The notion that we are doomed in 12 years is silly and has very little scientific backing, yet when you question aspects like that, it is as though you questioned the Book of Revelation to the Pope's own face.

Never take an apocalypse away from its adoring cult, and that message seems to hold true for the climate preachers.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,841
2,294
550
My idea of a crisis is you try and stem these countries from bringing millions of people into the world (and thus acting as future "refugees) instead of relying on a lawsuit and praying that's what's going to save them.
How do you prevent people from having kids in these countries though? Also how do people in these poor countries and their consumption compares to that of people in first world countries?
 

12Goblins

Member
Mar 1, 2017
1,503
1,775
445
yeah lets vilify this 15 year old girl, whose English as a second language is better than your own I might add, because she fights for cutting carbon emissions. Her, alongside the entire scientific community. keep up the good work fellas 👍

Indeed, insert the Are we the baddies meme

I found this line in her speech rather poignant: "This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean, yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?"

I've watched the right slowly move the goal posts on the issue of climate change for years and it's been insufferable.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,307
29,356
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
yeah lets vilify this 15 year old girl, whose English as a second language is better than your own I might add, because she fights for cutting carbon emissions. Her, alongside the entire scientific community. keep up the good work fellas 👍

Indeed, insert the Are we the baddies meme

I found this line in her speech rather poignant: "This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean, yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?"

I've watched the right slowly move the goal posts on the issue of climate change for years and it's been insufferable.
Excuse the collective eye-rolling. This is emotional pleading. I don't give a shit about this girl in particular and neither should you. She has the privilege of flying around the world and becoming famous yet still wants to play the shame card? Indeed, these antics are insufferable.

I'll just quote myself from an earlier thread since it has become nearly impossible to get people to see a distinction between actual climate change science and the special brand of activist/political "climate change" that was sold to them:

Global warming as a real scientific issue was coopted by a political bloc who've pushed bad science and bad conclusions. The scientists are right that human-generated CO2 and Nitrogen are having an impact on global weather, but the politicians are recommending the wrong things and pushing the wrong conclusions. Humans produce about 30 gigatons of CO2 per year. The natural process of the earth cycles 750 gt of carbon per year. This isn't to say that humans aren't having an impact. We are. The problem is that while we are pumping out a (relatively) small amount of CO2, we are also drastically reducing the earth's natural capability to handle greenhouse gases. This happens when we slash rainforests, destroy soil fertility, and retreat from desertified lands. We all learned this as kids: the plants and trees suck up the evil Co2 and give us wonderful oxygen. When the forests are cut down, there aren't as many plants and trees to suck up the evil Co2.

It's not the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by the burning rainforests that we have to worry about. It is the reduced capacity of that acreage to draw down and sequester carbon. Maybe in 100 years, the earth will only be able to cycle 650 gt of carbon a year. Or 500 gt. Or less. Then it won't matter if we reduce our measly 30 gt down to 10 or to 0. Conversely, imagine using natural and mechanical methods to increase the drawdown from 750 gt a year to 1000 gt per year. Suddenly, not only are we negating yearly emissions, but we're also cleaning up the after-effects of the last ~150 years of man-made greenhouse pollution. It is why I keep hammering home the question: reducing emissions is nice, but what is being done to remove the extra greenhouse gases already there?

The following video is six years old:


We have quite a lot of information about how to deal with greenhouse gasses (it's about increasing carbon drawdown and has almost nothing to do with reducing emissions). Politicians want to recommend things like reducing our meat consumption (cowfarts!) when the video above clearly explains how reducing cattle would make our situation much worse.

Global warming debate in politics is a microcosm of our overall political atmosphere. The party that "supports global warming" wants to set the tone and make demands, but they are recommending the wrong things. Corn ethanol? Carbon credits? These ideas didn't work. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs and educators are spreading knowledge on how to do carbon drawdown through farming/ranching. As a side-bonus, global food production goes through the roof, food is healthier, desertification is stopped (and reversed).

Yet, our scammer politicians shake their fists against the "deniers" and demand they step aside. They scream for more solar, more wind, more things that are gigantic financial investments, yet they won't talk about nuclear? They won't talk about revising our agriculture? They want to claim they are on the side of science, but they're not pushing the techniques that our scientists keep recommending. Of course they don't take global warming seriously. If they did, they would recommend proven ideas that actually work, not just expensive ideas that enrich themselves and their donors. They spend more time and money making movies to "raise awareness" and flying all around the globe to attend conferences than they do simply purchasing a few hundred carbon drawdown facilities.

It's all about milking the fame and social standing. Obama is no different.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,549
5,764
420
A small group of people trying to make some sensible contributions to limiting climate change, a small group of presidential candidates, and activists (which you know are always a barometer for the average person /s)

That's everybody to you? What about actual scientists? Nolte's piece was specifically about ridiculing scientists and scientific consensus based on cherry picked absurd speculations.

You posted this reply



If your assertion was correct, I'd be screaming the end of the world is coming.
It's not "a small group of people." It's the largest political party in America. It's the government of multiple countries.

I'm not going to pretend these people aren't saying what they are actually saying. If you don't want to be mocked as doomsayers, than stop constantly preaching doom
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,307
29,356
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Reminds me of Evangelical megacurches.

Give to the needy, open up your heart to the Lord and your wallets. Whaaaa, why am I a multi-millionaire? Well, the Lord needs me to be healthy and prosperous so that I can preach His word.

=

Stop flying jets! Stop using so much electricity! Stop polluting! Whaaa, why am I doing all of these things at a significantly higher rate than most of the populace? Well, the Earth needs to be saved and I have to spread Her message.

Activism used to be about giving voice to the voiceless.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,175
3,001
1,600
DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi if recent lost vegetation was restored would that be enough to handle the current output of carbon? We are currently sitting at carbon emissions being double the net uptake of vegetation and the oceans.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,307
29,356
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi if recent lost vegetation was restored would that be enough to handle the current output of carbon? We are currently sitting at carbon emissions being double the net uptake of vegetation and the oceans.
No we are not sitting at double carbon emissions, as I pointed out in the data above, human emission is about 30 gt per year (fluctuates) whereas the natural respiration and absorption of carbon of the planet is 750 gt per year (also fluctuates). Human emissions are 4% of total yearly emissions.

Granted, maybe that 4% is enough to push the scales in a bad direction. As I also pointed out in my earlier post, the issue is carbon sequestration / drawdown, not total emissions.

If we implemented methods of drawing down an extra 300 gt of carbon per year, would it matter if we managed to reduce our 30 gt emissions down to 20? Would it matter if these emissions went from 30 gt to 100 gt? The answer to both is obviously "no". Since we already know that third-world countries are modernizing and increasing their carbon output exponentially, it seems like the responsible thing for Western countries to keep developing technology to reduce outputs, yeah, but mostly to focus on carbon drawdown so that we can compensate for our more impoverished national neighbors.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,614
830
Brampton, Ontario
How do you prevent people from having kids in these countries though?
Well my first reaction was simply "have less sex".
If that's too hard, then mandatory birth control.

crowbrow said:
Also how do people in these poor countries and their consumption compares to that of people in first world countries?
Doesn't matter.
If climate change is predicting sudden doom, then morally speaking, why are we fine letting millions of new ones be born?

By the way, you do know if they also become refugees, they will move to the 1st world and thus contribute to the consumption crisis right?

That's why I find this whole situation hypocritical. One way or another, we either admit the damage is real and can't be stopped, or there is no problem and life continues like yesterday.
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,951
11,364
980
yeah lets vilify this 15 year old girl, whose English as a second language is better than your own I might add, because she fights for cutting carbon emissions. Her, alongside the entire scientific community. keep up the good work fellas 👍

Indeed, insert the Are we the baddies meme

I found this line in her speech rather poignant: "This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean, yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?"

I've watched the right slowly move the goal posts on the issue of climate change for years and it's been insufferable.
I addressed all of this before you even wrote your comment.

Which tells me one of two things:

Either:
1) You don't read what people have written and the counterpoints already raised before weighing in with your short-sighted repetition of old mantra.

Or

2) You simply pretend those counter-arguments don't exist and double-down on refuted positions regardless.

Either way, you do nothing to address the counter-arguments and existing challenges.
You are speaking to hear the sound of your own voice and to agree with yourself.

Repeating yourself and disregarding the voices of others is pretty much the playbook of the politically correct side of humanity. They refuse to engage. Just drown out, ignore or silence anyone not subscribing to their agenda. All whilst preaching how 'voices need to be heard' and patting themselves on the back.

Should humanity expire I take comfort in knowing that these toxic, cretinous, dishonest stains will finally learn what inclusiveness and lack of discrimination is all about: Nobody is less doomed that anyone else. The meteor has no prejudice.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,841
2,294
550
Well my first reaction was simply "have less sex".
If that's too hard, then mandatory birth control.
OK but how? I agree those two could work but, first, you're dealing with people from third world countries without education and governments with no resources or in constant state of war and chaos. How exactly do you teach them to have less sex or enforce mandatory birth control in these populations? In this case a lawsuit could be even more practical than this since I don't see a realistic plan here. Dreaming doesn't cost anything but it won't solve the issues.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
40,151
15,943
1,395
The Pentagon
How do you prevent people from having kids in these countries though? Also how do people in these poor countries and their consumption compares to that of people in first world countries?
there's no need, the literature indicates birthrates level off once women are given the pill

excessive population is not a concern and never will be
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
40,151
15,943
1,395
The Pentagon
Haven't free birth control been exported to those countries for decades though? Why hasn't it worked?
it is working, especially in india

women are having less children as nations continue to develop, the issue now in places like africa is the people are so poor they cannot even afford a watch to know when to take medications on time

or worse, they see western medicine as witchcraft

as women empower themselves, as wealth grows, birthrates normalize
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,841
2,294
550
it is working, especially in india

women are having less children as nations continue to develop, the issue now in places like africa is the people are so poor they cannot even afford a watch to know when to take medications on time

or worse, they see western medicine as witchcraft
OK but how do you solve this? People are looking for practical solutions to apply right now. Let's say the governments in the world magically get together and come up with a plan to develop Africa in 5 years. Now birthrates decrease but Africa reaches a standard of living close to western standards. Now what? Now you have a controlled population but now you have all Africans with a standard of life on the western level and, thus, consuming and wasting in western rates which makes them even more damaging for the environment than they were when they were poor and their population was increasing. So I don't see a real solution here.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,614
830
Brampton, Ontario
OK but how? I agree those two could work but, first, you're dealing with people from third world countries without education and governments with no resources or in constant state of war and chaos.
These countries receive lots of foreign aid. Hell, it shouldn't actually be possible for them to sustain such high birth rates since as you said, they're always in a state of war.

You could easily replace the aid they get with birth control instead.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
40,151
15,943
1,395
The Pentagon
OK but how do you solve this? People are looking for practical solutions to apply right now. Let's say the governments in the world magically get together and come up with a plan to develop Africa in 5 years. Now birthrates decrease but Africa reaches a standard of living close to western standards. Now what? Now you have a controlled population but now you have all Africans with a standard of life on the western level and, thus, consuming and wasting in western rates which makes them even more damaging for the environment than they were when they were poor and their population was increasing. So I don't see a real solution here.
i'm not sure there's anything to solve, these things take time and good progress is being made in all developing continents and countries

the environment seems fine to me
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,614
830
Brampton, Ontario
OK but how do you solve this? People are looking for practical solutions to apply right now. Let's say the governments in the world magically get together and come up with a plan to develop Africa in 5 years. Now birthrates decrease but Africa reaches a standard of living close to western standards. Now what? Now you have a controlled population but now you have all Africans with a standard of life on the western level and, thus, consuming and wasting in western rates which makes them even more damaging for the environment than they were when they were poor and their population was increasing. So I don't see a real solution here.
I rather they reach Western standards of livings in their own countries as it means they should [hopefully] pursue their own research and have a reason to want to preserve where they live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

Vicetrailia

Member
Mar 12, 2019
623
278
335
i'm not sure there's anything to solve, these things take time and good progress is being made in all developing continents and countries

the environment seems fine to me
Don't you mean the US environment seems fine to you. This country will adapt just fine. The poorer countries in certain areas....🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

12Goblins

Member
Mar 1, 2017
1,503
1,775
445
I addressed all of this before you even wrote your comment.

Which tells me one of two things:

Either:
1) You don't read what people have written and the counterpoints already raised before weighing in with your short-sighted repetition of old mantra.

Or

2) You simply pretend those counter-arguments don't exist and double-down on refuted positions regardless.

Either way, you do nothing to address the counter-arguments and existing challenges.
You are speaking to hear the sound of your own voice and to agree with yourself.

Repeating yourself and disregarding the voices of others is pretty much the playbook of the politically correct side of humanity. They refuse to engage. Just drown out, ignore or silence anyone not subscribing to their agenda. All whilst preaching how 'voices need to be heard' and patting themselves on the back.

Should humanity expire I take comfort in knowing that these toxic, cretinous, dishonest stains will finally learn what inclusiveness and lack of discrimination is all about: Nobody is less doomed that anyone else. The meteor has no prejudice.
I'm reading through your posts in this thread - I see nothing that addresses what I said, why? because there's nothing to address in my post. you have to stop this pseudo intellectual virtue signalling game you play in every thread. the rest of your post is projection. just ignore me bud
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,171
25,107
1,400
Australia
Earth is gonna be fine, humans are fucked.

We are in the way of this planet, earth will be happy when humanity is gone.

This planet has been through an ice age, the stone age, dinosaurs, a meteor.

Climate change is killing the human race, not the planet.



A young girl wants to fight for change and you go "lol girl get a life you don't have enough life experience".

That's quite sad.

Adults attacking Greta and other young people who fights for climate change action are just sad.
Get a grip, you emotional fool.
 

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
424
270
475
These countries receive lots of foreign aid. Hell, it shouldn't actually be possible for them to sustain such high birth rates since as you said, they're always in a state of war.

You could easily replace the aid they get with birth control instead.
How do their birth rates match up with their rates of childhood mortality?
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,841
2,294
550
Hell, it shouldn't actually be possible for them to sustain such high birth rates since as you said, they're always in a state of war.
Human societies after a humanitarian crisis usually reproduce faster and more. This is a fact of human society probably fueled by a survival instinct. I still don't see any realistic solution in your proposals to change how things work... taking away humanitarian aid and replacing everything with birth control will condemn many of this people to death and starvation and probably even increase migration because of a bigger humanitarian crisis. Would you be ok with that? Do you really think that is a realistic solution? I guess the lawsuit made by the Kids should do then... Nobody else is actually making any efforts to provide some realistic plans...
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,307
29,356
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Challenged by uncritical feelings and decades of environmental data and dogma leading to a rigorously vetted consensus being dismissed because of boilerplate observations?
That's a long sentence. If only you were actually describing the situation, then you might have a point.

As far as I see it, most people in the thread agree there is some value in environmentalism but disagree to what extent we must adjust to deal with it. You have a very binary "either you believe in climate change or you're wrong" sort of mentality, the kind that most people grow out of in adulthood.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,614
830
Brampton, Ontario
Human societies after a humanitarian crisis usually reproduce faster and more.
Who started the crisis to begin with?

taking away humanitarian aid and replacing everything with birth control will condemn many of this people to death and starvation and probably even increase migration because of a bigger humanitarian crisis.
Birth control = death and starvation?
No, it's the other way around. They're having more children then they can actually support.

I guess the lawsuit made by the Kids should do then... Nobody else is actually making any efforts to provide some realistic plans...
I thought climate change was suppose to doom the planet? Once again, it's very interesting that in the regions of the world I described, no effort is being done about the population explosion.

Do these billions of people have some secret technology to survive the weather apocalypse that the most richest 1st world countries don't have? Otherwise, what's going to happen to them?

If climate change is suppose to bring refugees who will come to our countries and increase our footprint, why not go directly to the source and prevent that number from rising?
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
4,951
11,364
980
I'm reading through your posts in this thread - I see nothing that addresses what I said, why? because there's nothing to address in my post. you have to stop this pseudo intellectual virtue signalling game you play in every thread. the rest of your post is projection. just ignore me bud
Factually, you're 100% incorrect. You waded in with the 'big mean adults attacking a fragile young girl' rhetoric - which is exactly the theatrics I preempted. Because it's such a hilariously obvious set-up to people that can see beyond identity politic optics.

Besides "nu uh" and pretending you can't see what is in black and white, you haven't actually addressed anything.

Your desire to be ignored will not be honoured. I don't put anybody on ignore as that is the path of wilful ignorance. Moderators take care of pests of trolls, so there really is no need to hide commentary.

By contrast, those that are challenged and advocate being ignored favour that route as it is a hopeful fast-track to them continuing their poor commentary but not being challenged on it.

In summary, your suggestion that I ignore you is being made for your benefit and convenience, not mine.

All in all, not a very sincere response to anything you've been challenged on. Addressing nothing whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cybrwzrd and RSB

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,841
2,294
550
Birth control = death?
If you replace humanitarian aid with birth control you will be taking a lot of food that is going towards starving people, a lot of medicine that is going to sick people and a lot of education going to illiterate people. So basically you're condemning this people to death or misery. Are you ok with this? Also who is going to realistically do this? It would be political and moral suicide.


I thought climate change was suppose to doom the planet? Once again, it's very interesting that in the regions of the world I described, no effort is being done about the population explosion.
They are, like i said, birth control programs have been going on for decades in these countries, humanitarian aid too. So an effort has been Made. You and other criticize these kids for making an effort of changing something using a lawsuit mechanism but then you have no alternative plan at all. All you have is fantasy and things that would never happen. Nobody is going to take aid away from Africa and leave a bunch of people starve to death while throwing birth pills at them and hoping they don't reproduce. That's beyond retarded. Actually those kids seem to have more realistic solutions than their adult detractors even if it's a long shot they would work.
 

cabbage5k2

Member
Apr 7, 2019
76
54
205



They are not targeting the US, at least in this lawsuit.
Of course China's not included...
 

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
1,620
1,127
650
San Francisco, CA
If the lawsuit is succesful, China would also have to comply to reduce emissions or they will be in violation of human rights.
You serious? China doesn't have to do shit. Violation of human rights? Please. Last I checked they are rounding up all Muslims in camps, burning Christian/Catholic books, and flattening people with tanks. Tiananmen Square anyone?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: JordanN

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,614
830
Brampton, Ontario
If you replace humanitarian aid with birth control you will be taking a lot of food that is going towards starving people, a lot of medicine that is going to sick people and a lot of education going to illiterate people. So basically you're condemning this people to death or misery.

Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara (French pronunciation: [tɔma sɑ̃kaʁa]; 21 December 1949 – 15 October 1987) was a Burkinabé revolutionary and President of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987. A Marxist and pan-Africanist, he was viewed by supporters as a charismatic and iconic figure of revolution, and is sometimes referred to as "Africa's Che Guevara".[1][2][3][4]

A group of revolutionaries seized power on behalf of Sankara (who was under house arrest at the time) in a popularly-supported coup in 1983. Aged 33, Sankara became the President of the Republic of Upper Volta. He immediately launched programmes for social, ecological, and economic change, and renamed the country from the French colonial Upper Volta to Burkina Faso ("Land of Incorruptible People").[5][6] His foreign policies were centred on anti-imperialism, with his government eschewing all foreign aid, pushing for odious debt reduction, nationalising all land and mineral wealth and averting the power and influence of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. His domestic policies were focused on preventing famine with agrarian self-sufficiency and land reform, prioritising education with a nationwide literacy campaign and promoting public health by vaccinating 2,500,000 children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles.[7]
Look at that. An African leader who did explicitly reject foreign aid and *gasp* tried to build his country instead of letting it fall into starvation and war? Why can't the rest of the continent follow his example?

It would be political and moral suicide.
For the benefit of both Africans and the environment, we should not be sustaining an infinite population growth that will lead to one of two outcomes:
1. Climate change is real and the world knowingly gave aid to watch billions of people fry anyway.
2. The endless cycle of war and failed governments causes these people to flee to Western countries, inflating their footprint and accelerating climate change.

They are, like i said, birth control programs have been going on for decades in these countries, humanitarian aid too. So an effort has been Made. You and other criticize these kids for making an effort of changing something using a lawsuit mechanism but then you have no alternative plan at all. All you have is fantasy and things that would never happen. Nobody is going to take aid away from Africa and leave a bunch of people starve to death while throwing birth pills at them and hoping they don't reproduce. That's beyond retarded. Actually those kids seem to have more realistic solutions than their adult detractors even if it's a long shot they would work.
Greta: Yo China, stop polluting.
China: Or what?
Greta: Oh, um. I'll write a really nasty letter and sue you!
China: You know we're on the UN Security Council and can veto whatever the hell you want, right?
Greta: Oops. Well, back to protesting then!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pr0cs and RSB