09-07-2024, 08:05 PM
Recently, I read an article which featured the topic of "Ecocide"... one of my favorite entries under the heading "Words I Hate."
The actual Topic entry on the web page was "Ecocide"... which prepped me for what I was about to read under the title:
From ArsTechnica: Americans misunderstand their contribution to deteriorating environment
Rather than provide you with a premade list of "what's wrong in this narrative" I will simply state a few facts which, in my opinion, need to be remembered when consuming "information" of this nature. By "nature" I mean 'activist journalism' - especially the kind that forges a narrative by addressing contextually relevant issues... but not all of them.
Please remember that insofar as 'the damage human activity does" to the environment, China and India, out paces (and out pollutes) all of North America, Europe, and a bit more... combined. The author expects that decimating the lifestyles of hundreds of millions of Americans will "fix" something. Also please recall that in comparison to the individuals (all of them,) major industry and even smaller industries out pollute all of them... continuously, not through "consumption" but through "production for profit." Also, if you look into it, you will find that the concept of "tipping points" is like predicting "when" a wave will crest and fall at the shore... without actually knowing "where" the wave is.
Most people are “very” or “extremely” concerned about the state of the natural world, a new global public opinion survey shows.
Roughly 70 percent of 22,000 people polled online earlier this year agreed that human activities were pushing the Earth past “tipping points,” thresholds beyond which nature cannot recover, like loss of the Amazon rainforest or collapse of the Atlantic Ocean’s currents. The same number of respondents said the world needs to reduce carbon emissions within the next decade.
Just under 40 percent of respondents said technological advances can solve environmental challenges.
The Global Commons survey, conducted for two collectives of “economic thinkers” and scientists known as Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance, polled people across 22 countries, including low-, middle- and high-income nations. The survey’s stated aim was to assess public opinion about “societal transformations” and “planetary stewardship.”
Because of my compulsion to comment, I will add....
The opinions of 'economic thinkers' and activist organizations' their curated polls doesn't carry convincing weight to me. It is too easy to craft an image that conforms to their relevant opinions. Also the virtue fodder word "stewardship" belies the fact that we are either stewards of the planet or not... there is no 'spectrum' of stewardship, no "become a steward" once the damage is as done as it already is. Now what we really need is to prepare for the inevitable eco-feedback... problem is... profitability. Those with the means lack the incentive (profit motive) to change.
Also:
The world’s wealthiest 10 percent are responsible for nearly half the world’s carbon emissions, along with ecosystem destruction and related social impacts. For instance, American consumption of gold, tropical hardwoods like mahogany and cedar and other commodities has been linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest and attacks on Indigenous people defending their territories from extractive activities.
The United States is one of the world’s wealthiest countries and home to 38 percent of the world’s millionaires (the largest share). But a person doesn’t need to be a millionaire to fit within the cohort of the world’s wealthiest. Americans without children earning more than $60,000 a year after tax, and families of three with an after-tax household income above $130,000, are in the richest 1 percent of the world’s population.
United Nations emissions gap reports have said that to reach global climate goals, the world’s wealthiest people must cut their personal emissions by at least a factor of 30. High-income Americans’ emissions footprint is largely a consequence of lifestyle choices like living in large homes, flying often, opting for personal vehicles over public transportation, and conspicuous consumption of fast fashion and other consumer goods.
In the first paragraph the lay a large chunk of 'fault' to the wealthy, in the second they layout out their "reality" in which people making over $100K are "rich"... then they slam the "UN" into the equation... the same UN that does not include China or India in punitive solutions at all.... so while we deprive and diminish ourselves, they can just "keep developing their economies." Interesting strategy... seems anti-western, doesn't it?
The article culminates in the idea of "Ecocide crime"... why does it always have to be punitive with these people? Do they really believe that fines and 'shame" will be part of a solution? That's like pretending you can "buy" the solution with "credits." But whatever... this is their narrative...
The actual Topic entry on the web page was "Ecocide"... which prepped me for what I was about to read under the title:
From ArsTechnica: Americans misunderstand their contribution to deteriorating environment
Rather than provide you with a premade list of "what's wrong in this narrative" I will simply state a few facts which, in my opinion, need to be remembered when consuming "information" of this nature. By "nature" I mean 'activist journalism' - especially the kind that forges a narrative by addressing contextually relevant issues... but not all of them.
Please remember that insofar as 'the damage human activity does" to the environment, China and India, out paces (and out pollutes) all of North America, Europe, and a bit more... combined. The author expects that decimating the lifestyles of hundreds of millions of Americans will "fix" something. Also please recall that in comparison to the individuals (all of them,) major industry and even smaller industries out pollute all of them... continuously, not through "consumption" but through "production for profit." Also, if you look into it, you will find that the concept of "tipping points" is like predicting "when" a wave will crest and fall at the shore... without actually knowing "where" the wave is.
Most people are “very” or “extremely” concerned about the state of the natural world, a new global public opinion survey shows.
Roughly 70 percent of 22,000 people polled online earlier this year agreed that human activities were pushing the Earth past “tipping points,” thresholds beyond which nature cannot recover, like loss of the Amazon rainforest or collapse of the Atlantic Ocean’s currents. The same number of respondents said the world needs to reduce carbon emissions within the next decade.
Just under 40 percent of respondents said technological advances can solve environmental challenges.
The Global Commons survey, conducted for two collectives of “economic thinkers” and scientists known as Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance, polled people across 22 countries, including low-, middle- and high-income nations. The survey’s stated aim was to assess public opinion about “societal transformations” and “planetary stewardship.”
Because of my compulsion to comment, I will add....
The opinions of 'economic thinkers' and activist organizations' their curated polls doesn't carry convincing weight to me. It is too easy to craft an image that conforms to their relevant opinions. Also the virtue fodder word "stewardship" belies the fact that we are either stewards of the planet or not... there is no 'spectrum' of stewardship, no "become a steward" once the damage is as done as it already is. Now what we really need is to prepare for the inevitable eco-feedback... problem is... profitability. Those with the means lack the incentive (profit motive) to change.
Also:
The world’s wealthiest 10 percent are responsible for nearly half the world’s carbon emissions, along with ecosystem destruction and related social impacts. For instance, American consumption of gold, tropical hardwoods like mahogany and cedar and other commodities has been linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest and attacks on Indigenous people defending their territories from extractive activities.
The United States is one of the world’s wealthiest countries and home to 38 percent of the world’s millionaires (the largest share). But a person doesn’t need to be a millionaire to fit within the cohort of the world’s wealthiest. Americans without children earning more than $60,000 a year after tax, and families of three with an after-tax household income above $130,000, are in the richest 1 percent of the world’s population.
United Nations emissions gap reports have said that to reach global climate goals, the world’s wealthiest people must cut their personal emissions by at least a factor of 30. High-income Americans’ emissions footprint is largely a consequence of lifestyle choices like living in large homes, flying often, opting for personal vehicles over public transportation, and conspicuous consumption of fast fashion and other consumer goods.
In the first paragraph the lay a large chunk of 'fault' to the wealthy, in the second they layout out their "reality" in which people making over $100K are "rich"... then they slam the "UN" into the equation... the same UN that does not include China or India in punitive solutions at all.... so while we deprive and diminish ourselves, they can just "keep developing their economies." Interesting strategy... seems anti-western, doesn't it?
The article culminates in the idea of "Ecocide crime"... why does it always have to be punitive with these people? Do they really believe that fines and 'shame" will be part of a solution? That's like pretending you can "buy" the solution with "credits." But whatever... this is their narrative...
