JackRiddler » Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:44 pm wrote:Elvis » Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:19 pm wrote:BS wrote:
- Questioning current Net Zero, ESG, and/or 'carbon offset' initiatives (and along similar lines 'green energy' and any related policies) is 'right wing' or 'Far Right'.
This is bullshit. Supporters of all kinds of bullshit capitalism call their ideas leftist or progressive, including support for the proxy war in Ukraine. The latter has even made insroads on the language of decolonization. So? I think on this board we can grasp the elementary point that even the Nazis appropriated the word "socialist." Doesn't make them that. If you want a less incendiary example, the crew who have spent decades trying to appropriate public education budgets, break the teachers' unions, and cram every elementary school classroom with 50 uniformed cadets learning obedience and taking drills in whatever "skills" capitalism thinks it might need next year framed their cause as the New Civil Rights movement. FIRE developers put out millions to fund fake progressive consultants and bot teams (so called YIMBYs) to proclaim they just want to build more affordable housing and gardeners and regressive nostalgic change-hating small-homeowners are the enemy.
Carbon tax could have some positive effect if it was done in the way Elvis describes. It ain't no solution. IRA is a joke. Etc.
I disagree, naturally. It's not "bullshit". There are, demonstrably, individuals -- mostly on social media, granted, but 'IRL' as well -- that call any criticism of ESG, Net Zero, 'carbon offsets' as 'Far Right' or 'right wing' talking points. Yes, this happens. I've first hand experience of it.
Anyone here or elsewhere may attempt to apply a nuanced view for certain specified circumstances where criticisms of these policies (using the properly approved terms or language) is "correct" and other scenarios when it's not the "correct" opinion (especially if uttered by a
Trumptard or some variant), but the bottom line is that, routinely, broad brush commentary as I present above [e.g., the tendency among certain self-described liberal, progressives, and/or leftists calling any counters to dominant 'climate change' narratives as 'Right Wing' or 'Far Right'] are not uncommon.
It may well be that at least a subset of these self-described "liberals", "progressives" and/or "leftists" are nowhere near the spectrum/category of political views that would earn them the right to label themselves as such, but that's a separate conversation. Over the last 3+ years in particular, many historical terms/concepts have been distorted/flipped/contaminated, purposefully (at least in part purposeful; some of it is inevitable or simply a confluence of factors controlled, random and/or happenstance).
Also: "Net Zero" (and/or carbon taxes, and/or ESG, etc) is fucking bullshit no matter how it may be defined or applied, specific to climate. The end goals are not benevolent. At all.
Pollution/environmentalism and climate are 2 different concerns.
I'm all for curbing pollution and keeping the environment clean as possible.
Climate related aims, as practically applied by all 1st/2nd word govts, are fucking scams; efforts to enact greater controls/siphon more ungodly sums of money to the detriment of the majority. They won't work -- carbon is not the global problem it's touted to be, in any event, so even if the aims at the top are earnest -- they're not -- it won't fucking work as advertised because the premises are flawed.
Some of you can continue to insist on subscribing to bullshit.
I won't.
(this does not mean I'm immune to bullshit. I can be a victim of it as much as others can be. Though since 2020 I've been batting for a very high average. Sorry if that bothers some of you).