While the U.S. backtracks on green steel commitments, Chinese companies are starting to make iron with hydrogen. One just made its first export deal to…
reducing the environmental impact of human activities, redistributing income and wealth within and between countries, and encouraging a shift from materialistic values to a convivial and participatory society
I never said anything contrary to this. Reducing climate impact of energy is more important to human sustainability than local environment cleanliness, but certainly environment sustainability is also important. Degrowth is not needed. Taxes on pollution GHGs and polution (or better, regulatory obligation to clean up any) are. UBI in general and with those taxes as a specific funding component is great policy, and voluntary. Don’t want to pay pollution or income taxes, then don’t produce anything. Can still get rich from work, and letting UBI trickle back up to those who produce. UBI/wealth redistribution increases consumption, as more of it can be afforded by more people. The natural way of redistributing income among nations is to not protect domestic oligarchy.
There are systemic approaches to achieving clean growth that makes everyone, except those dependent on profit from slavery, happier. Evangelizing veganism and carbon footprints is fine when voluntary. Evangelism being successful on a mass scale, however unlikely, still leads to the usual coalition for fascist solutions, or accusations of it.
There are perfect effective systemic voluntary solutions (UBI, carbon taxes) to sustainability. Degrowth, will never be popular. Carbon footprint, was a shift to personal responsibility PR ploy paid for by BP. Degrowth, as a policy goal, or just loose association (like DEI) with one political party, would have a divisive benefit to oligarchism, and making reactionary oligarcho-fascism “populist”.
We got here, because I was arguing with dishonest troll spouting loser US empire propaganda, btw. Climate terrorism is awesome, because China did not solve it in 2023, according to them. By coincidence, the climate terrorist supporter also advocates for degrowth.
I never said anything contrary to this. Reducing climate impact of energy is more important to human sustainability than local environment cleanliness, but certainly environment sustainability is also important. Degrowth is not needed. Taxes on pollution GHGs and polution (or better, regulatory obligation to clean up any) are. UBI in general and with those taxes as a specific funding component is great policy, and voluntary. Don’t want to pay pollution or income taxes, then don’t produce anything. Can still get rich from work, and letting UBI trickle back up to those who produce. UBI/wealth redistribution increases consumption, as more of it can be afforded by more people. The natural way of redistributing income among nations is to not protect domestic oligarchy.
There are systemic approaches to achieving clean growth that makes everyone, except those dependent on profit from slavery, happier. Evangelizing veganism and carbon footprints is fine when voluntary. Evangelism being successful on a mass scale, however unlikely, still leads to the usual coalition for fascist solutions, or accusations of it.
There are perfect effective systemic voluntary solutions (UBI, carbon taxes) to sustainability. Degrowth, will never be popular. Carbon footprint, was a shift to personal responsibility PR ploy paid for by BP. Degrowth, as a policy goal, or just loose association (like DEI) with one political party, would have a divisive benefit to oligarchism, and making reactionary oligarcho-fascism “populist”.
We got here, because I was arguing with dishonest troll spouting loser US empire propaganda, btw. Climate terrorism is awesome, because China did not solve it in 2023, according to them. By coincidence, the climate terrorist supporter also advocates for degrowth.