Reddit
Pro vs. con view
11 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    I would first recommend reading [The Green New...

    CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.

    I would first recommend reading [The Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf) if you haven't already, its about 14 pages, with huge spacing (about 3-4 real pages). But to summarize the bill in my own words, the Green New Deal calls for essentially every democratic agenda to be passed into law(to include climate change). As a democrat, I agree with most of the agenda items(it's literally the democratic agenda), but there is something wrong with creating a bill like this. By tying together climate change, and a plethora of other issues, like equal protection and rights for illegal immigrants, government-run(?) healthcare for all, etc, it is ensuring intense opposition by non democrats. Since I do not believe any rational human being could read the bill, and think it would get bi partisan support, my view is that there was no real intention of ever getting the bill passed into law/policy. (Sure, the gender wage gap is important, so are Native American rights... But there's no need to make that stand on a climate change bill, and doing so is insulting to the Americans who want to see huge climate change initiatives as our national policy) **The abridged, loose, logical argument:** Premise 1) If you want a bill to get passed into law, when possible, you will write it in a bi partisan way. Premise 2) Climate change can be written in a Bi-Partisan way Premise 3) The Green New Deal was not written in a bi partisan way(or was written in a partisan way). Conclusion) The Green New Deal was not written to be passed into law. (And this disappoints me, because in my opinion, climate change is the #1 issue of my lifetime.) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Edit 1: I learned that the intent of the bill wasn't necessarily to pass something into law, but more of a political statement or some sort of rally cry. Not sure how I feel about that one or what changes, but its worth noting. (its a function of a specific type of house resolution) Edit 2: After reading some of these posts, I now realize that the Green New Deal is actually divisive within the democratic party, and received a (soft) "bipartisan" rejection in the senate. This seems to indicate the increased importance of having a specific targeted bill, as it seemed some senators did not want to go on record supporting it, because of what it said.

  • PRO

    Not just because of the biodiversity, but also because of...

    CMV: the fight against climate change will be impossible because of compromises.

    I'm not sure how to title this CMV, but I'm starting to think that it will be impossible to stop climate change from doing too much damage, from flooding low-height densely populated areas, from making deserts (more) uninhabitable. There are too many compromises to make in order to stop the damage from being too big but also to prevent the suffering of some people. 1- Airplanes On one hand, airplanes cause a lot of pollution because of the fuel. Kerosene is the only fuel available that is cheap, energy-dense and light to power a flying beast of metal. Batteries are too heavy and aren't energy-dense enough for that. It's almost as if human beings aren't supposed to fly. The heaviest extant flying animal has an average weight of less than 20 kg. Pterosaurs existed, yes, but they are extinct and I think they'd have a hard time flying in our current atmosphere with too little oxygen. On the other hand, there are some some places that are too geographically isolated for roads or train tracks. Yes, they are accessible by water vessels, but water-based transportation is too slow, especially for those communities who can't be self-sufficient. 2- The Amazon rainforest On one hand, preserving it is important. Not just because of the biodiversity, but also because of its weather regulation capabilities. On the other hand, the Amazon is no Antarctica, it has people living in it, it has cities in it. They need infrastructure that can't be built because of extreme environmental regulations. Yes, there's a risk of the roads and train tracks (again, water travel is slow, and not everything can be transported via ships) causing even more deforestation in their surroundings, but the Brazilian north is poor for a reason. 3- Energy Renewable energies still can't supply the energy demand on their own and nuclear stations take too long to get ready and got their reputation destroyed by Fukushima and Chernobyl (there's also the issue of the disposal of the nuclear waste, those take literally millennia to become safe). I fear that, even with the increase of capabilities, renewables still couldn't supply because the demand also increased. 4- Food On one hand, agriculture and livestock (especially the latter) take up too much space that could be used for nature preservation and for planting trees to suck up the excessive carbon in the atmosphere. On the other hand, there are people living in places that can't support intense agriculture because the soil sucks and/or because their biome is too important (*cough* Amazon *cough*). Also, being able to follow a vegan diet is a privilege. There are the people whose lifestyle require a lot of protein, people recovering from eating disorders (they can't have a diet that is too restrictive), autistic people who only eat a very specific diet (and they are often repulsed by vegetables), people who simply can't give up meat because they like it too much, among other groups who can't go vegan.

  • PRO

    Speculation with BTC (asides from puts) thus is directly...

    CMV: All those climate-saving billionaires are huge hypocrites now investing in bitcoin!

    Bitcoin uses as much power as Norway mainly produced from dirty coal plants in third world countries. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 (Edit:the article says it increased already to Argentinian size) Elon spending $100 mio price for carbon capturing while investing $1,5B in bitcoin at the same time without any real need. World climate is going down and we waste ton of energy just for speculation? This is soo hypocrite. Why aren't the billionaires not criticized more? Why isn't there a co2 tax on bitcoin? Why are those billionaires being hailed in Reddit while ruining all our futures? I don't get it, how can one produce electric cars, solar roofs, traffic reduction technologies, grant prices for climate technology and at the same time invest a multiply into the most stupid waste of energy one could possibly imagine? The only reason TSLA is doing this is for speculation purposes... One bitcoin transaction generates as much CO2 as a Tesla driving 5000 miles. Let alone an increased BTC price propelles mining activity. Speculation with BTC (asides from puts) thus is directly harming the climate as it expects rising courses and this drives mining.Tesla should sell their co2 certificates to themselves to cover for the bitcoin emissions? Are those billionaires not being honest to us and all they care is becoming richer ( well who doesn't) by polluting the ?. This invest in bitcoin will jeopardize all C02 emissions savings Tesla has made during it's entire existence in no time ( didn't do the math). One could wonder why this is even allowed, earning money from C02 emissions certificates while investing the same money into a C02 emissions network with no other real usage aside from wasting energy and becoming richer. Can anybody explain why Elon is still everybody's hero while being climate Sauron? I don't get it, we should tell him that this is wrong and he needs to stop. Elon, please be again the self made billionaire by making the world a better place! You are ruining all your reputation and the world needs green role models so badly!

  • PRO

    But if the platform is new, the use which humans do of it...

    CMV: The internet (not Climate Change) will be the cause of the extinction of our specie via widespread depression caused by accessibility of informations enabling the comparison with the #1 person in every domain

    The internet has produced extreme advances in every possible areas of humanity and it's responsible for the rise in Gross Domestic Product since the late 1990s and up to the new millennium. But if the platform is new, the use which humans do of it is always directed by market forces which are on their own directed by our nature (see for example how the vast majority of the internet is pornographic content). Our nature is to compare ourselves with others and the internet has exacerbated this phenomenon and literally have it run wild If you are a small owner trying to provide for your family you have the Bezos 200B net worth in your face all the times, if you are a girl trying to feel cute about her body..then you have Emily Ratajowski in your face, again, all the time And our nature, by the way, is not to look away and don't pay attention to our competitors but to keep head down and grind to eventually reach #1 and finally be happy. But the notion of #1 implies that there can only be only one winner and 7,999,999,999 losers at this game. So we are already seeing a comparison induced depression state across the board, but this is nothing yet compared with what's about to hit us. It will hit us from the inside , unlike any external enemy and it will be global You think the current situation is bad? It's still seen nothing compared to the violence of an enemy which we can't even study and have no hope of defeating. At least with But if the platform is new, the use which humans do of it is always directed by market forces which are on their own directed by our nature (see for example how the vast majority of the internet is pornographic content). Our nature is to compare ourselves with others and the internet has exacerbated this phenomenon and literally have it run wild If you are a small owner trying to provide for your family you have the Bezos 200B net worth in your face all the times, if you are a girl trying to feel cute about her body..then you have Emily Ratajowski in your face, again, all the time And our nature, by the way, is not to look away and don't pay attention to our competitors but to keep head down and grind to eventually reach #1 and finally be happy. But the notion of #1 implies that there can only be only one winner and 7,999,999,999 losers at this game. So we are already seeing a comparison induced depression state across the board, but this is nothing yet compared with what's about to hit us. It will hit us from the inside , unlike any external enemy and it will be global You think the current situation is bad? It's still seen nothing compared to the violence of an enemy which we can't even study and have no hope of defeating. At least with Our nature is to compare ourselves with others and the internet has exacerbated this phenomenon and literally have it run wild If you are a small owner trying to provide for your family you have the Bezos 200B net worth in your face all the times, if you are a girl trying to feel cute about her body..then you have Emily Ratajowski in your face, again, all the time And our nature, by the way, is not to look away and don't pay attention to our competitors but to keep head down and grind to eventually reach #1 and finally be happy. But the notion of #1 implies that there can only be only one winner and 7,999,999,999 losers at this game. So we are already seeing a comparison induced depression state across the board, but this is nothing yet compared with what's about to hit us. It will hit us from the inside , unlike any external enemy and it will be global You think the current situation is bad? It's still seen nothing compared to the violence of an enemy which we can't even study and have no hope of defeating. At least with climate as well as the current situation we know what we should do to solve the problem (it's more a matter of getting our act together and doing it), but with this particular enemy (comparison induced depression) there's nothing we can do. We don't even know how to attack it

  • PRO

    Both parties are (for international standards) right wing...

    CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.

    I try not to have the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. The American government is full of *corruption-* sorry- **lobbyism** so votes don't change anything really. A good example is Obama-care which was the idea of free healthcare for everyone, but now isn't free, isn't universal and is tried to be abolished. Both parties are (for international standards) right wing and in their own information bubble, so that there isn't a discussion about things like minimum wage, healthcare, prisons, police etc. because everyone just starts yelling at ones and thinks they're right. The only option for a small group would be effective terrorism (We blow up 1 school every week, until *this* has changed or similar) and for a societal class to become aware of its power and destroy the government until there is not a fingernail of establishment left. ​ But that probably doesn't happen. Not because my conclusion is wrong, but because the establishment pushes nationalism to an unhealthy amount in the heads of every American.

  • PRO

    They are solely interested in maintaingin their power and...

    CMV: The GOP will get away with everything, as they always have and things won't change for the better if we rely on the political system alone

    After the second acquittal of the 45th president of the United States of America, it should be clear as day to everyone, that the GOP isn't interersted in doing what's best for the country, best for the populace or best for the world. They are solely interested in maintaingin their power and stoking the fanaticsm of their most fervent supporters, using their expanded media-empire and their stranglehold over many educational systems Ever since Nixon was pardonned, the Republicans have by and large been emboldened to do whatever the fuck they want, since they know that they'll never have to face real consequences, even if the democrats should come into power, since democrats are also more interested in keeping the "balance" of the two party system, especially since all the shit the republicans do benefits many rich democrats directly. The democrats are closer to republicans than to their own electorate and many of them (looking at you, Tulsi), won't go directly against the GOP because of personal gain. ​ CMV: The GOP is on a one way trip to becoming anti-democratic, because even if they are caught they have nothing to lose, since the democrats won't ever truly hold them accountable

CON

  • CON

    Your CMV presupposes that the only way to fight climate...

    CMV: the fight against climate change will be impossible because of compromises.

    Your CMV presupposes that the only way to fight climate change is to stop doing things that negatively effect the environment, but you seem to have completely forgotten about climate control. I'd argue that it's far more likely, given humanity's propensity for technological solutions to problems and the rate at which we've developed so far, that we end up creating ways to control our environment, as opposed to stopping causing damage to it. While I appreciate this isn't physically possible right now, theoretically it is. And we already have certain elements of climate control like cloud bursting nailed. That is certainly one way we can fight climate change without making any (or perhaps very few) of the compromises you went through.

  • CON

    You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just...

    CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.

    First off, I sort of reject a lot of your premises involving bipartisanship. I don't think there are enough republicans serious about trying to be bipartisan to actually pass any meaningful climate change bills with 60+ votes. If dems try to be bipartisan, it's primarily a stalling tactic by the GOP to ensure that nothing gets done for long enough that they can run on the "look how ineffective the democrats are". Related to this, bipartisanship is *not* the only way to get things done. They can also try to get rid of the filibuster. You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just like we can debate whether bipartisanship is actually a good idea, but it is a path forward. That said, even to get 50 votes, you still need moderate Democrats like Manchin who are almost certainly unlikely to be interested in the green new deal. So in a sort of roundabout way, I agree with you that it's not realistic right now, although I disagree with your exact reasoning. But I do disagree that that necessarily makes it a "distraction". On this point, I think you have to disentangle two things. There's the green new deal itself, which is notably not an actual bill that's currently under consideration to become law, and is more a set of goals. What can actually pass should be a practical consideration when actually legislating, but it's silly to try and argue that people shouldn't even clearly state *what they actually want*. Anything that actually passes will surely be a compromise, bit you don't help your cause in a negotiation by dumbing down your opening offer to try and avoid having to negotiate entirely. You start with what you want and work from there. Now, you could make a strong case that there are democratic figures that treat the green new deal as an all-or-nothing no compromise purity test and use it to attack other Democrats in ways that are pretty unproductive. But that's a critique of those Democrats, not the green new deal itself, which is a pretty accurate platform of what a lot of people on the left genuinely want.

  • CON

    Also, [flying isn?t much worse emissions wise per person...

    CMV: the fight against climate change will be impossible because of compromises.

    You seem to be missing the major factor of technical advancements and innovations. For example, airplanes. They continue to get more fuel efficient, on average dropping in the amount of fuel burned by over 1% per year; it?s dropped about 50% since 1968, and will likely continue to do so. Electric planes are also beginning to become more feasible. It will take time, just like electric cars have, but battery technology is improving. Also, [flying isn?t much worse emissions wise per person per distance traveled then other methods like driving alone.](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566) Renewables continue to improve, and as batteries improve (lithium ion batteries are expected to half in price in the next decade, and there could be other innovations like graphene batteries that become more mainstream), energy will be able to be stored to always keep up with the demand. And not only will it be more environmentally friendly, it will also be cheaper, and safer for workers. There have been many innovations in food production and manufacturing, and I don?t see why that will not continue. As for the Amazon, the issue people are generally talking about is illegal deforestation, not people living there.

  • CON

    I know this sounds like a semantic distinction but it's...

    CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.

    Legal for who? Because there are absolutely legal ways for people in government to bring real change in the USA. Just because they don't make certain needed changes doesn't mean they aren't possible. I know this sounds like a semantic distinction but it's not. You have to keep in mind that there is no universal law saying, for instance, that politicians have to listen to lobbyists. They choose to do so, and they can choose not to. Just because it isn't simple, because it might harm their future prospects, because in reality it would take a while to untangle the repercussions, doesn't mean they can't choose not to. Saying otherwise is defeatism and downplays their responsibility. Following from that, one legal way to bring real change in the USA for someone currently not in government is to run for office. Which by no means is easy or guaranteed or something everyone wants, and when they're in office they can always, again, just not make the change, but it's been very effective for the Tea Partiers/Trump supporters and the changes they wanted.

  • CON

    gt;so that there isn't a discussion about things like...

    CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.

    >c*orruption-* sorry- **lobbyism** People really overestimate how much lobbying is done and also assume that all lobbying is even bad. Would you say people that lobby for BLM are also perpetuate corruption in the system? >A good example is Obama-care which was the idea of free healthcare for everyone, but now isn't free That wasn't the general idea behind obama care.The idea was to cover some people not to be a univeral free healthcare. The only reason people are even currently talking about a universal health care is because of Obama care, it showed people that it's possible to make it a reality in the US. >so that there isn't a discussion about things like minimum wage, healthcare, prisons, police etc. I mean those discussions are literally happening and we have recordings of them, and policies are made from those discussion that are a compromise between what both parties want. People are just to lazy to follow those discussions and rather read twitter headlines / reddit headlines for their news. This remindes me of the [scroll of truth](https://www.google.com/search?q=scroll+of+truth&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk00nlH7UFp1E8RiOQ-GZ0VMtoREZCg:1611867686919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxhZ2Hw7_uAhWTPewKHQpjBf0Q_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1680&bih=936#imgrc=wPc1v4HYmJ_tDM) meme where people just throws away the truth for their own believe because the truth does not fit with their narrative. ​ Politics especially on federal level is all about incremental changes that have a end goal which will be achieved in decades, not about changes that will happen tomorrow.

  • 1