The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

https://youtu.be/tul07hx8V8w?t=376 in the video above.

I've got this queued up. They make biochar and then burn it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDP-j5RdSUU

Edit:
Scott Adams Episode 688 says that Inside Bill Gates (Netflix) tells him that the decoupling with China is blocking his prototype 4th Gen nuclear reactor, so he is prepping the U.S. population['s mentality] toward letting it happen here.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As if money spent by the 1% spontaneously bursts into flames the moment they purchase something, never to be spent again by the oppressed 99%. I guess everyone is volunteering their time and don't get paid.

Much of this totally vast wealth of the top 1% is stashed away as digits in accounts. Or gold in safes. Ect. Much of it is not doing society any good. Generation after generation. That which does get spent is often very highly resource consumptive. Since every good or service must first start with an energy input, and 87% of our energy comes from fossil fuels, everything anyone spends literally does cause something to burn somewhere. Our overconsumption is blowing through everything the planet has to offer in the space of 200 years and leaving little left for those that will follow us. Shame on us. Future Humans and all other life will suffer depletion and degradation.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The global GDP per capita has been rising throughout the income distribution. The fact that the more wealthy have benefited more is entirely expected, as that is a feature of nature, that the big get bigger at a faster rate.

Income for the bottom 70% of Americans leveled off in the 1970's and has fallen since 2000. Justifying vast wealth inequity in human civilization by comparing a redwood tree to a scrub bush has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion human society.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You've already mentioned why we're better off than in 2000; there's hardly anyone that would rather be living in 2000 than now.

Gadgets are cheaper and we are hijacked by entertainment but most middle class and lower work more or hours or multiple jobs and would be even happier if they could afford the modern distractions, and[/B] actually work fewer hours, raise a family on one income, own their own house, and retire at an earlier age. As my parents did in the 70's. If wealth were distributed a little more fairly. The owners of production and owners of land are holding all of the cards. Because of globalization and increasing automation, the average wage that a worker in any part of the Global North has decreased on average since most "jobs" are now in the service sector. There are now more bartenders/ waitresses, store clerks, ect, in the USA, than manufacturing jobs.
.
The workers of the Global North have already chipped in their share to raise up the exploited Global South. It is now time for the exceedingly wealthy owners of capital to chip in more and do their share to raise wellbeing at home to maintain social cohesion and abroad to mitigate and develop so that people will not need to mass migrate in the coming decades.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It might be a problem that the very wealthy are accumulating a greater portion of the wealth

In the USA, the top 1% owns 40% of the accumulated wealth. You don't see a problem with that? On the world level the numbers are of course even more distressing obviously because there are 3 billion people that still cook and heat with wood or dung as there only source of heat.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

(the top 20% of households pay 87% of the federal taxes); but the problem isn't globalization or automation. What are we going to do, de-globalize (isolate) and form an angry mob to tear down factories? We'd then go back to expensive goods AND the economy in the US would be much worse since other countries would continue with global trade and automation.

We are seeing countries turning inward all over the world already. Nationalism is completely on the rise. Although I would personally not hope for border walls and machine guns as the answer. Information has widespread availability now. This is truly the advance that no one would want to lose. The workers will use their majority in democracy to vote in progressive representatives that will stand up for organized bargaining for labor and institute forward thinking programs to rebuild infrastructure and socio-economic systems for an eventual net zero carbon/ zero growth system that allows everyone to thrive.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I've already stated my idea for closing tax loopholes and reducing political corruption, which is to eliminate tax deductions entirely.

Pointing out that globalization and automation have contributed to increasing resource consumption

I never said anything like that.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

is like pointing out that penicillin has increased resource consumption through reduced deaths by infection. We're not going to abandon any of those things.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Going a bit...Wobbblythere?

Sounds Longshore Union. Harry Bridges kicked the mafia out of the west coast & then the East Coast kicked the mafia off their docks..... no wobbling, & straight forward ILWU. Other unions & workers want to join ILWU. Is freebeard getttttting the double wobbbbbbblies?

[litesong]

Originally Posted by sendler

We will need a whole new way of distributing it so that everyone has at least enough.

AH, GOOD! Bosses won't dictate which 0.1% of the immediate family gets the gold in the pot at the end of the rainbow & which 80% of the unnamed (& unknown) underlings, who earn company wealth, gets to look at the rainbow, & never are able to see who stole the pot of wealth.

[freebeard]

Now that's easily explained I was wrong — Woodmen of the World:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaniBFD6OCU

Welcome to WOW Hall & The Community Center for the Performing Arts - Eugene, Oregon

The things I've seen...

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

Much of this totally vast wealth of the top 1% is stashed away as digits in accounts. Or gold in safes. Ect. Much of it is not doing society any good. Generation after generation.

Most wealth doesn't survive the 2nd generation. The people at the top tend to be different families each generation or two. Eventually money gets spent/squandered and circulates in the economy.

Then there's people like Musk who were rich, then spent almost all their money to create new things like an EV company, rocket company, boring company...

That which does get spent is often very highly resource consumptive. Since every good or service must first start with an energy input, and 87% of our energy comes from fossil fuels, everything anyone spends literally does cause something to burn somewhere. Our overconsumption is blowing through everything the planet has to offer in the space of 200 years and leaving little left for those that will follow us. Shame on us. Future Humans and all other life will suffer depletion and degradation.

So which way do you want it; the wealthy saving their money and slowing resource consumption, or for them to spend it spurring on further resource consumption?

Income for the bottom 70% of Americans leveled off in the 1970's and has fallen since 2000. Justifying vast wealth inequity in human civilization by comparing a redwood tree to a scrub bush has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion human society.

I'm not comparing wealth inequality to a redwood, I'm comparing it to absolutely everything in the entire universe. There's a few people that hold the majority of marathon trophies. I could enter a marathon and then complain about not getting anywhere near the number of awards as the top athletes, but it doesn't mean some injustice has been done. Further, my well-being has nothing to do with your well-being, regardless if it's fantastically better or worse than mine.

Because of globalization and increasing automation, the average wage that a worker in any part of the Global North has decreased on average since most "jobs" are now in the service sector. There are now more bartenders/ waitresses, store clerks, ect, in the USA, than manufacturing jobs.

...as if most Millenials would rather be welding car frames 12hrs a day than working as a barista. Automating repetitive tasks is a good thing.

The workers of the Global North have already chipped in their share to raise up the exploited Global South. It is now time for the exceedingly wealthy owners of capital to chip in more and do their share to raise wellbeing at home to maintain social cohesion and abroad to mitigate and develop so that people will not need to mass migrate in the coming decades.

I don't fully understand this, but I'll point out that plenty of fantastically wealthy people donate enormous amounts towards humanitarian causes. Just watched a good documentary called the Brain of Bill that talks about a few of his philanthropic endeavors that are also backed by Warren Buffet.

In the USA, the top 1% owns 40% of the accumulated wealth. You don't see a problem with that? On the world level the numbers are of course even more distressing obviously because there are 3 billion people that still cook and heat with wood or dung as there only source of heat.

I don't know at what arbitrary number I would become distressed, as it's not something I dwell on. Mostly I focus on what I'm able to accomplish and that seems to be more productive than comparing myself in various meaningless ways to others. The top 20% pay 87% of the federal taxes; do you see that as distressing? I don't, but then I don't see any of it as that distressing... and you bring up a good point that compared to the rest of the world, the USA is the 1%. People around the bottom 15th percentile that are happy to redistribute "rich people's" money should likewise be eager to redistribute theirs to Africa, North Korea and India.

We are seeing countries turning inward all over the world already. Nationalism is completely on the rise. Although I would personally not hope for border walls and machine guns as the answer. Information has widespread availability now. This is truly the advance that no one would want to lose. The workers will use their majority in democracy to vote in progressive representatives that will stand up for organized bargaining for labor and institute forward thinking programs to rebuild infrastructure and socio-economic systems for an eventual net zero carbon/ zero growth system that allows everyone to thrive.

It was inevitable for nationalism to be on the rise. As I'm always saying, authority must be at the lowest level required to solve a given problem because it's the most efficient way to solve problems. I don't consult the UN to figure out what to eat for dinner; that's an individual/family-sized problem. Each larger encompassing level of government represents a failure of each smaller authority to adequately solve a problem, or at least it should be approached that way. Instead, 1 person doesn't want to bake a cake, and we need to assemble the might of the federal government to figure out how to solve the problem, and we sit around somehow thinking this is a reasonable use of time and authority.

I'm all for collective bargaining, and unions in principle. I'm also for a company reserving the right to move operations to India. Indians can collectively bargain if they want to also.

Net zero carbon sounds like a fine goal too. The problem with new ideas is that most are terrible. There's a reason why things are the way they are, and it's because they have stood the test of time. Monkey with these vetted systems at your peril. By the way, that's why I keep advocating for more States rights, because they are meant to be testbeds for ideas. A state, through progressive ideals, can make a terrible mistake and not mess it up for everyone else. Likewise, progressive ideals can stumble upon a great new idea and be readily adopted by the other states.

Finally, there are problems that require a global governing body such as pollution, overfishing the seas and other global commons. Most other things are just inefficient garbage meant to grow bureaucracy and stifle excellence.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by litesong

Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
Going a bit...Wobbblythere?

You are editing my quote['s punctuation].

Compare with Permalink #6374

Each larger encompassing level of government represents a failure of each smaller authority to adequately solve a problem, or at least it should be approached that way.

In the USof A, the county is the seat of authority. That's why county sheriffs rule. See Malheur, et al.

[Grant-53]

The 1% meme has become a Marxist lead in many discussions. The fundamental question is in distribution not ownership. I retrained 20 years ago to run CNC machines and industrial robots. Now there is a shortage of workers here and wages are nearly double what they were 10 years ago. Don't just listen to the talking points on the news. They often get it wrong and sometimes on purpose. Investment and charitable giving has to come from retained earnings.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

You are editing my quote['s punctuation].

Which is humorous considering I was accused of not properly quoting when I did an exact copy/past of text... meanwhile litesong is most notorious on here for taking the smallest snippet of a thought (like a phrase) out of context and not quite addressing it in either the original context, or in the new twisted context. Talking past ideas rather than confronting them.

[freebeard]

That's pretty much it. Thanks for preserving the emoticons.

Tim Pool:

Eight Trillion doll-hairs and 18 years in the Middle East? AOC is wrong on this one.