Comments by "Michael RCH" (@michaelrch) on "Naomi Klein on Extinction Rebellion, the Green New Deal and fast fashion" video.

  1. When I was a kid and wanted to be an engineer, I thought "the energy industry" was like something out of a sci fi movie. I thought it was amazing shiny machines and flashing lights. Then I found out that it meant digging filthy smelly poisonous coal and oil out of the ground and burning it. 😢 I want the clean, renewable and advanced energy system of my childhood imagination, and it's closer than ever! Screw the fossil fuel industry. Their activity directly wrecks our climate and environment. They have left the planet dirty, contaminated and on its way to catastrophe. End subsidies now. End exploration now. It's time for a change.
    11
  2. Martin The fact that the idea that we should save civilisation and not kill off hundreds of millions of people strikes you as "radical left" maybe tells you that the right is evidently insane.
    8
  3. B V I don't think you were paying attention Do you know what the original "New Deal" was? If not, look it up. It was a huge programme of breaking up robber baron corporate empires, democratising power and completely overhauling the infrastructure of the USA. It saved the country from the Great Depression. We need the same again, but this time with an overhaul of our energy infrastructure and the broken catastrophe-capitalism that we have been sold. It is not solving society's problem. It is making them much much worse.
    5
  4. Dale Crocker Got any peer reviewed published research that says that a green new deal will kill hundreds of millions? Or is that just your own invention based on your gut feeling that any interference with a free market is a crime against humanity?
    5
  5. Even the oil companies have now publicly said that it isn't. Unfortunately you are lost in a comforting web of misinformation. It's a shame that you are wrong, but you definitely are wrong. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp
    3
  6. James Ross Except that action costs much much less than no action. Which is kinda why we should take action. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0071-9
    3
  7. Anyone who thinks that climate change isn't a civilisation-level catastrophe in the making is living in a fantasy.
    3
  8. William Baker Yeah, that's why we need to end the billions of pounds that go into fossil fuels every year, and only enrich an already rich industry. In fact the IMF has estimated total global direct and indirect fossil fuels subsidies at over 6% of global GDP - $5 TRILLION a year. That is why this industry still dominates our economy. We could end it, but we won't while we pay through the nose to keep it alive and keep it obscenely wealthy. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509
    2
  9. Jonny Mosquito Strawman at Large Oh Jonny... Al Gore us not a scientist. The scientists never said New York would be underwater by now. But Miami is going that way. As for the other "lies", well Hillsborough was exposed after 20 years. Sadam's WMDs was a known fraud AT THE TIME. Acid rain was absolutely real - it destroyed forests across Europe- and was stopped by strict sulphur emissions regulations in the 80s. The hole in the ozone layer is still there! But it's slowly getting smaller due to strict CFC emissions regulations implemented under the Montreal protocol.
    2
  10. Jonny Mosquito Strawman at Large Err what. Sounds like a conspiracy theory buddy. Give me a citation. The scope for climate change caused by burning fossil fuels only really became clear to the oil majors in the 60s and 70s. There was no clear evidence of climate change back happening in the 1930s, though the potential in theory for CO2 warming the atmosphere was known - though with much uncertainty. Do you believe that rapid (on geological timescales) climate change is happening or not? If you don't then doesn't the conspiracy you cited not actually work?
    2
  11. riverflo dubois The truth that the fossil fuel industry is hiding and scared of is that we will always need an energy sector and we don't need to make people jobless when we scrap fossil fuels. We just need to base our energy system on something other than digging up and burning stuff. We have the alternatives already. They are safe. They are cost effective and the new energy system will produce many more good, safe and well paid jobs than the fuel industry provides now. And the industry will be inherently more democratic because it doesn't have to be so centralised like fossil fuels. It's a huge opportunity for everyone. The only losers are the fossil fuel billionaires and the corrupt politicians that collude with them...
    2
  12. manco82 Shell Oil (like all the oil majors) disagree with you. Here is their statement "The climate is changing and human activity appears to be to blame, yet people still question the scientific evidence. Why do you think that is? Can there be any doubt? There is no doubt. This is basic physics and chemistry that has been known for 150 years. The relationship between the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and the surface temperature of the planet was established by the physicist John Tyndall in 1864 and the physical chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896." https://www.shell.com/inside-energy/urging-action-to-fight-climate-change.html You have been so effectively lied to that now, even when the people who lied to you have changed their story, you still believe their earlier lies. This is the tragedy of climate change denialism.
    1
  13. Dale Crocker Erm, there has been quite a lot of science done on this science since the 19th century. You might have missed it. I believe it for the same reason that Shell does. If you don't then you are basically declaring yourself a greater authority than the worlds entire scientific establishment. A bit presumptuous maybe... https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
    1
  14. AscendingDruid I'm a marxist who owns and runs a business with 30 employees. Got it.
    1
  15. Dale Crocker The 97% number is out of date. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp If you have thought of the urban heat island effect, do you really think that the world's scientists haven't? Maybe dial back the narcissism a notch.
    1
  16. Joe Shmoe Ok so maybe believe the entire scientific establishment then https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ Obviously the reason I used Shell as an example is because they denied man made climate change publicly for decades despite knowing it was true from their own research. And action on climate change will kill their business model stone dead.
    1
  17. brian bottomley Is that how you dismiss the entire scientific establishment? https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
    1