Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "The Problem With the Modern Environmental Movement" video.

yea the criticism of modern environmentalism is even more flawed than the actual modern environmentalism.
2
it is about per capita. China and India have lots of people, which is why the U.S. has been the main target for a long time.
1
"no growth, no growth, no growth" is pure straw man. That is not at all what modern environmentalism is. "Sustainable growth, sustainable growth, sustainable growth" is the mantra. Not that growth is a goal per say. Why do we need growth? What really is growth? GDP? Fuck GDP. #YANG2020.
1
@jeppep95 the "no growth"-bs.
1
@jeppep95 growth itself doesn't matter to me, especially not if there is no population growth.
1
@jeppep95 "without growth you dont get investments and your economy collapses" why? "I would also bet that youre pretty well off, aka first world citizen and not poor" What do you define as poor? "People on the other side of that would not agree" It is obvious we are talking about first world. Stick to the topic. Your questions doesn't change the fact thought that the idea that the environmentalists calls for no growth is a straw man.
1
@jeppep95 "because you need growth to finance your economy from investors. investors essentially lend you money. Without growth you can't pay back the investors and your economy runs dry." how do you define economy? How do you define growth? "world scale poor to me is below 500 bucks a month. 1st world poor is like below 1000 dollars a month." I definitely spend less than 1000 dollars a month. "The problem with environmentalism and economic growth is that pretty much all forms of production and consumption is to a larger or smaller degree bad for the environment. There is no eco-positive lifestyle. So essentially having a high living standard and living environmentally friendly are pretty much contradictory." Based on that, do you think you have misunderstood environmentalism or do you think environmentalist are wrong? Why do you think it is one and not the other?
1
@jeppep95 ah okey, you don't understand the goal or actions of environmentalists then. Got it :).
1
@jeppep95 essentially, sustainable growth. Growth that wont lead to collapse.
1
@jeppep95 you just do it. It is better than a future crash anyway.
1
@jeppep95 ask people who crashed their cars because they drove to fast that. Slow and steady wins the race baby.
1
@jeppep95 then remind yourself what your question was and it will make sense to you.
1
@Si_Mondo that temperature rise first to be followed by co2 rise doesn't mean co2 can't increase temperature. It just means something has to happen for CO2 to be released naturally, which is exactly what happens when earth warms up. Sometimes it has been volcanic activity. Now it is human activity. There are different things that can increase Co2 concentration over time. All of them lead to increase in temperature. When increase of temperature itself is the case of rising CO2, the temperature rise will obviously lead, not follow.
1
@thatstheguy07 "When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase."
1
@thatstheguy07 "Those same scientists were saying it was “global cooling” back in the 70s. They’re full of shit." No, only a minority of papers in the 70's suggested global cooling. Way more suggested global warming. You have fallen for propaganda dude. As you said "Do your own research.". Don't just listen to what another person says, go look at the scientific papers of the 70's.
1
@Si_Mondo it sounded like it they way you responded to Frozilla15. It looks like you misinterpreted what he/she was saying. "The whole thing is way too politicised to be taken seriously at this point." Not sure what you are referring to when you say "the whole thing". Surely you don't deny the science? The problem is the misrepresentation of science, right?
1