[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1653870846371.png (1.08 MB, 1920x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.995613[Last 50 Posts]

Figured the climate was serious enough to warrant it's own thread.


>BREAKING: new UN report warns of total societal collapse due to ecosystem destruction without radical changes

>1. Not a single media outlet picked up on the increasing probability of civilisational collapse.

>UN appears to have diluted its own findings.
>Recognising collapse risk isn't about doom-mongering, but understanding risks.
>2022-2029 is key time for action.

>2. This is the first UN flagship report to find existing global policies are accelerating us towards a collapse of human civilisation.

>- report doesn't say outcome is inevitable or specify how close to possibility we are
>- we can still act

>3. The UN continues to call for yet more economic growth whilst simultaneously releasing reports by scientists saying we must now consider moving away from GDP/growth to stop the annihilation of species and habitat.

>We're in an Extinction Economy.

>4. We're seeing abrupt changes in major ecosystems which in many cases are already described explicitly by scientists as collapses. This situation will surely impact human societies immensely as we move towards a 1.7°C-2.1°C world by the 2030s.

>See report: https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-assessment-report-disaster-risk-reduction-2022

>5 Overuse of resources by the rich during capitalism is the first extinction danger.

>Deforestation would cause mass extinction within decades not centurie even without climate change.
>We can rise up to achieve immediate economic system change action.




So what do we even say about the fact that firsties are honestly perfectly fine with a fascist nightmare future where refugees are slaughtered at the borders, many countries have collapsed, half the planet is unlivable, Global South people are taught to be subhuman in Western education, migrants are put in concentration camps, and the West fights wars against each other for dwindling resources?

Picrel is a supposed “leftist” sub shrugging at the deaths of hundreds of millions basically because they’re brown


"Erst kommt das Fressen und dann die Moral."


breaking: random person on the internet says something


Half the thread are people saying climate change isn’t that bad because the West will just slaughter refugees anyway

A subreddit like /r/collapse literally has malthusian dogshit trending like it usually does where spineless liberal fags are arguing that the West doesn’t need to be depopulated but also they don’t want to kill anyone and also eco-fascism isn’t real and if it is it isn’t bad
Channels like Kurzgesagt argue that 2 degrees of warming isn’t bad because the only people it will definitely destroy are poor brown people anyway
Most Westerners think climate change is happening and will be bad but also that it won’t affect them significantly
The only preparations their governments are making is updating weaponry and surveillance technology

The average westernoid, especially those of European descent, is completely fine with a future where almost every Asia, LatAm, and African dies due to ecological collapse, and the rest are shot at the border


Europeans should be the most worried because they can't into A/Cs

>Whilst the rising death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic continues to dominate the front pages, a new study highlights the growing risk from another deadly phenomenon: extreme heat. The research, published in The Lancet medical journal, shows that Europeans have the highest mortality rate from heatwaves, combined with the highest number of premature deaths caused by air pollution.

>Like COVID, this poses a particular threat to older people and those with underlying health conditions. In 2018, the EU recorded 104,000 heat-related deaths amongst older people, over one third of the global total. The year saw unprecedented heat across the continent, with northern Scandinavia experiencing temperatures over 5˚C warmer than the 1981-2010 average.



An Israeli study published on Thursday found that climate change is already causing a “considerable intensification” of winter storms in the Southern Hemisphere to a level not anticipated until 2080.


No I think they would buy bunkers and bullets, like they’re doing now
Don’t come here to make this thread retarded, the “elites” can’t do shit about climate change because

A. They aren’t some unified cohesive group that fuckers that can’t into Marxism think they are
B. The climate crisis is directly caused by capitalist production and the profit motive, undoing it requires undoing capitalism and thus their own privileged position
C. No motivation aside from profit accumulation has value in capitalism
D. The states and militaries of the West are banking on shifting towards becoming fascist nightmares that slaughter refugees, dissenters, and fight wars against their neighbors rather than collapsing

The notion that climate change will kill all humans on Earth at 2 or 3 degrees of warming is not something promoted by the scientific community, what they do say is that it will create a world full of much worse pandemics, famines, droughts, wars, and genocides that isn’t worth living in basically unless you’re already a fascist


File: 1653910251431.jpg (49.88 KB, 770x532, amogus.jpg)

>The elite


Can you put a trip on so I can filter all your identical retarded posts?


>If it was serious they would be doing something about it. They have the bunkers in new zealand but they don't want to live in them. If actual collapse was coming they would be running around like a chicken without a head.
I genuinely can’t think of anything stupider than a communist that thinks porkies will lift a finger to save the proles

Why the fuck would they do anything to stop it if it was serious? The majority of porkies will be fucking dead by 2040 to begin with, those who aren’t can afford to insulate themselves. And again, THEY AREN’T A COHESIVE GROUP, holy shit, fuck did you just fly in from /pol/ you retard? There isn’t a global conspiracy that rules the world, there are empires, some span the world, but even in those empires exist competing interests.
> They are though. World Economic Forum and Bilderberg are just the ones we know and are public
Alright then, back to /pol/, not even gonna read the rest of this retardation


>If actual collapse was coming they would be running around like a chicken without a head.
Yeah, like the roman elite or the egyptian elite or the mayan elite or the indus valley civilization elite or like the Mycenaean elite or like…
>They want to keep everything as stable as possible.
Source? The wants of people do not shape material consequences.


>Climate change won’t be that bad because, uhhhhhh
<It will only kill hundreds of millions or billions of brown people while likely causing horrible wars all around the world including in the West, but really since in this century the Western countries will only turn into fascist dictatorships to continue existing instead of outright state collapse actually it isn’t that bad
Kill yourself


Reminder that if the fucker starts rambling off brainrot about le global elite that rules the entire world and lacks competing interests or tries arguing global warming/ecological collapse isn’t that bad because it will “just” cause mass death in the Global South and a global fascist wave everywhere else they’re probably a polyp


>World Economic Forum and Bilderberg are just the ones we know and are public
>All the elite and politicians around the world are connected
converting /pol/tards was a mistake


>Parenti has a great video
lmao youre the retard that posts parenti whenever conspiratards get called out


File: 1653911233878.png (361.57 KB, 1336x696, redpill.png)

>The people are sheep.
Like clockwork.


Nice climate change thread btw.


>If society collapses there are no more slaves
Climate change will probably bring back actual slavery
Lmao if you cope with the climate crisis by saying it will only transition the world into a fascist hellscape but thankfully won’t make the West collapse (God forbid) why are you still pretending to be a leftist at all?


And I’ve said it time and time again and will reiterate once again
The only way to stop climate change is to do away with capitalist production
The Western countries do have a climate action plan, that plan is to fund the military, spy corps, and the police forces


File: 1653911383142.png (60.99 KB, 1117x448, ClipboardImage.png)

Do you think climate change could be that alien invasion scenario that brings about international cooperation and world peace?


So.. anybody have cool visualizations of data? I think part better websites and shit would educate people better about the consequences of our new hothouse world.
This website lets you see predictions of each zone of the Earth, although is it a bit clunky: https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/
CO2 levels: https://www.co2.earth/
Sea ice: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Map of unhabitability: https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/klimawandel-hitze-meeresspiegel-wassermangel-stuerme-unbewohnbar/en.html
Global warming (the mean used here is too recent for my taste but whatever): https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/climate-change
Living planet index (health of wildlife): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-living-planet-index
Global land use: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-land-use-since-10000bc
Game about solving climate: https://play.half.earth/


You are witnessing the fall of one right now. Industrial civilization.


>I’m a leftist who deals with economic policy actual anti-Marxist conspiratard nonsense about a globalist elite that determines global social policies not retarded pseudoscience the current consensus of the entire scientific community based on climate data compounded throughout various fields of study over the course of the last 170 years or so


I meant the wants of that elite of yours, pussyass.


>the bourgeoisie
nice change of pace, youve been sperging out the whole thread about muh "elites"


The world is run by capital, not the bourgeoisie, and definitely not a unified bourgeoisie.


File: 1653911662344.jpg (49.88 KB, 770x532, amogus.jpg)

you keep using that word, /pol/tard


Poltard logic is retardedly believing these people have some sort of unity and genuinely run the world together
I’m absolutely tired of retarded reactionaries using Marxist jargon to promote their mental illness
They’ve literally been doing this shit since Mussolini now, when will they stop?

You realize the bourgeoisie is a fucking huge economic class defined by their competition with one another?
Oh wait, of course you fucking don’t, because you’re a barely converted polyp trying to repackage your old “le juice” argument


File: 1653911763875.jpg (122.88 KB, 963x481, 1653496410695.jpg)


>Le writer man says the obvious fact that real conspiracies exist!
<Clearly this justifies my repackaged poltard nonsense of some cohesive and unified bourgeoisie collectively deciding social and economic policy for every country on the planet
It’s funny how conspiratard shit like this implicitly denies the existence of imperialism as well


More like the opposite, this crisis will put a progressive strain on resources and encourage competition among countries and factions. The proletariat could still however build internationalism besides this.


youre delusional and a retard, theres no comparison between your "argument" and what parenti says


>Parenti and serious leftists
And by that you mean Anonymous on Leftypol?
I don’t know any leftists of any tendency that reject the danger and urgency of the climate crisis other than converted poloids here
I guarantee your clip has nothing to do with ecology at all and is just the clip of Parenti stating that real conspiracies exist which, no shit, obviously; but also has nothing to do with the brainrot you’re trying to spread here
Namely that the ecological crisis doesn’t exist or isn’t that bad because the non-existent unified bourgeoisie won’t do anything about it


most intellectually honest conspiratard


>The UN continues to call for yet more economic growth whilst simultaneously releasing reports by scientists saying we must now consider moving away from GDP/growth to stop the annihilation of species and habitat.
We have to move a away from capitalism because the capitalist rulers are growing the wrong things, like military budgets, because they want to fight against the other people on the planet instead of working with them.

But growth in general is necessary to combat climate change, if we grow more nuclear power there will be much fewer CO2 emissions for example. If we grow the wages of workers, more people can afford to use more advanced, efficient and clean technology. Since you talk about deforestation, if energy prices get high enough people will burn trees for warmth in the winter.

Capitalism has gone bad but there is no reason to say the economy has to stagnate, there are alternatives to capitalism that can fix it.

Why are there people who want to bring austerity into socialism ? Socialism is about seizing the means of production from the capitalists and using it to produce abundance for the workers. That is not to say that we'll do business as usual, we have to bring back durable and lasting product design. And of course repairability and upgradability to reduce waste. If we get rid of all the super rich and their bullshitt we could probably afford much more advanced recycling and efficiency upgrades to our infrastructure, and bigger budgets for science that finds more environmentally friendly techniques.

Marx thought that modes of production are abandoned when they become too much of a fetter on the productive forces. So you can't have an ideology that advocates for fettering the means of production. That's not viable.


Nah. Too slow of a process.


>spends the thread insisting the elites are jewish
>complains others are intellectually dishonest


File: 1653912105046.png (793.89 KB, 1000x600, ClipboardImage.png)


Also, fuck no the world wouldn't unite under a threat of an asteroid or aliens, thats a myth.


>They compete but they all want to keep the world stable!
<As evident from World War I, World War II, every military engagement in the Cold War up to fighting the PLA directly, promoting neoliberal policies to undo the economic prosperity for proles which inevitably started to increase class consciousness in Western proles and allowed for socialism to work its way back to popularity, every military engagement in the 21st Century culminating in a global refugee crisis of tens of millions of people, the rise of figures like Donald Trump who promoted trade wars and protectionism, the protectionist policies immediately preceding Trump, vaccine nationalism that only served to massively worsen the pandemic crisis, destabilization of several countries in the last 20 years alone, belligerent actions against Russia leading to the current Ukraine War
I really despise you dumbasses that not only think the bourgeoisie are actually a somehow unified and cohesive bloc, but are also much smarter than they actually are given all the evidence against this notion provided by the history of their rule


I like Parenti but he is not a very serious Marxist


ctrl+f "jew" 1 result (your post)
yeah this is "spending the thread" doing that


>janny just deletes the post with no ban, probably because he agrees with the poster


Lel I was just about to post that. Actually mine said 1 result. Which was that guy.


Ok so it was a popular idea.


>I’ve met other leftists who agree with me
And I’ve met schizophrenics
Why should I give a shit that you know other retards?


1 post is the whole thread


2°C is pretty much locked in, even if emissions peaked in 2025 like the IPCC begged suggested.


denies climate change, talks about the elite bankers controlling the world, totally not a /pol/tard


>Promoting GDP growth
<LARPing as a socialist
Go back to blowing Deng, Maupinoid


> even if emissions peaked in 2025
Narrator: They didn't


>nooooo one post is unimportant
>even though the post is mentioned several times and the other posts are downstream of that
So you agree "the elites" is just colloquial for the bourgeoisie and their friends, not the jews. Glad you've cleared that up, now you can stop clutching your pearls about it.


File: 1653912437157.png (744.86 KB, 689x833, 1652708861960.png)

>growth in general is necessary to combat climate change


who are you quoting


The quote function is for reddit, Chapo


whats a "reddit" and who is Chapo


It's a place where theythems go to have panic attacks


File: 1653912600920.jpg (73.07 KB, 720x720, 1600733411046.jpg)

>mfw they just change the baseline year to 1990 and claim there's only .5C of increase


I sense a pointless argument over semantics incoming


>Uhhh there hasn’t been another world war because of NATO and the UN!
<Not because of nukes or something
>They’re all finally cohesive now with no contradictions or competing interests!
<Not like the US military occupies half their countries and can destroy them economically and militarily or anything
>>Putin is not part of the elite
Top kek


like youre doing now quoting things nobody said?


leftypol trying to do a climate thread that isn't immediately going to shit challenge (impossible)


You mean like "Jewish elites"? You being the only person that said it, because you are dilating over people believing JFK wasn't killed by magic?


Socialism is when our lifestyles remain unchanged, hell, even the mode of production remains the same.


you should all play this game, it's fun



nobody has said anything about jews or jfk in the thread but you


Sorry, Bilderberg aren't Jewish now?


Not pointless at all
“Muh growth” is largely neoliberal dogshit, Dengoids love to promote it too, but that’s because most dengists are cynical liberals deep down inside that believe in the usefulness of the market and the growth of capital firms
What is needed is technological and social revolution, and by this I don’t just mean in terms of revolutionary war, but an entire paradigm shift for global infrastructure, energy usage, and economic incentives
>Muh ambiguous growth
Is absolutely not enough, the solution isn’t to “grow” from here, we need to fundamentally change everything down to how human society interacts with the non-human world at this point


you got the whole squad laughing


I could yell at you and call you a green neoliberal and accuse you to being a green NATO warmongerer or somthing like that

But instead i ask you to engage with my arguments:

Growing more nuclear power and other low CO2 energy sources
Reducing military budgets
Design improvements that lead to waste reduction
Ditching the capitalist class
More investment in efficiency enhancing infrastructure and recycling
The necessity of not fettering the means of production
The socialist goal of producing abundance for workers


Well I agree that 'growth' in the neoliberal sense is not good, but if you define growth as stuff like new NPPs like that anon did, then it is good.


why are you signing your own posts


Everything that has to be done will requiere an unimaginable ammount of violence. Only banning industrial fishing for example, which would reduce emissions and plastic in the oceans, would leave 3 billion in hunger if it isnt replaced with something else. That would require green development in the south and red degrowth in the north in form of guillotines and such. But damn the reaction to all of this would be hell-like. Decreasing emissions would reduce pollution in the air, which reflects sunlight and decreases warming an uknown ammount that scientists are still trying to model. Imagine the propaganda and mind warfare after we start to reduce the CO2 pumped every year and the globe still keeps warming for 10 years or more. I hope future planetary planners dont waste time making excuses to repress reaction.


Sorry my redpilled friend, no more talk about (((elites))) from me


File: 1653912994559.jpg (38.29 KB, 640x480, sonic.jpg)

Saying 'the elite' doesn't inherently make someone a poltard, it's a convenient shorthand for 'the billionaires' etc. Stop arguing over something pointless.


Concern trolls in shambles


>I could yell at you and call you a green neoliberal and accuse you to being a green NATO warmongerer or somthing like that
Of course you could and implicitly have, since that’s the typical go to dengoid liberal argument
Like, most of the shit you’re saying here means nothing, it’s just
>We need to make more power plants, invest in more infrastructure, and lower military budgets
Notice how when it’s dengoids all the solutions are implicitly still in a capitalist framework? What you mentioned is a porky mitigation strategy, pretty much all of that shit fits a Green New Deal framework with the exception of “ditching the capitalist class” to give it “socialist cred”
Yet I’m sure the leftists who through their lot in with social democracy and FDR’s New Deal spoke a lot about getting rid of porky before turning around and saying they don’t have to because now they have porky by the balls
What we need to do is adapt, at the end of the day we really have to fundamentally change our society and how it interacts with the rest of the biosphere, the solution isn’t to try effectively replicating America but adding a few more fucking nuclear power plants, an actual solution would be something like reorienting the economy such that the basis for human social organization is rejuvenating the biosphere and practicing rational stewardship over the Earth; an effort like this would require modern technology, even improved technology, sure, it would require the efforts of the whole of humanity as well, and most of all it would require a socialist framework for implementation

We have to start to seriously conceive a 21st Century socialism that isn’t just trying to resurrect the Soviet Union or even worse, fucking New Deal America and socdem Europe


It heavily points in that direction when they’re using it to argue for a non-existent unity among the bourgeoisie on a global scale and to discount the existence of the ecological crisis


you are all retards


Growth refers 99% of the time to the positive change of GDP over time when talking about economics. There's really no point in trying to recuperate this concept in this particular field. I don't want to be mean but the whole "we need growth because we must grow this instead of this" is confused capitalist reformist baby talk.


Working in tandem with economic planners, there should be psychological planners of something, I dont know how to name it. Capitalists already use psychological planners to make products and ideas atractive, making use of the faults of out brain to trick all of us. So maybe our understanding of social systems and individual psycology, which has advances a lot in the last century, could be of much use in economic planning. To garantee fullfilment and a healthy society. Instead of being exploited by capitalists to make commodities adictive. It would be perfect tho so I dont know.


Vulgar Marxists also believe this Prime example: King Lear, so it's not just a /pol/ thing, even though I don't think anyone has actually done that in this thread. Although I don't think it's too outlandish to suggest there's some unity in the form of not really giving a shit about pollution if it makes money, which is the whole problem.


File: 1653913703856.jpg (43.76 KB, 736x559, sonic 2.jpg)

That's a separate issue, just address that instead of pursuing anon for nebulous wrongthink.


>Notice how when it’s dengoids all the solutions are implicitly still in a capitalist framework?
You have to be realist anon, remember that we call communism not the real movement to abolish the present state of things, but a state of affairs to be established


What you mean is that we need a new superstructure to change how people view the natural world and how they envision what it means to lead a good life
For Americans the “good life” is consuming commodities
For Europeans it’s consuming commodities with some healthcare too
For the Global South it’s getting to consume commodities the way Americans and Europeans get to

What you’re talking about is a new ideology and a new incentive structure, more than just Marxism either, but a totalizing view of what it means to be human, to live well, and to exist on the Earth and as a part of the Earth. You’re discussing how people would think about life and view the world in a global socialist framework.

And yes, that is absolutely needed
The thing is, people like dengists would say I’m discussing “austerity” when I’m not at all, I’m discussing actual revolution, they are discussing capitalist reform. What I discuss is an actual break with capitalism the same way capitalism fundamentally broke with feudalism and the pre-modern world by fundamentally changing how people viewed their relationships to each other and the natural world, changing how they viewed spirituality, changing their incentives, etc.
I agree, capitalists around the world agree on only one thing, upholding capitalism, preventing socialism; and even in that context they can and will still fight and bicker, most famously the alliance of liberal imperialist and socialist powers against their shared enemy in the Axis during WWII

If porky couldn’t unify to oppose socialism during the Second World War then they would certainly be unable to unify to prevent climate change even if they wanted to
Ah yes, the other favored tactic of dengoids, once you unmask their solutions are really just porky reformism, they retreat into restating out of context quotes from nearly 200 years ago
You realize when you say shit like this you completely dismantle your own porky reformist position? This isn’t 19 fucking 50, the present conditions are an ecological crisis that requires a fundamental revolutionizing of the whole of society, or the acceptance of barbarism and eventual extinction otherwise. You wanna know what the real movement to abolish the present state of things actually is? How about the real collapse of the Earth’s ecosystems to allow for a global fascist wave to do away with liberalism and usher in absolute barbarism?


File: 1653914927631.jpg (135.63 KB, 682x1023, green stalism.jpg)

>growth in general is necessary to combat climate change
Yes we have all those polluting industries and we need economic growth to replace them with non-polluting industries. You know "Green Stalinism" (i mean that in a endearing sense). I can't imagine capitalist markets doing that, because they haven't done anything for the last 30 years, so it's not meant as a advocacy for the status quo. The Capitalist class is part of the problem, they have to go too. But socialism isn't austerity it's an unleashing of productivity, in line with the class interests of workers. Workers need the planet to have an intact nature. The capitalist class thinks they can get away to an island bunker or a different planet for some reason. It means they will not make any of the necessary changes to the economy.

There is nothing inherently destructive about industrial growth, more advanced technology tends to get less polluting. Like a nuclear power plant makes less pollution than a coal power plant. And even more advanced stuff like fusion has almost zero waste products.

To sum up my main point. Workers are the only class that needs a functioning ecology while having the ability to accept that reality. The capitalists have impenetrable illusions that their wealth will shield them from all consequences of their actions. The only green thing they will do is convert your green arguments into support for imposing austerity on the workers and funding more imperialism.

To combat climate change, you need the workers to steer the economy and politics according to their interests. And that does mean preserving and repairing nature but that also includes industrial growth to produce a good standard of living for workers. You can only have it as a package deal.



Take your meds Retard.


You're being undialectical. Socialism isn't the unleashing of productivity no, you wrongly think that because you see socialism as the process trough which backward countries like China and USSR had to do primitive accumulation during communist party rule. Industrial growth is absolutely inherently destructive because the mere act of resource extraction impacts the ecological niche of that resource. Nuclear is not inherently less polluting than coal, because at least the CO2 would progressively go away in a few thousand years, while the half life of radioactive products can go well in the hundreds of thousands years. Nuclear fusion needs hydrogen, there has to be a polluting industry to produce it, moon mining or whatever is resource intensive.



which sub is that?
based. socialism is not pauperism and it is not primitivism. with cybernetic planning we can coordinate and develop the massive industry that will be necessary to reverse global warming. we do not yet know what it will look like, but it sure as shit won't involve feeling sorry for ourselves or not making use of all gifts of nature


Thank you
Idky nighas here really can’t ever envision any sort of solution to the ecological crisis other than LARP shit about recreating the USSR
It’s crazy man, I try talking about fundamentally changing how human society interacts with the non-human world
>Lol take meds
Other guy just talks about recreating the country that underwent a dirty as fuck industrialization but also plasters the word nuclear everywhere while not really discussing how you’re actually changing much of anything
>Wow so based
Honestly was hoping people would engage with what I said to discuss the ideas a bit more in-depth but I fucked up by not gushing about the USSR and posting a picture of Stalin I guess
Silly me, talking about changing people’s relationship to the land and how they are incentivized to begin with instead of talking about everyone’s favorite historical country 🙄


> develop the massive industry that will be necessary to reverse global warming.
Why would the thing that caused the problem be the solution to the problem?
Why does the discussion here generally revolve around
>Technology will fix it one day…somehow….hopefully before 2100 I guess
And never how the currently existing society can change to deal with the problem before it’s accelerated to a point of killing hundreds of millions of people?
That’s the problem with this board, people here implicitly still believe in the incentives of capitalism and adhere to the Americanized notion of what it means to lead a good life

Larger industry is what’s needed to lead the good life, because more and more luxury products are what is necessary to lead a good life, and any alternative to that is austerity and/or primitivism. Out of increasingly expanding industry magical technologies will emerge to solve the problem of expanding industries, somehow, maybe.

Honestly whenever people start rambling about nonsense like expanding industry magically “reversing” global warming, or absolute nonsense like “gifts of nature” I think they have almost no knowledge regarding the problem and as a society we’re fucking boned


>tfw when you have property in Canada and have your future as the owner of a Bohemian hideout pretty much set

Canadian medical school is harder than getting into the NHL - but goddamn is it worth it. Cumrades live for free in what could be one of the last habitable countries.


>Socialism is when our lifestyles remain unchanged, hell, even the mode of production remains the same.
the capitalist mode of production is doing austerity for the workers and business as usual for the capitalists while doing next to nothing to fix climate change. The Socialist mode of production will fix climate change but it will also improve the living standards of the workers.

>when it’s dengoids
China is doing Xiism now, get with the times.
>all the solutions are implicitly still in a capitalist framework? What you mentioned is a porky mitigation strategy, with the exception of “ditching the capitalist class” to give it “socialist cred”
You are fighting imaginary enemies, the capitalist framework isn't doing anything to mitigate climate change.
>an actual solution would be something like reorienting the economy such that the basis for human social organization is rejuvenating the biosphere and practicing rational stewardship over the Earth
No you are trying to make environmental issue central and the workers class interest are just a sideshow in your worldview. That will never work. All politics is dictatorship by classes, you can have a bourgeois dictatorship or a proletarian dictatorship, nature is politically inert it can't make political dictates.

The bourgeois dictatorship will continue doing what it has done for the last decades, make a few token environmental gestures, impose more austerity on workers and pump more resources into the military.

A proletarian dictatorship will have substantial environmental policies but it will do it for the sake of proletarian class interests. The interest of the workers will be central, and that just happens to coincide with needing a planet with nature on it. Do you understand ? You have to argue that we do environmental policy because it benefits workers, not because of some other ideal. You have to pick a class that rules, the workers will do more for the environment than any other politically viable alternative, but they won't do it for the environments sake, they will only do it for their own sake.

In socialism environmental policy like all other policy will be subordinate to working class interests.
Socialism will not build a green aristocracy that can argue against the interests of workers by appealing to nature.


>You are trying to make the sideshow that is the Earth’s habitability which is disconnected from class struggle central over LARPing as a 19th Century revolutionary
Literally no words fam
Dengoids live in another fucking dimension


google: reality tunnel
timothy leary was a goddman genius


>Socialism can just…magically handwave away the ecological stability of the planet
>Workers power supersedes physics and chemistry you fool
>I must literally post an image of a fucking coal miner from 1920 and juxtapose it to a bourgeois from the 1700s almost like a symbol of my inability to conceive of the actual conditions of the world I live in
Talking to dengoids is worse than useless tbh
What’s the point of interacting with a “socialist” moving from the comical position that the issues facing people right now are identical to the issues facing people in the 19th Century?
What’s the point when the dengist “comrade” can only imagine a “socialism” that’s either the USSR but with more nuclear power or the literal USA but with nuclear power and free housing too?
What’s their to discuss with someone whose solution to such a dangerous crisis is to sputter off literal platitudes before implying that the solution is to make sure the entire world consooooooms products like Americans and then paints the flag red and problem solved?
What do you say to someone that rejects that part of actually solving the climate crisis is to fundamentally change how human society interacts with the biosphere and the land?

What do say to a red porky?


nobody is gonna fight for your vision because to 99% of people it's depressing as fuck and they'd rather live in shit while dreams of riches are piped into their corneas by the media than lose even that dream of being rich


PanAf anon, what you're suggesting won't work because it's the biggest conceptual turnaround in the history of humanity and people aren't desperate enough (like eating shoes tier desperation) to do that


You have absolutely no idea what my vision is considering you never actually asked
All you know is that it doesn’t involve neoliberal ambiguously defined “growth” and doesn’t involve making sure everyone consoooooooms like an American

Having thought though, I realize, you actually don’t have any solutions, arguably you don’t even have a plan
Your “solution” is to state “the working class should rule” (woohoo common socialist phrases) and then to make the ambiguous statement that once that happens they’ll solve the problem, ambiguously. While also implying they’ll actually just continue to destroy the planet’s ecology because fuck the planet tbh we need more vidya, marvel movies, and burgers

You basically represented a non-position and no solutions because either:
1. You are a cynical liberal like most dengists
2. You’ve never actually thought of the problem outside of that “capitalists caused it” and thus have no solutions outside of empty cope statements
3. You’re implicitly fine with sacrificing the Global South to maintain American culture with the added bonus of masturbatory prole statues and free housing.

You’re speaking like a politician, that sort of talk is worthless
Nothing I’ve discussed is austere unless the cessation of mass commodity production is a nightmare to you
I believe every worker should have access to housing, food, employment, and democratic control over their workplace. I believe global economic and ecological planning is necessary to meet the crisis so modern communications technologies would continue to exist by necessity. I believe production of nuclear power plants as the core of energy infrastructure would also be necessary, perhaps.

My vision isn’t global austerity for humanity, it is dismantling capitalist conceptions of prosperity, something that even those in the socialist bloc believed in to a certain degree. I think this bizarre dengist (thus capitalist) notion of treating the non-human world as something apart from human societies and thus an endless source for exploitation is not only extremely dangerous, it is so short sighted given the present consequences of this sort of thinking to the point of being delusional and insane.

If your imagined socialist future does not recognize the likelihood of a socialist society that tries undoing the alienation between human society and nature you aren’t actually imagining a socialist future, like most people living in the End of History you’re just imagining the return of the socialist past. Why is that? Simple, because a socialist society that does not focus on ending this alienation, which would necessarily vastly improve people’s quality of life (the notion that quality of life can only increase by destroying our world is more porky dogshit, hence any “socialist” promoting it in the 2020s is just a red porky), is a socialist society that rejects modern science. If your socialist society rejects modern science it has already rejected materialism, if it is specifically rejecting the Crisis of the 21st Century it has replicated the insanity of the current bourgeois regime. This hypothetical socialist society might be popular with some people here, but I doubt it will ever exist, most of all because it envisions a socialism premised on the populations of North America and Western Europe embracing communism and then choosing to sacrifice the people of Africa, Asia, the South Pacific regions, and Latin America.


It’s a conceptual turnaround on par with the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern world; it absolutely has precedent, if you do not believe this is possible then you do not believe communism is possible.
And if you cannot imagine a communism of the future, only that of the past, you necessarily have come to agree with Fukuyama’s End of History even if you refuse to admit it.


You won't be able to do anything to stop global wooming, acceleration is the only way


>Why would the thing that caused the problem be the solution to the problem?
bourgeois industry != socialist industry. more importantly, because the numbers say so. no magic tech needed, merely a change in direction. hence planning
>I think they have almost no knowledge
oh there's certainly one person here with "almost no knowledge"


File: 1653919935150.png (342.12 KB, 935x556, 765765.png)

>You have absolutely no idea what my vision is
Thats the point dude, no-one cares what 'your vision' is.


File: 1653921148759.jpg (124.11 KB, 1662x1320, waste problem solved.jpg)

>You're being undialectical.
Fine, i am a stochastic being now. I know about Hegal's dialectic and how Marx inverted it, and how that later became dialectical materialism, but i don't know how you can BE dialectical, that makes no sense.

Addendum, your intense scientific illiteracy speaks against the continuation of the use dialectical philosophy and a modernization of the conceptual tools for materialism, your understanding of science reminds me of the pre 1800s

>Coal power is cleaner than nuclear power.

You are making a fool out of your self. Coal power releases more radioactive waste in the environment than nuclear power, because they are radon-gas inclusions in coal. Coal-ash also contain heavy metal pollution, that will never decay.

>because at least the CO2 would progressively go away in a few thousand years

You are moving the goal post, the aim was to prevent climate change. In your enthusiasm to slander nuclear power, you basically turned to using hard right climate change denialist talking points, about CO2 being natural.

The nuclear waste problem has been solved for fission power. The drilling equipment normally used by oil/gas drills can be adapted to make deep holes for the nuclear waste. They can drill so deep that any event that could unearth the waste would be so violent that basically all life on earth would be dead anyway. The boreholes can be made inside of the nuclear power plants to negate the need for moving nuclear waste castor containers and upsetting any people about that.

>Nuclear fusion needs hydrogen, there has to be a polluting industry to produce it, moon mining or whatever is resource intensive.

Sure you can do H3 fusion (mined from the moon) but you can also fuse regular heavy water Hydrogen isotopes found in the Ocean. You can get those with electrolysis powered by the fusion reactor and isotope separation centrifuges. Fusion reactors produce a small amount of Helium and worn out reactor parts. Basically nothing compared any other power production.


You're just reiterating your non-statements
Admit, you honestly just don't think anything can be done, is that it?
Your solution is
>The workers will solve it because they just will and we don't need to think about it
t. Burger with fantasies of recreating a country founded over a century ago that no longer exists


You live in the intellectual eco-bubble. That gave you narrow scope reality tunnel vision.
That's why you are unable to see that political actions are rooted in class reality. Try reading more marx. Nature is part of material reality, but it's not the only thing.


>Admit, you honestly just don't think anything can be done, is that it?
when did I ever say that? I have said multiple times now that the solution is planning
planning amounts to calculation in kind. only in planning can we feed explicit climate constraints into the system. this in turn tells us what plans are viable and which one are not. you can go and look up the technical coefficients for say BECSS yourself if you like, and plug that into a system on inequalities that weighs it against the need to also produce food and fuel. this tells you directly in kind, in physical terms, what plans are possible and which ones are not. you can expand the space of possible plans by investing in means of production
meanwhile climate doomers just throw their hands up into the air and go "welp we're fucked!" which is beyond unhelpful


My God is this shit tedious
No shit people's relationship to nature is directly tied to their class relations
But this isn't the thread for just ambiguously stating
That's a non-statement and part of why so many socialists frequently look like a joke
The purpose of the thread isn't to mindlessly restate an obvious conclusion everyone here necessarily believes, the purpose of this thread, I imagine, is to discuss what form this takes
If all you want is to restate what the USSR was like and how great it was, I have to assume you're actually utterly disinterested in the subject of ecology, which begs the question of why you would participate in a thread that's about it?
If the only solution you have is to effectively continue the present course of production, but do away with the undo compensation of capitalists, I'd ask how this is actually changing peoples relationship with nature? I know how a socialist society interested in resolving the ecological crisis might go about doing this, I'm interested in what you think, and moreso, why the only answer you can give is "worker's rule" or "more nuclear power plants"?
Do you believe that's all that's necessary, nuclear power? Or do you believe the scientific solution to the problem suddenly changes if the working class is in power, that there's some sort of "proletarian science" separate from science?
Nothing I've suggested is "austerity", what I've called into question is the notion that increasing production is somehow a solution to a problem caused by exponential productive growth that regards the Earth as an endless, stable, and eternal well of resources; a problem that, yes, like it or not the USSR also did contribute to, that is simply a fact

That class struggle and the state of Earth's ecology are intertwined does not somehow mean ecology is irrelevant and really class struggle is more important, in fact a stable reliable climate, arable soil, and drinkable water are necessary for the to be any sort of complex agricultural society to begin with. Sorry to say but your solution cannot be ambiguous or magical.

It's beyond me that some Marxists are offended that communism is a necessity because capitalism is incompatible with life on Earth, rather than communism being a solution everyone arrives at from being inspired by Marx's analysis of the situation in the 19th Century

It impresses me that you people feel slighted when I state that capitalism must be overthrown because it is an existential threat to the human race


Bro you can't accuse me of scientific illiteracy and go around spouting le hecking redditor science loving rambling. For example you pretend coal is more polluting because radon gaz? Yeah it's dangerous, immediately for like a few weeks because it has a small half life, not really comparable with fission products. Nuclear waste is solved yeah if by solved you mean just bury it and hope for the best.

Science is not magic and you should not be a cultist about it. Anything will have a cost, natural, technical and political limitations, even the nuclear fusion you dream about which will maybe be relevant at best in 2050, or the fission that nobody can or will build enough to change shit.


The solution is planning and then what?
What does it even mean to simply state the solution is planning and then leave it at that? This isn't 1985, we aren't discussing what we could have done 35 years ago, we're discussing what we need to do right now

This is why I say you people live in a sort of false reality, you're no better than liberals discussing carbon taxes, not really, because you're still discussing potential solutions in the past, rather than what needs to be done right now to either mitigate the already existing crisis or adapt to it.
It isn't "climate doomerism" to state that 1.5 or likely 2 degrees Celsius warming is already locked in, that's not a question it's simply a fact, the Earth doesn't automatically warm up the second you add CO2 and hydrogen into the system, it warms up over time, the solution your discussing of planning how much more CO2 we can add in is still just as much a death sentence, since it doesn't account for the reality that what has already been added to the system at least assures catastrophic climate change already.

Planning is a necessity to meet the problem, but a necessity in the sense of utilizing scientific research to best plan for food storage, best plan for the construction of carbon-neutral energy sources, and most of all to scientifically plan a sort of "revitalization" of Earth's natural ecosystems; all on a global scale.

What always annoys me about this conversation is the sheer amount of people unwilling to face that this genuinely is a catastrophic crisis and a tragedy; people are so so beholden to denial of how bad a situation can be, you would hope socialists would be immune to this but we're as human as anyone else.

Denial of a problem isn't hope, it's just denial
Political slogans aren't a plan, they're just slogans
I'm glad you at least thought out the economic planning bit, the problem is that the sort of planning you're laying out was the solution in the 80s and 90s, we are far past the point where all we need to do is calculate how much more CO2 the Earth can handle



I think he's just trying to say that nobody in this thread is ever gonna be able to answer the question,because you need data, to analize it and then make conclusion in a planned form and it's not just up to litterally whos on the interwebs (or maybe he's just saying that we need an international planning bureau of climate restoration or something,and they will be better at coming with a solution than anybody in this thread)


The problem isn't coming up with solutions though
The problem is trying to come up with solutions I think people here would rather hear
I think a lot of people decrying green austerity and /r/collapse tier arguments I never actually made (notice I never claimed "overpopulation" as part of the problem or the idea of people wanting a better living standard, I called into question exponentially expanding mass production and the westernized notions of what it means to live well)
People, not everyone here, but some people here want solutions that either fit into the LARP fantasy of recreating the USSR (in truth idky this is an aspiration of so many Marxists, I understand respecting the USSR and wanting to learn from it, I think basically wanting to recreate it is idealist asf), solutions that somehow solve the crisis without resolving the alienation of human society from nature (something something liberals, something something killing the biosphere is based, saving the biosphere is cringing; basically on par with polyps saying socialism is bad because it helps non-whites too), or a combination of the above where the solutions occur in such a way that society isn't changed to a very radical degree

Personally I don't think people laboring out in nature to plant new forests and tending to their health is actually worse than the shit they do now, I don't think cooperative efforts to shift things like agriculture to becoming more localized and centered more around horticulture and growing local edible crops makes life worse. The solutions would produce a society very different from the Western one and the societies that followed their lead, but is that really so awful?


>It isn't "climate doomerism" to state that 1.5 or likely 2 degrees Celsius warming is already locked in
>0.85 °C
of course there's also inertia in the system, and positive feedback loops that are starting to kick in. as you say.
what I am speaking of is marshalling the sum total of humanity, billions of workers, to bring this number down to zero ASAP, and keeping it there. this is a massive undertaking, far larger than WW2. it requires planning. it requires appropriate industry. but it is not impossible.
>the solution your discussing of planning how much more CO2 we can add in is still just as much a death sentence
I'm not talking about adding CO2 I'm talking about removing it, retard. doing so requires industry, but of a different kind than bourgeois industry
>Planning is a necessity to meet the problem, but a necessity in the sense of utilizing scientific research to best plan for food storage, best plan for the construction of carbon-neutral energy sources, and most of all to scientifically plan a sort of "revitalization" of Earth's natural ecosystems; all on a global scale.
wow so exactly what I said then. socialists industry. who could have guessed. or do you think industry == fossil fuel power? do you think stone age industry wasn't industry?
this more or less. you need to gather the technical coefficients. this is something that will involve a lot of local public servants, forestry workers, farmers and so on. and also climate scientists because the planning system will have to incorporate a reasonably accurate climate model

it may interest people in this thread to know that Cockshott is working on a book on planning climate change reversal that's coming out later this year. I expect it will contain much of this


>The problem isn't coming up with solutions though
I think our role is not to come up with solutions, but to topple a system clearly incapable of bringing them and fast. You became angry about the Marx quote because somewhere up the thread because I inverted it to mock dengoids and AES folks and you didn't catch on but here's what he really said.

<Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

This is essentially why I think talking about what kind of energy we will use or how to capture CO2 to keep the economy growing among would be revolutionary groups is utopian insanity. There are enough liberals and porkies doing that out there.


Then I suppose we're effectively on the same page, since I also, in opposition to cynical liberal malthusians, see the 8 billion people we currently have as an immense opportunity to send an army to every corner of the Earth revitalizing natural ecosystems, building technology and organic structures to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and democratically planning the scientific management of the Earth to the benefit of both people and the biosphere of which we are apart. If we are on the same page I apologize for making negative assumptions regarding your position, you probably remember as well as I do of when people here would make the psychotic argument that human society should cut down every last forest and sterilize the seas because life itself is "reactionary" (in reality I think they just wanted to seem based to 4chins though, back then anons cared way more about seeming cool to the chinlets than they do now)
My position is largely that human society has to fundamentally change how the non-human world is viewed and reconciled ourselves as a part of the biosphere rather than beings that exist outside of it. I believe humans have an immense and amazing opportunity to be stewards and protectors of our planet as a consequence of our intelligence and ability to plan, but that capitalism is squandering that much grander future.


>0.85 °C
>Relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures.
Useless. The IPCC is being forced and lobbied to change the base of the temperature graph to mask the real damage.


China will save us all, r-right?


china is the single hope for the survival of the human race in the sense of our descendants not being fucking ameroid lunatics


File: 1653929546963-1.pdf (1.06 MB, 192x255, anonymous-desert.pdf)

File: 1653929546963-2.pdf (425.66 KB, 180x255, deepadaptation.pdf)


> Desert
I'm pretty sure that belongs on >>>/dead/


no it belongs in this thread


Nature is material conditions, not class relations.
The motivations for socialists to do something about the damaged ecology is because it threatens workers interests. The ecology is not an end in it self. The end is rule by workers for workers.

Nuclear power and more sustainable product designs is not the end all be all. It is intended to serve as a template for socialist discourse about ecology. It has to be framed in a way of repairing nature for the benefit of the workers. Everything must revolve around proletarian interests or else you produce a discourse that can be recuperated into neoliberalism. We could talk about other things like building architecture as hubs along train-networks. The hubs would have units of pedestrian distances that contain the workplace, leisure-zones and the homes of workers. The primary goal is a better lifestyle without the stress of commuting through traffic, but as a side bonus it would reduce a lot of pollution as well.

You can't produce a discourse that has a path back to ruling ideology. All things concerning society have to be optimized to serve the rule of the proletariat. I'm not trying to make this tedious on purpose. This is a necessary defense against extremely aggressive ideological attacks from neoliberals. They have made everything capital-centric. Therefore we must make everything prole-centric. I'm interested in ecology as it relates to the socialist cause.

By the way the Soviet Union was a pioneer of ecological considerations, they were the first to consider potential ecological consequences and they were the first to implement improvements in industrial techniques.

>what I've called into question is the notion that increasing production is somehow a solution to a problem caused by exponential productive growth

The explosion of productive growth that resulted from the industrial revolution is why capitalism is considered by socialists as a historically progressive force. The stagnating productivity in the last 10 years is the primary reason why socialists now consider capitalism to have lost it's progressive character. I would consider your phrase as Eco-reactionairy. The goal of improving the means of production and the economic capacity of humanity cannot be questioned. It's a fundamental part of core socialist ideology. The ecology question is about how to best configure the industrial machinery so that it does not produce the polluting effects. Many novel productive techniques are very clean, and economically efficient, but they are not applied because the capitalist class cannot benefit from it. It would only benefit the society as a hole. This is another reason why this has to be a prole-centric discussion. What class rules over political and economic matters fundamentally decides over what is funded with the surplus of society.

You cannot lock an economic system into a static position. It will use up all the material conditions that made it possible to reproduce it self and then die off. If we do not choose to have industrial growth, we will relatively quickly have industrial decline. Once industrial decline happens we will regress in technological capacity, and basically go back to extremely polluting practices of the 19 century, burning coal power and using simple but very harsh chemical production for example. Almost anything that is clean is based on enabling technology that uses vast amounts of energy. Like for example if you use a computer to control your heating, that will reduce your personal energy needs, but a society that can mass-produce computer chips needs an industrial base that is capable of producing enough energy to refine silicon and a thousand other super energy intensive supply chains. You need to produce more energy to enable higher efficiency. That requires growth. The minimum amount of growth, is what ever is needed until the economy can bootstrap matter to energy conversion. The industrial processes can only become perfectly clean until we have replicators that work on the scale of atoms, and recycle every atom. Replicators will need yet more energy, and it needs a lot of supporting technology, like computers that can keep track of trillions and trillions of atoms, as well sensors that can see in enough detail. You need tools for humans to be able to use replicators to shape matter, because stacking a trillion individual atoms in a design editor would be frustratingly slow. All of those advances will require a larger and more capable economy. And the motivation for socialism to develop replicators is more material wealth enjoyed by workers. The side effect will be perfect recycling and the end of waste as a concept. You could literally copy paste healthy environment to places where the environment was destroyed.

I perceive you as a narrow minded individual who has some idealist concept of nature that is in conflict with an idealist concept of industry. Organic cells are manipulating matter and energy just like industry does. The differences are superficial. Workers are using industry as a tool to manipulate matter and energy, and you appear to be blocking the path of workers realizing ultimate mastery and refinement of the task of shaping matter, by halting the development of industrial society at some arbitrary point in time coinciding with now. I can't understand why you think that any of your proposals will have benefits for the ecology or society, because the actions you are proposing will cause more pollution. I think the social consequences of not producing an abundance of energy is going to look more like the return of slavery than anything that resembles wholesome utopias run by the dictatorship of ecologists


Maupinoid retard spotted


>Bro you can't accuse me of scientific illiteracy
You said coal power was cleaner than nuclear power, "scientific illiteracy" is an appropriate reply to that.


>Then I suppose we're effectively on the same page
>democratically planning the scientific management of the Earth to the benefit of both people and the biosphere of which we are apart
hopefully I didn't snap too hard at you. it's just often it seems like I'm talking to anprims on here and it gets very annoying
>Relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures
oof, didn't see that. used to be compared to 1900


File: 1653931578676.jpg (17.29 KB, 379x292, i stay here forever.jpg)

You must come the last stage of death, acceptance


The wise thing would be to use a preindustrial baseline, 1700-1800. I had some websites and papers on that, I will try to find them. But the most important thing is consistency, because I've seen confused people using 1960s baseline data and comparing it to 2000s baseline data.


Damn I remember reading Desert, not too long ago actually. Sadly, it holds up pretty well.


>The wise thing would be to use a preindustrial baseline
maybe. from a control theoretic perspective you want the system to be in some stable equilibrium. gabbidalism is very much not at equilibrium. but yeah don't go changing what the zero is, that's annoying

speaking of nothing, I enjoy reading lowtechmagazine.com because it's so very out there. helps you think in different ways, even if I think a lot of their ideas are dumb labour wasting propositions


A based retard Extinction rebellion threw a cake at the Mona Lisa


oh so that guy was XR? lmao


Late winter, early summer
I’m sweating like a cut of ham on the grill


i dont want temps to go up because i hate sweating, the sun and not being able to wear my favorite clothes :(


Probably could have, but China hawks in the US and the EU, especially the US, are absolutely dominating politics, and they are actively hostile to Climate activists/Climate hawks, perceiving them as a threat precisely because it's China could radically drive down Solar/EV costs and use BRI as tool for climate financing.

Climate has been specifically address by China hawks as an area there will be no cooperation on. They have currently implemented bans and intense tariffs on Chinese solar, and want to ban the usage of Chinese polysilicon in solar panels globally, they are going to make swift and strong protectionists moves to kneecap Chinese EVs and have aggressively sanctioned Chinese civilian nuclear, as well as attacked climate financing abroad.


Of course, any grand, wide ranging economic or climate agreement is just out of the question. Can you imagine Blinken sitting down striking a global promise like what Kyoto hoped to do, or something? It's impossible. Literally unthinkable.


ovarit was very upset about it because he had lipstick and a wig on



no, reagan and gorbachev were sane, rational statesmen compared to the shambling, buckbroke grifters currently leading our world


There is no necessary relationship between socialist development and economic development. You're basically condemning the majority of the world to underdevelopment out of guise of the 'environment'. China is one of the most progressive nations in regards to environmentalism and so was the soviet union at the time of Stalin, the "destruction of the enviroment" is not comparable at all to the parasites that is the first world. Most of the world does not aspire to consume like the rest of first world nations since it was decadent, but the ability to be able to survive without imperialism coercing them.

I see your hostility is more to people who think their lives are sustainable when it is in fact not and try to keep their products that were made out of exploitation, most stuff produced is generally worthless. I see your point a bit more and it is vastly better than the ambiguous positions put. There needs to be more investigations on how to plan, most serious communist parties around the world do posit such a plan

Id recommend the book "A People's Green New Deal". I read it awhile ago but dont remember the arguments at hand, it should be a necessary read for all socialists here. Keep fighting the revisionists though.


>condemning the majority of the world to underdevelopment
Oh no not the underdevelopment, those poor amazonian savages really need some highways airports and factories. They will be so much better eating processed food looking at their smartphones during their commutes.


>Reagan and Gorbachev were sane, rational statesmen

Funniest joke I've heard all day.


>They have currently implemented bans and intense tariffs on Chinese solar, and want to ban the usage of Chinese polysilicon in solar panels globally, they are going to make swift and strong protectionists moves to kneecap Chinese EVs and have aggressively sanctioned Chinese civilian nuclear, as well as attacked climate financing abroad.
I doubt that doing protectionism to grow domestic solar panel and nuclear industry is bad the western proletariat would get more leverage. And it will increase the overall production capacity. They can't kneecap Chinese industry, they don't have that kind of power, it will just mean that China will industrialize the global South at a faster rate, as well as grow more internal consumption.


>…compared to the [current world leaders]
you are a retard


>I doubt that doing protectionism to grow domestic solar panel and nuclear industry is bad
but its not protectionism for national industries, its simply locking out successful Chinese industries. There is no serious intent to use this anti-China policymaking to put US solarmakers on the map, America's economy is predicated on petroleum, it is going nowhere, and renewables are certainly not welcome to take a bite out of their market share


File: 1654034836060.png (1.2 MB, 2304x1728, agroecoloy.png)

Thanks for being a great poster in this thread. Often listening to leftypol talk about ecological issues drives me insane. They talk as if modernism isn't dead. People seriously wont engage with the need for a radical transformation of our relationship with the earth and what is good in life.
We aren't going to create the USSR and anyone barking up that tree is a movement dead in the water.
Of course the arguments, theory and experiments of Lenin, Stalin and Mao are indispensible but the way that they are put on a pedestal here are just infuriating.

This is what I think needs to happen.
Yall need to listen to The Poor Proles Almanac
Ep 1: Climate Change & Modeling Complex Systems Theory - YouTube

Personally I don't think we are going to be able to create a movement in time to prevent climate change. That ship has sailed. Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't try but our focus should be on solving the problems that the capitalist states that rule us will refuse to adequately solve.
Communists have a real image problem of being stuck in the early 1900's and judging from the people you've been arguing with and the state of this board, they are right.
So what I think is necessary is Solarpunk.

Now, Solarpunk isn't an idea at this point that is a coherent political platform. It is largely an aesthetic and a hopeful fantasy that there really is an option that is better. That being said, it's pretty popular and has great optics.
Solarpunk as I understand it is three things: anti-capitalism, living in and as nature, A desire to meld technology and nature, and DIY culture.
Solarpunk was created as an opposite aesthetic to cyberpunk, our future and current society depending on where you are.

As it is right now, we need to radically reduce the carbon output and pollution caused by the bizarre consumptive culture of our societies.
Now, the dengoids will see this as advocating austerity but theres no reason to assume so. We can live great lives while also reducing the carbon output from our consumptive culture.
Now of course I don't mean that we can consume ethically out of this crisis. Clearly the impact of the production systems that produce our food and commodities have far and away more impact on our carbon (and pollutant) output than anything any individual person does.
For example, the same apple could have wildly varying carbon outputs if the electricity generation that the state provides is produced by coal rather than hydro, geothermal, tide, solar, wind or nuclear. Even more so if we have to drive to buy that apple and even more so if the petrol we used was produced from the tar sands etc etc.
For the majority of our carbon output, it is built into the infrastructure we live under. To actually make a dent in averting climate change, we have to reorder much more than I think people typically think about.

Firstly, our agricultural system is completely fucking nuts.
As it stands the way we do agriculture industrially will kill us all. Complex ecologies rely on a balance of many thousands of plants, fungi and animals. Under the soil in complex systems we see mycorrhiza that are funguses that bind to the roots of plants and form a symbiotic relationship with the plant. The fungus gives water and minerals to the plants far more efficiently than the plant could do alone.
When the ground is tilled oxygen gets into the soil and breaks apart the mycorrhiza leaving them free to be preyed upon by bacteria and nematodes that, for a short time (about 3 years) produce


File: 1654034873263.png (101.65 KB, 3000x1667, solarpunk flag.png)

incredible yields in the crops one is planting. However, these bacteria and nematodes eventually, with successive plowing eradicate the mycorrhiza which causes a huge decrease in yield.
Typically what we do then is blast it with fertilizers to make up for what now the mycorrhiza cannot give to the plants. This works for as long as we have fertilizers to throw into field. However, it does two things.
1: the soil is now fucking dead. Worms don't live in it, bugs don't live in it, if (and it probably is) an monoculture it is getting no organic matter in the ground whatsoever. This means that the only nutrients b eing put into the soil to make it fertile are those artificially created to be placed in them. If we stop putting them in, the soil in hot areas will turn to desert (as we see across the Sahel in Africa) in more temperate areas, it may take many years of the field lying fallow for it to be able to support intensive agriculture again.
During the meantime, the winds whip away the topsoil, dumping it in the ocean and just generally further decreasing the fertility of the land.

Soil is not just soil. Soil is the process of millenia of organic matter accumulating. Then the organic matter degrading via very complex process of animals (like worms, insects, goats, cattle) fungus and microoganisms. Each predate on the other in a complex web that relies on eachother being there to keep the ecology in some kind of balance. Less biodiverse areas, generally, are less fertile areas.
When we let soil degrade, we are destroying the nutrients and ecological webs that support fertility. Fertility which may take decades or centuries to replace. Industrial agriculture is eviscerating the soil and will kill us if we do not transition.

2: The farmer is now in obscene debt.
Fertilizers cost shittons of money, seed does too. Beyond that the machines necessary to harvest, plant and till those immense farms are obscenely expensive too. All these things are monopolised by a few capitalists. Coupled with the huge land costs this means that the farmer is a debt slave forever. Farmer suicide is a problem the world over. The french periodically protest, driving tractors into town. The Indians have fought bloody over it. Punjab was turned into a warzone in large part due to this transition to industrial agriculture.
Likely your country has farmers killing themselves over this too. Have a look around.
When farmer kill themselves or sell up cheap, agrocorps swoop in to take over the farm. I'm sure you've heard about bill gates' monopolisation of farm land, blackrock too. They know whats good and the conditions are ripe for them to exploit it.

Right now, these agrocorps can make big money making crops out of this destructive system. Then they control the food supply completely puts us workers in an even more precarious situation. Furthermore they will not transition to forms of agriculture that will not deplete the soil (and thereby prevent the largest famine that will ever have existed) because capitalism will not allow them to pick the better but less profitable option.

So, this shit is bad but it gets worse when you also factor in the fact that we only use a couple varieties of each type of crop. If it is the case that a pest arises that is resistant to the few varieties of soy or corn we use or we run out of the components to make those pesticides we use to control it, entire crops could fail. We have already had this happen with the gros michel banana in the 1800s
Humans over the course of thousands of years have selectively bred countless varieties of plants for the specific conditions of their area and the specific tastes and culinary needs of their area. What industrial agriculture has done is force us to rely on a just a handful of varieties of plants that are low in nutrient density and exotic to the region they are planted in . This makes them even more precarious a food source to rely upon and yet the fucking cultists continue to fucking push this shit.

Now, we should be transitioning to agroecological agricultural practices but to do so would require completely reworking our entire society.


"solarpunk" and podcasts, great posts dude, whats your patreon


File: 1654034966298.jpg (53.71 KB, 474x333, solarpunk 3.jpg)

Currently, we've had hundreds of years of agricultural technology that has rendered much agricultural labour in the countryside redundant, thus forced them to the city. We see this in China where you cannot freely move to the city from the countryside because there is such a problem of influx to the cities. Of course it still happens but there are legal loopholes and stopgaps the government uses to ttry to prevent the depletion of the countryside.
In any of your countries, small towns are considered “the middle of nowehere” places where no one would likely want to be. Places of poverty and desperation. Farmers can't support themselves and the small towns are constantly losing their young to the cities creating a death spiral that ends in abandoned towns (see the abandoned farming towns across the middle of france and the pyrenees).
Agro ecology is basically the practice of growing a variety of plants in tandem with eachother to create ecosystems of plants that can all be harvested from.
The typical example of a agroecological guild system is the three sisters of the native americans. Where the gourd provides ground cover (keeps moisture in the ground) and fixes nitrogen into the soil for the corn that grows above it to absorb from the soil. The corn, in turn, provides a shoot for which the beans can wind around which also fix nitrogen for the benefit of the three plants.
Now, agroecological systems are much more complicated than this small example but the basic gist is there for you.
An agroecological system plants many different plants which each provide a different benefit for the system as a whole.
Examples of agroecological systems or practices are:
Silviopasture, permaculture, syntropic agriculture
I'm not gonna list more but just look some of this shit up.
So while these systems can in some cases be farmed industrially (like silviopasture can be alley cropped with annuals upon which tractors could run.) They don't require it and they aren't optimally suited for it. They can produce a huge amount more variety of produce with higher nutrient density but they are unlikely to match industrial agriculture with total tonnage. Beyond this, industrial agriculture selects for produce varieties that are easy to ship long distances without spoiling, getting bruised or otherwise made worse by the transit. Tomatoes from the shop for example taste like absolute shit compared to heirloom tomatos that you might find in a hobby gardeners back yard.
But you see the problem right?
To move to agroecological farming, we would need to move much of the population from the cities, back into the countryside so that they can have access to local food networks that are dependant on agroecological farming.
Beyond this, agroecology is a huge amount of skills that aren't taught in schools, aren't really valued in society. This is particulatly worrying when you consider the knowledge of the environment that most city dwellers have.
Most people couldn't name more than 20 vegetables and fruits let alone identify them from their leaves and know how to grow them.
And yet, this has to be done or else the capitalists will create successive famines that would make anything that they say the communists did look like pissing in the ocean.

Now part of the problem is that capitalists have monopolised the land. Even if we did want to move people back to the land and get close with nature, they would need land to learn how to farm on, which obviously is out of our reach. We land reform which likely means we need revolution. But we can't hold out for revolution, we engaging in revolutionaity ideation we are creating the working class movement capable of pulling it off, which means creating power here and now in response to the issues specific to our time.
The rhetoric to give to people is that capitalism is in an extinction economy. They are incapable of changing because the needs of profit require them to keep doing that which is destroying us.
When climate change hits us, it will be us, the poor that die. Our jobs are meaningless and beyond that, actively contribute to destroying the environment.
Self defense requires us to quit working or slow down production and focus full on to producing


File: 1654035041795.jpg (1.59 MB, 1920x2975, solarpunk 4.jpg)

organisations that can provide for our needs outside of the industrial capitalist system.
Of course, thats not feasible for every product and object that we need. Rather, we need to focus first where it counts, on the agricultural system.
Solarpunks should form Climate Defense Councils. The primary focus of these CDCs is to act as civilians civil defense. Amongst those take part in them they should be organising crisis plans for whatever climate peril is most likely to hit their town. Inundation from aggressive storms, fires, dust storms or whatever it may be. These CDC's will organise the people that are part of it to help eachother but also be there and visible helping people better than the state is capable of.
CDC's will also partner with local farms to produce buyers coops. You might think this sounds silly and like hippyshit but CDC's are the vehicle from which larger state power could be taken. On a small scale these CDC's need to have the experience in operating logistical systems to directly tangibly benefit the poor who are most at risk of getting fucked by climate instability.
Solarpunk CDC's should be unending in their agitation against landlords and for land reform. Neither of which is likely to happen without revolution so is in effect a call for that.
Through the partnership with local farms, Solarpunk CDC's can be used to link their members or interested people up with direct farming experience and the theory in which to create a different agriculture.
Through creating and executing crisis plans the CDC participants get great optics and hands on experience dealing with chaos and stressful situations. Experience that would be needed for any revolution to actually succeed.
In short, the revolution needs revolutionairies and everybody knows precious few people who would have anywhere near the skills necessary to pull off even a rebellion let alone a revolution. Many people here would talk about how we need to solve climate change through revolution but none of them talk about how we might actually build that possibility bit by bit.
Most of the people I know fret about hosting a dinner party let alone taking on the project of running a revolution.
I have much more to say about how CDC's might function but i'll leave it at that at the moment and move on to something else.

Communists have a problem with aesthetics. You can whine about how propaganda has clouded peoples conception of communism and you'd be right. It doesn't however, change the reality that communisms optics are irreperably scarred.
As cool as videos of the red army marching to some deep dark electronic shit is cool and powerful, its playing to a very very specific audience. Men who enjoy the feeling power that comes from being part of (what once was) the most army.
Communism is grey and austere. It's not interesting.
Solarpunk is a beautiful ideal, one that is tangible and able to built with ones own hands. The colours are bright and hopeful and so is the outlook.
The people need something to look forward to other than revenge which when you look at this board and any other majority ML space, thats the look.
Now don't get me wrong, if Solarpunk takes violence off the table it just become some limp wristed reform movement. But its not that yet, because it hasn't solidified its identity. Undoubtedly the capitalists wont give up their power willingly but violence shouldn't be what people just associate with the movement.
I'd suggest we take the rhetorical stance that the rich are literally mentally ill. Theres enough studies to show that when one has power for long enough it makes them less and less able to identify with their common man. This obvuiously has to be true when one looks at Bezos or Musk. They have more money than anyone could use in a lifetime and yet they choose to destroy the world. How could we call that anything else but an addiction to playing the game? A mental illness? The rhetoric would be that they must be divorced from what they are addicted to for their own benefit, that we are only trying to help because if they are left there, they'll also kill us all.
This line also has benefits in flipping the narrative of how society will tell the depressed and anxious that they need to be medicated for the mental illness of not being content with the destruction of our planet.
But if we are to say that Bezos et al are mentally ill, we need too to have a conception of what “ the good life” is. How are we to say that they are living wrongly if we don't know what is right?
I would say that the duty of a solarpunk society is to reach post-scarcity of primal needs (primal needs being sustenance, shelter and community) and any party or society that is not working towards that nor has a plan of how to reach that is not to be supported.
Ther purpose of society is reduce the hours of work without reducing the quality of life. The metric for economic success in such a society would reflect that. We should be celebrating people working less but we can't because they also can't fucking feed themselves.
The good life is one where all are free to risk our time on attempting our dreams. Something we aren't able to do because we constantly have to grind for basic necessities.
The good life is one where each person is capable of the highest breadth of experiences that society can support all citizens having.
A good life is living within a society that retains and recycles energy to as close as possible as net equal. (there is a word for this but i've forgotten it.
Now, this sounds pretty airy-fairy hippyshit but i'd like to hear all of your ideas on what is the good life as it relates to how many resources can a citizen reasonably expect to claim from society.


With respect, how come you don't believe in paragraphs?


we went from climate denialist conspiracy theorists to podcast-fueled fantasizing about miyazaki movies, i guess thats progress


I don't know if i would put out a podcast. I can't say anything better than what The poor proles alamanac does.

Ahhh, yeah, i could've done better on that. I'm pretty tired, i was running on frantic adrenaline writing this post. I want to sleep


Fair enough, get some sleep then, leftypol will be there tomorrow


Such a shame they're thinking about solving the problem with current technology rather than proposing bulldozing a million more forests and hoping commie-Musk invents the magic technology to save us in 30 years


Wow, there are some interesting stuff there. The mist showers and the modern sailing ships sound awesome.


Absurdly based anon, your posts salvaged this thread
The problem with leftypol, and arguably a large amount of, if not most modern marxists and anarchists (funny enough to a lesser degree with anarchists) is arguably their own sort of form of capitalist realism
Basically, especially here, people genuinely cannot imagine a near-term future outside of capitalism
Whenever people talk about a hypothetical socialist society to emerge in the 21st Century, it's either just dengism, or it's people imagining the bolshevik revolution and the USSR effectively being plastered onto this century. By no means is there anything wrong with reading and studying Marx or Lenin or Mao, there's nothing wrong with calling yourself a Marxist, however I think an inability to really imagine a future is a damn big problem. Imaging a new bolshevik revolution but in the West this time isn't realistically imagining the future, imagining a western industrialization drive to mirror the industrialization of agrarian Russia is downright absurd. It's all a farce, to toss on the garb of revolutionaries from the past and claim you're leading their struggle.

The reason people here think people like you and I are "anti-communists" or promote austerity is, to me, very simple. You and I are trying to imagine a socialist ecology for the future rather than sitting with most eyes venerating an industrialization drive from the past.
I had people here telling me I'm a fool for centering ecology in terms of my concerns, as though humans are somehow not organisms on the Earth but instead beings that exist magically outside the biosphere and Earth's chemistry by dint of having agriculture and socioeconomic classes. Except…the ecology of the Earth is the most important factor on being able to feed ourselves in the long term, science and technology are not actually magic, you need healthy soil to grow, which relies on healthy soil ecology. What's just as humorous to me is the notion that the entirety of living organisms on the planet Earth and their survival is an irrelevant question in the face of what is essentially politics, another mind boggling absurdity. These people bizarrely enough also think very linearly, people are arguing that it is merely politics and thus class struggle that informs your approach to ecology, yet ecology informs on politics and class struggle just as much, food, yes? Water? Shortage of each and what do you have? Destitution, conflict, war, between and within nations. If a local ecosystem can no longer support a human society what happens to the people? What happens when they flee an uninhabitable area? What happens when hundreds of millions flee to a poorer, more destabilized, more food insecure Global North? Or when refugees when the Western US flee east? Or when agriculture greatly declines in the west and thus the US as a whole? These questions are not irrelevant simply because anointed revolutionaries 100 years ago didn't have to deal with them, or at least what they faced came from a lack of industrial technology, rather than the ecological debt incurred by such technologies. In truth this is the most important crisis in the world today and likely in human history.


So what you're saying is we need to RETVRN TO BOOKCHIN?


why are you gushing over a zionist


sick random irrelevant bullshit dood

Bookchin like all other theorists said some things we wouldnt agree with now. the point of reading him is to extract that which is important and interesting from his work and not get caught requiring the theorist to be able to be put on a pedestal.


penis cum titties


whats important from his work


amazing that you've derived theory from a marketing advert. Communism does not need an aesthetic and you're practice of creating communes is revisionism of 'mutual-aid' which do not build revolutions. This is reflected in your misunderstanding of China's own history of the underdevelopment of the rural areas. Also not a single word of imperialism is mentioned here.


Solarpunk is growing very organically in art forums and such. All artists I've seen are communists in some from, so thats is great. Maybe it will be the cubism of the new revolutions. Im not really that concerned with aesthetics but it is true that communists spaces, specially ML ones, are filled with vengance and hopelessness. But it is understandable. The biggest communist experiment yet was killed without mercy. The growing union movement and the growth of socialism in general will paliate this when the good news become more frequent.


that time he shit on individualist anarchists so hard that they never recovered since


Lol recovered from what? Individualists anarchists always were a bunch of intellectuals that amounted to nothing politically for the masses. What's important in Bookchin works is the ecology.


File: 1654102125435.jpg (35.17 KB, 565x411, Good game.jpg)

Been addicted to this since I've seen it. Fun game, it's an even more in depth reign but free and works on mobile too.


The UI is pretty bad, accidentally just reduced my nuclear power usage trying to figure out how to interact with things lmao.


File: 1654105416039.png (169.49 KB, 407x507, ClipboardImage.png)

gommunism = no electricity


>Solarpunk is growing very organically in art forums and such. All artists I've seen are communists in some from, so thats is great. Maybe it will be the cubism of the new revolutions.
what on earth does an aesthetic and art movement possibly have to do with socialist revolution?


You joking right?


File: 1654107883968.jpg (328.33 KB, 1076x1393, debord-bookchin.jpg)

I prefer the time Debord shit on him


im quite sincere in my inability to see the connection between an art movement and real, boots-on-the-ground revolution


I dont know why it is made for touch controls being a web game.


Personally, I'm not that interested in aesthetics, i just commented a trend I have observed.


Can XR local chapters be a stepping stone? A base from which to agitate and begin to form those CDCs? What is your opinion on XR?


File: 1654111521082.png (28.77 KB, 324x290, ClipboardImage.png)

Turns out I was epic all along


A revolution is essentially a class that overthrow another. For this overthrowing to happen the class doing the overthrowing has to construct itself as a subject not only in material organization but trough representation of itself, against the class being overthrown, hence the existence of a link between art and movement you can't fail to see in each revolution that went a long way enough. Not saying solarpunk is such a thing, as it's more of a theme, and more catered to people dreaming of being small eco farmers rather than the proletariat.


>a class that overthrow another
man and i thought we were going to abolish the class system


this you?


Classic lmao


Well yeah, a DOTP is meant to be a mopping up operation, but the total abolition of the class system is impossible with overwhelming external threats and not enough productive forces, hence the popping up of a bureaucracy that accomplishes the task of the bourgeoisie in countries like USSR and China which failed hard at socialism.


Name of this game?


See the discussion on /games/ about it also (also try Fate of the World)



so its an appeal to yeomen white settlers?



Like this m8
Check out my "assassinated first term for going too fast" playthrough


If ExReb actually advocated for the enforced extinction of humanity I might support them a little more


>Russia and Canada
Yes, they will benefit from a +1.5°C IFF it's at a stable level. And funny enough, they benefit little from the Gulf Stream.

>converting /pol/tards was a mistake
Well, if you think of the left's constant harping about le ebil l33ts doesn't feed into the conspitorical worldview of /pol/, then you're gravely mistaken. What /pol/ does is to just take it a step further.

And speaking of neo-colonialism, have anyone here heard about Ekeocha?


>fetishization of getting arrested
Now, this will surely bring in the BIPOCS. And to bring in the muslims and those who has basically lived their whole lives in cities, let's meet at a pub to plan our collective hiking trip.

Fair, eh?

>If ExReb actually advocated for the enforced extinction of humanity I might support them a little more
That sounds like that finnish larpsman…


Another day, another record broken
We're at 420ppm boys, time to celebrate and get high


File: 1654533021978.jpg (122.38 KB, 688x650, 1587147435209.jpg)

>tfw we've entered the long energy crisis
>tfw within a generation or two we'll be back to 50-70% of the population being agrarian workers just to maintain food production
tbh, the long descent has started and industrial civilization isn't going to survive


Why would there need to be more agrarian workers?


modern agriculture is powered by fossil fuels entirely. As that declines we'll see a shift back to raw manpower being one of the key ingredients for mass agriculture


File: 1654565474385.png (117.31 KB, 264x191, ClipboardImage.png)

yes let the rest of the world further deindustrialize, meanwhile china keeps building up its renewable ,industrial, and infrastructure sector
let the post1600s repeat except instead of europeans conquoring the world it shall be the chinese
THe great han master race shall spread confucian communism accross the world, for we shall do what the europeans did but without any farce of mercy
may the yellow red emperor guide china for the world shall be owned by east asians, controlled by east asians and for east asians(also africans will help too)



EU Parliament approves ban on new fossil-fuel cars from 2035

>European Parliament lawmakers on Wednesday voted to support an effective EU ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, rejecting attempts to weaken the proposal to speed Europe's shift to electric vehicles.

Will this change anything?


>wait 13 fucking years to ban gas cars
>cars that still require more emissions to produce than what they help reduce
>date will probably get pushed back anyway


a lot of poor will be forced to swap cars and it will either be ignored,or it will be a massive unrest scenario.


well poor people will just use second hand cars like always


>date will probably get pushed back anyway
There definitely will be attemps to do that. For example, Czechia's economy is completely dependant on the atuomobile industry


So what are the conclusions? How fucked are we?


Thirdies are gigafucked firsties will be ok


Bronze age


>firsties will be okay
not when the human waves from the third world came crashing in.
>but they gonna go more nazi, more consentration camps in their frontiers
yea that's gonna happen, there is also another setback, criminal guerrillas the size of entire armies being created to trafic people in, the first world is gonna get fucked in a different way.


>yes let the rest of the world further deindustrialize, meanwhile china keeps building up its renewable ,industrial, and infrastructure sector
>let the post1600s repeat except instead of europeans conquoring the world it shall be the chinese
>THe great han master race shall spread confucian communism accross the world, for we shall do what the europeans did but without any farce of mercy
>may the yellow red emperor guide china for the world shall be owned by east asians, controlled by east asians and for east asians(also africans will help too)


Now THIS is shitposting!

If we assume that the world slips back into some 1600s, the same thing will probably happen again. The nations of a fractured Europe will send out expeditions to check out stuff, control trade routes etc. Everyone knows that China was first in a lot of areas. But their geography doesn't lend itself to competition. One ruler can curb technological development in the whole empire. Europe, on the other hand has
<5 large penninsulas
<two major group of islands (and as a matter of fact, Greece was a mini-Europe back in the days)
<plenty minor groups of islands

And for old chinese culture, it's good that part of it is preserved in Japan. Makes it harder for any emperor (communist or not) or invader (mongol or not) to just steamroll.

Sub-Saharan Africa has the worst of two worlds. A geography that promotes disunity because of heavy natural borders. No natural harbors. Madagascar was colonized by ancient indonesians. São Tomé and Príncipe was uninhabited until the portugese showe up. And the funniest thing of all was that New Zealand was colonized by polynesians just a few centuries before the europeans showed up. Falkland Islands? Fuegians from Patagonia may have visited it in prehistoric times, but it was europeans who settled there first.

So yeah, things will NOT look good for China in this old, brave world.



The future does look intense

Will be nice to see my kid get conscripted to be a border guard where he shoots waves of refugees like they are zombies. Then have him come back home and greet me with a roman salute and tell me proudly how he defended Europe from the great brown people migration. And after we ride to McDonalds to pick up some beef burgers, while my wife is telling me how great it is that almost all plastic bags are now biodegradable.

Yeah I think I'm getting that vasectomy lmao.


File: 1655298765007.png (65.79 KB, 287x322, ClipboardImage.png)

friendly reminder that there is no plan to stop or even adequately acclimate to climate change and so the plan is to normalize it


File: 1655301552478.jpg (216.38 KB, 1990x762, com.jpg)

They will gladly let us all die to preserve their class interests. It's time for the international proletariat to get off the high horse.


File: 1655302048383.png (16.48 KB, 908x137, ClipboardImage.png)

>My running fedora
<My running fedora
>My running fedora
<My running fedora
>My running fedora
<My running fedora


>be running with my fedora
<heatwave comes in
<fall to the ground
>Before passing out say: M'Pavement


>In this moment I am euphoric


putin's fucking end of civilization


Putin is anprim stalin confirmed.



Sounds to me like it is time for Africans to get juche and songun pilled.


File: 1655407348049.png (248.43 KB, 432x454, jc denton11.png)

>They will gladly let us all die to preserve their class interests. It's time for the international proletariat to get off the high horse.


Lenin once said communism = soviet power + electrification; I guess he made a mistake somewhere


File: 1655552149388.png (356.28 KB, 582x648, ClipboardImage.png)


first world unions classic


File: 1655555370910-0.jpg (410.15 KB, 1284x2277, heat dome.jpg)

File: 1655555370910-1.jpg (267.05 KB, 1209x734, heat wave.jpg)

File: 1655555370910-2.jpg (40.35 KB, 600x448, gondola hell.jpg)

welcome to the heat dome bitch


If you live on the coast within this area then you're pretty much dead, probably should try getting out of there for the time being.


File: 1655557499682.png (515.06 KB, 752x664, ClipboardImage.png)


When does it begin? Need to know until when I can enjoy life



Thanks I hate it here I wanna leave but fiances are tight, porkies are holding homes for ransom at extreme prices, and I just want to not die from the heat.


I think climate change is probably exaggerated to some extent and is looked at as a simple issue to resolve though it is a complex issue with many probable influences. But it could also be the opposite since big oil and gas companies lied about climate change for years and are most definitely lobbying against climate change measures.


why would you possibly claim it's exaggerated, society should take it 1000x more seriously (ok some people saying 'total world death by 2035' might be going a bit far but still)


In the Netherlands we have a housing crisis in which immigrants recieve housing before Dutch people no matter the circumstances. Our government builds too little houses. Our government bought up land from farmers (paying them too little). And now our government will create more huge solar pannel fields instead of using the land to build the more houses we desperately need.


File: 1655563386743.jpeg (223.04 KB, 986x555, Vattenfall.jpeg)

I think because I feel lied to. There is a lot of misleading pro-climate change information which makes me think there might be some truth in the opposing sentiment. For example the famous 97% consensus that climate change is substantially influenced by humans: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming.

Also I have seen people use the argument that climate fluctuates over the years which is true. I think it is stupid that certain countries like the Netherlands where >>1021453 live try to stop climate change on it's own. While it has a really small influence on the rising temperature. There should be international agreements like the paris agreement because the real issue are big countries like the United States and China.


Your messiah Clown Schwab does seem to yes


We literally are abandoning the planet that supported our agriculture and entering a new alien one in mere decades. The IPCC is not radical enough and their predictions are reaching us sooner than expected. The objective should be stop emitting CO2 and adapting to the new hothouse world. And that will require unimaginable ammounts of violence.



Bitch ass here thinks we should keep using fossil fuels and plastics under communism. What living standards? Being a prole your entire life? Having your blood filled with plastics? Having a car to feel free™?


nuclear power being widespread is the only way to supply the power to maintain current civilization while reducing carbon emissions and actually reversing climate change by removing carbon from the air artificially. None of this is possible with fossil fuels, let alone solar/wind/etc. Nuclear is literally the only solution


Is this a post for idiots? Where do you think we got the fuel for nuclear power plants we have now. We need to have the ability to recycle the waste better and use even more of the waste byproduct to lower the half-life decay, and reusable plutonium until it cannot be fissiable anymore.


Bro didn't read


Our future will be pre-industrial if we let 6C of warming happen. You can only imagine industry under capitalism. Think a little bit.


File: 1655568251946.jpg (5.76 KB, 228x221, 1613084028658.jpg)


A huge barrier to adoption is paranoia around nuclear power due to accidents like chernobyl. However modern nuclear power and advanced nuclear actually are very very safe.

There's already enough uranium to power the whole planet for the next 70-80 years, the only problem is nuclear is currently uneconomical compared to fossil fuels, and the regulations around reactors for safety.

Theres probably 2x as much uranium in accessible parts of the earths crust so in reality it's like 230 years of fuel.

Furthermore with breeder reactors you can recycle nuclear waste indefinitely and in that case nuclear power can power the planet for the next 4 billion years or so. So actually 70/80 years is assuming no recycling at all. They are also working on ways to get uranium from seawater as well, also providing a limitless supply of uranium, its only uneconomical now (under capitalism) compared with simply mining the uranium.


>Same problem you have limited resources.
literally all economies have limited resources, we have limited resources now.


Nah, world government is impossible. Humanity will be incredibly divided by the end of this century.


File: 1655568335018.png (15.94 KB, 645x770, pol.png)

>shitting on ussr
crypto rightoid noticed.


Oh no I read the smartass comment I just wanted them to admit to them being a smartass


what do you do withe the radioactive waste


Please explain which part of that is incorrect, go ahead. The fact is there are ALREADY countries under modern capitalism which achieve most of their power through nuclear like France and have greatly reduced carbon emissions because of it. Literally no reason not to do the same anywhere else


I agree with you. But that 230 years stat I think comes from using the same ammount of uranium we are using now. The fact is we have to replace fossil fuel with renewables BUT ALSO limit our energy consumption. We have a paradox where the precentage of renewable use is increasing but our energy use is increasing also so, in absolute numbers, nations are more dependant than ever in fossil fuels in absolute numbers.


>what do you do withe the radioactive waste
it gets recycled by fast breeder reactors, providing even more low carbon energy


The main real issue with nuclear is that it’s expensive, and takes a long time to build, especially in countries with no prior experience building nuclear plants. Basically, it will take to long to take over the majority of the grid, while other renewable sources can do it cheaper and faster.


they would bring in advisors and engineers and maybe even some workers/foreman to train, advise, and maybe even help build reactors in countries with no experience doing it. They would also train the operators there as well.
>Basically, it will take to long to take over the majority of the grid, while other renewable sources can do it cheaper and faster.
I have no problem with that, just that nuclear will and must be a MAJOR component of any serious attempt at 100% renewable energy sourcing


burning plutonium to consume weapons stockpiles is worthwhile. But for a real nuclear power renaissance, we probably should to switch to a thorium fuel cycle. You can get almost unlimited quantities of uranium via oceanic filtration, but we got so much thorium rich waste product lying around already. Just using that, would probably last us about 3000 years. The ocean uranium extraction technology isn't wasted, it would be the prime candidate to power a large scale carbon sequestering operation that runs in a hybrid configuration with a geothermal system. The heat from the earth is used to boil the dissolved Carbon dioxide out of the ocean water and the electrical power from the nuclear power reactors is used to chemically bind the Carbon in a stable form like for example graphite.


the sources of fuel have already been explained in previous posts, just scroll up ^^

as for the engineers they would come from more developed countries with nuclear programs in places like North America, Europe, China, India/Pakistan, South Africa, Australia etc. There are already 35+ countries in the world which have nuclear power plants, no reason they cant train people


True until we can get those THorium Salt Reactors going we gotta make due with what we got so that way we can at least attempt to get off the fossil fuels in a sense. This would also give us more time to research and attempt a fusion reactor that can be used on a large scale though that would be hard to do without having the small scale first running and going off that. Then you would have a near limitless energy source.


Bruh. Only because the US industrialized and it is still making enormous positive strides in this direction. You have to see where these products are ending, which is in great part the US.

End consumer energy companies, like Vattenfall, don't represent much impact. Solar is not the answer for climate change either. Not even nuclear is enough. We need to massively stop consumption in certain sectors, like plastics, cars, and rely way way less on fuel-heavy transportation, including planes and food export/import.


Because they've been trained on how to operate and design such things. How TF do you think any knowledge transfer works. Is this some crypto rightoid shit about muh uyghurs cant understand physics? South africa already has a nuclear reactor


Nuclear fission is a technology that converts mass into energy. It's only a small amount of mass that is converted, but once you can go from mass to energy, austerity is not necessary anymore. Forcing people into a more austere life style is a political project of the big bourgeoisie, for them austerity is not an external factor imposed by necessity. They want it out of principle, they abhor the thought of spending anymore resources on the proles than the absolute minimum regardless how much abundance industry can produce.
They go by
<max for me
<min for thee

When i advocate for a life of plenty for the masses. I'm not saying we should be wasteful. The incentives are such that the more energy you can use the greater the benefits are from increasing efficiency.

Also we are not attempting to whether eternity on nuclear fission, it's just a stage in development, eventually we will be able to upgrade to fusion, and even that won't be the final form of human energy production.

From an ecological perspective it is best to race through the lower phases of energy production as quick as you can because those are the dirty ones. You need to understand that unlocking the more advanced and clean stages of energy production costs a lot of energy. Reducing energy production is delaying on a cleaner future. You might have delusions of some low-power utopia, but the fact of the matter is that societies that try to go the low power path will return to slavery and shortly after that they go into the dustbin of history, because high power industrial societies will crush lower power slave empires.


>Clearly Yugurs don't have knowledge of sovereign states, so they remained occupied territory
Last european colony in africa was overthrown in th 70s I think


>I feel
Most scientists say that the effects we’re seeing now weren’t expected for literal decades


Has anyone read this:

The Uninhabitable Earth
By David Wallace-Wells

Getting me real scared thinking I need to start personally moving to cold places to prepare :(


>There should be international agreements like the paris agreement because the real issue are big countries like the United States and China.

There should be, and frankly, in an alternative world, there would be. But since 2015, the world has been over taken by this new grand, geopolitical struggle between Authoritarianism and Democracy, and everyone showed how unserious they were about climate change, and how serious they were about Confronting China. A Paris like agreement would just be unthinkable now. It would get you killed by the CIA.


The linked article is totally stupid. I scrolled up and saw it was 2014. Im actually angry you could still peddle this bullshit back then. The consensus that climate change is real and human made is complete. Read the IPCC report. And yes, it does follow from this that policy must be urgently crafted to reduce greenhouse gas emission. I hope Richard Tol has his Minecraft world deleted.


Earth is dying capitalist empires are gearing up for the next world war anything worse to keep on conscience?


i have to go to work tomorrow


How should Americans best prepare for the eco-fascist government that is coming in the future?


That is true work is the much closer partial death than climate change or WW3.


That is the nature of alienated labor. Imagine if it was unalienated and self associated. How much more we would be working on climate change.


High CO2 levels in indoor closed areas (poor ventilation) are the cause of the rise of anxiety, depression and mental ilness in general because people spend a lot of time inside.



excellent posts, thanks anon, you too panafrica flag

solaranon tho i would recommend you stop calling yourself a solarpunk or using that as the point of reference. its nice and optimistic & the pictures are pretty but im sorry its just a bad term, and mixing punk subcultures and their derivatives with earnest politics in any way is always a recipe for attracting unserious people

call yourself an ecosocialist or ecocommunist or something, the term ultimately doesnt matter but it shouldnt need to be excessively explained/justified


>mixing punk subcultures and their derivatives with earnest politics in any way is always a recipe for attracting unserious people
Nta, but i think we should exploit a little of aesthetic here and there. It would be cool if more solarpunk medias were produced by leftists artists. I mean cyberpunk is pretty mainstream, to the point that big corps use dystopia to market their products. And other shit like "steampunk" is rather ugly or grotesque. Solarpunk would be the opposite of this, would be the possibility of imagine a utopistic future, a dreamed alternative to the other grim pessimistic medias that get produced so frequently, and that have for the most part lost the critique of capitalism that had them born at the beginning. I mean, we are still communists (or ecocommusits, whatever), solarpunk should not be intended as a political ideology, but rather as a way to dream of the future and why not to escape for a brief moment from the dark present we're trapped in.


Houseplants are good for you, not just because they green shit up, but because they eat your CO2.


What a bunch of voluntaristic hippie libtards. Read Marx.


>Read Marx.
Which part specifically?


The German Ideology, this part for example:
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Stop stroking each other's balls with your gay solarpunk sjw fanfiction.


this honestly is the stupidest line marx came up with and could be used to literally deny any kind of positive action whatsoever.


>the real movement which abolishes the present state of things
<denies any kind of positive action whatsoever


*the real movement which sublates the present state of things



It pretty much says
>Communism is whatever happens
And means nothing
But of course it really is just a statement mentally disabled tankoids deploy to drink Russia’s coom, worship Deng, and fantasize about doing the Bolshevik revolution and every act of the USSR but in 2022

Wanna know what’s the real revolution by your logic?
Literally capitalism :)


capitalism abolishes capitalism?


Literally yes, in a long sense
The real movement to abolish the state of things isn’t fucking LARPers, it’s capitalism desteoying the biosphere and the human race
Congrats with your goddamned slogan mongering

May as well put a gun to our fucking heads eh?


File: 1655983422140.jpg (120.53 KB, 706x1117, seven years.jpg)

seven years left


File: 1655986448119.png (1.79 MB, 1082x897, damn boe.png)

5 years until the Blue Ocean Event


5 years until history's largest goatse


where is this from?


And I assume this is only if we achieve a very radical change in this timeframe? I thought a 2 degree scenario was already a guarantee and the new goal is to stay bellow that.



The mfs in the IPCC will get forced to change the baseline of the temperature graph so that they can still talk about hope of not reaching 2 degrees.


2 degree is a reality


Damn, the Arctic is actually tiny. No wonder the Canadians get super anal about their islands.


until what happens?


File: 1657206333045.jpg (60.93 KB, 589x746, rds3u7qktf921.jpg)

Comrades, share climate change literature. Too much books about climate change are optimistic bs, I want books that make my doomerism even stronger (maybe anybody can recommend some nice climate fiction).
I can recommend the following books:

> This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate by Naomi Klein

I haven't actually read this but a channel I watch (our changing climate) really recommends it, anybody got any opinions?
>A farewall to ice by Peter Wadhams
Really nice book if you want to learn more about the science of water/ice and its effects on the environment
> The courage of hopelessness by Slavoj Zizek
This is sized expanding on his joke about the light at the end of a tunnel is the headlight of a train, and that it takes more courage to be hopeless rather than belief in an illusion of hope.
> A life in our planet by David Attenborough
I mostly like this book because I listen to an audiobook of it and the voice of this man is like drugs for my ears (no homo). But the book goes into how he saw the world change within his lifetime, his perspective is very valuable because he spend so much time going to natural habitats and he can give a first person perspective of how shit is really hitting the fan.


That pic says it all really.


>David Attenborough
>his perspective is very valuable
No, his perspective belongs in the trash-bin of history.
Malthus theories about famine, population and land-use became obsolete with the rise of industrial society in the beginning of the 1800s and the green revolution.

Today he is just a neo-malthusian eco-fascist, that wants to get poor people killed, by starving them to death.
Rich people hate poor people, and they try to find excuses to attack them to keep them down, that's all this is.
He may have genuine sentiments about nature and he might even believe his own bullshit, but that changes nothing about the fact that his politics are irredeemably reactionary.

There are poor people starving because capitalism is inefficient and because imperialism seeks to hold down the periphery.
Climate change happened because of capitalism. The technology to prevent it has existed since the 1970s, the capitalist just didn't implement it. The technology to halt climate change within 2 decades already exists, and the technology to reverse most of the ecological damage that has already occurred is very plausible.

This is a choice ! Will the economic surplus be invested in building a future on the basis of sustainable industry, or will it be used to fight for imperial domination. Industrial society is not the root cause of the looming ecological catastrophe, industrial society has invented all the tools to deal with this. There is no reason to torture the poor, that is, as it always has been, about class-war.

The means of production can be re-configured to support all the world population with first world quality of living.
It is even possible to have a growing population enjoy rising standards of living while the industrial capacity is scaled up to support nature-repair-work.

No self-respecting socialist would ever shill this reactionary pseud.

>the voice of this man is like drugs for my ears

He is one of the best narrators, but that's no excuse for his despicable politics.
Feel free to enjoy his excellent nature documentaries, but never make that an excuse to shill his inexcusable eco-fascist politics

>That pic says it all really.
Yeah it does
Socialism would control the environment for the good of the proletariat and the organic system that produces the gifts of nature.
But the eco fascists would control the population for the good of the most reactionary chauvinistic imperial finance bourgeoisie, creating the open dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. With Class war expressed in ecological language.


Good post


>The means of production can be re-configured to support all the world population with first world quality of living
Do you realise the ratio and f emissions of a first worlder to third worlder is like 30 to 1. We cannot aim for this, for everyone to enjoy equal quality and maintain the same emissions as now entails a drastic reduce of standards of living for first worlders and even second worlders. And not all resources are easily transportable, without some kind of population incentives you can be left in draught and that is only going to get worse with climate change. There is no such thing as sustainable growth, and degrowing in order to achieve less emissions also should include a serious consideration of population. We can either have a future where we breed like rabbits but everyone loved in pods, or we actually consider seriously if to have children and we enjoy a life of comfort and plenty


Why is climate change the only thing I see on TV nowadays 24/7? What is The Spectacle trying to tell me? There is no agenda at play here?


Malthusian cuckoldry


>emissions of a first worlder to third worlder
t. classcuck


First, fake.
Second, welcome to the 21st century ass-pussy.


> It is even possible to have a growing population enjoy rising standards of living while the industrial capacity is scaled up to support nature-repair-work.

How? seriously your whole argument relies on this assumption which I see no fucking way of happening.There is no sustainable growth at the level we are now, upping industrial capacity is only going to make the environmental cost bigger. Please illuminate me on how can we have 10 billion people enjoy the standards of living of the first world


Looks like Germany has fully killed nuclear. I will never understand this.


Becoming a multi-planet species


100% agreed


Europe has no Uranium in it outside of Russia and Ukraine, I wonder if thats why porky isnt interested? At least they are doing CERN and fission and the like


But CERN is only a physics lab. Nothing related to energy production.


the European Organization for Nuclear Research has nothing to do with energy?


The IDEA of INFINITE GROWTH is NOT congruent with reality.


If we can just establish a lunar base we can start harvesting helium-3 on the moon. That would make nuclear non radioactive and the supply is neigh limitless up there. The process also creates regular helium as a byproduct which is also a rapidly dwindling resource.



Fuck, I just learned the rich CO2 atmosphere is making plants fabricate more sugar. And on top of that, we are artificially selecting the most sugary crops. So vegetables and fruits are turning into junk food slowly. Damn.


I’ve noticed communists have their own sort of religious belief, namely that “human willpower” (spirit) can overcome the actual physical constraints of the Earth and the laws of physics themselves, basically the belief that technology and ingenuity are magical qualities that can overcome all limits, they often say this explicitly too.


File: 1657457961973.png (160.78 KB, 480x360, ClipboardImage.png)

yeah Brecht said it, good fella brecht


yes in 1000 years world will collapse.


File: 1658015551117-0.png (1.37 MB, 1080x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1658015551117-1.png (13.97 MB, 4976x4004, ClipboardImage.png)

The world is on fire. How are our European friends coping with the heat?


I'm glad I'm in Argentina


I feel like you could just build a comical amount of solar and wind (more than needed for storage reasons) for much cheaper than mining the moon.


srs question how do arabs and nafris handle routine 40+ temperatures year round?


They adapt their lives to the material conditions of their environment, I'm assuming. The Bedouins used to hang out in their tents during hot days, while sharts operating under the tyranny of the Protestant work ethic are forced to work as usual under the hot Arizona sun.


>They adapt their lives to the material conditions
<Facing unbearable heat, Qatar has begun to air-condition the outdoors


git gud cracker


Enjoying the coolest summer of the rest of my life


>How are our European friends coping with the heat?
I live in the blue part


London is burning down.




>not even for today which was even hotter
A good portion of a village burned down today lol


ok lol


Oh my god this is an incredibly mild article. I was expecting them to just not mention the slaves dying and shit but they actually do

>Workers are particularly at risk. A German television report alleged hundreds of deaths among foreign workers in Qatar in recent years, prompting new limits on outdoor work. A July article in the journal Cardiology said that 200 of 571 fatal cardiac problems among Nepalese migrants working there were caused by “severe heat stress” and could have been avoided.

the hateful ways that the Washington post writes about good things in Official Enemy countries and elides truly horrific things elsewhere is unbelivable




Bros, we are still in La Niña, where the oceans are in a "colder" period. Next El Niño is gonna be brutal.



File: 1658362300010.png (138.33 KB, 679x380, ClipboardImage.png)



>At the other end of the nuclear power chain comes the lethal, long-lived and highly radioactive waste as well as the so-called low-level radioactive waste stream of detritus, including from decommissioned nuclear power plants. Again, Indigenous peoples and poor communities of color are routinely the target.
>Nuclear power is sexist because exposure to the ionizing radiation released at every stage of the nuclear fuel chain harms women more easily than men.
greenoids are at it again


now that the dust has settled, how right was desert - as in > read desert - actually?

Seemed like lots of scientists around 2007 thought oceans wouldve evaporated by now.


File: 1658368464480.jpg (66.8 KB, 874x659, nuclear wtf.jpg)

The moment you realize they are just hacks scraping the bottom of the barrel

Nuclear power is
<a method of producing gigawatts of electricity
<fissioning atoms
<sustainable for millennia
<carbon neutral
<very cost efficient
<conflict free energy
and that's why people support it.


File: 1658391359015.jpg (47.69 KB, 1200x400, DRgKFnkU8AAdggj.jpg)

let's not forget
<you can make material for The People's Bomb with some of them
<you can burn """waste""" with others (fast breeders)
also waste is a meme. you can reprocess it, you get lots of useful isotopes. what you don't want is transuranics like plutonium and americium but those are burned in a fast reactor


>Linda Pentz Gunter founded Beyond Nuclear in 2007 and serves as its international specialist as well as its media and development director.

lol, I hope she's proud of wrecking any chance to avoid climate change


"Celebrating victory: ‘For a brief, shining moment, Trump was gone’
November 16, 2020BY LINDA PENTZ GUNTER
It’s fair to criticize Biden’s centrism and the system that got him the nomination, now is just not the time. We need to focus on the bright spots, and the Biden-Harris ticket has delivered a few."

"Fight or Flight? To stay in the Labour Party or resign?
For those who might still be understandably tempted to send in their Labour Party membership card with a “please purge me” message; “it would be an honour to join Ken Loach” etc, comes a very compelling essay from Jeremy Gilbert — Why we shouldn’t leave the Labour Party.

Published in the December 2021 edition of Momentum’s newsletter, The Educator, Gilbert argues eloquently and at length that leaving Labour “would be a catastrophic mistake.” It is, he says, exactly what the party’s right-wing leadership want. Why hand them that victory?

We may want to quit in order to send a message of solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn (still without the Labour whip but not actually purged from the party like many others), or to object to the latest announcement regarding Labour’s opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement."



The proles of the first world are rent burdened, along with student debt and medical debt. For the brief time the US had housing security, people took to the streets to protest injustice, and then after that Palestine. Quite frankly, we have to address issues of cost of living for people so that they aren't broken to the point of submission. Leftist spaces have to be a place of healing too, from the horrors of capitalism and place to channel one's anger, fear, and resentment into determination to take back the future. Take that as you will, but to me, it means implementing systems of accountability and a harassment grievance process in leftist orgs.


The basic Social-Realist take on the situation of the 'climate emergency' is essentially this.

>If we assume that (A.) Anthropogenic climate change is the primary cause of the recent spikes in the earth's temperature, among other natural disasters and (B.) the most 'doomsayer' predictions about this trends future ramifications are correct - Then we can more or less articulate that "We are screwed"

Some basic points for all of you to mull over.

>The development of Industrial Capitalism on the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) due to China's gradual transition from a 'manufacturing' to a 'high-tech/commerce/service' economy will effectively 'replace' whatever CO2 emissions are negated by the Chinese governments various moratoriums and bans on CO2 emitting industries and commodities - India and Pakistan are on average reporting roughly 5% and 10% year-over-year increases in CO2 emissions respectively.

>Africa is the gigantic 'elephant in the room' so to speak, fuelled by Chinese by Direct-Investment and the inevitable western attempt to copy-cat and cope, Many now already predict the 'African century' (At least for the parts that won't completely turn to desert in our lifetime) will be the immediate successor of the Asian century - Sub-Saharan Africa, as a collective, Is now thus experiencing a period of gradual year over year CO2 emission growth, which depending on unique historical circumstance, could easily snowball into CO2 year-over-year growth comparable to India or Pakistan.
>Forceful disestablishment of Industrial farming, animal agriculture and enforced permaculture - Is effectively a political non-starter with 99.5% of the worlds population - The only scenario these policies are implemented in would be the potentiality described by T. Kaczynski in which popular support and democratic voice are discarded.

The blunt truth can essentially be boiled down to this.
<Industrial societies create much more CO2 pollution then agrarian or Post-Feudal ones.
<The unravelling of Occidental-Colonialism in the 21st century and 'Modernity 2.0' is directly corelating to more Agrarian and Post-Feudal states urbanising and industrialising


unironic critical stan India's industrial development against the ecofascistic firstoid malthusians
firstoids don't get to leech off the nonwhite people and consoom and then whine about the improvement of conditions for people in Delhi


I hope they enjoy the wetbulb temperatures then.


what is necessary is worldwide planning first and foremost, not muh productive forces




i dont think we can make it bros, the map is red, not orange, not yellow, RED, what do we do now


>how right was desert - as in > read desert - actually?
what the fuck does this selection of words mean?

in regards to your 2007 comment, i also have no idea what you're referring to. Nobody has ever claimed oceans would evaporate. do you mean they would just sit in the atmosphere as dense worldwide humidity? would they be dispersed elsewhere? oceans are oceans because they are the natural resting point of water on the planet, there's nowhere else for them to 'go'. If you're referring to scientists predicting catastrophic climate change by now, I don't think that's really been a common belief at any point in time. Back in 1972 when limits to growth was published, it was pointing to midcentury as when shit starts to very tangibly go downhill, and most updates to their methods since then still point in that direction. theres been nothing even remotely resembling a consensus on cataclysmic effects hitting us by the 2020s.


One of the main arguments of Desert is that the world doesn't have a single future. Humanity by the 22nd century will be incredibly divided by technology level, language and physical barriers. The author envisions pockets of empire surrounded by pockets of "barbarians" (that is the point of the "desert" pun, to desert from civilization). I think they are right in the sense that there won't be ever a glorious world revolution. But some parts of the world will develop socialism in different ways. That is what I remember, maybe I'm wrong. The book did open my eyes on how we accept without thinking that civilization and industry is the endpoint of humanity and are eternal, when they aren't.


The 2030s are the new 2050s


File: 1658687316724.png (4.23 KB, 500x250, Oekaki.png)

We were already fucked before, but now we're double fucked.



Climate endgame: risk of human extinction ‘dangerously underexplored’
The risk of global societal collapse or human extinction has been “dangerously underexplored”, climate scientists have warned in an analysis.


I was gonna say that scientists always mean end of industrial civilization when talking about human extinction. But given that there is no game left to hunt in the global north, I think only a bunch of tribes are gonna survive.





Evaluating the 35°C wet-bulb temperature adaptability threshold for young, healthy subjects (PSU HEAT Project)

>This study is the first to use empirical physiological observations to examine the well-publicized theoretical 35°C wet-bulb temperature limit for human to extreme environments. We find that uncompensable heat stress in humid environments occurs in young, healthy adults at wet-bulb temperatures significantly lower than 35°C. In addition, uncompensable heat stress occurs at widely different wet-bulb temperatures as a function of ambient vapor pressure.

This is an interesting paper. If someone here as access, would they please post the .pdf ?



Thoughts on Putin's genocide of phytoplankton?


came here to ask if anyone has read this and found this post but nobody replied I guess nobody read it. I just started reading it and it's doomer tier.


Pretty much this.
The Chinese are even trying to brainwash and isolate aspiring young climate scientists by forcing them to use "wet bulbs" instead of fahrenheit.


i remember reading an article about it when it came out. its about the worse case scenario, and moving somewhere cold wont help because in the worse case scenario the planet turns into venus


Every ideology has an aesthetic and people willing to lend their hand toward the creation thereof. Nazi's project masculine power and symbols of traditional european power structures. This is derived from their political policy of trying to reinstate and save traditional sectors of power from the emerging power vector, the organised working class.
They have colour schemes that are immediately identifiable, clothing designs that are still replicated today to promote similar ideas in the viewer.

The crust punk anarchist too has their own aesthetic they hope to put across the concept of refusing to fit in. Taking what they can and living well (according to them) from the abundance thrown away by capitalist society. You see this in their mended clothes, their refusal to take traditional jobs, the music that pretty much only they like.

Aesthetics are how we tell stories to eachother about how we wish certain physical phenomena to be seen. Aesthetics are symbols of what we value in life imprinted into the physical infrastructure of the world we create. Every system does it without even trying, because refusing to consciously create an aesthetic itself is an aesthetic. Just one that isn't pleasant and is thoroughly alienating.

Commieblocks are an example of this. The creation of mass housing served its purpose to alleviate the suffering of those in the easterrn bloc. It needed to be done quickly because the demand was extremely high after the devastation that the nazis wrought. Additionally, rapid industrialisation and bringing the fruits of the modern world to the people who had been ceaselessly imperialised for centuries up until that point, was a core goal of the communists. The production of goods that make your life better serves a physical as well as an aesthetic/ideological function. The commieblock can be seen both as a use value and as an aesthetic value. It puts across the values of modernity over feudalism. Its clear to an old person living in the days before and after that "times have changed" when the lived environment around them change too.

Communists had the aesthetic of applying science and modernity to society and blasting out the vestiges of feudal society in doing so. It was extremely powerful as an aesthetic especially for people who had been forced to live like shit by their feudal or capitalist regimes that lorded over them. To people of those days a commie block was progress, rail was progress.

Now, both the commieblock and the rail are still progress today especially in our suburbia infested and deindustrialised countries. But to advocate for them and expect people to be excited by them is looking to the past and just trying to transplant their conditions to today. We do not live in the same conditions, and our aesthetic should match not only the tastes of the day but the differing material needs of the struggle as it stands today. Solarpunk would do that.


>Now, both the commieblock and the rail are still progress today especially in our suburbia infested and deindustrialised countries. But to advocate for them and expect people to be excited by them is looking to the past and just trying to transplant their conditions to today. We do not live in the same conditions, and our aesthetic should match not only the tastes of the day but the differing material needs of the struggle as it stands today. Solarpunk would do that.
Show me the "solarpunk" equivalent of a commie block please. I'm waiting. Commie blocks are functional and can have -any-, I repeat, ANY, internal and external architectural aesthetic. They can be futuristic glass buildings covered in solar panels for all we care. All that matters is that it's cheap to produce mass housing,


No one has access to this?


File: 1660232110298-0.png (499.68 KB, 741x615, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1660232110298-1.png (639.84 KB, 736x736, ClipboardImage.png)



File: 1660233863607.jpg (13.42 MB, 4000x5011, August 2022.jpg)

European Sahara coming quick


Shiit, doesn't France have a shit ton of nuclear reactors that need a constant supply of water from rivers?


wtf europe actually looks like that? bruh


well thats ominous


This is a direct result of the farming methods that cut down all the forests and eroded the soil. It's what turned the fertile crescent into desert.



In retrospect all them post apocalypse movies read like a psyop meant to desensitize us.


File: 1660257630062.png (19.54 MB, 4000x3000, ClipboardImage.png)

The Po River in Italy is also dangeroudly low right now. Apparently theyre not getting much rain in Europe this summer


File: 1660258314319.png (656.89 KB, 790x526, ClipboardImage.png)

And also Spain:


Why dont you yuropoors just dam up the rivers so none of the water flows into the ocean?


File: 1660263091668-0.png (1.08 MB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1660263091668-1.png (1.49 MB, 1280x842, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1660263091668-2.png (2.14 MB, 1280x853, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1660263091668-3.png (1.56 MB, 1280x853, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1660263091668-4.png (2.02 MB, 1280x853, ClipboardImage.png)

all pics taken from this article https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/11/in-pictures-europes-mighty-rivers-are-drying-up-in-the-climate-driven-drought
description of pics in order
the Danube in Hungary
The Rhine in Germany
the Waal in the Netherlands
The Thames in London
and another angle of the image you posted if Im not mistaken, from the Guadiana River in Spain
Looks rough man


this but unironically
just introduce beavers as an invasive species and let them terraform Europe


dude it's wild, i'm from sw france this spring & summer was just heatwave after heatwave, tomorrow some more. I've hardly seen rain in 3 months now and it's not even the worst here


Yeah they're going to shut 4 down because of the lacking water


That is insane, the past several weeks with heat and thunderstorms in the SouthEast US. 30+ C days seems like its never going to end.


Yes, I was in Annecy for the week around fête de la musique and at times it was impossible to operate as usual. In America they make fun of Europeans for not having air con, but it is disquieting to imagine, if you are sick and the power goes out, what then? If you are old? And what about when the people suffering even hotter climates try to flee? These are mortal questions for many people and no answers come from the powers that be.


>Have to shut down reactors because no water
>Keep others running, discharging hot water at a dangerously low river's water level, endangering wildlife.
Sorry nuclearbros but it seems like nuclear is becoming much less viable cuz of climate change


Global heating has caused ‘shocking’ changes in forests across the Americas, studies find
Trees are advancing into the Arctic tundra and retreating from boreal forests further south, where stunting and die-offs are expected
>Forests from the Arctic to the Amazon are transforming at a “shocking” rate due to the climate crisis, with trees advancing into previously barren tundra in the north while dying off from escalating heat farther south, scientists have found.
>Global heating, along with changes in soils, wind and available nutrients, is rapidly changing the composition of forests, making them far less resilient and prone to diseases, according to a series of studies that have analyzed the health of trees in north and South America.
>Many areas of forest are now becoming more susceptible to ferocious wildfires, causing the release of further greenhouse gases from these vast carbon stores that heat the planet even more. “It’s like humans have lit a match and we are now seeing the result of that,” said Roman Dial, a biologist at Alaska Pacific University.
>Dial and his colleagues have discovered that a patch of white spruce trees in north-west Alaska have “hopped” north into an area of the Arctic tundra that hasn’t had such trees in millennia. The scientists’ new research paper, published in Nature [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05093-2], estimates the spruce are advancing north at a rate of around 4km a decade, aided by warming temperatures and changes to snow and wind patterns influenced by the shrinkage of sea ice in the region.
>“It was shocking to see trees there. No one knew about them but they were young and growing fast,” said Dial, who first spotted the shadows of the trees on satellite imagery and then took a single-engine plane journey, followed by a five-day hike, to find and study the advancing forest.
>“The trees basically hopped over the mountains into the tundra. Going by climate models, this wasn’t supposed to happen for a hundred years or more. And yet it’s happening now.”
>The Arctic is heating up several times faster than the global average [https://www.science.org/content/article/arctic-warming-four-times-faster-rest-world] and the emergence of dark conifers on previously pristine white tundra threatens to absorb, rather than reflect, more sunlight, causing further heating. The trees may also disturb the migration of various local species. “These trees are moving very quickly,” said Dial.
>Farther south, separate research has found [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05076-3] a transformation is under way at the boundary between the boreal and temperate forests, with species of spruce and fir increasingly unable to cope with the hotter conditions. Scientists estimate that even small amounts of further heating, caused by human activity, could cause up to a 50% die-off of traditional boreal forest trees in certain places, with many other trees becoming stunted in their growth.
>“Boreal species do very poorly even with modest warming. They grow more slowly and have greater mortality,” said Peter Reich, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who co-authored the research. “Intuitively, I thought they would do slightly worse with 1.5C of warming, but they do much worse, which is worrisome.”
>Reich and his colleagues spent five years raising nine different tree species from seedlings under different conditions in northern Minnesota, subjecting them to different amounts of heat and water. The boreal species were found to have suffered when soils dried out due to the heat while other more temperate species, such as oak and maple, were able to cope better and may be able to slowly shift into the boreal zone as the world warms further.
>“Given how fast climate change is, we could get a 50 to 150 year period where spruce and fir over thousands of miles, including from Siberia to Scandinavia, don’t regenerate, so you’ll have this strange new system of invasive shrubs that won’t provide us with the economic and ecological services we are used to,” Reich said.
>The impact of the climate crisis is also being felt in the heart of the Amazon, a further study has underlined. Scientists have raised concerns that the huge rainforest ecosystem is in danger of tipping into a new, altered state [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/05/amazon-near-tipping-point-of-switching-from-rainforest-to-savannah-study], eventually becoming a savannah, and the new research found [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05085-2] that a lack of phosphorus in the Amazon’s soils could have “major implications” for its resilience to global heating.


>>The Arctic is heating up several times faster than the global average and the emergence of dark conifers on previously pristine white tundra threatens to absorb, rather than reflect, more sunlight, causing further heating.
God damn, negative feedback loops are a bitch. And here I was thinking the afforestation of tundra was a silver lining


File: 1660322792616.mp4 (4.84 MB, 162x360, Oder River.mp4)

Some bourg affiliated with the government in Poland accidentally spilled enough mercury into the River Oder to kill everything in it and start killing dogs in neighbourhoods adjacent to it. The Polish military has been sent to try and deal with it, and the government are claiming it's a natural disaster.

Found out about it here for anyone interested in more info:

Apparently it will take between 15 and 25 years to fix it.


Reposting from news anon: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/european-drought-dries-rivers-kills-fish-shrivels-crops-88283589
>There has been no significant rainfall for almost two months in the continent's western, central and southern regions. In typically rainy Britain, the government officially declared a drought across southern and central England on Friday amid one of the hottest and driest summers on record.
>And Europe's dry period is expected to continue in what experts say could be the worst drought in 500 years.
nightmarish stuff
holy shit


>holy shit
Some people are already saying it will be worse than Chernobyl. The Poles also didn't bother telling the Germans about it even though the Germans are downstream and will definitely notice everything dying lmao, so the Germans are really fucking angry because it was sprung on them with little ability to do anything about it.


ITT theyre saying that dogs that dont even go near the river are dying. RIP ground water


Yup, and people who were trying to clean the dead fish up were also saying that the fish was giving their hands chemical burns


I think we should hold off on believing everything we see on Reddit/Twitter, who really knows yet


snownigs deserve it

t. nafri


File: 1660356880098-0.png (265.1 KB, 1302x1233, the problems.png)

File: 1660356880098-1.jpeg (758.31 KB, 1920x1280, snowpiercer.jpeg)

File: 1660356880098-2.jpeg (385.95 KB, 683x1024, boilingpoint.jpeg)

How can we actually fix or at least somewhat mitigate climate change without industrial collapse and billions of people dying? Here are a few practical suggestions:

First, in order to implement any of these changes, liberal democracy will have to be overthrown and there will need to be a popular proletarian dictatorship in power capable of committing to a period of intense change and redevelopment of ways of living and production on a large scale. All of this will require a significant re-development of new forms of industry and infrastructure to replace old ones. There is no way even the most committed liberal democratic capitalist government will do even a fraction of these, even basic things like getting rid of private jets. Coordinated scientific central planning grounded in realism is going to be a necessity. Nation states which are implementing these changes will need to develop global hegemonic power and coerce other nation states to decarbonize as well. A global or near-global wave of revolutions against liberal capitalism to replace the current international order with a socialist one prepared to implement these changes on a global level is mandatory.

Firstly, all personal motor vehicles, cars trucks etc, will need to be banned, including electric ones. Personal electric cars are a bullshit lie and a pipe dream to implement on a wide scale, and they use about as much resources and produce almost as much carbon emissions as a non-electric vehicle. American style automobile suburbs and exurbs will have to be utterly destroyed and replaced with rewilded green space. You will have to live in a compact urban area and you will have to either walk or take electrified public transportation everywhere. Virtually all overland flights will also need to be banned and replaced with long distance high speed passenger rail. Overland transportation of cargo by gasoline trucks will also need to be virtually eliminated and replaced with electrified cargo rail transport. Even in regions with strong rail infrastructure, this will have to require significant investments in expanding rail infrastructure to fully replace motor vehicle transport. Doing all of this will eliminate the majority of transportation-related emissions, but the problems of carbon emissions with transoceanic trade and travel will still remain, both by boat and by oceanic air travel. New advancements in decarbonized energy storage (possibly hydrogen infrastructure) will need to be developed and implemented on a mass scale for oceanic travel, and oceanic trade in many sectors will need to be replaced with domestic production where possible.

In terms of electricity production and use, energy efficiency will need to be prioritized at all costs. Air conditioning and heating use shitloads of energy, and new urban building designs will need to be implemented that provide passive forms of climate control adjusted to local environments to minimize urban energy use. Industrial production will need to be designed to minimize energy waste and carbon emissions. Wasteful plastic goods and consumption goods nobody needs will need to be gotten rid of, and commodities will need to be engineered for durability and use-value. Energy efficiency in industry will need to be a major planning priority. Fossil fuel based energy grids will need to be overhauled completely and replaced with new energy grids which use uranium & thorium nuclear fission as a backbone with wind/solar/hydro/geothermal electricity providing the rest. What about the nuclear waste? Just reuse it or put it in the ground, it's incredibly simple. Energy storage technology will also need to be deployed alongside stuff like wind and solar. Research will be needed to actually achieve and implement workable fusion power if it doesn't turn out to be a complete pipe dream.

Agriculture is a tricky question, but there are definitely some obvious things that should be done and obvious things which should not be done. First of all, trying a Pol Pot style move where you try to quickly swap out industrial agriculture with organic agriculture and force everyone out into rural areas is incredibly fucking retarded. Attempting to switch to organic farming on a whim is one of the main reasons why Sri Lanka is in complete collapse now. After they banned synthetic fertilizer and pesticide imports, agricultural output in key sectors collapsed and conditions deteriorated to the point where the Sri Lankan government was overthrown. Organic agriculture in its current form is simply incapable of feeding 21st century population levels and anyone seriously suggesting replicating what Sri Lanka did without finding ways to maintain green revolution agricultural output levels needs to be treated like the dangerous anti-nuclear hippies and kept far away from power. On the other hand, an incredibly easy thing to do is to destroy the industrial meat industries. You do not need to waste massive amounts of agricultural resources on burgers. Also, current industrial agricultural practices still do need massive amounts of change, but crop output must be maintained so people don't starve. New crop varieties should be engineered to be hardy and adapted to changing local climactic conditions and to survive more easily without as much pesticides and fertilizer. Agricultural machinery should be electrified. New ways to recycle nutrients into the soil need to be developed to replace artificial fertilizers while maintaining high crop output. I'm not an expert on agricultural practices but it's key that we maintain industrial-level crop outputs to avoid starvation while also adapting crops to changing climactic conditions and fixing problems with existing agricultural practices. Energy efficiency and minimizing wasteful land use should also be prioritized.

All of this is fairly doable and if accomplished will be a significant achievement in reducing carbon emissions, but it will still be insufficient to avoid the hell that is already coming. Massive infrastructure projects will be needed to mitigate the effects of climate change. People will need to be evacuated from certain areas and relocated to others in ways that minimize casualties and suffering. Human societies will need to become actually resilient against pandemics and natural disasters. Efficient water use in desert areas will need to be prioritized as well, along with many other changes to adapt to local environmental conditions. All of this may still prove to be insufficient, and solar geoengineering will need to be studied and possibly implemented to mitigate some of the effects of global heating in the short term. Solar geoengineering will likely produce its own negative effects but it should be seriously considered if the potential effects are found to be less bad than unaddressed global heating. With current technology, carbon dioxide removal is essentially a complete pipe dream, but if we can develop ways to actually implement it at scale we should do that as well. Changes to our living patterns may improve quality of life in many regards by creating healthy walkable communities but there will still be significant hell to endure with the coming changes even if everything is done correctly. If it makes you feel better you can paint the necessary changes in a larpy solarpunk or neo-soviet aesthetic brush in your propaganda just make sure what's necessary happens without doing something stupid and causing mass starvation.

Going beyond climate mitigation, human beings will need to take a more active role as careful engineers and stewards of Earth's biosphere and ecosystem. Like it or not, preindustrial ecology is collapsing, and we will have to take an active role in building and sustaining biodiverse ecological systems to replace it where it fails. The idealistic human-nature dichotomy will have to be abandoned. Nature isn't an untouched eden that we will have to avoid interfering with, it is a complex global system that we will have to take an active role in shaping and maintaining to preserve human survival. If having oxygen for the proletariat to breathe means shit like genetically engineered artificial forests, it means shit like genetically engineered artificial forests.

Will all of this happen? I'm honestly pessimistic that any major shift like this will happen or that it will happen in time to avoid truly unlivable conditions, but in order for continued human survival we will need to at least try to do it this century. If we seize power and start working within the next couple decades we may have a chance of saving human civilization from its trajectory towards self-destruction and preserving human technological development long enough to one day provide future generations with a good life. It's socialism or barbarism, and we should approach our work with pessimism of the intellect but optimism of the will.


>a popular proletarian dictatorship
stopped reading there lmao, I don't know if you're delusional or optimistic


File: 1660359437439-1.jpeg (182.42 KB, 1400x1050, EaK1nBFWoAAeeA9.jpeg)

File: 1660359437439-2.jpg (431.51 KB, 1880x1200, 980Blvd_DKP (1).jpg)

File: 1660359437439-3.jpg (207.13 KB, 826x993, 829.jpg)

"The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. Communism responds by politicizing art." -Walter Benjamin
Maybe aesthetics should be a secondary concern in our response to actual material conditions. The material conditions demand the rail and dense energy efficient housing, and whatever aesthetic façade you want to paint on can be added along the way.
>Now, both the commieblock and the rail are still progress today especially in our suburbia infested and deindustrialised countries. But to advocate for them and expect people to be excited by them is looking to the past and just trying to transplant their conditions to today.
You sound like one of those burger conservatives opposing a high speed rail project because of the narrative that rail is a thing of the past or whatever. Aesthetic, futuristic urban density and rail projects are already becoming a popular futuristic aesthetic even just with liberal new urbanism. Burger millenials and zoomers are already drooling over those fake HSR maps as a symbol of progress, and the realisation that American liberal democracy will never allow stuff like this will push them towards becoming communists. Nobody likes American style strip malls and it doesn't take much to make people excited about the rail and the commieblock on an aesthetic level.


I actually read it and you're right, hope it happens


Too bad Green Peace and other so called "eco terrorist" organization members that actually did stuff are in priprison. I dont get why we havent seen new people and groups popping up though.


well whats the point? bomb one pipeline and they'll just use your tax money to rebuild it and throw you in jail forever



Clearly i havent been clear.

I do not oppose commie blocks as a concept. we absolutely need high density in major cities. We also need HSR to replace car dependant agriculture. These things are the future and have incredible benefits as yall have said.
I live in China, i have lived in built in 1500, 1850 and the 2000s. the difference in living in each of them is wildly different. i want everyone to be able to have their own apartment of the modern standard. the 1500 houses walls were so thin that you could hear anyone talking. Electricity lines were haphazardly placed around the place and the water/sewerage systems were dogshit.
the 1850s houses were much better, but the windows/ventilation had a lot to be desired. i can see how people get.carbon monoxide poisoning living in them.
by contrast the huge apartment buildings provide ventilation, light, electricity, sewerage, internet etc etc at a high level and they take put far less input on the land than yankee style suburbia. They are a powerful tool to help solve these crises.

But, as i explained in my long ass posts above, we cannot support our current type of agriculture. the need for shittons of apartment skyscrapers in major cities is partially because our mode of agricultural production reduces the need for human labour to next to nothing. This has cascading effects on the local economy of small towns and regional cities. Less need for agricultural labour due to huge acreage of farms coupled with heavy mechanization forces people to support themselves where the jobs are, namely, the city. But those young who move, move ti the cities that are most interesting, thriving and with more oppurtunity. That favours cities that have already had history of art/culture, are trendy or have good job prospects in whatever specific industry. This means we see rural depopulation that exacerbates the spread of largescale industrial monocultures, reduces the pool of experienced farm labour and increases the need for commie blocks in the city.

We need agroecological farming to take over a significant percentage of peoples daily calorie cobsumption. but these heirloom crops and seasonal veg often dont transport well and tbh, nor should they need to. we need to live near our food sources which means we need networks of many thousands of small and medium cities linked by reliable HSR. These cities will have some commie blocks but glass and steel urbanism shouldnt be the symbol nor where most are housed. dense midrise (3-6 stories) buildings can support the needs of these regional hubs better than a single massive skyscraper would. ofc we need commie blocks in metropolises but we also need less metropolises. Our land cannot support them. commie blocks as far as the eye can see is efficient land use but its fucking ugly, unnecessary and is propped up by this terrible industrial ag system.


how do you propose you avoid the Sri Lanka situation where you get rid of pesticides and fertilizers to force a switch to organic agriculture and farm output collapses and famine and economic collapse happens because organic agriculture can't support 21st century population levels?


yeah its a good question. admittedly i havent read too much about Sri lanka, just some news articles. i would have to do some research on the time frames they worked under, the level of governmental input and capital, and the type of organic ag they were.trying.

my understanding is this:
Sri Lanka, long suffering under IMF loans had issues paying for the cost of running government. this was especially bad because the gov officials were wildly corrupt and inept. With ever rising food, gas and fertilizer prices the Sri Lankan gov decided to go full organic. But far quicker than could sustain the population and also export food (which is a majority export i think). this compounded the cashflow issues which led to where we are at now.

Now, organic ag takes time. when you switch from industrial ag the soil is fucked. it takes time and significant inputs to get the soil back up to the productivity it wouldve had before industrial ag.
the inputs will be mulch, compost and landscaping to produce more wide distribution of water. theres much more but those are i think whats relevant here.
compost takes time to produce and needs its own logistics chain to produce. Because we dont farm say, tree leaves for compost we would need to get those compost crops from somewhere and likely we would have to convert some unproductive meat or cotton farms to compost farming initially to make up the incredible loss in organic content. initially transition costs would be immense and farmers that used to.not worrying.about this would then have to learn how to produce this at scale. they would need to plant compost crops along their verges and just generally change their farm to accomodate this change. this would require a huge amount physical labour and money. it tends to be that a farm takes 3 years to be proper productive. 5 years if industrial contaminants are heavy. the Sri Lankan government didnt allow that time because they didnt have the time or money to do so. nor, as i understand, did they produce the logistical system for producing mulch and compost necessary to heal these formally industrial farms.

so you might say, if its such an effort and takes so much time, why would we do it. my position is that we cannot produce enough fertilizer to support all the countries that have changed to this form of agriculture. and yields keep going down as topsoil erodes year in year. its not whether we should change from industrial ag, its when we change. Do we do it now, slowly and allow the land to recover, or do we do it during food riots and mass starvation


File: 1660428787369-0.png (50.3 KB, 855x451, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1660428787369-1.png (388.9 KB, 1024x681, ClipboardImage.png)

Now THIS is praxis. Why are the frogs so based bros. If they think its bad in France they should take a look at the Anglosphere
>Climate activists in south-eastern France have filled golf course holes with cement to protest against the exemption of golf greens from water bans amid the country's severe drought.
>The group targeted sites near the city of Toulouse, calling golf the "leisure industry of the most privileged".
>The exemption of golf greens has sparked controversy as 100 French villages are short of drinking water.
>Golf officials say greens would die in three days without water.
>"A golf course without a green is like an ice-rink without ice," Gérard Rougier of the French Golf Federation told the France Info news website. He added that 15,000 people worked in golf courses across the country.
>The recent action targeted courses in the towns of Vieille-Toulouse and Blagnac. It was claimed by the local branch of the Extinction Rebellion movement.
>In a petition, the activists said the exemption showed that "economic madness takes precedence over ecological reason".
>While residents cannot water their gardens or wash their cars in the worst-hit municipalities, golf courses have escaped the nationwide restrictions.
>The water bans are decreed nationally, but enforcement is at the discretion of regional officials. So far only one area, Ille-et-Villaine in western France, has diverged, banning the watering of golf courses.
>The Green mayor of the south-eastern city of Grenoble city, Éric Piolle, criticised the exemption saying: "We continue to protect the rich and powerful."
>Some constraints on the golf course remain. Watering must be carried out at night with no more than 30% of the usual volume of water.
>Some parts of the Loire river have virtually dried up. Across two-thirds of France, a state of crisis has been declared, with rainfall down by some 85%.


These particular plants are facing setbacks. The majority of nuclear reactors are onboard naval vessels and in the US fleet none of these have had incident since 1954. In future plants they should be careful not to use water sources that are at risk of drought, perhaps they can even consider off-shore plants. However it remains the case that the vast majority of paths to 1.5°C target indicate that an increase in nuclear supply is necessary, so it cannot be ignored.

It is interesting to note that no one has mentioned that these rivers becoming non-navigable, disrupting coal and oil shipments, calls into question the viability of fossil fuel as an energy source. There are some articles on this but there are many many more about the nuclear plants.


Reposting this gem.


Thank you for such a good effort post in response to my shitty post. Can you tell me what kind of theory you mostly read to be able to write this post?


File: 1660598244761.png (300.07 KB, 705x494, ClipboardImage.png)


>About 8 million people in the US live in counties that are expected to reach above 125 degrees Fahrenheit (52 degrees Celsius) at some point in 2023, a new report finds.

>But by 2053, those kinds of extremes could affect 107 million people in the county, in an “extreme heat belt” blanketing about 25 per cent of the US, the report, from the non-profit First Street Foundation, finds.




>Summers marked by more extreme heat, droughts and wildfires are the new reality in Britain as the climate crisis grips the planet, experts have warned.

>This summer, which has seen drought declared across swathes of England, raging wildfires, and temperatures spiking above 40C, is a taste of what’s to come according to scientists and policy experts.

>Heatwaves and critically low water levels are expected to become more frequent and intense unless humanity stops emitting greenhouse gases.

>“This might in 30 years’ time seem like a relatively mild period compared to what we’re likely to be experiencing in 2050,” says Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. “People have got to understand that this is just going to get worse.”

>Even if the world stopped pumping out all greenhouse gases tomorrow, scientists warn that the extreme conditions being experienced by people across the world would not get better unless a lot of carbon was removed from the atmosphere.


File: 1660797044146-0.png (45.93 KB, 482x185, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1660797044146-1.png (184.96 KB, 800x811, ClipboardImage.png)


>Climate change and unsustainable water management are leaving lakes dried up all over the Middle East and beyond, but the Israeli government is hopeful it has a solution: It plans to pump water from the Mediterranean sea, take the salt out of it and send it across the country to top up the lake when needed.
>It's a dramatic change for the Sea of Galilee, called the Kinneret in Hebrew, which once pumped out nearly all of Israel's drinkable water. The water will now flow in the opposition direction.
>Israel has plenty of expertise in desalination. As a water-insecure nation, it has for more than two decades been taking seawater from the Mediterranean and treating it through a process called reverse osmosis, essentially taking the salt out of the water to make it drinkable. It's a process that other parts of the world, including California, have turned to in times of drought, but in Israel, it's an everyday reality. Five desalination plants along the coast now provide nearly all the tap water for the country's 9.2 million people.


File: 1661281819481.png (729.22 KB, 827x983, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1661334088738-0.mp4 (2.48 MB, 640x640, china river.mp4)

File: 1661334088738-1.gif (1.7 MB, 680x285, witness me.gif)

>Shocking pictures from China: World’s third-largest river dries up in drought 👇https://t.co/1rXKa01quq

My face when we enter into Mad Max Fury Road overnight. They're really just gonna one day just up and say, sorry guys, that's it, no more water.


Irish farmers say they will be forced to cull cows to meet climate targets
Government plan to cut agriculture emissions by 25% by 2030 will drive many farms into bankruptcy, say critics
>Donald Scully gazes at his herd of 208 cows munching grass and clover in a verdant field, as a light breeze ruffles the stillness.
>“There is an enjoyment for me to come out and look and see how healthy and happy these cows are,” says Scully, 47, a third-generation dairy farmer. “Every single cow has her own personality, they’re all individuals.”
>The pastoral scene in Ballyheyland, a landscape of rolling hills in County Laois, is replicated across rural Ireland. Ireland has 7.3 million cattle, substantially outnumbering humans, and a long history with the animal stretching into myth, including the Cattle Raid of Cooley, an epic tale considered the Irish Iliad. Agriculture dominated the economy well into the 20th century and moulded a vision of Ireland that still enchants visitors.
>Cows, however, now symbolise something else: a climate crisis quandary.
>Instead of cutting emissions, Ireland has continued increasing them and the biggest contributor is agriculture. Ireland’s 135,000 farms produce 37.5% of national emissions, the highest proportion in the European Union, and most of that comes from methane associated with belching by ruminant animals.
>Under a new government plan, agriculture must reduce emissions by 25% by 2030. Other sectors face even higher targets – transport must reduce emissions by 50%, commercial and public buildings by 40% – but the loudest protests have come from farmers.
>Cutting emissions by a quarter will drive many farms into bankruptcy and could force the culling of hundreds of thousands of cows, they say. “The mood is hugely frustrated,” said Pat McCormack, head of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association. “It’s very hard to quantify but there will be increased costs and reduced output.”
>Farmers and their allies have accused the coalition government, which includes the Green party, of scapegoating rural Ireland and leaving farmers little option but to cull herds. So far there have been no Dutch-style protests.
>Until recently, the government had encouraged dairy farmers to expand to exploit the end of EU milk quotas. Farmers invested in new equipment and the dairy herd grew by almost half in the past decade. Irish butter, cheese and other produce – 90% is exported – filled supermarket shelves around the world.
>“All the talk was of what dairy could deliver for the economy and society and we did that in spades. Now it’s the bad boy,” said McCormack.
>In Ballyheyland, Scully, who owns 60 hectares (150 acres) of land and rents another 60 hectares in the shadow of the Cullenagh mountain, not only multiplied his herd five-fold, he made it pedigree Holstein Friesian. His cows roam the fields and subsist mainly on grass, a key selling point that distinguishes Irish produce from other countries that house cows in concrete sheds.
>The work is 24/7, Scully says. “You have to love it otherwise you wouldn’t do it.” He hopes his teenage son will become the fourth generation Scully to raise cows but says climate targets could imperil the farm’s future.
>“It’s all happening so quickly, and they’re looking for results so fast. Sometimes you would be better moving slow and doing it right.” A way of life, he says, is at stake. “You don’t miss anything until it’s gone.”
>Farmers hope that proposed changes in calculating methane emissions, greater efficiencies, new technologies, and other measures could avert the need to reduce herds.

Major sea-level rise caused by melting of Greenland ice cap is ‘now inevitable’
Loss will contribute a minimum rise of 27cm regardless of what climate action is taken, scientists discover
>Major sea-level rise from the melting of the Greenland ice cap is now inevitable, scientists have found, even if the fossil fuel burning that is driving the climate crisis were to end overnight.
>The research shows the global heating to date will cause an absolute minimum sea-level rise of 27cm (10.6in) from Greenland alone as 110tn tonnes of ice melt. With continued carbon emissions, the melting of other ice caps and thermal expansion of the ocean, a multi-metre sea-level rise appears likely.
>Billions of people live in coastal regions, making flooding due to rising sea levels one of the greatest long-term impacts of the climate crisis. If Greenland’s record melt year of 2012 becomes a routine occurrence later this century, as is possible, then the ice cap will deliver a “staggering” 78cm of sea-level rise, the scientists said.
>Previous studies have used computer models of ice cap behaviour to estimate future losses, but the physical processes are complex and this leads to significant uncertainties in the results.
>In contrast, the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change used satellite measurements of ice losses from Greenland and the shape of the ice cap from 2000-19. This data enabled the scientists to calculate how far global heating to date has pushed the ice sheet from an equilibrium where snowfall matches the ice lost. This allowed the calculation of how much more ice must be lost in order to regain stability.
>“It is a very conservative rock-bottom minimum,” said Prof Jason Box from the National Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (Geus), who led the research. “Realistically, we will see this figure more than double within this century.”
>The 27cm estimate is a minimum because it only accounts for global heating so far and because some ways in which glacier ice is lost at the margins of the ice sheet are not included.
>The advantage of this study is that it provides a solid estimate of inevitable sea-level rise but the method used does not give a timescale over which the ice will be lost. Nonetheless, based on scientists’ overall understanding of how sheets such as Greenland lose ice into the ocean, the researchers said most of the rise would occur relatively soon. In 2021, other scientists warned that a significant part of the Greenland ice sheet was on the brink of a tipping point.
>“The minimum of 27cm is the sea-level rise deficit that we have accrued to date and it’s going to get paid out, no matter what we do going forward,” said Dr William Colgan, also at Geus. “Whether it’s coming in 100 years or 150 years, it’s coming. And the sea-level rise we are committed to is growing at present, because of the climate trajectory we’re on.”
>Colgan said: “If [2012] becomes a normal year, then the committed loss grows to 78cm, which is staggering, and the fact that we’re already flickering into that range [of ice loss] is shocking. But the difference between 78cm and 27cm highlights the [difference] that can be made through implementing the Paris agreement. There is still a lot of room to minimise the damage.”

Rich nations owe reparations to countries facing climate disaster, says Pakistan minister
Sherry Rehman, the country’s climate change minister, insists rich polluters must pay their due as country is hit by devastating floods
>Rich polluting countries which are predominantly to blame for the “dystopian” climate breakdown have broken their promises to reduce emissions and help developing countries adapt to global heating, according to Pakistan’s minister for climate change, who said reparations were long overdue.
>Close to 1,300 people are dead and a third of Pakistan is under floodwater after weeks of unprecedented monsoon rains battered the country – which only weeks earlier had been suffering serious drought.
>In an interview with the Guardian, the climate minister, Sherry Rehman, said global emission targets and reparations must be reconsidered, given the accelerated and relentless nature of climate catastrophes hitting countries such as Pakistan.
>“Global warming is the existential crisis facing the world and Pakistan is ground zero – yet we have contributed less than 1% to [greenhouse gas] emissions. We all know that the pledges made in multilateral forums have not been fulfilled,” said Rehman, 61, a former journalist, senator and diplomat who previously served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the US.
>“There is so much loss and damage with so little reparations to countries that contributed so little to the world’s carbon footprint that obviously the bargain made between the global north and global south is not working. We need to be pressing very hard for a reset of the targets because climate change is accelerating much faster than predicted, on the ground, that is very clear.”
>The extent of Pakistan’s flood damage is unprecedented.
>An area the size of the state of Colorado is inundated, with more than 200 bridges and 3,000 miles of telecom lines collapsed or damaged, Rehman said. At least 33 million people have been affected – a figure expected to rise after authorities complete damage surveys next week. In the Sindh district, which produces half the country’s food, 90% of crops are ruined. Entire villages and agricultural fields have been swept away.
>The main culprit is unprecedented relentless torrential rain, with some towns receiving 500 to 700% more rainfall than normal in August. Large swaths of land are still under eight to 10 ft of water, making it extremely difficult to drop rations or put up tents. The navy is carrying out rescue missions in normally arid areas where boats have never been seen, according to Rehman.
>“The whole area looks like an ocean with no horizon – nothing like this has been seen before,” said Rehman. “I wince when I hear people say these are natural disasters. This is very much the age of the anthropocene: these are man-made disasters.”
>Many have fled inundated rural areas looking for food and shelter in nearby cities which are ill-equipped to cope, and it is unclear when – or if – they will ever be able to go back. The total number of people remain stranded in remote areas, waiting to be rescued, remains unknown.
>The water will take months to drain, and – despite a brief pause in the downfall – more heavy rain is forecast for mid-September.
>Rehman, who was named minister for climate change in April amid a political and economic crisis that saw the ousting of the prime minister, Imran Khan, has said the government was doing everything possible but rescue and aid missions had been hampered by ongoing rain and the sheer scale of need.
>While sympathetic to the global economic challenges caused by the Covid pandemic and war in Ukraine, she was adamant that “richer countries must do more”.
>“Historic injustices have to be heard and there must be some level of climate equation so that the brunt of the irresponsible carbon consumption is not being laid on nations near the equator which are obviously unable to create resilient infrastructure on their own,” she said.
>There are also growing calls for fossil fuel companies – making record profits as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine – to pay for the damage caused by global heating to developing countries.
>Rehman said: “Big polluters often try to greenwash their emissions but you can’t walk away from the reality that big corporations that have net profits bigger than the GDP of many countries need to take responsibility.”
>The annual UN climate talks take place in Egypt in November, where the group of 77 developing countries plus China, which Pakistan currently chairs, will be pushing hard for the polluters to pay up after a year of devastating drought, floods, heatwaves and forest fires.
>Pakistan is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to global heating, and the current catastrophic floods come after four consecutive heatwaves with temperatures topping 53C earlier this year.
>It has more than 7,200 glaciers – more than anywhere outside the poles – which are melting much faster and earlier due to rising temperatures, adding water to rivers already swollen by rainfall.
>“We’re going to be very clear and unequivocal about what we see as our needs and due, as well as where we see the series of larger global targets going. But loss and danger to the south which is already in the throes of an accelerated climate dystopia will have to be part of the bargain driven at Cop27,” she said.
>Richer polluting countries have so far been slow to cough up pledged money to help developing countries adapt to climate shocks, and even more reluctant to engage in meaningful negotiations about financing loss and damage suffered by poorer nations like Pakistan which have contributed negligibly to greenhouse gas emissions.
>Discussion about reparations has been mostly blocked, leaving vulnerable countries like Pakistan “facing the brunt of other people’s reckless carbon consumption”.
>“As you can see, global warming hasn’t gone down – quite the opposite. And there is only so much adaptation we can do. The melting of glaciers, the floods, drought, forest fires, none will stop without very serious pledges being honoured,” said Rahman.
>“We are on the frontline and intend to keep loss and damage and adapting to climate catastrophes at the core of our arguments and negotiations. There will be no moving away from that.”

Wildfires erupt across California as sweltering heatwave engulfs state
Blazes erupted in rural areas north of Los Angeles county and east of San Diego as temperatures are set to reach 115F in coming days
>Firefighters in California are battling several new blazes that ignited as the state is sweltering under a grueling heatwave.
>Flames burned through bone-dry brush in rural areas north of Los Angeles and east of San Diego on Thursday, forcing the closure of a major interstate and prompting evacuations of schools and care facilities.
>The new fires come amid a prolonged and possibly record-setting heatwave that is engulfing the western US and is expected to last until Labor Day. Temperatures in the mid to upper 90s and lower 100s will probably result in widespread daily temperature records each day, the National Weather Service said on Thursday.
>Excessive heat warnings are in effect across the desert south-west and California, with heat advisories stretching across much of the central Great Basin.
>High night-time temperatures will only increase the heat stress, the service warned, creating potentially dangerous situations for vulnerable individuals.
>Some areas in California already broke records – on Wednesday, Burbank reported a new August high at 112F.
>The state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, declared a state of emergency in response to the high temperatures, and warned the heatwave will strain the state’s power grid. The operator of the grid has asked residents to reduce use of electricity to avoid forced outages.
>Meanwhile, parents in Los Angeles have called for more shade at local schools, where playground asphalt can reach temperatures of 145F, according to the Los Angeles Times.
>The heat has created particularly difficult working conditions for firefighters. Seven firefighters suffered heat injuries while battling the Route fire near Castaic and had to be treated at hospitals, said Thomas Ewald, the Los Angeles county fire department deputy chief.
>Temperatures in the area on Wednesday hit 107F (42C) and winds gusted to 17mph (27 km/h), forecasters said. More heat emergencies are expected, Ewald added, as crews grapple with the extreme weather that is expected to linger until next week.
>“Wearing heavy firefighting gear, carrying packs, dragging hose, swinging tools, the folks out there are just taking a beating,” he said.
>The Route fire in north-western Los Angeles county destroyed a home after raging through more than 8 sq miles of hills containing scattered houses. The blaze briefly closed Interstate 5, a key route for big rigs, before authorities reopened some lanes on the highway on Thursday morning. Traffic has remained snarled as firefighters try to get a hold on the fire, which currently is estimated to be 12% contained.
>"The days ahead are going to be challenging,” said Robert Garcia, the Los Angeles national forest fire chief, of the battle against the Route fire.
>Media reports showed a wall of flames advancing uphill and smoke billowing thousands of feet into the air while aircraft dumped water from nearby Castaic Lake. Authorities planned to lift evacuation orders for a mobile home park and other homes in the area thanks to strong work from ground crews, helicopters and airplanes dropping water and fire retardant on the blaze, Ewald said.
>A separate fire in eastern San Diego county, near the US-Mexico border, burned at least four buildings and prompted evacuations.
>The fire swiftly grew to more than 6 sq miles and prompted evacuation orders for at least 400 homes, authorities said. The fire was 5% contained.
>No injuries were immediately reported, but there were “multiple close calls” as residents rushed to flee, said Capt Thomas Shoots of the California department of forestry and fire protection (CalFire).
>“We had multiple 911 calls from folks unable to evacuate” because their homes were surrounded by the fire, Shoots told the San Diego Union-Tribune.
>US Customs and Border Protection announced that the Tecate port of entry with Mexico closed three hours early on Wednesday night because of the fire and would not reopen until conditions improved to ensure “the safety of the traveling public”.


Wtf more on the fusion news please


>Rich nations owe reparations to countries facing climate disaster, says Pakistan minister
Yeah, no. Under capitalist regimes that money would go to third world mansions, wars, harems fot dickass dictators.



>This is very much the age of the anthropocene: these are man-made disasters
No this is wrong, the capitalists were the ones that made the decisions that led to climate change.
It's not human made disasters it's capitalist made disaster, it's the capitalocence.

With a different economic system, we would have expanded industrialization with atomic power, and humanity wouldn't have these problems.


You will never stop climate change


>With a different economic system, we would have expanded industrialization with atomic power, and humanity wouldn't have these problems.
Even with the fantasy of nuclear power as a magic wand with no downsides fossil fuels would have still been necessary for primitive accumulation and we would have had these problems although the situation as a whole may not have been so dire. Personally I really agree with the capitalocene concept but since you have to posit that AES is bullshit for it to work so I doubt many on this board would like using it. Anthropocene as whole works because humanity began to non trivially alter the climate way before capitalism


>Even with the fantasy of nuclear power as a magic wand with no downsides
By the 1970ss nuclear power was good enough to roll it out at scale.
That means we would have seen CO2 emissions drop off during the last 50 years.
The only downside to nuclear power was storing radioactive waste, that's solved now with onsite deep drill storage.
>fossil fuels would have still been necessary for primitive accumulation
Yes, but if we had gone all in with nuclear in the 70s we would have been reducing carbon emission for the last 50 years and be basically at a carbon neutral point in the present. We could now begin doing carbon negative stuff to restore the correct CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

>Personally I really agree with the capitalocene concept but since you have to posit that AES is bullshit for it to work

I can't see why you would say that, a fossil fuel phase is normal, what makes it the capitalocene is continuing after the initial build up phase. My guess is that the Soviets would have ended their fossil fuel phase by 2000 and then do the atomic age. I'm estimating a 30 year delay, because the Soviets were still somewhat behind the first world. For third world countries that entered their industrial age very late it might make sense to not have a fossil fuel phase because they could directly implement atomic energy production and skip a few steps in development.

If we had gone the atomic age route, that would sped up battery tech by several decades, because if you have lots of electricity you will look for ways to store it. Once you had the battery tech wind and solar would been tagged onto it, because that is a very convenient way to recharge a battery off grid. We would have looked at wind and solar as battery extenders or an alternative to power-lines in remote areas. If you have large amounts of energy from nuclear plants it makes sense to invest some of the energy to build wind and solar because you get more energy out then you put in. If you take a battery + wind/solar as a unit, you'll get a unit that gives more energy off than you put in during production and charging.

>Anthropocene as whole works because humanity began to non trivially alter the climate way before capitalism

The climate change that will make earth less comfortable for is caused by capitalism, therefore if you call it the anthropocene instead of the capitalocene, you shift the blame from the capitalist class making bad decisions to humanity. Collectivizing the blame for shit the capitalists have fucked up is propagating ruling class ideology.


I think your faith in nuclear power is misplaced. The waste is not the only nor the most concerning downside, if you ramp up nuclear production you therefore increase the frequency of major incidents and nuclear meltdowns. Those take absolutely immense resources to clean up and are bound to happen eventually, moreover this puts the whole system at risk because people will become against it and you can't just hand-wave that. Realistically running a society, particularly in socialism, means compromising with the concerns of the people at large. Because of Fukushima, China now has no plans to ever go beyond 7% of nuclear in their mix, and USSR only attained 14% before Chernobyl hit. The risk, in my opinion, is a major roadblock in any 20th century nuclear route scenario.

But the window was missed anyway and now the writing is on the wall for nuclear fission. Since there are safer, cheaper and cleaner techs large scale nuclear power makes less and less sense, apart to provide some baseload, and even this advantage will be eventually negated by progress in battery tech.

I say you have to posit that AES is bullshit because the eastern bloc (RIP) and China were/are two major participants to the process of making the earth climate less comfortable, there's a reason why some main proponents of capitalocene are ultras and anarchists. And I say again, humanity didn't wait for the capitalist class to fuck up the biosphere, emptying western Europe of the trees had dire consequences 2000 years ago for example, it's nowhere near on the scale of putting 400ppm+ of CO2 in the atmosphere but still.


>I think your faith in nuclear power is misplaced.
It's scientifically verified
>if you ramp up nuclear production you therefore increase the frequency of major incidents and nuclear meltdowns.
No that's not true technologies can have teething problems but once the bugs are worked out they will get safer while scaling up production.
But even the nuclear incidents that happened killed very few people and did almost no ecological damage, if you compare it to the cancer inducing smog monsters that cam before.
Also once you go to modular smr reactors, each reactor module only contains a very small amount of radioactive material. So even if a incident happens it will be a nothing burger that is easily cleaned up. Compared to oil spills, and city engulfing smog clouds of coal fired plants.
>Realistically running a society, particularly in socialism, means compromising with the concerns of the people at large.
People are opposed to nuclear power because the fossil fuel industry has been astroturfing all of society with fear mongering campaigns for decades. That will not happen in socialism and because of that people will be allowed to see that the scientific case for nuclear is solid
>Because of Fukushima, China now has no plans to ever go beyond 7% of nuclear in their mix
You made that up, even Japan has plans to relaunch it's nuclear power industry:
Japan’s Minister of Financial system, Commerce and Trade Yasutoshi Nishimura:
<“I consider that nuclear energy is necessary as we work in the direction of carbon neutrality whereas making certain vitality safety. We’re within the path of planning to extend the general dependency stage in nuclear vitality,”
<“The value of pure gasoline and the worth of vitality are hovering internationally… the vitality market is tight,”
>“If Japan reactivates one nuclear plant, it produces 1 million tons’ price of vitality, making it doable for Japan to have safe vitality and probably be self-sufficient,”
never mind the broken translation, you get the gist
China has been designing nuclear reactors for mass production (see the accompanying screencapped article)
The only thing that happened in China as a result of Fukushima was a temporary pause, where they did an audit on safety measures.
>But the window was missed anyway and now the writing is on the wall for nuclear fission.
You meant nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission is what the nuclear reactors are doing right now.
it's not to late, nuclear fusion is not yet ready for deployment, and with current low levels of investment in fusion, it will take a long time.
>I say you have to posit that AES is bullshit because the eastern bloc (RIP) and China were/are two major participants to the process of making the earth climate less comfortable
No, it wasn't wrong to use fossil fuel to start the industrial revolution and to build modern society. Neither the capitalist countries nor the socialist countries were wrong for using fossil fuel for bootstrapping industrial energy production. The error was to keep using fossil fuel after nuclear power became viable. I'm calling it the capitalocene because the capitalist system was unable to switch to nuclear when it became ready.

What i'm saying here is that if the first world began shifting it's energy production to nuclear in the 70s (a hypothetically surviving Soviet Union doing the nuclear shift in the 2000s) and the third world doing the nuclear shift now, there would not be dramatic climate change. And yes in that scenario you also get a dramatic expansion of renewable energy production.

What we can't do is use renewable energy as primary energy source. It does not have enough energy return to enable the expansion of renewable energy production. The wind turbines and photo voltaic panels don't make enough power for both society and the big factories, that produce new PV and windmills, at the same time. You need nuclear powerplants to be able to power the production side in order to expand renewable energy production.

> And I say again, humanity didn't wait for the capitalist class to fuck up the biosphere, emptying western Europe of the trees had dire consequences 2000 years ago for example

No this is ancient history and it doesn't matter to us in the here and now.


File: 1662454257309.jpeg (124.8 KB, 1200x800, volcanicafterglow.jpeg)

It's going to be calcium carbonate geoengineering, isn't it? No capitalist nation on Earth has any realistic plan to address climate change beyond greenwashing and the timeframe for a world socialist revolution to force a rapid transition isn't realistic either. Some country will get absolutely devastated by a high-casualty climate related disaster, and they will start unilaterally pumping calcium carbonate aerosols into the stratosphere in a desperate attempt to cool the Earth through solar radiation reduction. This will start to recover sea ice and prevent heat-related effects like heat waves and sea level rise, but it will also probably fuck up the hydrological cycle and reduce rainfall. This reduction in rainfall will cause crop outputs to drop, increasing food prices and devastating third world economies dependent on monsoons, but the global north will be mostly fine. It will have unknown effects on the ozone layer (calcium carbonate may increase or decrease ozone according to different studies) but will be better than sulfates, another geoengineering candidate which actively depletes ozone. As heat related effects have stopped, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels will continue to increase, along with their non-heat related effects, like ocean acidification. Stopping geoengineering will be impossible because the suppressed carbon dioxide heating will increase massively in a short amount of time in just a couple years after stopping. It will be mandatory to remove carbon from the air while slowly reducing geoengineering outputs over decades to return to 'normal'. You will live in a new cold world of white skies and deep orange sunsets.

The image related is a volcanic afterglow as seen from Antarctica. Volcanic afterglows are the deep red sunsets caused by aerosols in the stratosphere kicked up by volcanic eruptions. Like Antarctica after a volcanic eruption, the world will become colder, drier, and with very nice sunsets.


>It's not human made disasters it's capitalist made disaster, it's the capitalocence.

This, and we need to be pushing this line hard. Perhaps the most important thing to be pushing right now. The data is clear. This is an issue of industrialized (capitalist) societies, with the problem coming not from the masses of people, but from one group and one organizational form in particular.


The "faith" in nuclear is "scientifically verified"? Bro this is scientism. The accidents are not easy to clean up, the two costliest industrial accidents ever are Fukushima and Chernobyl (which was a factor in the downfall of the USSR), think an apollo program in resources and work. You hand waving that makes me think you're not serious.

I up your Yasutoshi Nishimura with a quote from Japan prime minister of five days ago:
> Fumio Kishida said Wednesday he wanted to reduce Japan’s reliance on nuclear power as much as possible
>He said the two main planks of the government’s plan for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions were energy conservation and maximizing use of renewable energy, with the goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

By "writing on the wall" I mean fission is dying for mass civilian use because there are better techs now.

China has a long term policy and will continue to make a lot of reactors, but I don't see how this one startup porky opinions can trump decades long energy plans of the CPC.

The USSR and China were/are unable/unwilling to make the switch to nuclear, do this mean they are capitalist? Hence my point on Capitalocene and AES.

What humans did thousands of years ago have impacts on today biosphere, in fact it only snowballed with time with the butterfly effect. This shit counts actually.


I was a supporter of nuclear enegry until I learned you need cool water to cool down the reactor. And in a warming planet…


Accidents in nuclear power generation caused less destruction of human lives and nature than almost any other method of power generation. You are making an emotional appeal to the spectacular images from those past accidents, but from a scientific point of view nuclear power is very safe, and that is a point that speaks for nuclear energy power. Future designs will improve the effectiveness of power-plant safety measures faster than it will expanded and the net-risk-factor will drop despite more nuclear power plants being build.

>I mean fission is dying for mass civilian use because there are better techs now.

There is no realistic way to combat climate change unless nuclear power is massively expanded. The idea that renewable energy alone could supply enough energy only makes sense to very affluent people that aren't very likely to be affected by the brutal consequences of energy poverty. If this delusion is upheld that means that societies will be hit hard by energy poverty and then material reality will correct this erroneous perception. In any case it won't be long until nuclear power will be massively expanded pretty much everywhere.

Of course we could have already developed fusion power, the Soviet Union was a big proponent of that but the US decided that it wanted to invest all it's societal surplus into expanding military power, causing a massive arms race in the 20th century. The Soviets didn't want to be so militaristic, given a more peaceful capitalist world, we could have traded the tens of thousands of thermonuclear bombs with viable fusion production. Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union when the capitalists had no rivals for decades they could have increase the level of funding for fusion power to realistic levels (at least half of current military budgets). But the capitalists didn't do that. Now time is running out and we need a technology that is already working, and that is regular atomic power that is fissioning radioactive elements like uranium and thorium.

The capitalists are to blame for climate change, they are the ones responsible for the direction economic development took. The blame can't be offloaded to people that lived 1000 years ago and the blame also can't be pinned on the Soviet Union. It would be reasonable for me to assume you are a reactionary intellectual trying to manufacture consent for green fascism, that seeks to instrumentalise climate change as excuse for inflicting austerity class war against the masses.

>I was a supporter of nuclear enegry until I learned you need cool water to cool down the reactor.

No you don't strictly need water-cooling for nuclear reactors, any reactor can be air cooled too. Air coolers have come a long way, don't picture large metal fins with blowers, picture a sprinkler spraying hot oil into an air-stream to cool off the oil before it is being recirculated as reactor coolant. it's very cost efficient and small. Thorium reactors that can run a lot hotter and benefit from greater heat-exchange efficiency, don't even bother with water-cooling at all.
The giant water cooling condensation towers that many people associate with nuclear reactors aren't necessary anymore.


WHAT THE FUCK, I live literally next to that river, my block a few meters away from the riverbank, this happened more than a month ago and I only hear about this now? I drink tap water and go on walks alongside Oder daily and never noticed anything. My dog also drinks tap and never shown any signs of poisoning. After googling it around, there are a few articles on Polish net about it, but no stuff about dog deaths etc. Does anyone know more about it or did it end up a nothingburger? Because I don't really know if I should stock up on bottled water or something.


I make no emotional appeal, and although it's likely true that nuclear power didn't kill many people per Mwh the effects of radiations on health are not only misunderstood but the research tends to be buried. From a scientific point of view it maybe very safe, from an economical point of view it's $200 billions for Fukushima, $700 billions for Chernobyl. Belarus alone spent 20% of its budget on cleaning ops. It's not suprising to see that no private actor wants to invest, even less insure plants, and socialist states don't want invest much. I advanced this argument in criticism of a 20th century nuke path because with 100 times the plants you have 100 times the risk of major accidents which can absolutely destroy entire economies.

You may dream as much as you want of unrealistic cheap easy to build and safe plants but the cold hard truth is that it won't happen. You may call me reactionary for not wanting to impose my techno fantasies on the people and criticizing the USSR but I didn't fuck up the Aral sea or killed of dozens of species of whales. I support Capitalocene because I think USSR was basically capitalism without bourgeoisie and China.. well they have a bourgeoisie soo.


>although it's likely true that nuclear power didn't kill many people per Mwh the effects of radiations on health are not only misunderstood but the research tends to be buried.
This is just a conspiracy theory.
Radioactive material is dangerous and it requires very rigorous precautions when handling, but reactors contain only small quantities. Overall it's easier to deal with that than the massive quantities of destructive waste products of other energy producing industries.

it's ironic that you put so much emphasis on fear (which is an appeal to emotion by the way) about radioactive hazards, but don't realize the primary emitter of radioactive material isn't coming from nuclear-power it's coming from coal-power. In the absence of nuclear power people will restart coal-power. Not building nuclear power will cause greater environmental emission of radioactive materials.

> From a scientific point of view it maybe very safe

I'm glad we agree

>from an economical point of view

nuclear power puts out a lot of very cheap carbon-free energy

>on cleaning ops

The negative side effects of nuclear power are microscopic compared to what it will cost to fix climate change.
And we already payed for the lessons we had to learn about nuclear power plant design. We learned how to make it safe from past mistakes and now you want to stop it. We went through the bad parts and when we are about to get to the good part you are putting up road blocks. Worst. Timing. Ever.

>no private actor wants to invest

that's a problem with capitalism,
If you consider the opinions of private investors within the logic of capitalism as the arbiter of reason, you are just outing your self as a capitalist ideologue.
We already know that capitalists don't want to invest into nuclear power, but that is showing us an error of capitalist economic reasoning.
By the way private investors don't really give a shit about environmental damage, just take a closer look how they dealt with oil-spills. A nuclear reactor runs for 60 years + a decade build/deconstruction time, that's 70 years until you can collect on the return of your investment. Individual people that make up private investors don't want to wait that long. But for societies as a hole that's not a problem. This is a general flaw in capitalism, many more new technologies are going to be very long term projects, and capitalism can't cope with that.

>You may dream as much as you want of unrealistic cheap easy to build and safe plants but the cold hard truth is that it won't happen.

Technological progress makes things cheaper and safer. You can't halt progress forever.

>You may call me reactionary

Yes i consider you a reactionary for denying people the benefits of cheap, safe, environmentally friendly and plenty-full energy from nuclear power and for your anti-communist talking points.


TL:DR is that it probably wasnt a chemical spill but just more consequences of global warming. We'll know the official story at the end of September when a joint German-Polish taskforce releases their findings.
I'd still be cautious though


>This is just a conspiracy theory.
It's not

Nuclear fission is dead bro, it's a matter of time, maybe you would enjoy another site where cultists and nuclear shills like you thrive like reddit. Or if you're german, you could join the only politically party supporting nuke, the AfD. But I'm the reactionary for pointing nuclear power shortfalls lol


File: 1662480979871.png (73.43 KB, 427x400, glow soyface.png)

>nuclear shills


I looked into it a while ago, and they managed to achieve 'ignition', which is what they call it when the reaction becomes self-sustaining. It actually happened sometime last year, but it has only just been confirmed officially.

Even though they reached ignition, they were still putting more energy into the reaction than they were getting out of it, so it looks like fusion is still a while away yet.


Summary of video:
Great Salt Lake is drying up which is bad because the soil under it is filled with nasty stuff and tons of people live in the general area; The wind carries the dust into the cities and poisons people with arsenic etc. The situation is so bad theyre throwing around crazy ideas like pumping ocean water 800 miles to fill the lake
Thing is, despite what articles claim, climate change isnt the main culprit.
Rather, it's agriculture sucking up all the water that would normally flow into the lake. 82% of Utahs water goes to agriculture, and at least 86% of that 82% goes towards growing food for livestock, mostly alfalfa. In spite of this, the sector only makes up 2.7% of Utah's economy
So a bunch of farmers and their rancher pals are going to create another Owens lake only on a scale 30x as large, on a lake thats extremely important for migratory birds and with a major population centre right on its shore to get blasted by the poisonous particulate matter


>New U.K prime minister Truss's first major announcement is scrapping of U.K fracking ban.


Uh oh Germany has a reason to be mad at Poland this time.

Joking aside, this kind of thing will keep happening and in more places as the collapse really sets in. All these companies with toxic waste are going to have nobody to nobody to hold them accountable even in theory anymore.


this meal will not suffice
I must have more


Why don't they just build nuclear power, that's a lot cheaper and cleaner.
Fracking wasn't even profitable in the normal energy market.
Also flammable tap water, sink-holes and earth quakes suck.


Pretty sure the UK is one of the few eu countries still wanting to build new reactors. Its just that you need gas too.
What IM waiting for is the Netherlands to start fracking, geological consequences be damned


>Pretty sure the UK is one of the few eu countries still wanting to build new reactors.
I guess that's good news for the UK
>Its just that you need gas too.
Natural gas regardless how it's sourced is going to be used up at some point in the not all too distant future.
Oil and gas reserves estimations usually say there are 50 years left. Then what ? Are we supposed to make synthetic methane with electrolysis, bio-engineered cow-farts, fermented algea ?


The UK will have trouble getting new reactors, 15 to 17 years is "too tight" of a schedule for EDF



>A team of researchers led by Meenesh Singh at University of Illinois Chicago has discovered a way to convert 100% of carbon dioxide captured from industrial exhaust into ethylene, a key building block for plastic products.
Tidal range power works a lot like a dam which im not a fan of since it blocks fish passages.
I was on board with the underwater turbines until they got to the environmental effects, where they basically just say "climate change will be 10x worse so who cares" lol.
that said, a cursory google search tells me we don't really know yet how these underwater turbines effect local wildlife. Researchers at the Fundy Bay site are looking into it though
pretty cool overall


File: 1662912015068.jpg (93.2 KB, 1016x800, energy density.jpg)

This is another video that shits on nuclear power, as if renewable energy was in competition with nuclear power.

Nuclear power has an energy return on energy investment with a theoretical limit of about 2000x.
So for the most optimized reactor using the most modern liquid fuel system, you get about 2000 times more energy out then you put in. In real world applications you get slightly less than that.

To put this into perspective the best oil-wells never went above a return of 100x. (currently oil is in the ranges between 5x to 50x)
Most Wind and solar system including batteries get a return of 10x

I can't find any reliable numbers for tidal power, but the most optimistic numbers are 120x , although that will be cut in half when you factor in the batteries.

I don't understand the attitude of how renewable energy positions it self in opposition to nuclear power. If you want to make a lot of sturdy metal turbines to capture tidal power, you need a lot of steel, and you need even more energy to make that steel. It's a natural fit to use the abundant cheap clean nuclear power to power steel furnaces and the big industrial production that turns the steel into tidal turbines.


File: 1662914232007.png (237.92 KB, 2046x1246, 1662914228304.png)

But it's not abundant because uranium reserves are limited, and it's 3 times the price of wind or solar so not cheap. Not even counting the disasters which can hit in the trillion dollars



Not to mention that Thorium is much more abundant in the earth's crust and provides much more energy that uranium ever does. And the thorium liquid salt reactors are designed to be much safer than traditional solid fuel rod reactors.


There is enough uranium reserves dissolved in the ocean to last us for millions of years.
But that is not all nuclear power can also use thorium which is a by-product of rear earth magnet mining, and we already have enough of that stuff for several thousand years. Not that any of this would matter, we're probably not going to use nuclear power for more than a few hundred years before we find something better.

Nuclear power is also much cheaper than wind and solar, because you have to factor in the cost of batteries with wind and solar.
To build power lines for dispersed renewables with enough battery capacity that can power something as energy-hungry like a steel furnace (which has to run 24/7), it becomes stupid expensive.

Renewable energy is in no way a replacement for primary power generation like nuclear. You really need the power density of something like nuclear reactions for a lot of applications. Renewable energy is complementary to nuclear power. The big energy requirements of huge industries and big cities can be met by nuclear plants, while the many dispersed low energy requirements can be met very flexibly by battery-buffered renewable energy.

Why are you continuing this idiotic sentiment that renewable and nuclear power are oppositional.
I feel like i have to repeat my self again



Not really


More contrivances, mixed energy-source load-balancing grids are the norm now. And modern nuclear plants don't have to run at a set power level, they have dynamic power out-put.


File: 1662930902961.jpg (121.73 KB, 800x450, No_idea_jpg.jpg)

>When you ask nuclear apologists where will the cool water come from in a warming Earth


>Anon has never heard of molten salt reactors.


There's one online reactor and it's only a demonstrator. It's not clear if it will work as advertised because it could be that cycling liquid fuel trough the core has too much problems.


File: 1663460113375.png (1.4 MB, 1160x895, ClipboardImage.png)

Japan is about to get dicked by a hurricane


>>1177056 (me)
technically its a typhoon


Divine wind reverse UNO card


File: 1664183786853.jpg (41.95 KB, 390x464, BlackWoj1.jpg)

>India to increase their number of coal fired power plants by 25% to combat the global energy crisis.


Who is “we”?

When the doomer says that “humanity is fucked”, “we dont deserve this planet” and “the earth would be better without us.” Who are is the ‘we’ and ‘us’ they speak of?
The doomer wants to say that all humanity are culpable for all the sins of those who fall within the category of human. To be sure, we all participate within our consumer society. Those of us in the west waste far more energy than we should on things we don’t need. Increasingly too, does the developing world as they try to catch up to our living standards.
But when one speaks this way, they individualise a societal problem.
All humans require similar things. Sustenance (both food and water), shelter, community, status and a sense of meaning. But the costs of attaining those things are far different in different countries, in different societies. Both in monetary terms and ecological terms.
Is it fair to say that the consumptive habits of the Thai rice farmer who eats mostly that which surrounds their village is the same as the American suburbanite who eats mostly highly processed foods from all around the world?
Surely not, they cost wildly different amounts to the environment both people live within.
Did the American choose to eat these things? Trivially yes, the American had the choice of many different supermarkets all carrying largely the same thing from the same food production and distribution monopolies.
But when one has the choice between buying from one company and another who both run using industrial agriculture and heavily industrialised food production, the choice is between aesthetics not production systems.
The American is all but required to “choose” to consume their basic needs through systems of agriculture and logistics that take out from the ecology more than they return back to it. Even if they understood this fact, there is not really a viable choice for them to pick more ecologically sustainable food sources.
The American might gain more capital, and be able to buy from farm-to-table agriculture, an industry that is growing rapidly. But to gain more capital means working in jobs that facilitate the much more profitable and ecologically destructive production systems that are the norm.
What good is individually eating organic, locally sourced food if one is a landlord that forces 20 people to work for Mcdonalds through charging them rent?

So we have a problem where the vast majority of humans can see that the world ecology is falling to pieces but individually all of our choices lead back to participating in or facilitating the rape of the land.
The doomer will say that this is humanities fault. But of course thats not true.
The Thai rice farmer much like the American fast food worker’s consumption choices are largely baked into the system that they live within.
Now the American might have culpability in destroying the world ecology if they genuinely had power over said decision. But the American has neither community power nor political power to change the way that the system functions.
In effect, the doomer who says that humanity is at fault for climate change is saying something similar to the individual French soldier who fought in WW2 was at fault for WW2 for participating in it.

The Elite, the Bourgeoisie or whatever you wish to call it spend a lot of resources attempting to get us to identify with them.
Jeff Bezos would probably tell you he’s an American. But what does that really mean?
Jeff Bezos is responsible for countless labor violations and deaths because of the practices of his company. Jeff Bezos can go to whatever country he pleases with his money. If he decides to go to court, he will likely only lose if he is going up against someone with the same level of capital as him to throw at the court system.
Jeff Bezos and the other members of his class do not participate in the same culture as you. He doesn’t eat the same, he doesn’t talk the same, doesn’t do the same things or care about the same things.
Yet he will still call himself an American.
And when his company kills another couple hundred through overwork, you will say, “this is just what happens in America”. Americans just fuck eachother over don’t they?
You are forced to identify with a category bestowed upon you by birth. Not because you chose it, not because you believe in it, but because you’ve been branded American cattle and you can’t change that.
If you decide you don’t want to call yourself American, they will tell you you are a pitiful self-hating American. Trying to deny something you essentially are.
You can’t deny you grew up within the boundaries of the USA or Canada or New Zealand or France or whatever. You can’t deny you weren’t submerged within the culture of your homeland.
So you call yourself American and every time your country bombs another one or assasinated a union leader or denies its population the very basic necessities of life, you feel a slight pang of guilt.
It wasn’t you who did it, but Americans did it and you are American aren’t you?

“The earth is not dying, its being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses”

Humans living regular lives who get what they need to survive and enjoy life simply don’t destroy planets. We’ve existed on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years and failed to destroy the planet. It is only recently, in the past few hundred years, that a culture and a production system arose that has begun to threaten the planet.
Elon Musk believes that it is worth going to Mars because “Either we spread Earth to other planets, or we risk going extinct. An extinction event is inevitable and we’re increasingly doing ourselves in."
But as per usual, who is the ‘we’ who is doing ourselves in and who is the ‘we’ who is going to spread to other planets?
The rich use the language of togetherness when speaking about the consequences of their destructive deeds on the world. The rich will use the language of individuality when speaking of how those consequences are affecting you.
They’ll tell you that you should learn to buy more sustainably, live within your budget. They’ll tell you to upskill yourself so you can get that extra pay day and then none of the problems you complain about will be problems for you anymore.
Of course, they’ll be a problem for someone else but the conversation about ‘us’ only goes so far right?
You are not a human being in the same way Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos are. They will happily say they are bringing humanity forward, into the next century or whatever bullshit they throw.
But they are only ever bringing themselves forward, and for what?
What do we toil for? Houses? And end to our credit card and student debt? To get our parents medical care? To pursue our hobbies of art, literature, coding, whatever.
We toil for those fundamental human things that we need to survive and enjoy this wonderful world.
What do they toil for? They have houses. They dont have debt if they don’t need to. They have the finest medical care. They could pursue any number of interesting hobbies, but they dont.
They refuse to act like humans and thus deny it for all the rest of us.
The Bourgeoisie sees the human vessel as something to be avoided. They deplore the muck and the inefficiency of the body. Consider how much money Elon Musk will throw at preventing people from having rapid public transport. I’m sure this has much to do with propping up the car industry but it also has just as much to do with separating himself and those of their class from having to interact with other people.
The bourgeoisie produced the suburban hellscape, a fantastic way to deny social organisation and social interaction. Communities split by car transit so kids can no longer play in the street nor even get anywhere without total parental supervision.
The bourgeoisie sees the goal in life to be an endless dick-measuring contest for prestige with those of their class. They battle over who can ‘advance’ society the most. They create endless new products to gain capital and prestige. Products who inevitably end up in landfill because of planned obsolescence.
They compete over who can gain the most capital, to such a point that money no longer is a means to gain services but more like points in a video game.
Points that are gained at the expense of human lives.
These games are alien us. To speak of humanity and lump us with them into the same category makes that category completely meaningless.
To say we are responsible for killing the planet when we never had even a modicum of power over the means of production is ludicrous.
These people are mentally ill. The power they have over other people has blinded them to the consequences of their actions. They’ve ceased to see other people as humans with inherent value and have instead pursued their vanity projects to the point where they will literally destroy the world.

They have dehumanised us to the point where we have no homes, no medicine, no food.
What good is ‘progress’ if we go back to living like serfs?
We have a responsibility to stop them. They can’t offer us anything anymore because any extra money they offer us still leads to a dead planet. We have no insurance policy but that which is gained with their downfall.
We are lucky in a way. Other generations had to fight to figure out meaning but we have one ready made. Us of the lower class are in a fight for survival.
“We” did not destroy the world. They destroyed the world, we merely wanted to live.
There is no single humanity that encompasses us and them.
They lose or we die.



>A fisheries official on B.C.’s central coast said he and his staff have never seen salmon dying before spawning in the magnitude they are right now.

>Recently in the Neekas River — on the mainland, about 20 kilometres north of Bella Bella — some Heiltsuk Nation conservation staff saw thousands of dead salmon, conservation manager William Housty told Black Press Media.

>“In past years it has been half-a-dozen or a dozen but now we are seeing 10s of 1,000s.”


File: 1665965416015.png (336.2 KB, 632x604, global climate.png)

time to move to canada and or russia


Comrade Xi, send in the nukes.


>exterminism isn't rea-


At this point I prefer barbaric nuclear annihilation to the dystopian future where genocide is accepted as a "necessity" while billionaires are maintained to keep the order as is, going. At least with mutual annihilation what's left of the human race will be sent back to the stone age which is preferable.


I really really really hate the antichrist.


>still gucci

you can't write us off yet fuckers!


Classicide is self-defense.


File: 1665968091468.png (11.72 KB, 89x56, ClipboardImage.png)

Sp*in, It*ly, and Gr*ece confirmed for 3rd world


What are you guys complaining about? It's the truth, the global South will take on much of the damages. It's also true that the areas near the poles will become needed and desirable. It's a fact that within Canada and Russia, lays immense land that will warm up over the next century. As areas around the equator… Become more inhospitable the push to the poles is real. What is the entire climate refugee crisis about, it's about the global south, going north.


It's a prescriptive claim ("this should happen") disguised as a descriptive claim ("this objectively will happen") in that no alarm and a callous 'business as usual apathy' underlies the financiers' analysis. It does not help that the class to which the financiers, the bourgeoisie, as a whole, publishes anti-ecology FUD to keep petroleum profits high.

Some oughts are disguised as isses.


This thread is deader than the polar bear. Environmentalism is a dead end. People want rising living standards which demands the exploitation of natural resources. We have a duty to benefit the humans at the expense of exotic birds. Whatever consequences scientists cry about we can deal with later. Greenies glow anyway and are into weird shit like naked orgies in the forest with no age minimums and veganism.


based retard. we need to benefit the working class by uhh… making everything below 40th latitude an uninhabitable hellscape.


>People want rising living standards which demands the exploitation of natural resources.
But what if the exploitation of the biosphere to raise these living standards eventually reaches a 'bell-curve' inflection point where the effects of that exploitation begin to outstrip any possible benefit of modern industrial society?
>We have a duty to benefit the humans at the expense of exotic birds.
The critique of how production is handled in modernity [if not the entirety of post Industrial-Revolution society in general] often genuinely has little to do with 'think about the animals' logic [except for some of the shittiest of shitlibs]
The entire point is that it's making human lives more shitty.

Already in the first-world 'Social-Democracies', which itself has its population shielded from the most immediate effects of industrial pollution due to the transport of heavy industry to the 'developing world' Life-Expectancy has flattened out at best or is now actively shrinking at worst.
Birth-rates are continuing to collapse as every single thing we come in contact with is essentially making us Asexed and sterile.
Stomach, Colon and Intestinal cancer rates are spiking for much the same reason.

Unless this is solved, all data is pointing towards us approaching some sort of Children of Men knockoff collapse of Macro-level political/economic organisation as the human population plateaus and collapses.


>We have a duty to benefit the humans at the expense of exotic birds.
Having cars isn't a benefit. Having planned obsolescense in consumer products isn't a benefit. Having plastic toys delivered in days in co2 super boats isn't a benefit. Eating industrial farm meat instead of cell grown isn't a benefit. With time, many people are realising this. The duty will be to act upon it and force the measures neccesary.


>We have a duty to benefit the humans at the expense of exotic birds


Lol this. T. Below 40th latitude anon. This shit is unbearable. I'm migrating north at the soonest opportunity. Cold is way better than heat. Nothing you can wear to mitigate heat.


File: 1667212489345.png (1.33 MB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)



File: 1667217280515.jpg (Spoiler Image, 12.98 KB, 262x467, hentai_girl_hidden.jpg)

>Birth-rates are continuing to collapse as every single thing we come in contact with is essentially making us Asexed and sterile.
Yeah but it's giving teenagers huge tits so


File: 1667217642178.jpg (43.45 KB, 485x443, 1613127891372.jpg)

>Perth and Darwin are fine
What the absolute fuck?


Jungle gang needs to fight the gardeners before then.


The Jungle Peoples Gang



File: 1667549244043.gif (686.58 KB, 200x200, american psycho card.gif)

>58,000 tweets


What do you get when you cross rotting leaves with humid and seasonally abnormal warm weather?
Probably the worst fucking miasma ever


File: 1668522991006.png (419.94 KB, 790x829, ClipboardImage.png)

i feel like im watching a man with a severed cock desperately dry hump a pillow. you couldn't make more wheel-spinning ineffectual nonsense if you tried.


They made you talk about it didn't they


these protests are glow


While these protests are obviously twatty, they are serving to keep the climate in the news which is something


>they are serving to keep the climate in the news which is something
you know, china certainly seems to be getting lots of airtime in the news too, i wonder how their public opinion is these days


Yes anon you're right, these protests are going to make people hate and be afraid of the environment (???????)


yes actually, because the actions are incomprehensible to most people when they try to imagine what productive climate activism looks like, and incongruous to any actual positive change. its confusing and, considering most people don't hate classic works of art, its perfectly normal for them to have a visceral negative reaction to seeing people mindlessly deface them


they literally only have attacked ones with glass coverings so far as I know, it's a nothingburger.

But what alternatives would you suggest? It has to be something 'shocking' enough to get in the news remember.


Damn, the cynical liberals of /r/collapse absolutely deserve to be shot
Posting in here since this is the climate thread, and, surprise surprise, the upper middle class coastal crackers that populate shitholes like Reddit are now going towards fascism and genocidal responses to the ecological crisis now that they’re black pilled

Ngl I truly, utterly hate the UMC with a fucking passion, and no, I don’t give a FUCK if they’re “technically working class”, these fuckers have more in common with Elon Musk than with me, I actually struggle to survive, they don’t


You again, why do you keep posting stuff from people saying 'yes there will probably be a genocidal response to the climate crisis' and saying that means they support that happening?


Because these same people will also scream until they’re blue in the face that the problem is overpopulation and you’re an idiot and a coward for not seeing it


overpopulation is not 'the' problem but it is 'a' problem


File: 1668532296646.png (1.85 MB, 1866x1822, Ecofascism.png)

Let me tell you a story in two reddit posts


Is it not obvious that referring to human population as a “problem” can only lead to a single solution in many people’s minds?
The world isn’t overpopulated, Capital uses the massive human population of the modern age to destroy the world


Well it is possible that the world could sustain the current population in degrowth socialism but as of this moment it can't, so yes we are overpopulated as of this moment.

Stop being so oversensitive whenever you hear someone bring up that word because the rest of those posts are basically reasonable. Obviously people like this suck but they aren't really the majority >>1268273


File: 1668535273124.png (38.03 KB, 193x165, ClipboardImage.png)


fashoids gonna fash
the solution to the overpopulation meme is planning. of course if we let porky run amok then people will starve, and it's certainly not going to be people in the imperial core who will take the brunt of that


It's not a problem since it will solve itself. Populations are self-correcting. Once a species becomes objectively overpopulated a correction in the form of mass death is certain. If 10 billion people is too many then a few billion will die and everything will be good. There's no need for an intentional genocide.


what you describe is what happens in capitalism every year to the tune of 20 million people. it's a bit callous tbqh
we know that fertility is negatively correlated with infant mortality and quality of life. der chinleten chalks this up to da jooz of course. but if we raise standards of living in the global south their fertility will drop too. not that we're at risk of running out of food at the moment - feed feed a lot of it (our precious SOY) to animals


John Magufuli, the former president of Tanzania said that women who uses contraceptives are "lazy". Samia Suluhu Hassan, the current president has made a hard 180 turn on the issue.

Then there's the fuckstick Obianuju Ekeocha who claims that Africa has a special culture that values life. Funny. I can't hear it over all the ongoing forever brushfire wars and genocides.


File: 1668715899346.mp4 (1.71 MB, 490x480, ihga3sgo0h0a1.mp4)

We're not wolves and rabbits, we can solve those kind of problems easily with the power of human spirit


>While these protests are obviously twatty, they are serving to keep the climate in the news which is something
By associating it with twats that risks little?

Solid thinking, there.


the alternative is the climate crisis being totally ignored entirely


At this point it feels like all these climate protests are false-flags to make climate people look like lunatics.


Would be less harmful than having it associated with these "people."


>the alternative is the climate crisis being totally ignored entirely
What is the omission of the third option?

>At this point it feels like all these climate protests are false-flags to make climate people look like lunatics.
Doesn't have to be false-flags. Consider the low risk. The painting IS covered by glass: >>1268148

So there's at least TWO paintings covered by glass that had paint on the glass. And this seems to be the M.O.

So let's sum it up:

Be indoors (as opposed to being outdoors, it's easier to control your surrondings).
Standing still (ass opposed to Ende Geländes running around in overalls).
No real vandalism, just symbolic (that will lower the sentences handed out).

That has lowered the threshold. You don't really need any XR-buddy groups where you get together and have this non-hierarchical..whatever. And there was some classical concert that was disturbed by JSO. They was chased out by the audience. Imagine! A bunch of zoomers getting chased out by preppy boomers! XD

Also this:

<Diversifying our energy mix is crucial and can be cost-positive if done properly. Wind and solar have seen historic drops in cost in recent years, and although traditional nuclear energy infrastructure is expensive to build, new generation nuclear is nearly ready. Rather than relying entirely on fossil fuels to power our world, we can pursue alternatives. Still, fossil fuels will have a place for years to come, so we should work to ensure our fossil fuel production is as clean as possible. By utilizing emissions-reducing technologies like carbon capture and innovative techniques, we can reduce the emissions that current fossil fuel production creates.

<While Just Stop Oil activists may have the right intentions, their message sends all the wrong signals. Climate activists should be willing to work with industry to have the cleanest practices possible while still providing much needed energy to the world. Now that the midterms are over, Republicans and Democrats should work together to ensure that our world has affordable, abundant, and increasingly clean energy. Climate-smart Republicans were victorious in the midterms because Americans want a smart, pragmatic energy strategy — but one that also protects the environment.

Let the last sentence sink in…

>they literally only have attacked ones with glass coverings so far as I know, it's a nothingburger.
See above.

>But what alternatives would you suggest? It has to be something 'shocking' enough to get in the news remember.

What are lowered returns? They could as well have a weekly immolation and no one would care. Or "the system" would adapt to have firefighters ready at the announced place and time.


>Let the last sentence sink in…

That's from a Republican magazine so?…


>That's from a Republican magazine so?…
Not denying it. But it may hint that the age of divisive radicalism are at an end.


File: 1669273240110.png (617.01 KB, 974x1196, index.png)

You all know about the shady ties folks like Greta Thunberg and orgs like XR have with porkies and glowies. Now you will enjoy discovering that on the other side of the spectrum a strange Russian cult has engaged in bizarre but extensive climate change denial psyop on internet, essentially directed at central/eastern Europe, tricking or pressuring politicians and scientists in publicly supporting them even.
You can enjoy their website, beware, it's schizo material
Fossil burners and schizoids are in a symbiotic relationship at this point and I don't know who is is using who.


File: 1669292884156.png (341.12 KB, 787x725, ClipboardImage.png)

and the climate crisis has barely even begun, white boy!


>the alternative is the climate crisis being totally ignored entirely
i beg of you to point out to me in what corner of this grand earth is the climate crisis not at least approaching permanent residence in the collective consciousness. we are way past the point of needing adequate coverage of the current mess, now its like a play-by-play of our terminal decline into self-imposed obliteration. the time now is for actual, concrete steps forward if we ever want actual change, not brainrotted liberal retards with their faggoty plans to throw soup at a fucking van gogh painting. my god


File: 1669296070735.png (754.65 KB, 784x865, ClipboardImage.png)

>At this point it feels like all these climate protests are false-flags to make climate people look like lunatics.
daily reminder that yes, their goal is to make activism punishable by death, and thats why theyre so obnoxious and disruptive without an ounce of real progress developed in their wake. just bald-faced paid actors at this point, no room at all to justify their actions on their face, let alone when coupled with obvious attempts to just made everything worse on purpose


admitting that you would back down in any circumstances is some weak shit. you can't let your enemy know when your weak.


wtf is up with that green line in africa?


no one's going to mention how fucking hard that painting looks with the black paint on it??


>implying that only death will make people back down
But ok, let's take their words at face value.

First, UK abolished the death penalty in war time in 1998. So reinstating it is simply not on the table. They could as well that the only thing that will make them back down is if the Household Cavalry run them over riding on unicorns. This statement doesn't serve anything but politically correct adventurism.

Second, the state can kill you if you force its hand. As a general rule, the more free a country is, the higher the threshold is.

Third, there's a cost for everything. IFF we assume that members of JSO are doing a suicide by cop that will not only weed out the most fanatic/persueable, but also scare people away. Who will join a club that's under investigation for being a suicide-cult?


Reminds me of Francis Bacon for some reason…


White PMCs over at rcollapse are exactly like that
these types are full on Garden vs Jungle fashoids


And heatwaves aint good shit on the incoming widespread famines


>Well it is possible that the world could sustain the current population in degrowth socialism but as of this moment it can't, so yes we are overpopulated as of this moment.
The world can't sustain capitalism even if we bring population to 1 billion or lower, so this line of though is pretty stupid.


Yet all the screenshots posted don't actually show that.


Maybe so, but at least we would have longer to fix things in that case.


No, it's completely retarded malthusian fantasy. Killing 7 billion of humans will be much harder than making a socialist revolution, because both people and most porkies would be against it. Not to mention that the process itself will likely fuck up the environment. And at the end you will have no popular support, confirm the porky propaganda about communist killing billions and have no improvement on environmental front.

Go back to pol.


Wake up earthers it's time for "climate thing worse than previously thought" news of the day


every time anyone mentions overpopulation you retards are like 'HURR DURR YOU WANT TO KILL 7 BILLION PEOPLE'. no uygha I just think maybe birth rates going down isn't a bad thing.


You replied to the conversation where lowering population to 1 billion was discussed explicitly. Read uygha read.


letting people die just to preserve the quality of life for others is eugenics


You can be disingenuous all you want. No one will stop you. But you're mistaken; that's just politics.



You can 'bring population to 1 billion or lower' without genocide you know, and also that was just a hypothetical point


As a compromise I propose we cull all the malthusianists so they get what they want and we get what we want (them not shitting up the thread)

Unique IPs: 224

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]