Right-wing hypocrisy on climate change and solutions

As a minority, surrounded by minorities, mostly living in minority communities
The overall conclusion about you bizarre liberals is that you don't understand the words you're saying, you just parrot them over and over again.

*Squawk* structural inequalities
*Squawk* marginalised communities

You don't know anything about minority communities, the problems or the solutions, you only know how to parrot lines from unrelated people and inner city grifters.
A person who knows s**t about anything doesn't use lines like the ones in this meme.

its embarrassing that they all apparently think like that. the only thing these people do is chalk up every problem to everyone else on gods green earth. Apparently the 5 year old tribal kid in the jungle holds more responsibility for the black community than a gang member shooting people in it.

I don't know what you're talking about, but you sound like you don't believe that the global economy is structured to benefit the rich and powerful. Well, take a look at this then:

"The United Nations Food Systems Summit held last September was eclipsed by a powerful countermobilization effort led by farmers and scientists, as well as civil society groups allied with Indigenous communities and small-scale food producers across the world. These are the very people critical to achieving the summit’s stated goals of ending hunger and promoting sustainable agriculture. The scientists and advocates accused summit organizers of compromising on food security, democratic accountability, sustainability, and the human rights of producers and workers in favor of transnational agribusinesses."

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-biotech-crops-can-crash-and-still-never-fail/

This was from an article in Scientific American.

Us "woke liberals" don't seem so privileged now huh?

P.S: if you want to stop gun violence in this country, maybe think about gun control and improving the environment black people grow up in.

"Systemic barriers constrain the implementation of adaptation options in vulnerable sectors, regions and social groups. Key barriers include limited resources, lack of private-sector and civic engagement, insufficient mobilisation of finance, lack of political commitment, limited research and/or slow and low uptake of adaptation science and a low sense of urgency. Inequity and poverty also constrain adaptation, leading to soft limits and resulting in disproportionate exposure and impacts for most vulnerable groups. The largest adaptation gaps exist among lower income population groups" (from the IPCC, all said with high confidence).

And in the same paragraph: "Many funding, knowledge and practice gaps remain for effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation of adaptation (high confidence), including, lack of climate literacy at all levels and limited availability of data and information (medium confidence); for example for Africa, severe climate data constraints and inequities in research funding and leadership reduce adaptive capacity (very high confidence)".

. . .
. .
.
Ever hear of 'plain English'? Look it up some time.

So you don't like the IPCC, the largest scientific organization on climate change in the world. Alright, that's fine then. I can cite things that aren't the IPCC:

"Heat waves are now also killing hundreds of Americans each year. Particularly at risk, experts say, are people who live in dense urban neighborhoods that lack trees, open space, reflective rooftops, and other infrastructure that can help dissipate the heat absorbed by asphalt, concrete, and brick. Research has shown that temperatures in such areas can get up to 15°F hotter than in surrounding neighborhoods on summer days. The fact that these so-called “urban heat islands” are inhabited largely by Black and Latino people is now seen as a glaring racial inequity that should be redressed by investing in public-infrastructure projects that would make the neighborhoods cooler and safer."

source: https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/6-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-now

Oh yeah I forgot to cite my source for the IPCC: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf (it's on page 28, under section 2.3.2, "Adaptation Gaps and Barriers").

This is the alternative to renewable energy:

https://wilderutopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Steam-and-Smoke-in-Alberta-Tar-Sands-Alex-MacLean.png

I'm not gonna start having a debate about your personal experiences. But I will debate someone if they start to bash renewable energy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about but do you deny that methane is a very potent greenhouse gas?

What's interesting is that if opposition to renewable energy wasn't associated with the right, you would seem like an environmentalist (other than the fact that you criticise environmentalists in the meme);

'Fracking' rhymes with 'hacking' and an encroachment upon your civil liberties: https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry/we_are_being_watched/

In any case I think that the actual scientific truth that GHGs are warming the atmosphere was established way before the left "got woke" and started believing in gender ideology.

I'm pretty sure that article doesn't cite ANY climate scientists.

Also transgender ideology makes the distinction between gender identity and biological sex, which is a distinction whether or not you disagree with it, so you can't really say that they biologically can't tell the difference between biological girls and boys.

The transgender "debate" (which people have killed themselves over, and I'd like to see more people mention that) is a debate about language, not a technical definition of boy or girl. The contentious question is whether or not someone who simply IDENTIFIES as a boy or a girl should be called a boy or a girl

Now if you're talking about gender reassignment surgery that's a WHOLE NOTHER ISSUE, but it doesn't have anything to do with not being able to tell the difference between boys or girls.

To you this probably means that environmentalists are hypocritical, but to me this alternatively means that right wingers are hypocritical;

I'm sorry I don't understand this you'll have to explain it to me.

Since to them the alternative to renewable energy is not small farms and livestock raised on local pastures;

And yet... that's why they are trying to shut down small farms...

It seems at least that to Alex Epstein and the fossil-fuel defence movement the alternative to renewable energy is coal, fracking, bitumen oil extraction, factory farming, intensive agriculture with Monsanto, and unbridled industrial development without concern for the natural habitat...

Well it's a shame that the US political system isn't more like it is in Denmark and Deutschland
https://archive.org/details/pdfy-Skb-ch_k7psDm90Q/page/n119/mode/2up

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I do have to agree with the fossil-fuel proponents in one sense that we do have to produce energy to power our lives and that is going to have some effect on the natural environment.

But I would argue that that effect is drastically lower for renewable energy than for coal, oil, natural gas, and yes, nuclear.

And so my words don't get taken out of context I want to clarify that I am talking about the negative effect on the natural environment, not every human effect on the environment is negative.