1. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    Well, according to my Liberal 3rd grade teacher that showed us end of the world documentaries we all were have supposed to have died in the late 80's. Then in the late 80's they changed the date. Then again in the 90's. Again in the early 2000's. I guess the latest is less than 12 years from now? For some reason they can't seem to get the date right. I need specifics people. I want to be able to plan out my exact final day to the second. I need to make sure I have time to play Octopath Traveler for at least 1 hour before I die on the day I lie. Tis' my goal in life.
     
  2. azoreseuropa

    azoreseuropa GBAtemp Guru
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    9,287
    Country:
    Portugal
    What are you talking about ? You believe human being about the date ? That's silly. The fact is that earth is getting worse and it is not getting better that's all. PERIOD. Date and when are not predictable at all. You believe them because of date ? No wonder your teacher was stupid than I thought. LOL!
     
  3. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    Chill. It was a joke, well, not the part about the date. I was making fun of the fact that no one really knows what they're talking about. Hey, plants thrive on C2O and personally I'd sort of like a warmer climate. So we slow down the next ice age and we'll have more plant life. Doesn't sound too bad to me. Maybe it'll be like when the Dinosaurs roamed the earth (climate wise). So, some places they said would be underwater 30 years ago might finally be underwater and some people will have to move. The people that built cities under sea level should just have never built them under sea level (as flooding was always a danger). Maybe some species die out and some adjust. We'll have to adjust the crops we grow. Come up with new tech. That's how it's always been. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. Everyone is always so "gloom and doom" about the issue. I tend to be more optimistic regarding it. Is the world going to be inhabitable in less than 12 years? No. Will it be slightly warmer? Probably. Are we all going to die? Eventually, but not in less than 11 years due to man made climate change. I'm not an man made climate change denier - I just don't follow sheep. I mean - what else is causing it (volcano's anyone)? Can we really fix it? Does it need fixing to begin with? I'm not denying it's not happening, but I'm not going to suddenly start voting for rich ass old Liberals who fly around in jets, have lots of cars and houses that produce 10x the carbon as my parents house does - as they don't have any intention on fixing anything. They just want to pass off socialism so they can take control, which will leave 99% of us citizen poor (after we spend all of the rich peoples money) and then leave the 1% of the high ranking Government officials rich and in power (with no way to fight them since we'd have given up our guns). Yeah, Venezuela is a prime example of the late term results of socialism and California Cities are a prime examples of it in the process of failing.
     
    Last edited by cots, Nov 29, 2019
  4. azoreseuropa

    azoreseuropa GBAtemp Guru
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    9,287
    Country:
    Portugal
    You don't think we're all doomed ? You think it's not that big of a deal ? Be careful what you are wish for.

    Nobody know and we don't know how Earth will handle it in the future. It is better not to say that, really. A slightly warmer ? Probably ? There is no probably. Yes, it is already more than slightly warmer. I don't know if you are older or younger.

    I remembered about the winter in 1980's in my state. A long colder snowing weather and snow was already there for long 3-4 months. Right now in our state.. Snow disappear in weeks after bad snow. Sometimes no snow in a year at all. Yes, it is obviously more than slightly warmer. Maybe not in your state or something. It is a beginning of amok in the future.

    And you don't notice.. Many people are not getting together all the time. They are minding their business with smartphones and computers and cable tv at home more everyday. In my past time, we getting together every weekends.. Went out to pinic and many more. Now, our families are not like that anymore thanks to stupid technology keep them distraction and loveless. Only getting together is "FAKE" holidays such as Thanksgiving, XMAS and something like that. Yeah. Earth is gone wrong.. Human being changed as well as technology advance as well as climax weather getting advance also. Makes sense.
     
  5. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    The lack of snow doesn't mean you're going to die nor does it mean it's being caused by climate change. There's weather patterns that are always changing. I mean, unless you have temperature readings that you can look at and say "it's 2 degrees warmer in the winters then it was in the 80's" there could be other causes. And say if it is warmer. Oh well. You have less snow. It still rains. You'll get warmer, new plant life will grow, there're be new weather cycles. The world isn't ending - it's just changing (like it always has).

    Are these the same people that say that I need to vote for Liberals to fix climate change while sitting on their ass for hours on end using devices with large carbon footprints to do so with? What exactly powers those devices? Eh? Yeah, cellphones are junk. So you support "green" stuff. Why are you buying a new phone every year? These assholes have no fucking right to tell me I who I need to vote for or what I need to change when they're the ones contributing more carbon than I am! Anyway, if you're addicted to cell phones (which is a real mental disorder) then you're part of the problem. Tech is dirty shit. Just as dirty as coal. Don't get me started on people that own cars ....
     
    Last edited by cots, Nov 29, 2019
  6. azoreseuropa

    azoreseuropa GBAtemp Guru
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    9,287
    Country:
    Portugal
    No, I didn't say about die. Nobody is going to die because of it. The sign is showing and it is not good. A new plant life will grow ? Look at many animals are blink of the extinct. Ok, I think you are not getting about climax change.

    This Earth is not going to be gone.. but human being is.. Look at newer diseases, overpopulation, corruption, hate is increase, killing is increase, and many more. Yeah, I don't think you get the picture.
     
  7. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,611
    Country:
    Laos
    Yeah, but its climate change though. Science says so by a 95:5 margin. (Dumb simplification, but essentially.)
    Even oil industry is acting as though science is real (investments), but giving PR speeches as if it isnt (price stability).
    Only people that promote 'not real' by a larger factor compaired to their representational importance, are some political fractions.


    We went over this a few times already.

    You are dealing with complex systems - so you make projections, and claim certain trends. There is no way to 'guard' that against some antagonistic moron coming along and claiming - yes, but in this case - it still might be just weather and...

    This is macro level vs. micro level arguing. So no macro level prediction can ever be right, because micro level can be different in one case - you are saying.


    We went over this a few times already. Its not a simple conspiracy, if all nations worldwide start implementing plans - despite the US under Trump. No - Trumpians are not the only whizballs that see right through this international conspiracy to hurt americans.


    Issue here - on average - also arent weather extremes, but mean cost of temperature rising too quickly to mitigate with technological advancement alone. Also shocks in food production and water ecosystems spreading of diseases, sealevel rise.

    Some of this can be ignored by letting a few island states go under.

    Much of it cant be ignored, when it comes to insurance companies saying - we cant insure against consequences of climate change caused fallout, if trajectories continue like this.

    This is also why big insurance companies are on the forefront of awareness campaigns around that stuff.
    --

    Its also not so much a discussion about IF. (As if the president would be keeper of the truth.) But when. And when alone determines winners and losers in certain fields structurally - because lets say - the US are a fairly isolated continent, that overproportionally profits from sticking to carbon energy sources for longer (Because for example, oil has to be payed for in USD).

    So thats what the fight really is about - and yes its already costing lives currently.
    -

    The next issue is, that this is a global problem. That you best tackle outside of your country (because its cheeper if you do).
    And programs to 'make forest greener in africa' arent that popular amongst populations.

    Also - if one major player simply rejects to participate - every other state has less incentive to stay on trajectory as well - because that major state - currently doing jack about it - will profit exponentially compaired to its direct rival - because its a real cost factor.
    -

    So yes. Currently america is destroying the world again. But mostly the world in 200 years (as far a the west is concerned). And when they stop doing so - will impact, who is winning future economic sectors and by how much.

    Also - currently renewable energy solutions have lower profit margins than carbon based solutions. By afair more than half. Even in the best scenarios. So... Yeah. Companies in the energy sector (who have investment capital, and most likely will become the biggest future players in the renewable field as well) dont necessarily want to end that more quickly.

    Also, if you transition later. Impact will be higher (think disarray). Risks will be higher. And losses will be higher. Just not equally distributed. And US is in a good position to say - f*ck it, lets transition later.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Nov 29, 2019
  8. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,611
    Country:
    Laos
    McKinsey calculated 'business as usual scenario' for world economy till 2050.

    In ten years - 250 bis 360 Millionen people will be living in regions where deadly heatwaves could take place (think desaster), in 2050 it would be 700 million to 1,2 billion. Affected regions would be f.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesch and Nigeria.

    Industries most affected are building, agriculture and mining ("people working outside").

    Food production in the mediterranean (think Italy, Spain) could falter (Marseille could become like Algier), food production in Canada and Russia would profit.

    Hurricanes and floods would reduce Floridas property value in costal regions by 30%

    Global fishing yields might be reduced by 8% (affecting the basis for living for up to 800 million people).

    Up to a forth of the worlds airports might become unusable due to them having been built only a few meters above sea level.

    And thats just the beginning (2050), so we have to do something at one point in time.. ;)

    src:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-the-economy-climate-risks-are-no-longer-theoretical-11579174209
    https://www.ft.com/content/32a7df5a-37e6-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

    edit: World Economic Forum also has put out a writeup on likely impacts for business:
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/climate-resilience-is-set-to-make-or-break-businesses/
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jan 16, 2020
  9. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,611
    Country:
    Laos
    If you want to hear how this sounds in economic language form, watch this video. :)

    https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2020

    edit: "Party of Davos" still lying to people on how they will like the impacts of the measures necessary, or straight out refusing to answer questions. :) Nothing too new here. Still an interesting watch to gage state of mind of the globally orientated business community.

    Current plan as far as I can tell is to invent a crapton of bullshit jobs (companies taking more social responsibility) "with something positive climate" in the title (to drive up social acceptance) and then cancel them after 10 years or so (or when feasibility runs out, which for the property retrofitting business is in about 10 years (prior to that they will boom)).

    Which looks like the new model (in western countries). Keep poorer people engaged in chasing structural growth jobs, with growth in most individual fields only lasting about 10 years, in downwards trending economies. Chuck a few gig jobs in there as well, voila.

    Workhour and pay reductions inclusive/included. :)

    For the rest, refer to the video. (Accurately depicted there.)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jan 16, 2020
  10. Boesy

    Boesy GBAtemp Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2020
    Messages:
    331
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Almost every day the media brings up climate change, but it's not actually because of it. Politicians, actors, activists.. sigh.

    A lot believe that what happened in Australia was due to climate change. How stupid do they think people are.. a lot, if they believe it religiously.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Also, the parents allowing Greta Thunberg as the face of a movement.. they have no idea that her image on the internet will forever be ruined. I can't stand her and her b.s. speeches are exactly why.

    She should have been kept in school than go on a crusade where she did nothing useful. At least Hollywood didn't get to her.
     
  11. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,611
    Country:
    Laos
    On this you can listen to the one higher IQ dude on the Davos risk management panel. He outlines it correctly. Climate change is responsible for a higher chance and frequency of extreme weather events, but you can not attribute the "caused by climate change" kind of probability to single events.

    So while climate change does contribute to size, frequency and severeness of such events, you can never say that that or the other one was caused by climate change statistically.

    People do it (f.e. Australia), because, shortcuts in thinking and arguing. ;) Theres no harm to it.

    Actually no - the opposite, I made a list of "speeches in front of decision makers/power brokers" per month, to which she spoke after being 'discovered', once - and it is astounding. I think out of 18 months, there were only 4 or so - where she didnt (publicly) talk to the highest head honchos in politics and business.

    Davos had climate change as a front and center issue since 2016. If anything - that girl is set up for life. :)

    She went faster to Davos, than to Germany or France. Next week she will be there for the second time... ;) She has prevented the Fridays for Future movement to become political at SMILE in Lausanne (Switzerland) last year - that girl is highly connected, and does all the things the (globalized) establishment likes. ;)

    The last speech she did (NY climate summit), did seem 'forced' (she forced herself to get into a certain emotional space), I think you can objectively say that. Also - I'd wager, that she has gone through media training by now (watch the full length BBC (radio, but on video) Attenborough interview she did rencently.. ;) Its on youtube.). Again, not much harm in that either.

    As far as her facts go, they are mostly 'state of the art' climate science wise - but they are also political messaging. So you have to listen closely to statements like 'if nothing changes', or qualifiers like that. As shes an activist, shes allowed to do that.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jan 20, 2020
  12. Boesy

    Boesy GBAtemp Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2020
    Messages:
    331
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Well, you seem to be the only one who replies to these threads so you're just talking to yourself. I'd disagree with you on many points, but I don't have the time to.
     
    Rolf12 likes this.
  13. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,611
    Country:
    Laos
    And also no arguments, by the looks of it.

    edit: Here is a little more but not for you, since you arent interested, and have no time. ;)

    If you look at the person who discovered Greta (Ingmar Rentzhog), hes now building a network against climate change, featuring f.e. Åsa Wallenberg (SPP, Storebrand) (see: https://campaigns.wedonthavetime.or...sil-free-c12c2c34-751d-41c4-bb99-ce120a63f48e ).

    Storebrand is managing assets north of 80 billion USD ( https://www.investmenteurope.net/ne...ubsidiary-spp-moves-eliminate-fossil-exposure )

    - and just expanding to continental europe ( https://www.fbnw.se/articles/2019/march/asa-wallenberg-we-are-bringing-our-funds-to-europe/ ), sending out tweets like the following:


    If you want to read up on the Wallenberg familiy, just for the kicks of it ;):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family
    --

    Gretas Speech circuit log in the past 12 months reads as follows:

    November 2018 - Stockholm (TedX, introduction into polite society ;) )
    December 2019 - COP 24
    January 2019 - Davos (World Economic Forum)
    February 2019 - Brussels
    March 2019 - Berlin (Brandenburg Gate speech)
    April 2019 - Strasbourg (European Parliament)
    April 2019 - Vatican (Meeting the Pope)
    May 2019 - Austria (R20 Conference where António Guterres announced UN 2050 goals, the climate summit in NY and she entertained the public together with Arnie)
    July 2019 - Paris (National Assembly)
    August 2019 - Lausanne (SMILE)
    September 2019 - Washington, NY (US Congress, NY Climate Summit, Press meet and greets with Arnie and that guy)
    December 2019 - COP 25
    December 2019 - London (BBC (Radio4) homestory with the father, and interview with Attenborough)
    January 2020 - Davos (World Economic Forum - This years theme: "Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World")

    Lets just say, this is not the schedule of someone who will have difficulties 'finding a job' in the future, or of someone whos struggling actor dad is managing their career.. ;) Works both ways. ;)

    Davos prominently featured Climate Change as a topic, as early as 2016 (https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-europe-medicine-inequality-cybercrime ) - If you dont know what Davos is, and can speak german, or french: https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/085426-000-A/das-forum-rettet-davos-die-welt/
    (You should know how to differentiate PR from content, before watching that video, ideally.)

    Or just look at the intro anyhow.. It should get the point across.. ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jan 20, 2020
  14. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,611
    Country:
    Laos
    Grotesque PR trash in Davos


    "So, for me its like - when I hear, we have to do something about 2050, I'm like - really?! People are dying and..."

    If 'in your region' a larger amount of people are dying because of extreme weather phenomenons, I've got bad news for you. There is future warming already baked in. So getting up on a freaking panel in Davos and doing the 'creative heart throb story pattern' is probably the most deranged thing you can do (not talking about Greta, btw - who was had for lunch with a short, meaningless statement, that lead into the adults talking), that even harms your own constituency at that point.

    On whats happening currently, not even most of the world sovereign wealth funds could have been convinced, that investing in green growth/energy transition projects is in their long term interest. (This comes from a growth/sustaining wealth perspective, not from a climate denial POV. Just fyi.)

    Issue still mainly is to get everyone onto the table. Because you cant cannibalize your own economy for the greater 200 year, global, goal, if your direct economic competitor next to you does nothing and reaps all cost based benefits you are opening up for them in the process.

    Doing stuff 'more faster now' in that configuration is simply impossible. (If the people slowing down the process are major economic players globally. (So you can't just f.e. pressure them through trade regulations.))
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jan 22, 2020
  15. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,611
    Country:
    Laos
    This is elite building, drawing on a religious motivatible, apolitical (in terms of most current issues) youth:


    You basically create pools, where you source future leaders that then get coopted by any ideology, that someone deems them worth platforming. But the idea is, that they should be so plain and exchangeable in terms of motivation, that almost everything fits.

    This is elites reproducing themselves.

    Climate change is a wonderful ecosystem for this to happen in, because its an issue that has to be tackled at the global stage. Everyone (in terms of stake holders) can agree upon, its only solved by holding peoples aspirations (in the middle classes) down, so elites like it....

    So if you ever wondered, why global elites also are involved in platforming this issue as youth culture especially, its mainly about exact reproduction of value sets. With one additional value, that can only be tackled at the global stage - and is far harder than the naive version of it that is propagated, through activism rhetoric. So any single interest group that tries to tackle it without consensus - fails. Its 'play acting on an entire generations motivation to rebel' as motivation.

    This is stuff I hate.

    And this is still how the real world works:


    edit: In regards to climate change central banks will ease credit (lending) conditions for sustainable investment projects, through easing stress test conditions for banks (in that sector) - and thats about it. (Summery of the second video (but watch for details. ;) ))
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jan 22, 2020
  16. azoreseuropa

    azoreseuropa GBAtemp Guru
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    9,287
    Country:
    Portugal
    Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

    Cute teens but they are lacking of understanding what climate change and human population growth really means but they are not going to fix climate change.. Never. As scientist said it might slow down but it is irreversible damage at all.
     
  17. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,611
    Country:
    Laos
    But how you change rate of climate change is important. Also it might be reversable in the future (technological developments can't be foretold), but this is (in terms of physics - energy expenditure, also risks of some potentially less costly measures...) much, much more costly, than slowing trends now.

    That said - future warming is already baked in - so if you are living in one of the regions thats mostly impacted by climate change currently, to the point, where many of your people are dying - the answer is migration - to get up at a Davos panel doing the "we need more financial stimulus and action now, and our people will learn to cope by looking at birds flying patterns", structurally wont be a solution.

    If you see such a person represented at a Davos panel - they are sitting there for appeasement only (emotional motivation/manipulation).

    Thats the rough cut. ;)


    Mass migration also leads to additional problems on parts of more wealthy economies of course. Unless you are the US, which can fancy itself 'an island' in regards to the 'earlier' mass migrations that will happen. This is an example for why different interest groups play different "timing windows".

    "We have to ignore it, because nothing can be done." Is a lie as well. :)

    US currently has high employment, but is very stressed in terms of borrowing capacity, as I've learned today (last video), so they don't want to invest into long term structural change now. So apparently that also is an economic factor. According to the IMF.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jan 22, 2020
  18. Sasori

    Sasori GBAtemp Addict
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,211
    Country:
    United States
    Nitpicking information and being willfully ignorant tend to go hand and hand with people who don't believe in claimant change.
     
  19. azoreseuropa

    azoreseuropa GBAtemp Guru
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    9,287
    Country:
    Portugal
    Sorry but it is irreversible.
     
  20. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,611
    Country:
    Laos
    Basically yes (theoretically no (think ultra long term.. ;))).

    But your argument doesnt work, because it doesnt end at 3°C automatically, and - "we'll we then have to live with that". At a 6°C change in temperature, most of human civilization will have died out. ;) So rate of temperature growth matters.

    Those (last paragraph) are usually the scenarios I lampoon as 'silly', because humans will take more drastic action to prevent those, but in your case I guess I even have to stress that.

    I dont like to do that, because I hate motivating people politically with apocalyptic visions they will not encounter in the next 80 years - but its still a possibility just a bit further down the road. Growth isnt linear here either. So you dont have another 300+ years to get going either. (Thats what people in the risk assessment panel mean by 'the action windows for 1.5°C and 3°C max are small - we have to act now).)

    And the later you act (starting to reduce impact, starting to reduce dependency on fossile fuels which will be running out eventually (factor of population growth and ressources being limited) the fewer options you'll have. Also the later you act, the more radical changes will become almost by default (more wars, less global trade, less wealth produced, maybe even insurance schemes simply faltering, because of risk that isnt projectable anymore, less prosperity, less time, ...).

    The only thing you have to understand really is, that this is likely not a 'change' that you can innovate yourself out of with "technological advancement only". This is why 'driving people into reduced consumption' is a thing.

    (Or you address it from the other direction and say - well, per capita GDP of western societies is projected to fall by 50% in the next 100 years, while the developing and second world is still growing. But that also can be argued for by "growing societies - cant be left to see their aspirations in living models, that your parents had", because limits of growth.. ;) The only thing that can be argued really is, when you beginn the transitioning process. And how fast you are implementing it. (Or talk about population controlling schemes in a way that no one rather wants to.

    The problem with those (at least those that dont involve armed conflict) is, that high population growth is connected to poverty. ("My children will care for me when I'm older, the state doesnt"), so reducing poverty is effectively reducing population growth as well (stabilizing population growth is something all 'advanced' societies have achieved. Otherwise, this always ends in conflict.).)

    So if your goal is what the youth nowadays calls "global climate justice" - but which really means, reducing poverty, to reduce population, while also reducing average living standards in the west - thats actually the way to produce 'least harm' Sadly thats not how humans work though. (I can't extend my empathy that far, sadly).

    (Societies in egypt existed for 3000 years without structurally changing systems really that much (sustainable). Ancient greeks changed that, introduced rapid (for the time) innovation, the notion that each generation should have it better than the last one - and its that model that arguably some people nowadays dont like anymore.

    So curbed and managed human drives in terms of ambition and economic growth expectancy. Which means the same status quo for the next few hundred years.

    Now there currently is the discussion if this can be rejiggered to some form of sustainable growth (virtual goods, societies of poets and thinkers, ...) (coined: decoupling growth from CO2 emissions), but the current consensus on that rather also is - no it cant. Certainly not at current levels.

    (This is where designing peoples 'happyness' comes in (no joke ;)). So in the future - probably - you will be faced with more 'short term economic trends' that one can make a good living of, for maybe 10 years, and that then will go away again (no long term growth). Which is more like playing the lottery.. ;) But it will distribute resources amongst - let say middle classes, not more 'justly' but more frequently.

    Also there will be more (low paying) BS jobs, like the Microsoft Uplink platform featured in the video above (second one) impressively proves. (Just so that people won't rebel, you give them a 'higher societal goal' thats useless in regards of how we think about the economy today (wont ever get you the quiet house with garden at the edge of town (limited quantity of those arround... )) Hence Microsoft Uplink platform.))

    And then you look at how "social mobility" looks like currently (in a world with negative growth - as we see it today) - and you start to laugh... ;) )

    Now thats a basic, but more in depth look into this... ;)

    Also - part of the structural changes that seem necessary, maybe the generation that identifies so much with 'global climate justice' will be willing to 'take'. (This is a highly loaded (= explosive ;) ) statement.)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jan 22, 2020
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - climate, promise, change