Modern environmentalism has always been that way. Its main purpose is to distract from the fact that the vast majority of pollution comes from massive companies, and instead blame average citizens. You end up with an industry which capitalizes on the overly emotional and naive and is incentivized to never actually solve what it claims it wants to.
You will also see these kinds of arguments when it comes to overpopulation. The logic is that fewer people leads to less pollution, which doesn't actually work that way. And at the same time they argue to bring in massive numbers of people from the third world and fund those countries with huge amounts of foreign aid which increases how much they impact the environment.
All activism becomes self defeating at some point. If they solve the problem, they would put a lot of people out of a job. This goes for government as well. If the tax code was simple (or even functioned sensiblely) how many accounts, attorneys, and taxmen would have to get real jobs?
And then you have the pollution levels of China and India, which are basically the environmental dystopias we were warned about 40-60 years ago; the problem was just exported to these regions, because the breed of human that lives there just doesn't care. Denisovan Xs and Neanderthal Xs are different, and anyone who says differently but says they still "believe" in evolution is just a human apologist.
We were fed lies that they would follow in our footsteps, that they'd go through the same unionization, adoption of labour, safety, and environmental laws, etc, because they're just like us. Now that this "humans are all the same" bullshit is just about to be outed as a lie, now comes all this identitarian shit. It's no coincidence.
Once again, elites disguise a class problem as a race problem.
Nobody wants to live in a high pollution area if they can help it, so property in polluted areas becomes cheap and the poor move in. This has been going on since the industrial revolution, and was plainly observable in the early 1800's even in areas that were over 95% white.
There's basically no practical solution to this at all. But that's fine if all you want to do is bash whitey.
They also forgot to mention the fact that white people exclusively make up rural America, no one is stopping blacks from leaving the cities they claim are oppressing them.
This isn't new. The term "Environmental Justice" was being shopped around as early as the 70's and really took off under Clinton in the 90's with the idea that minority communities received a great brunt of the fallout from environmental spills and hazards. There are really two schools of thought in the environmental community now. One is at the very least marketed as aggressive anti-capitalist spiteful hatred of big manufacturing. Think Greta Thunberg and the whiniest vegan you can imagine. The other is a paper pusher whose job is dependent on navigating the overly confusing array of various agencies that makeup the EPA or European equivalent. There are a few though who tthink the whole system needs to get scrapped and start from new.
There's at least one other school of thought. The founder of Impossible Foods has sort of a "green capitalist" approach. His thought is that if his product is indistinguishable (or preferred) over real meat, and cheaper, people will voluntarily go green.
What's funny is that it's my understanding that impossible meat has a much larger environmental footprint than any kind of cruelty free meat, but it is "cheaper".
Modern environmentalism has always been that way. Its main purpose is to distract from the fact that the vast majority of pollution comes from massive companies, and instead blame average citizens. You end up with an industry which capitalizes on the overly emotional and naive and is incentivized to never actually solve what it claims it wants to.
You will also see these kinds of arguments when it comes to overpopulation. The logic is that fewer people leads to less pollution, which doesn't actually work that way. And at the same time they argue to bring in massive numbers of people from the third world and fund those countries with huge amounts of foreign aid which increases how much they impact the environment.
All activism becomes self defeating at some point. If they solve the problem, they would put a lot of people out of a job. This goes for government as well. If the tax code was simple (or even functioned sensiblely) how many accounts, attorneys, and taxmen would have to get real jobs?
it was always communism with a thin green coat of paint
Watermelons all the way down
Niggers and pakis are horrendous litterbugs.
And then you have the pollution levels of China and India, which are basically the environmental dystopias we were warned about 40-60 years ago; the problem was just exported to these regions, because the breed of human that lives there just doesn't care. Denisovan Xs and Neanderthal Xs are different, and anyone who says differently but says they still "believe" in evolution is just a human apologist.
We were fed lies that they would follow in our footsteps, that they'd go through the same unionization, adoption of labour, safety, and environmental laws, etc, because they're just like us. Now that this "humans are all the same" bullshit is just about to be outed as a lie, now comes all this identitarian shit. It's no coincidence.
See pollution singles out non Caucasian’s. So pollution must be racist
Gringx y pendejx.
Only the real socialism can survive: Battle Wokeyale
Once again, elites disguise a class problem as a race problem.
Nobody wants to live in a high pollution area if they can help it, so property in polluted areas becomes cheap and the poor move in. This has been going on since the industrial revolution, and was plainly observable in the early 1800's even in areas that were over 95% white.
There's basically no practical solution to this at all. But that's fine if all you want to do is bash whitey.
They also forgot to mention the fact that white people exclusively make up rural America, no one is stopping blacks from leaving the cities they claim are oppressing them.
This isn't new. The term "Environmental Justice" was being shopped around as early as the 70's and really took off under Clinton in the 90's with the idea that minority communities received a great brunt of the fallout from environmental spills and hazards. There are really two schools of thought in the environmental community now. One is at the very least marketed as aggressive anti-capitalist spiteful hatred of big manufacturing. Think Greta Thunberg and the whiniest vegan you can imagine. The other is a paper pusher whose job is dependent on navigating the overly confusing array of various agencies that makeup the EPA or European equivalent. There are a few though who tthink the whole system needs to get scrapped and start from new.
There's at least one other school of thought. The founder of Impossible Foods has sort of a "green capitalist" approach. His thought is that if his product is indistinguishable (or preferred) over real meat, and cheaper, people will voluntarily go green.
What's funny is that it's my understanding that impossible meat has a much larger environmental footprint than any kind of cruelty free meat, but it is "cheaper".
I don't know, but I'm still waiting for you to tell me why I'll own nothing by 2030 and love it.