Not to be too cynical or anything, but did everyone fly to the climate summit?
We are in the position we are in and that is a fact. One has to function from where they ARE not where they want to be. If you are saying that everyone should stop using the means of travel on hand, then the country/world would have to shut down entirely except for anything within walking distance. Seems a little insane, doesn’t it?
Yesterday I saw part of an interview of Bernie. The question being asked was, “How are you going to get the policies in place with a republican senate?”
Bernie became animated, but didn’t really answer the question. The answer of course is to elect a dem. majority in the senate.
Mabey if the impeachment trial were to go the right way it would provide some momentum.
Well, from the climate standpoint, foregoing fossil-fueled based transportation actually is the sanest thing we could do. So, it doesn’t seem “insane” as much as it seems largely impractical, for sure. Anyway, I didn’t even come close to suggesting that everyone stop using all means of transportation save foot travel. I just wanted to note the irony of flying to a climate summit and expecting a different result. WWGD?
Impeachment’s not going to save us, or elect a progressive majority Senate. That would have to be done the old fashioned way, by organizing senate campaigns or by some constitutional reform that would eliminate the senate in favor of a demographically democratic upper house, not a house of lords dominated by the most racist, reactionary, ignorant and backward parts of the country.
Not to be curious or anything, but have you given up flying?
Bernie is really the only candidate who comes close to getting it.
The NYTimes lays it out in today’s edition.
No time for fucking around with Slobuchar and Mayo Pete Bog half-assism:
Ed, I TOTALLY agree! My point being is it just can’t be like turning a switch to “off” and everything continuing.
Never said you did
Which suggests never having climate summits because they would be inaccessible. That really isn’t an “irony”, in my opinion. It would be an irony if we already HAD alternative travel energy in place and THEN chose to use fossil fuel transport.
Sorry, I don’t know what WWGD means…
Or driving cars, for that matter.
And getting it in his HEART as well as in his words.
Obama had huge Dem majorities. He barely passed RomneyCare.
Dem majorities based on catering to the whims of Manchins and Gottheimers are Repub Lite at best.
Seems more like unachievable.
I haven’t flown once since 2007, and only that once since about 2004. I no longer own a car, although I use one locally as needed (25-30 miles a week, or thereabouts). I do not intend to fly again; certainly not for leisure. Haven’t done any sort of “road trip” in years, either. That said, I’m no eco-angel and I’m not trying to be “granolier-than-thou.” I struggle with contradictions and cognitive dissonance as much as anyone.
And look, guys, I didn’t mean to stir up so much with that opening lament. Maybe there will be a net gain from this climate summit in the long run that justifies the carbon puff of this event. After all, it’s not like vast hoards of athletes and fans traveling to the World Cup or something equally frivolous. Or capitalists flying to “Davos in the Desert” to connive our demise. My comment emerged from feelings kicking around inside since I read Dahr Jamail’s “End of Ice,” wherein he traveled all over the world to eloquently tell us that traveling all over the world is killing the planet. Frankly, I knew that without his “contribution.”
Naomi Klein has endorsed Bernie!! Great news.
NOT ME US
Got it. Thanks for the fair and amicable response. Good point about my use of irony.
WWGD is something that popped into my head as I wrote. It stands for “what would Greta do?” (Sail up the Mississippi, I reckon.)
Oh dear. I was going to hazard “what would god do”. (You know sort of like WWJD?)
Ha! It was taken from WWJD, but based in reality! The whimsy of this old atheist.