Climate chaos will destroy the sciences and arts. It will destroy culture and history. It will destroy the fascists and elites and Republicans and Democrats. It will destroy lives in the USA and around the world. How is climate a single issue?
We also will not hold a debate on the topic of only having room for centrist/corporate-friendly policy in what is supposedly a very big tent.
“It will destroy the fascists and elites and Republicans and Democrats.”
You and I can agree with this statement, but they (elites) don’t, at least not in private. They believe they have a plan to survive, evident with how many of them are buying and stocking underground shelters. I personally don’t believe most of them will survive when everything falls apart, but it provides context as to why very little-to-nothing, is being done at the uppers levels of society, to protect the rest of us. More proof we are in their eyes, expendable.
And the dumocrats want to give you Gropin’ Blow Joe Biden!
Abortion, medicare for all, A fair tax system, serving the poor and disenfranchised; these are all extremely important issues to me, but none will even matter if is society breaks down due to climate chaos. The democratic power structure is made up of fools, and we will all pay.
Yes, I’ve been referring to them as the “fossil fools.”
Go git 'em, boys and girls!
“The protest is a direct response to a Tuesday Medium post from DNC chair Tom Perez, who wrote that it would be unfair to prioritize one issue over others.”
Perez, like the rest of the “Democratic” misleadership, has it backward. NOT to have a debate about the climate crisis–about which there IS no debate–would be unfair to every denizen of the planet. Ask him to state in 25 words or less what other issues would be shortchanged and how by the prioritizing of one of the two primary issues facing humankind over the remainder of this century (the other being nukes, both military and “peaceful”–like Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, Fukushima, and dozens of other ticking time bombs in this country alone).
“If we change our guidelines at the request of one candidate who has made climate change their campaign’s signature issue, how do we say no to the numerous other requests we’ve had?”
Christ on a cracker! How stupid do you have to be to not realize climate change endangers the whole entire civilization?
This is definitely bothersome. There seems to be a concerted effort from the MSM to push Biden without much of a reason.
There are many reasons for the MSM to support Biden. Biden is the very face of the status quo. With Biden the wars will continue and expand, there will be no Medicare for All and there will be no reduction in tuition costs.
So, grassroots activists are pressing DNC chair Tom Perez to reverse his decision not to host an official primary debate on the climate crisis. Debate, no debate – it makes little difference when both sides likely lack a bigger picture understanding of the very nature of our human predicament.
One person who does have such an understanding is University of Minnesota professor, Dr. Nate Hagens. Using a systems synthesis approach on the big-picture issues facing human society, Hagens asserts that climate change is just a ‘symptom’ of a “bigger picture.” The bigger picture, he says, reveals a very different story about our predicament – “one that integrates human behaviour, energy, and money into this superorganism, emergent dynamic of how humans are currently functioning.” Globally, humans are turning into an energy-squandering superorganism, like some blind, purposeless amoeba.
Moreover, in his recent Earth Day talk, Hagens mentions that he has been meeting with US policymakers, governors, mayors, corporate CEOs, and other politicians, and “found something amazing.” – Once they put on the hat that goes with their official role, they can only see more economic growth as an essential part of a solution to climate change.
Under this framing, viewing humanity as a superorganism, Hagens declares four things that are NOT likely to happen – 1/ “We’re not likely to grow the economy AND mitigate the Sixth Mass Extinction and climate change; 2/ We’re not likely to grow the economy by getting rid of the bad fuels and replacing them with rebuildables [renewables that have to be rebuilt every 20-30 years]; 3/ We’re not likely to choose to leave fossil carbon in the ground because it’s so tethered to our experiences, our life standards, our wages, our profits, our growth, the cheap stuff that we buy; and 4/ Governments are not likely to embrace limits to growth before limits to growth are well past.”
If Hagens’ framing is on target, what’s the likely outcome of a debate about climate change among Dems’ leadership candidates?
A video of Hagens’ 46-minute Earth Day talk, along with a complete transcript, are available by following this shortlink - https://wp.me/pO0No-4Iz
Three primary issues. You forgot pollution - of all varieties, including, for example, plastic, diesel residues, dead electronics, dead white goods, dead cars…
So Perez you Corporate State Democrat hack, can’t you come up with a better fucking excuse to keep the clucking money flowing to the corrupted leadership of the party, than that?
These pathetic sellouts need to be run out of office, and the Corporate Power Center of today’s Democratic Party crushed for generations.
40 years of this already.
I’m so clucking sick of it.
I certainly did not “forget” pollution. In a larger sense, “THE primary issue” is resource throughput, which generates pollution of all kinds including CO2, and in which nuclear energy of all kinds is a significant driver. But CO2 will kill us all before all the other pollution together, and an exchange of nuclear weapons could do so even sooner and more quickly.
In the largest sense of all, human culture of all kinds at all levels will have to undergo radical transformation and soon if it is to survive at all. At one time Derrick Jensen asserted that the only truly sustainable technology is that of the Stone Age (prior to the use of metals, c. 5,000 years ago), but he backed off on that claim as both too restrictive and not restrictive enough.
My take is that our survival, “should we decide to accept it,” will require carefully selected and appropriately applied technologies from all eras, as well as vast changes in consciousness.
Actually the crisis mankind is facing can be reduced to one word: over-consumption.
Over-consumption is caused by too many people, and capitalism.
OK, but by your own words the cause(s) of “the crisis mankind is facing” are “too many people, and capitalism.” But the comment to which you replied did not refer either to “the crisis mankind is facing” or to its causes, but to “two primary issues,” failure to address either of which promptly and directly will lead to massive die-offs if not extinction of our species within a few decades, as I noted in my other comment directly above to James_Gale.
Words can be tricky, and all of the issues related to “The Crisis” are intertwined in complex and non-linear ways. Population is not a critical factor as such, but the resources used per person including recycling and all that it entails are a critical factor. Planet Earth (or “Eaarth,” as McKibben puts it in distinction to the planet we geezers grew up on) could certainly sustain 8 billion people at a level of resource throughput well above Stone Age levels. It certainly could not sustain nearly that many at the ccurrent level of throughput in the “developed” (industrialized) countries.
Capitalism, however, is one of several major aspects of modern culture that will have to go. The reason capitalism itself is unsustainable is that it requires constant growth, so constant increase in resource use. Adam Smith nailed that, at a time when “capital” meant not money but plant and equipment, in his explanation of why he believed the industrial market economy itself (i.e., capitalism) would always keep greed in check: Every capitalist is forced to return much of his profit (there were very few female capitalists in his day) back into the business to reap economies of scale and keep up with advancing technology, because if he doesn’t his competitor will do so and drive him out of business.
Alas, he was wrong about competition keeping greed in check, but right about the constant demand for more–of everything. Along the way, Malthus, Keynes, and some lesser lights pointed out that a given population can only absorb a certain amount of stuff, leading to a “general glut of goods” that no one is able and willing to buy. Both realized that such a situation leads to a cycle of boom and bust (recession and recovery), but as far as I know even Keynes failed to realize that by his time industry had already partially solved that problem by creating artificial demand through marketing. See Pamela Danziger, Why People Buy Things They Don’t Need (2003). Danziger’s book is not a critique of consumerism, but a handbook for people in the marketing industry!
So yes, capitalism is certainly one cause of the climate crisis through its requirement for constantly increasing resource throughput. But it is not the stuff that will kill us (except for the nukes), but the result of its need for constant growth.
WTF??? Who cares about a Climate Debater right now?? When are we going to have an IMPEACHMENT!!
If we can get rid of this piece of detritus president we might not need a climate debate!!
WHEN will the spineless Democrats have enough “evidence?”
If you read this article, you will give up on the Democrats totally–as if you/me haven’t already after the Super Delegate scam. “DNC chair Tom Perez, who wrote that it would be unfair to prioritize one issue [climate change] over others. The DNC “must remain neutral in both practice and perception,” wrote Perez.” WHAT OTHERS?? You stupid monkey… just what are you idiots with no clue and no plan–that lost you the last election–going to debate??