So now we're out the Paris Agreement, what personal sacrifices

Personal environmentalism is a meme, it shifts the burden of large scale multi national systems onto the individual. Even if every consumer was doing their best the impact would be negligible.

Lol fuck the earth, I hope the ocean rises fifty feet and wipes out Miami, Los Angeles, and New York, I hope California dries up like a Jews dick and everyone there dies.
If you seriously believe that 'climate change' is a real issue, you are a fucking braindead moron. It's not an issue at all and it doesn't warrant losing trillions of dollars of economic productivity in a stupid treaty.
If we really wanted to stop climate change we could just dump a bunch of chemicals in the atmosphere to block out the sunlight. It's fucking nothing.

>>37441353
Corporations don't pollute for their own sake. Their actions are dictated by consumers.

>>37441380
Glad to see someone making the point calmly, rationally, and on the basis of sound and demonstrable evidence.

>>37441381
lol no, their actions are dictated by shareholders and profits, consumers are a means to an end

>>37441420
And how are those profits generated? By the shareholders? No, try again.

>>37441427
Sorry, you must have missed the second half of that sentence where I highlighted that a consumer's function in a corporation is to provide income. The corporation does not behave for the consumer's benefit, it behaves for its own benefit in whatever way will allow it to take money from consumers and turn the most profit.

means
to
an
end

File: paris accord.jpg (617KB, 2134x2404px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 2134x2404px

>>37441275

Hmm, that's interesting. They want first world countries to subsidize the growth of China and developing countries. The logic is that if they hurry up and make the third world into first world, then they might be able to reduce pollution. Hmm, that's quite a leap in logic. Redistribution of wealth and international welfare for poor countries. Very strange. And you say big, multinational companies that can make billions of dollars off of the rapid industrialization of poorer countries are all for this agreement? Wow, they must really care about the environment, huh? Really makes you think.

https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf

The truth is that this isn't only about pollution, this is globalist social engineering. Thank god Trump said no. And the funniest thing about all this is that it's not an either, or proposition. You can have high environmental standards and not be in this agreement. It isn't mutually exclusive, which makes the left's reaction to this hilarious doomsday fear-mongering.

I only hope there are femanons here that read what I post and read the agreement them self because women are usually the ones too stupid to think critically.

>>37441399
Tell me why you think climate change is s problem (assuming it's even the way scientists portray it), and why Paris climate agreement is the best and most efficient way to stop climate change.

File: 1496274467978.jpg (159KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1024x1024px

>>37441353
This.

/Thread

Fuck Capitalism.

>>37441506
I will break this down for you. The consumer only gives the corporation money when it's in the consumer's benefit. If consumer preference is to purchase low carbon goods it becomes profitable to sell low carbon goods. If consumer preference is to buy high carbon goods it is profitable to sell high carbon goods.

As a consumer I am not obliged to purchase anything. Producers do not take my money. I give it to them in exchange for something I want. As a producer it does not behoove me to produce anything that a consumer won't buy. You seem to be very confused in your thinking.

>>37441511
>gender responsive

This is hilarious. As if climate change effects women differently than men. Just one small example of how women are privileged in the Western world.

>>37441576
The problem is you're assuming your informed purchases are everybody's informed purchases. People are dumb and impulsive and buy what's advertised to them; what's trendy, flashy, gimmicky, whatever.
Corporations put effort into influencing people to buy things, because it's easier and more profitable to make people /want/ to buy something than to actually make something worth buying.

>>37441687

Hmm, so you say that democracy is flawed? Really makes you think

>>37441687
That's what my dad says about cars.
If they really wanted to make a fuel efficient car they would, it's not like it's impossible but they choose not to cause right now the consumer doesn't demand it.

>>37441687
Fine. You're still talking about consumer behavior. You don't agree with the consumers choices sure, but you still need to recognize where the responsibility for those choices actually lies.

And in fairness to the ignorant masses, I don't think they make bad choices because they're benighted. I think they make rational choices based on what they can afford. Your evil corporations are guilty only of providing people with a middle class life style at a cheap price. That's something people want. A lot of people can't afford the organic locally grown fair at their neighborhood's farmers' market. They can afford the produce grown in Mexico, sprayed with pesticide, and shipped by deisel truck to WalMart. That isn't WalMart's fault.

The question is much more vexing than you realize. This distinction between consumer and producer is distracting.

>>37441724
It does. Wish I had a better solution.

>>37441730
Sure. The catch is the best way to be fuel efficient is to not use fuel. If you want high double or triple digit mpg you're getting a tiny, tiny 3-cylinder engine with no power. Fine for dense European or Asian cities, not acceptable or even suitable for interstate travel here in the US.

>>37441822
I think we both realize we're touching on what might be, or already is becoming a very important question, which is whether or not individuals are truly responsible for their actions, or simply the products of their environments. You can't blame the consumer for buying the less environmentally friendly product that's in their budget any more than you can blame the corporation that provides it, I guess.
The problem is, with whomever the blame resides, there's clear evidence that our current system is unsustainable. If people won't stop spending for their own benefit, and corporations won't stop providing for their own benefit, then our only hope is that the government will intervene with regulation that benefits everyone and ensures long-term survival.

>>37441983
I agree with you that government intervention is necessary. Pollution is the textbook example of a type of market failure known as a negative externalty. A person's actions carry costs that are born by people other than them. That being the case, they overindulge in those actions, shielded from the costs. In this specific case there are two forms of government intervention that make sense.

1. Subsidize consumers so that they can make the costly, but societally beneficial choice. For example the government could give tax rebates for the purchase of electric cars.

2. Make the consumer or the producer (ultimately there isn't a distinction) face the full societal cost of their action. For example, tax the emission of carbon so that the true costs are internalized.

You, I'm sure, recognize that these are mainstream policy ideas. Or at least they are virtually everywhere outside of the American Republican Party. Neither of them requires any upheaval of our social order or the trashing of our "system." Both are fully compatible with market capitalism. I think you're going down a bad path if you start assigning moral judgments to rational economic choices. None of it is a question of ignorance, exploitation, or malice. I also think it's ultimately a form of scapegoating to try to argue that people aren't responsible for their choices.

>>37442176
To add a little more to this: we have to also accept the fact that there is not such a thing as a free lunch. Both of these policies I gave examples of carry costs and those have to be born by someone. I defy you to name a policy without any costs. Who shoulders those costs is a vexing question. The Paris accords ask developed nations to subsidize the development of poor nations so that they can leapfrog dirty technologies for clean ones. The United States committed 3 billion dollars (a paltry sum, last year we gave Israel some 38 billion) and look at the outcry. It's a tricky balance. You understand why it's easier for people to pretend the problem doesn't exist or to imagine fanciful solutions.

>https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-paris-climate-agreement-would-be-a-great-first-step-if-this-were-1995/
The Paris Agreement was 20 years late to begin with, and it's hard for me to really care when the people who are "upset" about this will still eat meat and consume industrialized products
Learn to enjoy the decline folks.

>>37442176
Could you elaborate on why economic choices shouldn't be judged morally?

>>37442471
It was a stupid way for me to phrase it and I don't fully agree with it in the way that I put it. That occurred to me shortly after I posted it. The point that I was trying to get at is that it isn't really fair to morally someone for choosing to feed their family over reducing global carbon emissions by 0.0000001%. Often times it turns into a situation of snobbery where people look down on the choices of people who don't have the means to make better ones or assumes evil motives of the companies that provide valuable services for those people. My point is basically this: when a poor person buys a cheap low mileage car I don't think it's accurate or fair to impute malicious intent or moral failure to them or to the people who made the car. I don't think a person working in a coal mine is commiting a morally wrong act.

Can anyone explain why this is a good thing? All I see is "hurr it's bad" because Trump said so. And it's a guarantee Trump has zero clue what is even in the Paris agreement.

>>37442796
Didn't you read this thoughtful analysis?

>>37441380

>>37442796
read the thread anon.
oregano blox

>>37442656
I think we're both in agreement there.
I came in this thread to be adversarial and it ended up being an interesting discussion, so thanks anon, and good night.

>>37441380
>Read first sentence
Honestly, I agree with you. The only people who are desperate to save this world are empty retards who had kids and are worried about "MUH GRANDKIDS OH NOOO"
>Rest of your post
Brainwashed right wing faggot.