There is a strong possibility that this may be true. Food systems are particularly vulnerable and there's been virtually no preparation, no strategic grain stores, no land appropriation, no contingency planning.Apparently one of lead ppl (uk based) was on tv saying that in a few years her children wouldnt have enough to eat because of climate change. Um.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-nuclear-power-plants-climate-change/?srnd=businessweek-v2According to a Bloomberg review of correspondence between the commission and plant owners, 54 of the nuclear plants operating in the U.S. weren’t designed to handle the flood risk they face. Fifty-three weren’t built to withstand their current risk from intense precipitation; 25 didn’t account for current flood projections from streams and rivers; 19 weren’t designed for their expected maximum storm surge. Nineteen face three or more threats that they weren’t designed to handle.
Be happy to read more about this (I mean that genuinely, rather than sarcastically).There is a strong possibility that this may be true. Food systems are particularly vulnerable and there's been virtually no preparation, no strategic grain stores, no land appropriation, no contingency planning.
Well, yeah, I probably wouldn't be overjoyed.I dont think you would be happy to read about it TBH. Things are much worse than you think.
I cant speak for XR, and they seem like a fairly nebulous group, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. They grew out of the deep adaptation movement which is primarily about coping with the loss and grief that will come from ecocide, the loss of irreplaceable natural systems that have been here for millions of years. In fact one of the main slogans Ive heard is that hundreds of millions will die as a result of climate change, and they know that this will hit the global south first. This does not strike me as an ethos of a selfish navel gazing middle class movement.
Im curious as to why you've taken such a Peterson like stance on this. They are 100% correct in their assessment, their methods have gotten more press for climate than any other protest movement and there are already shifting policy opinions. I can disagree or quibble with lots of stuff they've done, but fundamentally, they are correct, and we should all hope that they succeed.
We, in alignment with our consciences and our reasoning, declare ourselves in rebellion against our Government and the corrupted, inept institutions that threaten our future.
The wilful complicity displayed by our government has shattered meaningful democracy and cast aside the common interest in favour of short-term gain and private profits.
When Government and the law fail to provide any assurance of adequate protection, as well as security for its people’s well-being and the nation’s future, it becomes the right of its citizens to seek redress in order to restore dutiful democracy and to secure the solutions needed to avert catastrophe and protect the future. It becomes not only our right, it becomes our sacred duty to rebel.
We hereby declare the bonds of the social contract to be null and void, which the government has rendered invalid by its continuing failure to act appropriately. We call upon every principled and peaceful citizen to rise with us.
We demand to be heard, to apply informed solutions to these ecological crises and to create a national assembly by which to initiate those solutions needed to change our present cataclysmic course.
We refuse to bequeath a dying planet to future generations by failing to act now.
Well essentially that you can't actually make deep changes to the system with a middle class movement.I probably won't read it. What point does it make?