[gosub100]

I'm not going to ride a bike to save CO2 when AI is allowed to build a whole datacenter. And yes the misinformation and dogma is used by both parties. And I am not a Trump supporter, I think he's an abhorrent human. But I think the environmental argument is propaganda. Trying to get us to sign away our rights but not doing anything that affects the rich (e.g. ban gas stoves but not private jets).

[ZeroGravitas]

You've gone from hating the far left for trying to push their agenda via global warming to hating the Democrats for not targeting the rich to solve climate change within the span of two comments.

Perhaps you have cognitive dissonance because you've fallen for some very low quality propaganda.

[gosub100]

I haven't "gone from" anything. I pointed out it's "regulations for thee but not for me". If the party cared about climate change, their actions would look much different. But instead they claim disasters (that have occurred for millennia) are caused by CC, then make it right by banning and regulating things as if it will prevent, say, a hurricane. That's akin to self pleasure, or religious dogma (you are "saved" if you give your life to Christ/drive an EV and recycle).

[pastage]

You know I agree with you, but I might be more hard line than you can stomach.

Policies are not perfect, and they will be created with input from all parties. What you highlight feels like an artifact of these policies not being hard line enough. You are of course right that it is effective to show natural disasters and explain that these will be more frequent if we do nothing, when you do that people will make the wrong conclusions how that effects their daily lives. We know that we use too much resources, and this is going to have catastrophic consequences in the future if we do not change how we use them.

It is not obvious who you are arguing against, it feels to me that you are against the people who make climate policies weak, and the very same policies.

Lets talk specific, we had a plastic bag ban here in Sweden. It was vilified as not efficient. In the end it was effective according to research after the ban was lifted and an even extreme approach would have been even better.

[komali2]

It sounds to me like the issue is you're mistaking the democrats for a left party.

An actual leftist party would ban private jets before it banned natural gas in homes.

The Democrats are a neoliberal conservative party. They'll always put the interests of Capital first.

I sympathize, I'm not sure what Americans are meant to do about their utterly captured government.

[alsetmusic]

> I'm not going to ride a bike to save CO2 when AI is allowed to build a whole datacenter.

"The people with the most power and money are hurting the planet, so there's no reason for me to inconvenience myself for the sake of others."

It's a pretty weak justification for a selfish attitude.