Classic.
Good to know all his caterwauling over the last 20 years has been entirely performative, and that he, just like the rest of his party, would rather the rest of the world burn than for even a half a second be inconvenienced. Death to Amerika.
You’re blaming Democrats? It’s been Dems fighting back against deregulation and anti-conservation efforts for decades.
Have the anti American bot farms turned to Lemmee already?
Well it’s the O&G industry pulling the strings and made all the money so they should pay. But this world is just a showcase for dysfunctional rich people so who we kidding?
Removed by mod
I mean, some things are nice, other things are a mixed bag, and the cost might be literally everything.
I guess I’m on the fence overall. Humans sticking with nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyles would have been more sustainable, but from my current perspective it wouldn’t have been an enjoyable life. On the other hand, if we never got here we wouldn’t have known how much easier life could have been for some of us.
And really the decline will only suck for those of us that live through it or die during it. If humanity survives it, then people born into that life will only know what was from what they’ll be told and eventually they might even get to a point where many don’t believe what we have right now could have all existed.
And it’s certainly interesting living in this time where the future could either be a high tech dystopia (let’s face it, even if there’s revolutions, it’ll just be a game of musical chairs for who has the power and wealth, though overall inequality might fall for a bit) where humanity is capable of things we can only imagine right now or a human-free wasteland that might eventually recover into a world that would be as alien to us as the Cretaceous or an infinite number of scenarios in between.
completely unsurprising, but still disappointing
Consider who was asking the question: a Republican legislator with an axe to grind.
Now for the plot twist:
At last year’s COP27 climate summit in Egypt, the U.S. joined other nations in committing to a “loss and damages” fund for developing countries affected by climate change. However, unlike a reparations program, that fund is not considered compensatory and does not involve specific countries conceding legal liability
When Kerry said “No”, he meant “Yes, but technically no.”
!just checking if spoilers work before I write my comment!<
You forgot the first > >!does it works ?!<
Can’t even get reparations for Black people.
Oh, slave owners got reparations though. Don’t forget that.
… not sure who was expecting we would? What we should be doing is investing in global green initiatives.
This guy is a China shill. Review his post and comment history. He’s spamming all the news communities with stuff like this.
Damn I was hoping lemmy being down-low for so long wouldn’t have any of those; guess they’ll slowly infect any growing community.
They were here before you. Have been for years. That said this is a very bad look for the West. But everyone could have seen this coming. China India and others will use it to justify their unregulated polluting. Even though that’s just more hypocrisy.
I’m definitely not keen on the idea of just paying out cash reparations to all these other countries. But I think that for a fraction of what we spend militarily. We could philanthropically spend helping to build cleaner infrastructure elsewhere in the world as well as good relations. Though honestly that’s the opposite of what we normally do. Constantly trying to destabilize and sabotage everyone else.
This guy is a China shill.
Do you know more of them? I’ve just blocked one and planning to take names and block more.
I mean, thehill is still a pretty reputable news source, so why does it matter who posts it?
Propaganda isn’t all lies.
TheHill is propaganda? I guess any article that you don’t like is also propaganda, then…
I’m not disputing the story. I think knowing the OPs motivation for posting it is useful info.
So you make a strawman then base a wildly speculative assumption on it?
The funny thing is that Kerry did actually commit America to a UN program that sends money to people affected by climate change. It’s just not called a “reparations” program.
Many other countries will join the US in funding this program. But not China. In fact, Chinese leaders couldn’t even be bothered to show up to the climate change conference (COP27) where this was discussed.
Could we possibly stop appointing neoliberal boomers that haven’t had an original political idea since McGovern to nation-leading posts please? That right there might help the US dramatically, especially in terms of restoring balance to economic and climate policy.
If the US was willing to lead an effort to tax polluting industry and direct the funds from that towards clean tech or energy transition, much of the rest of the world that matters would probably be willing to come along, but signals like this one from Kerry just tell the world that the US doesn’t have the moral courage to even stop subsidizing fossil energy that hasn’t needed subsidies for decades
Problem is, for the people that have the power to make these appointments, it’s a feature, not a bug.
They went from thinking that it was just alarmist scientists talking nonsense to ok it might be real but it won’t affect us until everyone currently living is already dead to ok it might affect some of us living right now but it won’t affect their generation to ok so people are already being affected by it and it’s killing boomers and older (and younger) generations as we speak, but it won’t affect the rich.
I’m curious if they are still in that stage or have moved on to thinking it just won’t affect the wealthy (and their support staff) even if the rich are somewhat vulnerable. And if we’re lucky, there might even still be time once they realize that their support staff won’t be enough to keep the world going once the labour classes die off and that any attempts to run an environment completely cut off from the rest of earth has either failed or required injections from the outside environment to continue.
Well no shit, why would the US ever do that? The money should be invested in cleantech research.
fry-im-shocked-not-really.gif
The money must flow (towards the rich hoarders), important jerbs, yadda yadda
Consider who was asking the question: a Republican legislator with an axe to grind.
Now for the plot twist:
At last year’s COP27 climate summit in Egypt, the U.S. joined other nations in committing to a “loss and damages” fund for developing countries affected by climate change. However, unlike a reparations program, that fund is not considered compensatory and does not involve specific countries conceding legal liability
When Kerry said “No”, he meant “Yes, but technically no.” Which is the best kind of No.
