NationStates

Kowani wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
I see...

As a general rule, most islands are fucked.

Then it might be in my interest to support this mandatory environmentalism thing

All of my main hideouts will be in threat

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Kowani wrote:As a general rule, most islands are fucked.

Then it might be in my interest to support this mandatory environmentalism thing

All of my main hideouts will be in threat

Unless you’re in your late 60’s (and not Japanese) environmental policies are in your interest, yes.

Kowani wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Then it might be in my interest to support this mandatory environmentalism thing

All of my main hideouts will be in threat

Unless you’re in your late 60’s (and not Japanese) environmental policies are in your interest, yes.

what's the Japanese exception?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Kowani wrote:Unless you’re in your late 60’s (and not Japanese) environmental policies are in your interest, yes.

what's the Japanese exception?

Extra long life expectancy.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ifreann wrote:India and China adopting the same policy won't help either. Climate change isn't a matter of insufficient labour.

What do you mean?

That climate change isn't happening because too few people are working to stop it. Therefore forcing lots of people to work won't stop climate change.

Ifreann wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
What do you mean?

That climate change isn't happening because too few people are working to stop it. Therefore forcing lots of people to work won't stop climate change.

So how do you stop this thing?

Renounce technology?

I'm not going to get behind that because I need my video games and shows.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ifreann wrote:That climate change isn't happening because too few people are working to stop it. Therefore forcing lots of people to work won't stop climate change.

So how do you stop this thing?

Go after the companies doing the most polluting and make them cut that shit out.

Renounce technology?

Rather the opposite.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ifreann wrote:That climate change isn't happening because too few people are working to stop it. Therefore forcing lots of people to work won't stop climate change.

So how do you stop this thing?

Renounce technology?

I'm not going to get behind that because I need my video games and shows.

Nuclear power is how you stop it.
But we would rather die of pollution than use the cleanest, safest form of power.

We deserve it TBH.
Thanks Greenpeace for destroying the environment.
My only consolation is I will see the anti nuclear environmentalists in Hell.

Novus America wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
So how do you stop this thing?

Renounce technology?

I'm not going to get behind that because I need my video games and shows.

Nuclear power is how you stop it.
But we would rather die of pollution than use the cleanest, safest form of power.

We deserve it TBH.
Thanks Greenpeace for destroying the environment.
My only consolation is I will see the anti nuclear environmentalists in Hell.

Then you pull the mask off the anti-nuclear environmentalists and find that they're actually the fossil fuel industry!

The environment isn't going to be fixed by getting some young people to pick up litter. Real sysytematic change needs to take place and measures such as this are a side show to make people feel better about themselves.

Ifreann wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Nuclear power is how you stop it.
But we would rather die of pollution than use the cleanest, safest form of power.

We deserve it TBH.
Thanks Greenpeace for destroying the environment.
My only consolation is I will see the anti nuclear environmentalists in Hell.

Then you pull the mask off the anti-nuclear environmentalists and find that they're actually the fossil fuel industry!

Honestly, they might as well be
http://environmentalprogress.org/why-cl ... in-crisis/

Can we just call anti nuclear “environmentalists” (anti nuclear environmentalist is an oxymoron)
fossil fuel fifth columnists?

Chestaan wrote:The environment isn't going to be fixed by getting some young people to pick up litter. Real sysytematic change needs to take place and measures such as this are a side show to make people feel better about themselves.

I mean, i'm not a fan of mandatory service (to me it seems like slavery legalized), but you could use something like this to make real change. As an example, having them put together and mount solar panels on the home of the poor and do all the wiring, etc, would do much to ease the financial burden of the poor AND reduce our consumption impact on the environment AND harden our electrical grid against systematic failure by decentralizing power generation.

I would actually call that last bit an unironic national security issue.

Krasny-Volny wrote:As someone who works in the environmental sector:

Most conservation corps are incredibly poorly managed. They're also not cost effective and survive only because the federal and state governments (largely through the AmeriCorps umbrella) give them massive subsidies. The only way they can compete with private contractors is because they leverage the subsidies and pay all their underqualified youth workers minimim wage or less.

Now you want to implement the conservation corps model on a nationwide scale, and magnify these problems a hundredfold? No thanks. The CCC era is long gone and it's impossible in this day and age to ever bring that back.

Ban the private sector environmental groups/contractors, then massively fund the new CCC, PHC, and the IRC (Infrastructure Rejuvenation Corps)

Thermodolia wrote:

Krasny-Volny wrote:As someone who works in the environmental sector:

Most conservation corps are incredibly poorly managed. They're also not cost effective and survive only because the federal and state governments (largely through the AmeriCorps umbrella) give them massive subsidies. The only way they can compete with private contractors is because they leverage the subsidies and pay all their underqualified youth workers minimim wage or less.

Now you want to implement the conservation corps model on a nationwide scale, and magnify these problems a hundredfold? No thanks. The CCC era is long gone and it's impossible in this day and age to ever bring that back.

Ban the private sector environmental groups/contractors, then massively fund the new CCC, PHC, and the IRC (Infrastructure Rejuvenation Corps)

Ban environmentalism.

Chestaan wrote:The environment isn't going to be fixed by getting some young people to pick up litter. Real sysytematic change needs to take place and measures such as this are a side show to make people feel better about themselves.

Picking up litter is just a very small thing. One that is actually quite important, especially if we deploy the new CCC into India and China to help depollute their water ways which are the main cause of ocean pollution. At home the CCC could train and educate people in ways to reduce their environmental impact while also running recycling programs and drives across the nation.

This wouldn’t be the only things that would be happening as the state would also arrest those who are polluting the earth and Nationalize their Corporations if they have them.

Also working with the infrastructure rejuvenation corps and the military, the CCC could help construct nuclear power plants and other green energy plants across the US and the world

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Ban the private sector environmental groups/contractors, then massively fund the new CCC, PHC, and the IRC (Infrastructure Rejuvenation Corps)

Ban environmentalism.

Actually had we banned the “environmentalist” movement when it went anti nuclear we would be much better off, environmentally.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Ban the private sector environmental groups/contractors, then massively fund the new CCC, PHC, and the IRC (Infrastructure Rejuvenation Corps)

Ban environmentalism.

Global warming/climate change is a national security threat. So no. If anything the measures to combat it need to be more radical

Thermodolia wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Ban environmentalism.

Global warming/climate change is a national security threat. So no. If anything the measures to combat it need to be more radical

No it's not. Our lack of national holdings outside of this planet is a national security threat.

Thermodolia wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Ban environmentalism.

Global warming/climate change is a national security threat. So no. If anything the measures to combat it need to be more radical

The radical anti nuclear fanaticism in the self proclaimed “environmentalism” is an environmental and national security threat.

Unfortunately “environmentalism” as currently formed is perhaps the biggest threat to the environment.

I am a conservationist of the Ansel Adams type.
But I cannot call myself an “environmentalist” as the term has been corrupted and destroyed.
Self proclaimed “environmentalists” are the biggest cause.

Nixon had a plan to make the US all clean energy for electric power by 1980.
Supposed “Environmentalists” were the ones who killed it.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Global warming/climate change is a national security threat. So no. If anything the measures to combat it need to be more radical

No it's not. Our lack of national holdings outside of this planet is a national security threat.

Which is pretty much never going to happen in time. So we need to focus on what we can do and what we can make a difference in instead of something that might not work or something that will work but we’ll all be dead before it does

Novus America wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Global warming/climate change is a national security threat. So no. If anything the measures to combat it need to be more radical

The radical anti nuclear fanaticism in the self proclaimed “environmental” is an environmental and national security threat.

Unfortunately environmentalism as currently formed is perhaps the biggest threat to the environment.

I agree with you on that. Greenpeace should be labeled a terrorist Group and a threat to the environment

Thermodolia wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
No it's not. Our lack of national holdings outside of this planet is a national security threat.

Which is pretty much never going to happen in time. So we need to focus on what we can do and what we can make a difference in instead of something that might not work or something that will work but we’ll all be dead before it does

You can't stop climate change.

Reinstate the draft. Everyone should go in for a year to be taught how to do first aid, exercise, safely handle firearms (how to check their chambers, unload them, lock them up, etcetera. Not shoot them accurately unless you want to learn it). How to drill, march, and work as a team. What it actually means to be tired, hungry, and cold. This could easily include environmental work.

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:Reinstate the draft. Everyone should go in for a year to be taught how to do first aid, exercise, safely handle firearms (how to check their chambers, unload them, lock them up, etcetera. Not shoot them accurately unless you want to learn it). How to drill, march, and work as a team. What it actually means to be tired, hungry, and cold. This could easily include environmental work.

A year? What are you nuts? Three years service at minimum

Thermodolia wrote:

Chestaan wrote:The environment isn't going to be fixed by getting some young people to pick up litter. Real sysytematic change needs to take place and measures such as this are a side show to make people feel better about themselves.

Picking up litter is just a very small thing. One that is actually quite important, especially if we deploy the new CCC into India and China

Would that be with or without waiting for those nations' governments to give approval first?