If these people are so concerned about global warming

[The Greater Antipodes]

Global Warming champions keep warning us about how the sea levels will rise. Well, if that's the case then why are global warming champions buying sea side properties. Al Gore purchased a giant seaside mansion in Califronia, USA

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... a289ad4ee8
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... r-swindle/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tale-two-houses/

Aren't you worried, Mr. Gore, that your seaside California mansion will be washed away? I mean, seriously, isn't he worried.

Further, why is former USA president, Barack Hussein Obama II purchasing seaside mansions?

https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/barack-an ... -vineyard/

Isn't he worried that his house will be washed away with the rising sea levels?

Climate Crusader and Australian member of parliament, Zali Steggle, lives in one of Sydney's wealthiest suburbs, on the coast, with no solar panels:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr ... 18200fe886

If you're so worried about climate change, Senator Steggal, why in the fudge don't you live in a poorer suburb that won't get away when the sea levels rise. The money you make from the sale of your house and purchase of a new house in a cheaper inland area could be used to purchase solar panels, and you'll still have a few hundred thousand (if not million) dollars left over. Further, she drives and SUV? Why, just why? Why can't you ride a bike, Senator Steggal? I mean isn't that what you climate crusaders demand from us plebs, who live tens of kilometres from the CBD to do? If you want us to ride a bike from tens of kilometres to our jobs (many of which are in the CBD, tens of kilometres away) why don't you lead by example? You live very close to the CBD. (For my American readers, CBD= Downtown in Australian terminology). Further, your seat of Warringa has direct bus services to the CBD. When I attended university in the CBD, I used to catch a bus and a train, a journey which took an hour and half in either direction- and Senator Steggal has the option of a direct bus which she doesn't use.

So my question is, why are these global warming crusaders, who can afford to change their life styles, yell at us plebs to change our lifestyles (when we can't afford to), when they buy ocean side properties, which they're worried about.

Further, Bill Nye and John Oliver support a carbon tax claiming that Carbon Tax will incentives businesses to create greener innovations
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ate-change
Firstly, yes, I do think it's a good idea to take business advice from a TV comedian and TV scientist.

Secondly, yea, sure, carbon taxes will incentivise companies to go green- companies like McDonalds, and WalMart, and Coles, companies who have hundreds of millions to spend on R&D. But what about the little guy? Do these people honestly think that small business owner have money coming out of their arses. I know of a few poor business owners who scarifies meals in order to fund their businesses. I'm they'd like to have a word with TV personalities telling them about how they can afford more expenses. Unless your whole goal is to price the little out of their market, in which case, they're being monopolistic arseholes. I mean, Bill Nye even admitted that a carbon tax wouldn't be free. That's all well and good for the big companies, but what about small businesses who already to pay their creditors, do you want those small business owners to go bankrupt? Do you, Mr. Nye? Do you want to bankrupt small business owners? Smh

Climate change has become about rich people who can afford to change their lifestyles but refuse to yelling at middle class and poor people who can't afford to make these changes, because we're not making these changes.

I guess my question is, why does anyone take this crap seriously, anymore?
Anyways, what's your opinion on all this?

*Sigh* Hookay.

So I suppose since you're presumably Australian, I should start by pointing out that Obama purchasing a seaside mansion doesn't change the fact that the Bramble Cay melomys have gone completely extinct because of climate change. Is that little chestnut just completely debunked and they're secretly still alive just because billionaires are doing what billionaires usually do? Imagine my shock when the people with the most to lose decide to do the least, it's almost as though they've been paying like zero percent in tax this whole time (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-13/ ... o/10614916) that could've otherwise lifted the burden off working class Australians. So it's beyond me why you're going for the low-hanging fruit like Senator Steggal, some independent nobody doing exactly what every other boomer with a car does. Regardless of all of this, on the contrary and in spite of my gripes about the two-party system, you're completely wrong; the ALP was one of the parties most responsible for banning mining in Antarctica (https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/australi ... rtm6i.html) and are working actively alongside the Australian Conservation Foundation to end the extinction crisis in Australia (https://www.acf.org.au/alp_takes_signif ... ion_crisis). If you're having trouble about taking things seriously because of what the rich are doing, maybe don't elect a government that is funded and shilled for by the rich.

[True Refuge]

Global Warming champions keep warning us about how the sea levels will rise. Well, if that's the case then why are global warming champions buying sea side properties. Al Gore purchased a giant seaside mansion in Califronia, USA

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... a289ad4ee8
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... r-swindle/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tale-two-houses/

Aren't you worried, Mr. Gore, that your seaside California mansion will be washed away? I mean, seriously, isn't he worried.

Further, why is former USA president, Barack Hussein Obama II purchasing seaside mansions?

https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/barack-an ... -vineyard/

Isn't he worried that his house will be washed away with the rising sea levels?

Climate Crusader and Australian member of parliament, Zali Steggle, lives in one of Sydney's wealthiest suburbs, on the coast, with no solar panels:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr ... 18200fe886

If you're so worried about climate change, Senator Steggal, why in the fudge don't you live in a poorer suburb that won't get away when the sea levels rise. The money you make from the sale of your house and purchase of a new house in a cheaper inland area could be used to purchase solar panels, and you'll still have a few hundred thousand (if not million) dollars left over. Further, she drives and SUV? Why, just why? Why can't you ride a bike, Senator Steggal? I mean isn't that what you climate crusaders demand from us plebs, who live tens of kilometres from the CBD to do? If you want us to ride a bike from tens of kilometres to our jobs (many of which are in the CBD, tens of kilometres away) why don't you lead by example? You live very close to the CBD. (For my American readers, CBD= Downtown in Australian terminology). Further, your seat of Warringa has direct bus services to the CBD. When I attended university in the CBD, I used to catch a bus and a train, a journey which took an hour and half in either direction- and Senator Steggal has the option of a direct bus which she doesn't use.

So my question is, why are these global warming crusaders, who can afford to change their life styles, yell at us plebs to change our lifestyles (when we can't afford to), when they buy ocean side properties, which they're worried about.

Further, Bill Nye and John Oliver support a carbon tax claiming that Carbon Tax will incentives businesses to create greener innovations
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ate-change
Firstly, yes, I do think it's a good idea to take business advice from a TV comedian and TV scientist.

Secondly, yea, sure, carbon taxes will incentivise companies to go green- companies like McDonalds, and WalMart, and Coles, companies who have hundreds of millions to spend on R&D. But what about the little guy? Do these people honestly think that small business owner have money coming out of their arses. I know of a few poor business owners who scarifies meals in order to fund their businesses. I'm they'd like to have a word with TV personalities telling them about how they can afford more expenses. Unless your whole goal is to price the little out of their market, in which case, they're being monopolistic arseholes. I mean, Bill Nye even admitted that a carbon tax wouldn't be free. That's all well and good for the big companies, but what about small businesses who already to pay their creditors, do you want those small business owners to go bankrupt? Do you, Mr. Nye? Do you want to bankrupt small business owners? Smh

Climate change has become about rich people who can afford to change their lifestyles but refuse to yelling at middle class and poor people who can't afford to make these changes, because we're not making these changes.

I guess my question is, why does anyone take this crap seriously, anymore?
Anyways, what's your opinion on all this?

*Sigh* Hookay.

So I suppose since you're presumably Australian, I should start by pointing out that Obama purchasing a seaside mansion doesn't change the fact that the Bramble Cay melomys have gone completely extinct because of climate change. Is that little chestnut just completely debunked and they're secretly still alive just because billionaires are doing what billionaires usually do? Imagine my shock when the people with the most to lose decide to do the least, it's almost as though they've been paying like zero percent in tax this whole time (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-13/ ... o/10614916) that could've otherwise lifted the burden off working class Australians. So it's beyond me why you're going for the low-hanging fruit like Senator Steggal, some independent nobody doing exactly what every other boomer with a car does. Regardless of all of this, on the contrary and in spite of my gripes about the two-party system, you're completely wrong; the ALP was one of the parties most responsible for banning mining in Antarctica (https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/australi ... rtm6i.html) and are working actively alongside the Australian Conservation Foundation to end the extinction crisis in Australia (https://www.acf.org.au/alp_takes_signif ... ion_crisis). If you're having trouble about taking things seriously because of what the rich are doing, maybe don't elect a government that is funded and shilled for by the rich.

Lemme get a hell yeah for Ja Rule’s Funtime Spooktacular.

[Celritannia]

1. The fact it it on a page about the terminology of Socialism is a big clue.

2. Just because I mentioned Finland, is not me implying all the other Nordic Countries are Democratic Socialist.

3. No, it may not do, but it is an idea and a principle that can be implemented.

1.

Social democracy is a political ideology which "is derived from a socialist tradition of political thought. Many social democrats refer to themselves as socialists or democratic socialists, and some, for example Tony Blair, use or have used these terms interchangeably.[439][440][441] Others have opined that there are clear differences between the three terms, and preferred to describe their own political beliefs by using the term 'social democracy' only".[442] There are two main directions, either to establish democratic socialism, or to build a welfare state within the framework of the capitalist system. The first variant has officially its goal by establishing democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods.[443] In the second variant, social democracy becomes a policy regime involving a welfare state, collective bargaining schemes, support for publicly financed public services and a capitalist-based economy like a mixed economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century.[444][445] It has been described by Jerry Mander as "hybrid" economics, an active collaboration of capitalist and socialist visions and while such systems are not perfect they tend to provide high standards of living.[446] Numerous studies and surveys indicate that people tend to live happier lives in social democratic societies rather than neoliberal ones.[447][448][449][450]

Without a clear goal of socializing the means of production and capital, social democracy is merely inspired by traditional socialist thought and is not socialism. In social democracies, the second variant is generally more popular than the first. In the end, it's still a variant of capitalism that incorporates some socialist ideas, not the other way around.

2.
From earlier:

Where as Finland is Democratic Socialist.

Do you not see how labeling one countries' economic system as socialist implies that other countries that follow a variation of the same system are also socialist?

3.

Social Democracy and Liberal Socialism are the lighter forms which most Western Countries have.

Did you intend to say only social democracy here then?

1. I never said it was Socialism.

2. Not necessarily, because each of the Nordic states applies their modle differently.
I will admit though, I should have said Finland leans more towards Democratic Socialism than actually is Democratic Socialist.

3. No, because although similar, both are slightly different from what I read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism

[True Refuge]

1.


Without a clear goal of socializing the means of production and capital, social democracy is merely inspired by traditional socialist thought and is not socialism. In social democracies, the second variant is generally more popular than the first. In the end, it's still a variant of capitalism that incorporates some socialist ideas, not the other way around.

2.
From earlier:


Do you not see how labeling one countries' economic system as socialist implies that other countries that follow a variation of the same system are also socialist?

3.
Did you intend to say only social democracy here then?

1. I never said it was Socialism.

2. Not necessarily, because each of the Nordic states applies their modle differently.
I will admit though, I should have said Finland leans more towards Democratic Socialism than actually is Democratic Socialist.

3. No, because although similar, both are slightly different from what I read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism

1. You said it was “a lighter form” of socialism.

3. I mean in the sense that liberal socialism is nowhere near as common in the West as social democracy or possibly has never been practiced and so you shouldn’t have implied that it is that common.

[Persona City]

Well, it's rich people like Al Gore who do have more capacity to waste more resources and pollute more simply by being able to consume and thus consuming more resources both directly and indirectly. Not everyone can just up and do that. The economic system we all have to use to survive is also just massively wasteful in its own right.