Climate Change? Nahhh ...

I appreciate you telling me I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not. I don't even know what the Trilateral Commission is.

As for the second graf, I mean, there's a poster in this thread that insists the United States really hasn't done anything to combat climate change - and thus has no room to talk to a nation like China - but when asked why the do-nothing US should be leading an effort on climate change, responds "if not us, who?"

The two identities just don't wash. The US is not the bummy dude sleeping on the couch who, when called upon, musters up all the intellect and savvy to negotiate world peace. Either the US is up to the moment because it is far more than the hellscape its critics have insisted it is, or it lacks the confidence and authority to do any of it, and needs to follow a moral better.

 

Where do ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) standards fit into that puzzle?
A lot of American companies, as well as an alarming number of large banks and investment firms, are glomming onto this and it's becoming codified into law in Europe. It will have a big effect on a lot of markets and industries. If your company produces meat or any agricultural products, for example, you'll probably have a low ESG score and a tougher time doing business.

EU to Make Fund Managers Back Up Sustainability Claims

 

I was epicurious in college, but it was just a phase.

 

"There's a poster"? Passive aggressive much?

I didn't say that the United States hasn't done anything to combat climate change. I said that we should do more. We could be doing a lot of things that will not only help decrease pollution but would decrease our energy costs and increase our output and we could sell at a profit to countries that don't have our manufacturing base. I'm not counting on some miracle invention, I'm saying that if you pile up enough small gains you wind up with a worthwhile increase.

 

I know this: "That other country isn't doing anything so why should we?" is exactly how a 5-year-old would treat the problem.

 

What do the words "really doing anything" mean if they don't mean "really doing anything."

At any rate, I'm speaking more to the dual identity of the matter. It may be all of the criticism about the US is accurate, and Americans really are as awful in nearly every area as advertised. But, if that's true, what are we doing leading anything? If not us, who? Any nation better than the US on climate change, I suppose. Why not?

 

Show me where I wrote that.

 

Show me where I said you wrote that.

 

Don't worry. By the year 3000, we'll be able to launch a big ball of garbage to solve our problems.

 

I reject your premise that people dissatisfied with elements of how America works hate the country as a whole, or that these people represent any meaningful slice of our national population.

 

Fair. I don't know that they actually hate America. I'm saying the criticism on social media and in mainstream media would indicate as much - really from both sides of the political spectrum. I think some the hate is kind of a performance, to be honest. That's part of my point: The cognitive dissonance between "America is a unforgivably flawed nation on multiple fronts" and "it needs to lead the way on massive global efforts to save the planet!" is too great for both ideas to be entirely true, so if you're insisting on the second, you're almost relying on the first as a shaming mechanism. (A premise you may also reject.)

 

I know I go quite hard at you, but I in no way put you in the category of the people I'm speaking of. I quite agree with you about nuclear power.