Well, this comment will be deleted. Regardless, the speaker who is allegedly from Pakistan - which they felt should remind the viewers that it allegedly has nuclear weapons - claimed that, "caring about the 'climate crisis' means whenever a region experiences bad weather, some outside entity should give it 20,000,000,000.00 United States Dollars 'even if those billions come in the meager form of payments of 300,000,000.00 USD.'" "Hi, this is Jim, Jim has scary weapons, and he is here to talk to you about you owing him money because of his opinion." This is an emphatically silly claim. The narrative that the 'climate crisis folks give is: "human activities - particularly the burning of hydrocarbons - are bad for the planet because they enhance the greenhouse effect beyond what may be considered preferable." Therefore, if there is a massive disruption to a group of people's ability to function, their expected emissions will be lower. To be abundantly clear, the current narrative for the 'climate crisis' group is a very simple, direct message, "once humans reach a certain level of development, their aggregate activities generate externalities that exceed the value of their conduct; therefore, the desired outcome is to reduce the number of humans who - by their simple routines - generate these excess emissions." I say current speakers because the reality is these speakers do not tell listeners how to derive useful energy - and materials - from non-combustion reactions. The 'crisis' group will say no no no to conventional energy, but they do not teach how to implement a superior or equal alternative - reliable, scalable, affordable, non-permissioned energy. This 'crisis group' also enjoys the idea that some groups are guilty by their 'collective history,' and 'because of this collective guilt' these groups MUST give their currencies and items of value to groups which are determined by some unrepresentative committee to be "less collectively guilty by their alleged collective history." It goes without saying, justice is generally not carried out via collective punishment; no individual feels it is just and right that they should benefit or be harmed because of the conduct of someone they have no reasonable connection to. Governance may be carried out by collective action, but this should not be called justice. While it is common for groups to use previous alleged government action as a method of describing character and intentions, it should be understood that holding new (newly elected or selected) governments/administrations wholly responsible for the conduct of previous administrations can actually incentivize governments to continue previous policy because they are punished regardless of whether they change course. The group is right about the issue of nations taking out debt in foreign currencies. One should not borrow in something which an opaque central committee who controls the financial sector can highly restrict based upon political goals (oh wait, this means no one should borrow pretty much every national currency out there). Censorship helped various unsavory groups rise to power because the people felt and knew that they could not ask their neighbor's opinion without potentially facing force; therefore, the threat of force for conduct which is actually harmful was rendered meaningless by its abundant supply for non-harmful conduct.
Well, this comment will be deleted.
Regardless, the speaker who is allegedly from Pakistan - which they felt should remind the viewers that it allegedly has nuclear weapons - claimed that, "caring about the 'climate crisis' means whenever a region experiences bad weather, some outside entity should give it 20,000,000,000.00 United States Dollars 'even if those billions come in the meager form of payments of 300,000,000.00 USD.'"
"Hi, this is Jim, Jim has scary weapons, and he is here to talk to you about you owing him money because of his opinion."
This is an emphatically silly claim. The narrative that the 'climate crisis folks give is: "human activities - particularly the burning of hydrocarbons - are bad for the planet because they enhance the greenhouse effect beyond what may be considered preferable." Therefore, if there is a massive disruption to a group of people's ability to function, their expected emissions will be lower.
To be abundantly clear, the current narrative for the 'climate crisis' group is a very simple, direct message, "once humans reach a certain level of development, their aggregate activities generate externalities that exceed the value of their conduct; therefore, the desired outcome is to reduce the number of humans who - by their simple routines - generate these excess emissions." I say current speakers because the reality is these speakers do not tell listeners how to derive useful energy - and materials - from non-combustion reactions. The 'crisis' group will say no no no to conventional energy, but they do not teach how to implement a superior or equal alternative - reliable, scalable, affordable, non-permissioned energy.
This 'crisis group' also enjoys the idea that some groups are guilty by their 'collective history,' and 'because of this collective guilt' these groups MUST give their currencies and items of value to groups which are determined by some unrepresentative committee to be "less collectively guilty by their alleged collective history." It goes without saying, justice is generally not carried out via collective punishment; no individual feels it is just and right that they should benefit or be harmed because of the conduct of someone they have no reasonable connection to. Governance may be carried out by collective action, but this should not be called justice.
While it is common for groups to use previous alleged government action as a method of describing character and intentions, it should be understood that holding new (newly elected or selected) governments/administrations wholly responsible for the conduct of previous administrations can actually incentivize governments to continue previous policy because they are punished regardless of whether they change course.
The group is right about the issue of nations taking out debt in foreign currencies. One should not borrow in something which an opaque central committee who controls the financial sector can highly restrict based upon political goals (oh wait, this means no one should borrow pretty much every national currency out there).
Censorship helped various unsavory groups rise to power because the people felt and knew that they could not ask their neighbor's opinion without potentially facing force; therefore, the threat of force for conduct which is actually harmful was rendered meaningless by its abundant supply for non-harmful conduct.