We do those things already in the smaller countries. Literally USAID and BHA do that on a regular basis.
further- what’s wrong with sustainability and reducing carbon emissions. It doesn’t have to be political.
I can see that it reducing my waste, recycling, and not being wasteful has a net positive impact on the earth. Why exactly is that a political statement and wrong?
I'll make this as clear as possible. If you can't actually read and comprehend what I'm saying then I'm done engaging.
- There is no clear, irrefutable evidence that humans are responsible for climate change.
- There is no clear, irrefutable evidence that reducing carbon emissions will actually stop/slow climate change.
- The science is not "settled." In fact, it's in its infancy.
- Until we can solve problems 1-3 above, then there are better places to spend the money that have direct, measurable, impacts on the wellbeing of the environment, our population, and the world as a whole such as clean air, clean water, and reduction of encroachment on native animal habitats.
So what's the answer to both issues?
the EPA in the 1970s was pretty successful.
I grew up next to Onondaga Lake, and Allied chemical completely fucked the entire ecosystem of that place up. Should we go back to that? I don't care that Allied employed 1000 workers and brought money into the local economy; in a couple of decades they completely ruined Onondaga lake for generations to come (centuries if they don't clean it up). I kind of like the idea of having safe and clean places to swim, and sail, and windsurf.
The smog over LA and Phoenix is pretty bad. Do we let that become a normal thing over every big city?
Agreed, why are we wasting time on carbon reduction when we could get more bang for our buck with spending on clean air and clean water initiatives. My aunt works at the EPA in both offices and has seen her funding slashed repeatedly by both parties over the years because they keep chasing carbon footprint and carbon exchanges.
Are you really claiming the state department and other significant gov't agencies are just parroting from a PowerPoint slide?
Are you really implying diplomatically accredited FSOs from DOS and USAID as well as the SDO/DATT are just parroting something from slides???
how exactly do you think national security and national interests are advanced?
We see it all the time in the DoD, why wouldn't it happen in other agencies? This is literally an appeal to authority and that's a logical fallacy. From my personal experience working with DoS and USAID, yes, they are guilty of groupthink and focusing more on pretty powerpoints than actual facts just like the rest of the government.