US right now is on the path of losing its dominance.

That may present an opportunity to develop international democracy, to replace the violent, hegemonic rule of any one nation.

We are all the addict, because we all want the relative luxuries, conveniences, and comforts of a “middle class,” or higher, modern life. I’m no exception. But, the relative good life that is afforded to many in the modern world is heavily connected to fossil fuels.

As living standards have increased over the past few centuries, so has fossil fuel use. And the connection between the two is not arbitrary. The relatively high living standards of a modern, middle class lifestyle require a relatively high amount of energy. Fossil fuels are very energy dense. We need energy, fossil fuels contain a lot of energy, it’s not terribly complicated.

A lot of people posit that a modern middle class lifestyle is possible without getting any energy from fossil fuels. That would be great if true, but it is a yet unproven hypothesis. It’s entirely possible that an end to fossil fuel use also means an end to at least some of the luxuries of modern living, especially at the very upper end.

But, honestly this might all be a moot point, because modern life also seems to be dependent on an infinite growth paradigm and infinite growth isn’t possible, regardless of the energy source. It’s possible that humans just aren’t capable of living sustainably at these scales and at these levels of advancement. Sustainability requires that there be such a thing as “enough,” but is there such a thing as enough for most people? I don’t know.

Macron referred to expected changes in Washington’s foreign policy, citing the need to reduce reliance on the United States for security.

As an American, I also urge Europe to reduce its reliance on the US, for security or anything else. You’re going to want to insulate yourselves as much as possible from my unbelievably stupid, and potentially very dangerous country.

I, personally, will never buy a Tesla. I would consider buying an EV, but never a Tesla.

Occidental says the captured carbon will be stored in rock deep underground, but its website also refers to the company’s use of captured carbon in a process called “enhanced oil recovery.” This involves pushing carbon into wells to force out the hard-to-reach remnants of oil — allowing fossil fuel companies to extract even more from aging oil fields.

Well, they have to sell the carbon they capture to make money. If you suck up carbon and put it underground, where’s your revenue stream? The ground ain’t paying you to stuff it full of carbon. These big vacuums ain’t free, they have to pay for them somehow.

China’s reported levels of respiratory infections are within the normal range… [HMPV is] not a new virus,” Harris said. “It was first identified in 2001. It’s been in the human population for a long time. It is a common virus that circulates in winter and spring.”

Source

at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.

Yeah, I could see that happening. Maybe even the US. Maybe Elon Musk reads a Twitter thread about geoengineering, decides it’s the solution to warming, starts a company called GeoX and convinces Trump and the Republicans to give him and GeoX $5 billion a year, he buys a bunch of jets, fills them with sulfur dioxide and has them fart out a bunch of it around the Arctic every year. GeoX stocks soar, Musk becomes the first trillionaire, and the US federal government has added only a trivial amount to its already vast debt total. It almost doesn’t matter if it works or not.

Yes, it was sarcasm. But, I think the push for solar geoengineering, or as some people are calling it “solar radiation management” is coming.

So, what does this all mean for us? It means we have even less time to get our act together. Reducing emissions isn’t just a good idea — it’s crucial.

I don’t think this will motivate countries to dramatically increase emissions reduction efforts, but I think it will motivate countries to begin geoengineering. Geoengineering is cheaper and easier than rapid emissions reduction, and the results are more immediate. Yes, it doesn’t solve the core problem, which is the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, but it treats the symptom, albeit temporarily. Why put a lot of time, money, and effort into fixing the core problem when you can spend comparatively less time, money, and effort just treating the symptom? Then you can just pretend the core problem doesn’t exist and go about business as usual.

Edit: sorry, I should have added the /s.

I used to think like this and if you’re genuinely interested there are tons of resources online

Alright, well if you’re not willing to explain how or why you changed your thinking on this topic, at least link me to even one of these “resources.”

Help me understand. Help me overcome my narrow, “fundamentalist” thinking. If net positive, net negative, and net neutral are not the only logical possibility, then what other possibilities are there?

If you’re arguing that determining the net of something like globalization is complex and challenging, I agree, but I don’t see how that proves that there are more logical possibilities than the three I’ve identified. Modern global civilization is extraordinarily complex, and yet we try to find ways to measure the effects or outcomes of modern civilization to determine if it has been a net positive or net negative for humanity. This is at the heart of the concept of “progress.” Now, maybe you don’t subscribe to this concept, maybe you reject the grand narrative of human progress, and if that’s the case, well, fair enough, but I can tell you that most of the proponents of globalization absolutely do subscribe to the concept of human progress, and they have advocated for globalization because they believe it will further said progress.

If you’re arguing that “positive” and “negative” in this context are inherently subjective, and thus there’s no way to determine if globalization is objectively positive or negative, that’s fair, but if that’s your argument then it’s just as valid for someone to say globalization is bad as it is for someone to say globalization is good.

But free trade only among the “good” countries is not global free trade. So the idea of global free trade has already disappeared.

Globalisation and free trade are a good thing as long as everyone involved is doing it with good intentions.

And as you’ve pointed out, not everyone involved is doing with good intentions, therefore it’s not a good thing.

Sure, if you wanna do absolutes, you could probably calculate whether the bad effect of China fucking up the world by giving their companies an infinite money cheat code is worse than the benefits. And you’d arrive at some result.

And clearly liberals have arrived at the conclusion that the bad effects outweigh the benefits, since they are abandoning their previous commitment to open borders and free trade, and moving more toward protectionist policies and reshoring industries.

That doesn’t make any sense. Certainly they thought free trade and globalization would be a net positive for someone. Otherwise, why do it?

The only options I can see are: net negative, net positive, or net neutral. Either good exceeds the bad, the bad exceeds the good, or the good and bad cancel each other out. But, my point was not necessarily about the number of options, but that it is logically impossible for free trade and globalization to be both a net positive and a net negative simultaneously. It must necessarily be one or the other, just like you can’t be both dead and alive at the same time. So, which is it?

At very least, liberals made a miscalculation. They assumed that free trade and globalization would be a net positive, but recent history had made them rethink that position. I think that is because they assumed it would lead to the world embracing liberalism - liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism, specifically - essentially becoming the only sociopolitical/socioeconomic system in the world. This did not happen. China became a major economic force, despite not being a liberal democracy or neoliberal capitalist, and they show no signs of becoming a liberal nation. It turns out, free trade and globalization can be used by non-liberals to increase their power and influence too. Whoops.

All These things can be true at the same time.

So, you’re saying that free trade and globalization can be both good and bad simultaneously? Certainly free trade and globalization can have both positive and negative aspects simultaneously, but it can’t be both a net positive and a net negative simultaneously.

Liberals: free trade and globalization are good

China becomes a major force in production and global trade

Liberals: free trade and globalization are bad

Consumption of world’s wealthiest people also making it increasingly difficult to limit global heating to 1.5C

We’re not going to achieve the 1.5C target. It’s just not going to happen. Yes, it might (might!) still be physically possible to limit warming to 1.5C, but it’s not economically, politically, or socially possible. The only way we could achieve 1.5C at this point would be if there was some major economic collapse or some other major crisis. There’s no real way we can reduce GHG emissions at the rate necessary to achieve 1.5C while the global population, global economy, and average per person consumption rates continue to grow at their current pace. Some might say it is theoretically possible, but I don’t really care if it is. We’re not looking for theoretical solutions, we’re looking for actual solutions, and I think the actual solutions get us somewhere between 2.5C and 3C.

US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller later stated the US believes this step is “not productive at all” due to the UN’s role in the region.

Wow, we are really taking a firm stance here. Israel better be careful or we might become slightly miffed, or maybe even peeved.

A lot of economists don’t listen to anything Joseph Stiglitz says, because he’s not from the Chicago school. Economics is so stupid.