I support no conferences, legislation, resolutions, or protocols involving Global Climate Change

[truedelphi]

Unless right on the top line, there is a ban on unnecessary wars.

[BzaDem]

1. A stupid position worthy of your avatar.

You really think there will be an international agreement to end war? And you are willing to kill global climate change efforts because of the lack of such an agreement?

Why that's very Kucinich of you. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[truedelphi]

3. Unnecesary would be the key part of the OP's mission statement.

If we have an attack like we had on Pearl Harbor, a nation has a right to war.

But what? they still grow ganga in Afghanistan, so we need troops there?
Or is it all about the pipeline?

[inna]

5. what an ugly and worthless comment.

big :thumbsdown: to you,

K&R for the OP!

[frog92969]

7. +3

Some people attack when they can't connect the dots.
They project their stupidity on others.

[truedelphi]

10. Global Climate change can only be regulated in any meaningful

Way if we stop the largest single cause of unnecessary activity.

If we keep pretending that only by having us poor people take the bus (even as the PTB cut back the bus schedules!) then the Climate changes will remain.

I am looking to the activities - and not to the slogans.

I invite you to join me. Many many years ago, back when it meant something to be an environmentalist, it was common knowledge that if we no longer had good money going after bad products, we could feed everyone and eliminate poverty.

If the penalties on the armaments dealers were severe enough - so that they had no place to stay, if the people who suffer famine could benefit from even 10 million dollars because such armaments were no longer manufactured no longer distributed no longer used to kill civilians - with our nation now guilty of over 1 million civilian causalities in Iraq - if all those efforts were changed as in swords into plough shares this would be a different world.

If we exclude the most meaningless products and activities from being banned, while harassing the poor people who drive large cars as they cannot afford a Prius, the Climate will only worsen. Despite all the pretty slogans.

[dems_rightnow]

2. Who gets to vote on if they are necessary?

Because I'm pretty sure those involved in them will say they are.

[truedelphi]

8. How about any time that ten million people across the world

Are marching in the streets, with such statements as "Iraq did not cause 9/11" on their banners, the Powers that Be must hold off!

[omega minimo]

18. being legal would be a clue. Legal and official declarations of war, rather than "Operation _______"

and the answer to your question in the US is (supposed to be) CONGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Clintonista2]

4. They say there are no stupid ideas, just stupid people

But this is a stupid idea. Really.

[truedelphi]

11. I should take a bus into town so that I can save the emissions from my car,

While the PTB continue to pollute with Depleted Uranium, which lasts for ever.

Great!!

[omega minimo]

19. So why do the people calling the OP "stupid" have nothing to say and seem

stupid.

[dionysus]

6. hookay...

:eyes:

[Motown_Johnny]

9. Then maybe we should all refuse to support bans on unnecessary wars unless

it also bans the amount of carbon released into our atmosphere




Brilliant

[autorank]

12. Very interesting and thought provoking

At first I didn't get it. Then I realized the obvious.

If we don't approach the problems we face in a unified fashion, we'll never solve any of them
properly.

The assumptions behind the suggestion provokes these types of questions:

Why have a cleaner world, if we're going to keep killing each other?

What is the sincerity of climate change activists who are not also antiwar?

This is an excellent question, Zen like in it's provocativeness.

[truedelphi]

17. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

However, what I was trying to get across (And to me it was so obvious that I did not spell it out) is that our world cannot be made much cleaner as long as we are fighting wars. Apparently most people confronted with my OP think I am trying to suggest that we hold the Climate Change proposals as hostage. Merely for the sake of grandstanding. That was not my point.

What I am saying is that Mother Nature does not care at all about what proposals we make. She cares about the end effect. (For instance, by the time people wake up and start legislating against GMO food and seeds, the pollen from those crops will be so pervasive that we will not be able to do squat about that issue, as you cannot re-capture pollen dispersed across the planet through legislation.)

In this case, the amount of our resources that go to wars is an amount that dwarfs most other efforts. So unless we start making our politicians realize that we cannot allow them to have these wars, they will continue to pretend that this is not an issue.

If I remember correctly the military budget of our nation is bigger than the next five nations combined!! So that budget alone if converted even by half to more peaceful enterprises would be most excellent to help heal the earth.

[omega minimo]

20. Something even more amazing and obvious, though unfortunately elusive these days

from #10

"I am looking to the activities - and not to the slogans. I invite you to join me. Many many years ago, back when it meant something to be an environmentalist, it was common knowledge that if we no longer had good money going after bad products, we could feed everyone and eliminate poverty."

"Back when it meant something ...." we understood the interconnections, they were more "common knowledge." I am still dealing with the frustration of how effectively simple solutions were undermined and even disappeared from popular awareness or imagination; over how we are just now getting BACK to the point that we were at 30 or more years ago.

[autorank]

23. Twice in one week!

Very good points!

[omega minimo]

24. true delphi also points out

War is a racket. What if the public gets fed up with suffering the consequences of people riding the war machine all the way to the bank, then turning round and telling us to "take the bus"?

[truedelphi]

30. Thank you for the support offered in your several posts here.

I realize that my OP was a bit too oblique for some.

But those who understood what I meant to be saying now help me believe that maybe we can get back to the era of the seventies - when certain basic ideas were understood and embraced.

Right now, when I talk to younger environmentalists, I get the feeling that cows are more awful than wars! Whereas any one who has ever walked around a well-managed dairy farm understands how for every ounce of methane excreted by a cow, more than ten acres of brush and wild flowers are there to transform it back into oxygen.

Something that can never happen with all of the USA's depleted uranium weaponry.

Anyway thank you for all the support.

[omega minimo]

32. Your OP and thread show the loss/need for common knowledge and common cause.

:thumbsup:

[uppityperson]

13. I multli-task and will support GCC issues as well as unnec war issues

and health care issues, and job promotion, and a whole lot else

[Unvanguard]

14. Your pet issue--however important--does not get to hold preventing ecological catastrophe hostage.

Sorry.

[truedelphi]

15. My point is that the amount of energy created and destroyed

By producing the armanents for wars is one of the greatest wastes of energy that exists.

We could feed every man woman and child in every nation on the planet, if resources were not diverted from the people for the sake of weaponry.

If every one driving a big car were to suddenly start to ride public transist -that would not equal the vast amount of energy expended on the production and use of the weaponry, the troop movements etc.

If wars and armanents are not part of the bottom line of what needs to be ended - then we will probably not save the planet.

It is not just about resolve, it is about realizing what needs to go.

And obviously you cannot be an environmentalist and support these endless useless wars.

[omega minimo]

21. Sorry. That's not the point. Or the intention of the OP, as clarified in the thread.

The thread is providing some good insight into why you might not be able to understand that or familiar with the concept of connecting those particular dots... and why your post and others here reflect this "tit for tat" attitude that replaced seeing those connections ..................

[jotsy]

16. Do I get in trouble if I suggest we start a pool on how many posters, (please subtract letter t) are

paid to come and heckle a principled and IMO noble post.

Hit the rec button but it remained at zero with several comments already play, mostly supportive ones. Some bozo somewhere is paying a lot of money to mean spirited whorish writers who haven't the substance to speak genuinely in a public domain. If war is necessary, all one can expect is loss.

Mr. Delphi, I agree with your sentiment in its entirety and ask your critics to find out how high on the list of global polluters our own defense department is before they forward cross words your way again. I wouldn't count on it though, the tactics of toxic verbal engagement are taking aim at longstanding and historically popular members of DU. The combination of bombardment and belligerence is quite reminiscent of one of those town hall brawls the right wing engineered with such precision.

To tell you to hold tough doesn't seem my place, but how I feel nonetheless.

[omega minimo]

22. What a wonderful post.

:toast:

[TheKentuckian]

25. What???? You realize the same people that don't want to deal with the climate

also most want wars?

Who are you bargaining with?

[truedelphi]

28. Most of the upper one percent have this scam going

Called Cap and Trade. It essentially relies on we the average people to pay for the trades that the Big Polluters will make in order for them to keep polluting.

Both parties are essentially owned by the upper one percent. That is why even though Mr "Change that Will Make A Difference" was voted in, we still have the same policies.

We still have endless wars, and Capital needed for Main Street flowing over to Wall Street, in such huge amounts that our kids and grand kids will be paying.

I am just not going to be happy until there is discussion of the pollution caused by the endless wars and the endless armaments that cause such disruption to the economies of all the nations in the world.

You can not have endless wars and a clean environment. For one thing, the way it is now, the poor are paying the price for the energy crisis. And the energy crisis is made to look as though it were caused by some poor slobs driving older bigger more polluting cars.

But look at it this way - if we could have diverted the two trillion bucks spent by Mr Bush and his cronies on Iraq and the int ital Afghani wars - if even one third of it was diverted to be used for very good causes, perhaps we would now have bullet train lines being built to go from New York to Washington, and out to Chicago.

So far Mr Obama has offered a VAST SUM more than Bush has for high speed rail. That VAST SUM totals nine billion bucks This is a small step in the right direction - but it doesn't get anyone very far. (Hint: it just cost the people of Calif. six billion to repair a bridge in San Francisco that promptly fell apart upon completion!)

[dysfunctional press]

26. I support no conferences, legislation, resolutions, protocols re: Global Climate Change, either...

but mostly because i want to see the whole planet crash and burn in my lifetime.
except florida- i want to see it slide under the rising seas...
i got this big screen hi-def tv with cnn and msnbc for a REASON. :popcorn:

[rcrush]

27. Funny to see someone get flamed here for wanting something good

Good lord.

[truedelphi]

29. I have been burnt to a crisp before so I am used to it.

Thank you for saying so, though. It did seem a bit odd. I think there was this sense that I was saying, "I refuse to improve the environment until we end wars," which I guess is one way of interpreting what I wrote.

What I meant to say is, "Why the hell aren't we talking about the tremendous damage done to the world by the expenditure of resources, people, and money on the most polluting and useless activity ever - ie, war, as we discuss Global Climate Change?!?"

Some people like you saw it that way. For others it needed to be spelled out.

[omega minimo]

31. + 1,000,000