Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
ancianita
ancianita's Journal
ancianita's Journal
December 21, 2020
President Biden's Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution & Environmental Justice
12 years. Because humans are burning about 40 gigatons (gigaton = a billion tons) of fossil carbon per year.
Scientists have calculated that we can burn about 500 more gigatons of fossil carbon before we push the average global temperature over 2 degrees Celsius, at which point dangerous cascading effects range the Earth, from heat waves to food supply. And so the 12 years timeline.
Big Fossil has already located at least 3,000 gigatons of fossil carbon in the ground. The value of leaving 2,500 gigatons of carbon in the ground, using the current price of oil, is on the order of 1,500 trillion US dollars, or 1.5 quadrillion dollars.
So far, we haven't stopped the 19 largest carbon producers.
Biden is right. There is urgency, given the spread of Big Fossil resistance.
December 16, 2020
16. Enoughonomics
"Possibly some of the richest two percent of the world’s population have decided to give up on the pretense that “progress” or “development” or “prosperity” can be achieved for all eight billion of the world’s people. For quite a long time, a century or two, this “prosperity for all” goal had been the line taken; that although there was inequality now, if everyone just stuck to the program and did not rock the boat, the rising tide would eventually float even the most high-and-dry among them.
But early in the twenty-first century it became clear that the planet was incapable of sustaining everyone alive at Western levels, and at that point the richest pulled away into their fortress mansions, bought the governments or disabled them from action against them, and bolted their doors to wait it out until come poorly theorize better time, which really came down to just the remainder of their lives, and perhaps the lives of their children if they were feeling optimistic — beyond that, aprés moi le déluge.
A rational response to an intractable problem. But not really. There was scientifically supported evidence to show that if the Earth’s available resources were divided up equally among all eight billion humans, everyone would be fine. They would all be at adequacy, and the scientific evidence very robustly supported the contention that people living at adequacy, and confident they would stay there (a crucial point), were healthier and thus happier than rich people. So the upshot of that equal division would be an improvement for all.
Rich people would often snort at this last study, then go off and lose sleep over their bodyguards, tax lawyers,legal risks — children crazy with arrogance, love not at all fungible — over-eating and over-indulgence generally, resulting health problems, ennui and existential angst — in short, an insomniac faceplant into the realization that science was once again right, that money couldn’t buy health or love or happiness. Although it has to be added that a reliable sufficiency of money is indeed necessary to scaffold the possibility of those good things. The happy medium, the Goldilocks zone in terms of personal income, according to sociological analyses, seemed to rest at around 100,000 US dollars a year, or about the same amount of money that most working scientists made, which was a little suspicious in several senses, but there it stood: data.
And one can run the math. The 2,000 Watt Society, started in 1998 in Switzerland, calculated that if all the energy consumed by households were divided by the total number of humans alive, each would have the use of about 2,000 watts of power, meaning about 48 kilowatt-hours per day. The society’s members than tried living on that amount of electricity to see what it was like: they found it was fine. It took paying attention to energy use, but the resulting life was by no means a form of suffering; it was even reported to feel more stylish and meaningful to those who undertook the experiment.
So, is there energy enough for all? Yes.
Is there food enough for all? Yes.
Is there housing enough for all? There could be, there is no real problem there. Same for clothing.
Is there health care enough for all? Not yet, but there could be; it’s a matter of training people and making small technological objects, there is no planetary constraint on that one. Same with education.
So all the necessities for a good life are abundant enough that everyone alive could have them.
Food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, and education.
Is there enough security for all? Security is the feeling that results from being confident that you will have all the things listed above, and your children will have them, too. So it is a derivative effect. There can be enough security for all; but only if all have security.
If one percent of the humans alive controlled everyone’s work, and took far more than their share of the benefits of that work, while also blocking the project of equality and sustainability however they could, that project would become more difficult. This would go without saying except that it needs saying.
To be clear, concluding in brief: there is enough for all. So there should be no more people living in poverty. And there should be no more billionaires.
Enough should be a human right, a floor below which no one can fall; also a ceiling above which no one can rise.
Enough is as good as a feast — or better.
Arranging this situation is left as an exercise for the reader."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, then. I'll start.
This is ...
Why antifa exists.
Why I am anti-Big Corps.
Why Sheldon Whitehouse is right that much of congressional government has been bought and controlled by Big Corp.
Why health care is for profit.
Why there are homeless.
Why there is drug addiction.
Why humans are trafficked and children caged.
Why the Republican party platform is "Trump."
Why Nestlé USA, Inc. and Cargill, Inc. v. John Doe et al tries to make the corporate owners' way the legal way of the world it is trying to own.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214718897
Why the people need to find the who and where of Big Corps owners.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212822589
Why some humans are "more equal than others."
Why there is scarcity, and why humans become inured to scarcity -- of necessities, of courage, good faith, trust and trustworthiness; of thought, feeling, action.
Kim Stanley Robinson's chapter on Enoughonomics.
Chapter 16 in The Ministry For the Future (2020) is untitled. But it should be called...16. Enoughonomics
"Possibly some of the richest two percent of the world’s population have decided to give up on the pretense that “progress” or “development” or “prosperity” can be achieved for all eight billion of the world’s people. For quite a long time, a century or two, this “prosperity for all” goal had been the line taken; that although there was inequality now, if everyone just stuck to the program and did not rock the boat, the rising tide would eventually float even the most high-and-dry among them.
But early in the twenty-first century it became clear that the planet was incapable of sustaining everyone alive at Western levels, and at that point the richest pulled away into their fortress mansions, bought the governments or disabled them from action against them, and bolted their doors to wait it out until come poorly theorize better time, which really came down to just the remainder of their lives, and perhaps the lives of their children if they were feeling optimistic — beyond that, aprés moi le déluge.
A rational response to an intractable problem. But not really. There was scientifically supported evidence to show that if the Earth’s available resources were divided up equally among all eight billion humans, everyone would be fine. They would all be at adequacy, and the scientific evidence very robustly supported the contention that people living at adequacy, and confident they would stay there (a crucial point), were healthier and thus happier than rich people. So the upshot of that equal division would be an improvement for all.
Rich people would often snort at this last study, then go off and lose sleep over their bodyguards, tax lawyers,legal risks — children crazy with arrogance, love not at all fungible — over-eating and over-indulgence generally, resulting health problems, ennui and existential angst — in short, an insomniac faceplant into the realization that science was once again right, that money couldn’t buy health or love or happiness. Although it has to be added that a reliable sufficiency of money is indeed necessary to scaffold the possibility of those good things. The happy medium, the Goldilocks zone in terms of personal income, according to sociological analyses, seemed to rest at around 100,000 US dollars a year, or about the same amount of money that most working scientists made, which was a little suspicious in several senses, but there it stood: data.
And one can run the math. The 2,000 Watt Society, started in 1998 in Switzerland, calculated that if all the energy consumed by households were divided by the total number of humans alive, each would have the use of about 2,000 watts of power, meaning about 48 kilowatt-hours per day. The society’s members than tried living on that amount of electricity to see what it was like: they found it was fine. It took paying attention to energy use, but the resulting life was by no means a form of suffering; it was even reported to feel more stylish and meaningful to those who undertook the experiment.
So, is there energy enough for all? Yes.
Is there food enough for all? Yes.
Is there housing enough for all? There could be, there is no real problem there. Same for clothing.
Is there health care enough for all? Not yet, but there could be; it’s a matter of training people and making small technological objects, there is no planetary constraint on that one. Same with education.
So all the necessities for a good life are abundant enough that everyone alive could have them.
Food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, and education.
Is there enough security for all? Security is the feeling that results from being confident that you will have all the things listed above, and your children will have them, too. So it is a derivative effect. There can be enough security for all; but only if all have security.
If one percent of the humans alive controlled everyone’s work, and took far more than their share of the benefits of that work, while also blocking the project of equality and sustainability however they could, that project would become more difficult. This would go without saying except that it needs saying.
To be clear, concluding in brief: there is enough for all. So there should be no more people living in poverty. And there should be no more billionaires.
Enough should be a human right, a floor below which no one can fall; also a ceiling above which no one can rise.
Enough is as good as a feast — or better.
Arranging this situation is left as an exercise for the reader."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, then. I'll start.
This is ...
Why antifa exists.
Why I am anti-Big Corps.
Why Sheldon Whitehouse is right that much of congressional government has been bought and controlled by Big Corp.
Why health care is for profit.
Why there are homeless.
Why there is drug addiction.
Why humans are trafficked and children caged.
Why the Republican party platform is "Trump."
Why Nestlé USA, Inc. and Cargill, Inc. v. John Doe et al tries to make the corporate owners' way the legal way of the world it is trying to own.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214718897
Why the people need to find the who and where of Big Corps owners.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212822589
Why some humans are "more equal than others."
Why there is scarcity, and why humans become inured to scarcity -- of necessities, of courage, good faith, trust and trustworthiness; of thought, feeling, action.
December 16, 2020
U.S. Supreme Court Assesses Corporate Complicity in Child Slavery
https://www.cfr.org/article/us-supreme-court-assesses-corporate-complicity-child-slavery
If these Big Corps win against the humans in foreign lands, they will apply those precedents to humans in America. They'll be back to apply these arguments re reparations payable by big corps for human slavery in America. Transatlantic slavery was the first "supply chain."
For centuries, Big Corps fight in courts for all benefits and protections under constitutional Rule of Law, then in those same courts have externalized all costs (wages, pollution, worker safety, etc) to Humans, for whom the Constitution was originally written.
In autocracy, Big Corps is boss and humans are grateful, 'law abiding' wage slaves on the corporate campus (the now scaled up plantation) where the trains run on time.
In Democracy, human lives constitutionally matter.
This is the real reason that federal judicial appointments matter, imo.
The Latest Cost-Benefit Double Standard By Big Corp -- Using Rule Of Law Against Humans
U.S. Supreme Court Assesses Corporate Complicity in Child Slavery
https://www.cfr.org/article/us-supreme-court-assesses-corporate-complicity-child-slavery
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments [PDF] on December 1 in a case with potentially major implications for international human rights law. At stake in Nestlé USA, Inc. and Cargill, Inc. v. John Doe et al is a reparations claim by six former child slaves who labored for token compensation in the cocoa fields of the Ivory Coast. They were part of the supply chain for two major U.S. corporations that manufacture cocoa products, including candy bars. The 1789 Alien Tort Statute (ATS) allows foreign nationals to lodge civil suits against U.S. and foreign defendants for torts committed in violation of the “law of nations,” the term used centuries ago to describe international law.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the ATS to cover only those cases [PDF] that “touch and concern” the United States, thus confirming the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. laws and denying liability [PDF] of foreign corporations altogether. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against [PDF] Nestlé USA and Cargill under the ATS, finding grounds for their corporate liability and role in aiding and abetting child slavery and forced labor in the Ivory Coast. Before the Supreme Court, Nestlé USA and Cargill argued that there is no corporate liability whatsoever under the ATS, even for companies incorporated under U.S. law with operations in the United States. In their view, only individuals can be sued under the ATS for violating universally accepted norms of international law.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the ATS to cover only those cases [PDF] that “touch and concern” the United States, thus confirming the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. laws and denying liability [PDF] of foreign corporations altogether. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against [PDF] Nestlé USA and Cargill under the ATS, finding grounds for their corporate liability and role in aiding and abetting child slavery and forced labor in the Ivory Coast. Before the Supreme Court, Nestlé USA and Cargill argued that there is no corporate liability whatsoever under the ATS, even for companies incorporated under U.S. law with operations in the United States. In their view, only individuals can be sued under the ATS for violating universally accepted norms of international law.
If these Big Corps win against the humans in foreign lands, they will apply those precedents to humans in America. They'll be back to apply these arguments re reparations payable by big corps for human slavery in America. Transatlantic slavery was the first "supply chain."
For centuries, Big Corps fight in courts for all benefits and protections under constitutional Rule of Law, then in those same courts have externalized all costs (wages, pollution, worker safety, etc) to Humans, for whom the Constitution was originally written.
In autocracy, Big Corps is boss and humans are grateful, 'law abiding' wage slaves on the corporate campus (the now scaled up plantation) where the trains run on time.
In Democracy, human lives constitutionally matter.
This is the real reason that federal judicial appointments matter, imo.
December 14, 2020
I posted this (now that my 3-day FB ban is over) to my 50+ year-old anti-vaxxer daughter this am. Along with Gov Cuomo's video of the first shot, and some historical context:
People of good will have tried to alleviate legitimate human suffering for centuries.
Mainstream media, composed of reporters of good will with families, show that science still works for human good. While humans make mistakes when trying, they still try. Though evil exists, the vast majority of the world are not all-against-all liars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine
I posted it in response to our recent phone argument that's too long to go into detail (part of it was my reasoned reminder to her of her own life benefits from childhood polio immunizations), but she swears that her 15 year-old son, my only grandchild, will only receive a vaccine over her dead body, to which I answered that she will not get the final word on that. The rest from me was deserved tough talk.
New York critical care nurse among first in U.S. to receive Covid-19 vaccine
Source: Politico
Key context: A critical care nurse at Long Island Jewish Medical Center became the first New Yorker — and among the first people in the U.S. — to receive a Covid-19 vaccine Monday, one day after Pfizer’s vaccine began being shipped across the country.
Key context: Sandra Lindsay, director of patient care service for critical care at the Northwell Health facility in Queens, received the first shot of the two-dose vaccine during a live morning broadcast with New York Gov. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Northwell Health President and CEO Michael Dowling and Dr. Michelle Chester.
What’s next: Although the governor, Dowling and Lindsay all touted the new vaccine, they stressed that New Yorkers must still continue wearing masks and practicing social distancing...
New York was expected to get its first 170,000 doses of Pfizer’s vaccine by Monday, with another 346,000 doses of Moderna’s vaccine set to be delivered next week.
Read more: https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/12/14/new-york-critical-care-nurse-among-first-in-us-to-receive-covid-19-vaccine-1345993
I posted this (now that my 3-day FB ban is over) to my 50+ year-old anti-vaxxer daughter this am. Along with Gov Cuomo's video of the first shot, and some historical context:
People of good will have tried to alleviate legitimate human suffering for centuries.
Mainstream media, composed of reporters of good will with families, show that science still works for human good. While humans make mistakes when trying, they still try. Though evil exists, the vast majority of the world are not all-against-all liars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine
I posted it in response to our recent phone argument that's too long to go into detail (part of it was my reasoned reminder to her of her own life benefits from childhood polio immunizations), but she swears that her 15 year-old son, my only grandchild, will only receive a vaccine over her dead body, to which I answered that she will not get the final word on that. The rest from me was deserved tough talk.
December 14, 2020
Governor Cuomo Records the First Covid Vaccination for New York December 14 2020
(audio weirdness in the first third of the video)
December 12, 2020
Given this rolling catastrophe, how would 8 million Americans have reacted if SCOTUS had declared the US a dictatorship.
Chris The Man Hayes On Republicans' Dangerous "Game" Against Democracy
2/3 of the Republican caucus held a loaded gun to the head of democracy, to destroy the union, while ignoring that a 9/11 of Americans will die every single day between now and next March.Given this rolling catastrophe, how would 8 million Americans have reacted if SCOTUS had declared the US a dictatorship.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Sarasota
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 36,030
