Two things I want to shoot into the 🌞 today (apart from the usual):
1. Ppl defending their indefensible carbon-intensive lifestyles as "convenient" or "inevitable" or "comfortable." It's like listening to alcoholics or heroin addicts, in many ways. Listen up. Perhaps ...
1/
Conversation
all the these things are true: it still doesn't make it ok, safe, or ethically defensible. If you can't get away from carbon-intensive aspects of your life, you can still, always, advocate for system-wide change: which is the most important kind of action anyway. No excuses.
2/
1
28
200
Don't know where to start? Here are some pointers. Now stop making excuses and get to fucking work.
jksteinberger.medium.com/an-audacious-t
3/
2
35
198
2. Leftists and others who are so very accustomed to criticising everything and everyone that they can't fathom that some tech and production-consumption patterns are in fact much, much, much to be preferred than others.
4/
3
8
127
Witness: of making the claim that electric vehicles need their batteries changed every year (!?) because of "consumer society". This is not true, in fact EV batteries have longer lifetimes than expected. But god forbid any ...
5/
Replying to
leftist EVER ever admit some new tech is better than old tech and needs to take over.
Listen up: all industrial production requires materials. All. Of. It. But some tech and provisioning configurations enable both sufficiency and efficiency, i.e. ... 6/
2
6
126
high well-being at much, much lower levels of resource use. That tech includes: renewable energy production, electrified transport (including public, micro-electric and EVs), induction stoves, housing insulation, heat pumps, vat fermented protein for food, among others.
7/
2
9
137
But god FORBID any one of these great leftist commentators (except of course, but he's an army of one) to put forward these alternative technologies and their production sectors as positive and worthy of investment. Everyone loves bellyaching instead.
8/
1
6
121
Is it SO damn complicated to tell the story of the tech and economic sectors we need, the jobs we need to train for, the fact that we are aiming at a sufficiency AND efficiency high-tech society? Because our goal is for the 8-9 billion to live well within limits?
9/
2
10
101
Because we absolutely need to be criticizing overlarge cars, and car-dominance in general, whether electric or not. But some cars are good and necessary, depending on disability, work needs and geography. And they should be EVs. And the jobs should be good union jobs.
10/
5
14
175
And the locations of extraction should be consulted democratically, not hidden away behind coups and landgrabs and genocides of indigenous people. And the necessary investment for recycling lithium etc so it stays within our economies need to be advocated for.
11/
1
6
126
But still: EVs good. Renewables good. Induction stoves and housing insulation and heat pumps good. And VAT FERMENTED FOOD good. If I see one more progressive green leftie waxing nostalgic for agriculture compared to vat food, I will blow a gasket.
12/
5
24
191
Current agriculture is a major driver of land grabs, biodiversity loss, nitrogen and phosphorus planetary limits being obliterated, insect populations plummeting, climate crisis, not to speak of workplace exploitation.
13/
1
20
128
We have a chance to get rid of a good fraction of those horrors through new tech: fuck your dumb nostalgia and get with the actual program of saving the planet and making life better for everyone.
14/
14
32
244
If you've never heard of vat food (fancy name protein fermentation), has you covered. I expect you all to be ENTHUSIASTIC about this. FFS. End rant.
13
44
152
Just adding, because apparently people are reading my shouty rant, and upset at jabs against leftists, that I am in fact a leftist. That's what the rose is for, ok? I am an out and proud eco-socialist. Not a secret. First line in the bio. Love you & appreciate you all, comrades.
GIF
read image description
ALT
13
2
92