Stein: Social justice is part of “climate conversation”

Julie Dermansky of DeSmogBlog spoke with Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein about climate change and social justice 10 years after Hurricane Katrina.

In the four-minute segment, Stein said, “You can’t leave social justice out of the climate conversation in New Orleans or anywhere. We must meet human needs at the same time we meet ecological needs. To propose that people are somehow separate from the ecosystem we live in requires a major cognitive disconnect. It’s like saying you can take care of your heart without taking care of your lungs.”

12 thoughts on “Stein: Social justice is part of “climate conversation”

  1. jim

    Gee, I wonder if the socialists would have said that in 1975 or so, when they opposed nuclear power plants in favor of coal and/or oil-fired plans, when there have probably been 200 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted since then. (In America alone.) See http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html
    Above, she said, “We must meet human needs at the same time we meet ecological needs.” Nuclear power would have met those “human needs” (electricity) while avoiding the release of GHG’s.
    These kind of people make me sick.
    And no, I do not discount the issue of nuclear waste. My solution? Drill a 25,000 feet deep hole under the seabed, fill the botton 5000 feet with glassified high-level waste and fill the next 20,000 feet with concrete.

  2. jim

    I notice that you didn’t even bother to address the merits of what I (or Stein) said. In the PC (politically-correct) world, even obliquely challenging the received-knowledge is considered quite blasphemous.
    Please note that as I was initially writing my note, I was thinking of giving Stein a “pass”, because I figured that she wasn’t of the age that was so anti-nuke in the ’70s. Then looking up her age, I discovered she was born in 1950, so she would have been about 25 in 1975: She was precisely in the heart of the anti-nuke generation. They CHOSE to drive the country in the direction of emitting those 200 billion metric tons of CO2, rather than replacing one half (or more) of our electricity generation availability with nuclear.

  3. NewFederalist

    You are correct, jim. No one has the guts to answer your questions. They are uncomfortable to discuss.

  4. Lydia Howell

    Thanks for trolling Jim & New Federalist. Now move along back to your Rand Paul site. You seem to hold Greens responsible for things that MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS w/HELP OF REPUBLICRATS did. And you SAY NOTHING about CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY which does NOT produce 500,00 YEARS of TOXIC WASTE.

  5. Paulie

    Wait. Was there a comment removed, or did Jim just post at 1 AM and then post again at 2:30 AM saying “I notice that you didn’t even bother to address the merits of what I (or Stein) said.”?!

    For my part, I may address it after I get my new computer if/when I have time. Mine was stolen a few days ago if you missed the news in other threads and I am having to use a shared computer in the motel lobby, so no time to argue issues on here.

  6. jim

    I found the following in my email inbox: It was the comment I was replying to:
    “PJO commented on Stein: Social justice is part of “climate conversation”.

    in response to wredlich:

    Julie Dermansky of DeSmogBlog spoke with Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein about climate change and social justice 10 years after Hurricane Katrina. In the four-minute segment, Stein said, “You can’t leave social justice out of the climate conversation in New Orleans or anywhere. We must meet human needs at the same time we meet […]

    It’s always nice to start my day by having someone tell me I make him sick.”

  7. jim

    You said,
    “Thanks for trolling Jim & New Federalist. Now move along back to your Rand Paul site. You seem to hold Greens responsible for things that MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS w/HELP OF REPUBLICRATS did. And you SAY NOTHING about CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY which does NOT produce 500,00 YEARS of TOXIC WASTE.”

    I’m not “trolling”. I’m expressing a valid opinion. And I don’t (yet)support Rand Paul, mainly because he’s not as Libertarian as his father, Ron Paul. I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate, whoever he is.
    I’m holding Greens responsible for being STUPID, and for being not-particular-well-concealed Socialists, that probably never met a tax increase (“On the rich!”) they didn’t like.
    As for “clean renewable energy”! I guess you’re under the impression that technology invents itself, huh? The modern solar cell has existed since about 1950, and has been gradually improved since then. Only now is it getting economical enough to compete with existing sources of electricity. I believe it should be (and will be) used wherever it is economical. As for wind-power: I read a Scientific American article that showed a map of the US, and average wind capability. There was a 200-mile wide band, from western North Dakoka, down to western South Dakota, to western Nebraska, to western Kansas, to the Oklahoma panhandle, to northern Texas, as being prime wind-power territory. That’s the GOOD NEWS. The bad news is that there aren’t too many actual users of electrical power in that location, and it’s difficult to transmit electric power greater than 1000 miles. Technology will solve that problem, too, but that solution won’t have anything to do with any Green Party person.
    And no, the length of the toxicity of the nuclear waste is almost irrelevant. Plenty of locations that have remain undisturbed over a period of 1 million years exist, usually deep below the surface of the earth.
    One more thing: In about 1970 scientists predicted a coming cooling period,, in fact an Ice Age! Didn’t happen, huh? But if people had believed it (and doubtless some did) wouldn’t their best tactic be to release huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere to counteract that? I don’t recall, but I suspect that some anti-nukes used precisely this argument to avoid nuclear power, and stay with coal-fired and oil-fired plants. Would have made sense, huh? See, that’s the problem with accepting “what scientists say”. At least, not too quickly.

  8. jim

    Here is a map of wind energy potential in the US:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+energy+map+usa&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=799&tbm=isch&imgil=5nkD28U1oXSA4M%253A%253B2V-oWlXMoPKFOM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.nrel.gov%25252Fgis%25252Fwind.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=5nkD28U1oXSA4M%253A%252C2V-oWlXMoPKFOM%252C_&usg=__RiouO1FbL1OtQji72GEMvXEF4sM%3D&ved=0CCcQyjdqFQoTCNG19YuS2ccCFRdKiAodbmsJWw&ei=klXnVdGkKZeUoQTu1qXYBQ#imgrc=5nkD28U1oXSA4M%3A&usg=__RiouO1FbL1OtQji72GEMvXEF4sM%3D

    Hint: I believe the actual energy potential is proportional to the cube, of wind velocity. So while 4 meters/second sounds like half of 8 meters per second, it may actually be (4*3/8*3), or one eighth, as much power.

    Notice that many parts of the country are around 1000 miles from the nearest purple-colored region.

    Likewise, look at a map of potential solar energy: https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+energy+map+usa&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=799&tbm=isch&imgil=ak9tvNujdcWolM%253A%253BWAaN450V4QSo9M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fbendsux.blogspot.com%25252F2010%25252F02%25252Fdeep-in-denial-about-suck.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ak9tvNujdcWolM%253A%252CWAaN450V4QSo9M%252C_&usg=__bXTL7Eu_DTBA2H0dZO0ZA2raDyw%3D&ved=0CCcQyjdqFQoTCPv4utWT2ccCFUU0iAodL9YK_w&ei=OVfnVbv4FMXooASvrKv4Dw#imgrc=ak9tvNujdcWolM%3A&usg=__bXTL7Eu_DTBA2H0dZO0ZA2raDyw%3D

    It should be clear that large portions of USA aren’t good from the standpoint of solar, either.

  9. NewFederalist

    There are many excellent methods of generating electricity rather than nuclear or fossil fuel burning generation plants. Wave action, solar, wind and others are only as viable as the storage ability and capacity. Once that is figured out the rest is relatively easy. I believe we are focusing on the wrong part of the equation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *