Electric cars and renewables are racist, says UN official

Tendayi Achiume says green energy procurement is 'racial injustice',,

...In her final report as an outgoing U.N. official, Achiume wrote that the "global ecological crisis is simultaneously a racial justice crisis,” with the effects of "pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change" affecting marginalized groups.

Therefore, according to the U.N. official, not only are the outcomes of climate change negatively impacting marginalized people, but so are ecological problems as a whole. As well, these populations are being damaged by the push toward green energy...

Everything is always racist; everywhere all the time. Racism: is there anything it can't do?

 

The UN person:
Achiume's main concern is that the procurement of materials and minerals used for renewable energies comes at the expense of "racially and ethnically marginalized groups and Indigenous peoples."


And it's probably true.

 

Mining jobs are very high paying. I agree first world countries should do far more to mine in their own countries just for strategic and economic reasons. Then the usual race baiters will whine there are no jobs in the third world though.

 

None really hits the mark mates - the two main factors contributing to 1) Ocean Pollution 2) CO2/greenhouse gasses are what ??

See you have skipping out of my lectures ... bad bad .. so sad !?

Notice there are two horses in the race .. and by my reckoning .. the Ocean Pollution horse is going to beat Global warming into the abyss ..but is a two horse race all the same .. only one horse getting all the attention for the most part... "hmmmmmmm" ?

Now lads .. the two factors are A) Population Growth .. somewhat obvious .. more people more consumption - and biproducts of that consumption

and B) Industrialization of non industrialized populations .... Ouch !! Yeah boys and girls .. this grande experiment conducted over last 25 years .. industrializing China - India et al .. didn't do the environment any favors .. CO2 emissions from 22 Billion tons/year to 36 Billion tons per year. and with all that extra CO2 we managed to industrialize 600 million ... going from 1.4 Billion to 2 Billion industrialized.

Population was round 5.7 Billion back then .. 7.7 Billion in 25 years .. So we started out with 1.4 Billion industrialized .. 4.3 not .. ended up with 2 Billion industrialized .. 5.7 Not .. See the problem here fellas .. population rising faster than we can industrialize em..

and well we got a whole lot yet to be industrialized .. problem is .. doing so gonna send both those horses running much quicker towards the edge .. don't matter which one get there first.

Racist is quazi correct .. as most of these non industrialized are Black - Brown - Yellow .. the better .. more proper and technically correct term however is classist .. if we are splitting hairs..

 

Seriously? How juvenile.

It is undeniable that the west and so predominantly the white population have produced the most C02 in the past century, and because of that are predominantly to blame over the environmental problems we are facing now. With that they accumulated a heck of a lot of wealth.

To now claim countries like China and India may not do that, even when the US population still has the biggest carbon footprint of them all, because "look at the environment" has as a side effect that they remain rather poor. And they are basically the entire non white population.

So countries with predominantly a white population are to blame for environmental problems, accumulated their wealth because of it, demand nations who are predominantly non white may not do that and remain poor. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a racism thing in this.

 

"Seriously How juvenile" - followed by accusing me of things I did not say - not stating what you think is juvenile to begin with.... now that is Projection.

Never said China and India "may not do that" .. quite aware USA has biggest carbon footprint. All I did was give you the raw facts .. Not my fault you don't like the message .. why shoot the messenger.

Pop growth and Industrialization are the reason for the continued increase of CO2 and Ocean Pollution - Whats "Seriously juvenile" your inability to read what was written properly and making up some fairy tale and attributing this "seriously juvenile" silliness to me .. then projecting your state of being onto the messenger.

 

You basically said so with:
Industrialization of non industrialized populations .... Ouch !! Yeah boys and girls .. this grande experiment conducted over last 25 years .. industrializing China - India et al .. didn't do the environment any favors

So far you're just basically saying that non industrialized nations are causing the problems for doing exactly what industrialized nations have been doing for over a 100 years and keep on doing that. And the non industrialized are predominantly non white, and the industrialized nations are white. Enter the race thing.

While you're not responding to the fact that the bulk of the CO2 came from predominantly white western nations in the past 100's years. The US still has the biggest carbon footprint a person by far.

 

That exactly what I said .. what western nation did in the past is relevant .. nothing but general repetition of what I said. what I didn't say is what you claimed I said in previous post .. just the facts .. which are if non industrializations industrialize like we first world nations did .. the two horses racing towards the abyss (CO2 - Ocean Pollution) will run faster.

What is your problem with the facts .. and why are you trying to shoot the messenger for telling you what is going on... somtin triggered you somewhere ..

 

Actually China produces more than twice as much CO2 than the US

1. China — 11680.42
2. United States — 4535.3

Carbon Footprint by Country 2022 (worldpopulationreview.com)

Such strong opinions regarding matters you know nothing about.

 

China was going to industrialize regardless. But you are correct in that the UN policy is bad for the environment in that it pushes manufacturing out of industrialized modern nations that do quite well at minimizing emissions, into countries like China and India that do nothing to minimize the emissions.

 

I agree with this as forcing everything to be energy efficient to a high degree would push the price range far away from the lower classes. Thus, the cost of Gas and non-efficient energy would skyrocket keeping the poor being poor making it harder for them to get out of the gutter all while the middle class and rich save money with subsidies for using green energy. It is almost like a racist attack if the left goes too far and gas prices rises too fast for a poor minority mother to drive her kids to school and drive to work using a gas vehicle all while those middle class EV drivers get to save even more money.

The hypocrisy of the left on this is hilarious. They only think about the middle and upper class who pander to their every word like good sheep. Same with the right, but in these circumstances, they are more realistic regarding evolving the industry towards green energy where the left wants to make mass changes as fast as possible which hurts minorities

 

But there are more poor white people in the US than poor black people. Critical race theory is absurd.

 

While being true, a poor white person will almost always have more opportunities than a poor black person. I have been there and witnessed first hand. Yet, times have changed much and nowadays the window has closed significantly where all have the same chances of succeeding. Yet, if the Left moves the bar too fast, they are hurting their greatest asset, which is the minority vote in which inflation and gas prices affect the most.

We have already witnessed significant numbers moving from the Left to the Right for minorities while the Left is winning mainly more white middle class defections to their party. The Lefts scare tactics work on the middle class white Americans while the poor minorities only see things as what they need to survive. To minorities, those scare tactics are just words with little to back them up as things don't change hearing words.

 

You say this now, while you were specifically were/are eyeballing the non industrialization of nations in the last 25 years.

And this part suggests those non industrialization can go for an industrialized society / countries with brown/black people.

And the core of the OP is how race is part of it. And aint it obvious? Or do you need help with facts?

 

I see no evidence of this. Sounds like an assumption in support of CRT crap.

 

I am Anti-CRT and immensely against the far Left Wing. Massively against.

Yet, I grew up in a mixed neighborhood and have witnessed so many times where Whites got advantages over Blacks even to this day that I am overwhelmed with memories on it. So yes, it happens enough where there is a statistical advantage of whites over blacks in in regards to employment and justice. I personally don't see it often anymore in this current woke climate, but it still happens. I guarantee you a black poor person will have a harder time getting out of the ghetto than a white person 9 times out of 10 right now. I have worked with poor black people once as a mentoring role and they always feel like they have no hope due to discrimination.

 

You could probably account for most all of the difference in opportunities and advantages by taking account of income and wealth differences. But thats what CRT does. They attribute ANY racial disparity that disfavors blacks, purely to racism. Recent hysteria about Jim Crow 2.0 in response to Georgia's new voting laws is good example. While 96% of whites have ID, only 94% of blacks do. This is all the proof CRT needs to conclude that Georgias voting law is racist.

 

If 94% of black americans have ID's, then any propaganda otherwise is disinformation perpetrated by the Far Left Wing so that they can get undocumented people capable to vote for them or for those to vote multiple times.

If a person cannot vote within a set time period or in person, then they truly may not care enough to vote.

 

Well. If you're not keen to divide them by the amount of people, it does mean you think a Chinese person may not produce as much as an American.
But hey.... something something, racism, something something.

 

You are very ignorant as both China and India had economies far larger than Europe's for 1500 of the last 2000 years. Further more China has been burn coal for that entire 2000 years. Just by nature of their giant populations even peasant emissions add up to industrial scale pollution output. So please save us you ignorant and racist racial collective blood guilt lies.

 

Is it?

https://www.wsj.com/ad/article/chinaenergy-powerhouse
an independent non-profit organization based in Washington, DC says:
China topped all nations last year in investments in low-carbon energy like wind and solar power. Over the past five years, environmentally friendly energy finance and investments in China grew from $2.5 billion to $34.6 billion, almost double the $18.6 billion in investments attracted by the United States.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/E...rs-worth-of-solar-cell-plants-in-the-pipeline
Chinese solar panel manufacturers are building or planning new production facilities that will add combined annual output capacity equivalent to 340 nuclear reactors, buoyed by strong global demand and new mass-production technology.

While. If I'm not mistake, you support the GOP policies of "what environment problem?"

 

I'm not seeing any sources.

I got this from the last +250 years, showing the US and Europe are both WAY beyond what happens in China and India
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2

The guild is very clearly in 1 corner. So there is something to be said about that race card hitting a truth. How about you put your big boy pants on and own up.

 

I think you're right that it's classist, not racist. But I don't think the equation is as simple as you postulate. It is possible for more advanced societies to have less impact per population. Part of that would be a higher use of renewable energy and a lower consumption of meat. The issue certainly is that, currently, poor countries can't afford to make that kind of transition and China's all-of-the-above approach with its massive population is probably going to see increasing harm to the environment.

 

Say what ? and what about the non industrialized nations ? Gibberish speak central .. what would you like to say about the facts related to you ... that increasing the rate of industrialization ... will at the present and for near forseeable future - increase CO2 and Ocean Pollution.

Why are you crying "racist racist" "ain't it obvious" yammering on about some facts which clearly you are not present to. What part of the above fact are you talking about .. never mind understand ?

Another complete fail .. in desperate attempt to demonize the messenger .. cause you don't understand and can not handle the message .. that which you think you understand.

 

Will a lot of those elements needed come from Africa?
And will Africa be exploiting the locals so large multinationals and perhaps local corrupt gov'ts do well?
And leave the locals still economically depressed.