1) The general morality of secret services and undercover work, whether or not it is related to known crime or suspected crimes 2) The morality of an undercover officer doing "whatever it takes" to get into an inner circle, although it is not clear whether the sex was done for business or personal reasons (whether or not that matters) 3) The disruption of a higher level "right" to political dissent etc. without undue interference from authorities 4) Whether there was a lack of supervision and what the effect of this was (was it just poor management of an important job or a more causual effect?)
How much of this is illegal and how much is just sad is not clear and the issues need considering separately, otherwise it sounds like somebody getting hurt by a dishonest person when it is potentially much more critical than that.
The title is "A Married Undercover Cop Having Sex with Activists Killed a Climate Movement" with the key article being "A" not "The". There are multiple climate movements going on with differing goals.
"... from NK agents asking to be paid in CRYPTO"
That's why I think the stigma around conspiracy theories is harmful. It makes people believe that this kind of thing couldn't possibly happen to them... And if it does happen and they find out, they will doubt their own judgment as they'll be afraid that other people will think they're nuts for thinking that 'agents are out of get me'.
I suspect that most wealthy individuals and politicians are surrounded with foreign spies and organized manipulators.
It must be difficult being in a position of power. How do they tell fact from paranoia?
On the internet it’s usually because someone banned has made sockpuppet accounts before that circumvent the ban
It shows that these big interest groups have way too much money.
(While of course the other definition is a mental condition about unwarranted distrust)
We almost need a new word
A man pretending to be progressive to sleep with progressive women is not a new thing.
Even if every person on earth was carbon neutral, we’d only decrease emissions of GHG by 9%. Agricultural and industrial emissions across the board account for the rest.
We don’t put the burden of industrial byproducts on customers in other industries, but with CO2 and other greenhouse gases we’re supposed to be perfectly self regulating or else we’re shit out of luck? Absolute nonsense.
You've either made a mistake somewhere in your arithmetic, or you've got a wonky way of attributing greenhouse gas emissions. More co2 than that is emitted in a round trip 2 hour hop in an airplane. (4.3 billion people fly on airlines every year). Would you say that taking an airline flight attributes GHG emissions to the passengers or to the airline?
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
That is, if you decide to buy a new phone, the phonemaker will be counted as having used x co2, and you will be counted as having used x co2. Likewise, if you eat a steack, your co2 counter goes up, and agriculture's co2 also ticks up.
Each co2 emission has multiple labels: which industry made it, its country of emission, its final consumer, etc. Each of these labels is useful to consider it from a different point of view. However, If the consumer makes an effort, the industry's co2 will inevitably go down. If the industry is regulated more tightly, consumers' co2 count will decrease.
The only use of comparing industry emissions vs. individuals' emissions is when deciding which regulation would be the most effective (e.g. subsidizing solar panels vs. regulating the oil industry). Opposing consumers and the industries providing consumer goods is meaningless.
Yes, if we maintained the current economic and political system. But that would be impossible if every person on earth felt deeply about their carbon footprint. They'd throw out of office any politician that didn't support immediate action on climate change. Governments would be forced to regulate the s*** out of polluters and go to net-zero ASAP.
If every person on earth was carbon neutral, that would mean GHG emissions were decreased by 100% once every sink was accounted for.
That's definitional, that's tautological, if you're only counting 9% of someone's carbon budget as "theirs" that's on your model.
Agricultural and industrial emissions only exist because of consumer demand. If consumers stop consuming the things that cause those emissions the producers will stop making them.
I'd also like to point out that in the US roughly half of all people can't cover a $1000 emergency. A 10-20% increase to one's electric bill (which is the lower bound of the 100% renewable options in my area, last I looked) is a vital concern for that demographic. Sure you can argue that the government/people/society should account for that such that they can afford the increase, but then you're not just talking switching the power grid to renewables (a daunting task in and of itself), but a massive social program along with it.
Sadly I have no hope that our current institutions or the environmental activists will be able to manage the transition effectively. Maine just said no to clean hydroelectric power from Quebec because they're concerned about the impact of transmission lines on their forest, and New England in general is burning oil power plants and importing liquid natural gas by sea to meet heating/electricity demand because they refuse to build any new natural gas pipelines.
But nonetheless climate change must be addressed at some point. Which means (in the US at least) we're going to put it off until the last minute, make harsh, blunt, stupid changes, and screw the people least able to afford the cost. Meanwhile those of us making 6 figures will be mildly inconvenienced, and those even richer won't even bat an eye, all while crooning about how noble they are on TV.
1. People are unwilling to make changes that they perceive as being a net negative to their quality of life.
2. Businesses are unwilling to make changes that they expect to have a net negative to their bottom line.
However, I don't think the the climate movement was "killed", it quite clearly continuing, if anything thriving. That's not to say what happed to these woman wasn't absolutely outrageous and is another example of the London Met operating well beneath the level of service they should be.
The trouble is that for too long the climate activists have used very strong words and actions that put the public off of their cause. They also ask for too many large changes too quickly discouraging people from making the small changes that are an easer start to making larger lifestyle changes.
2. fuck thats a really cynical take on progressive activism. what's it like thinking that no one believes anything?
this has the benefit of isolating these groups, but it also has the detriment of isolating these groups. you can do almost anything when you know wider society has no place for you, but you have a chosen family with a shared purpose and intention.
