Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#121

Post by ben_w »

beerandt wrote: post #94
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the whole Whales killed by wind turbines thing turned out to be concern trolling then. What a surprise! > Fact-checking Donald Trump's claim that wind turbines kill whales https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66928305

No- making a fake endangered species to shut down operations that don't actually harm the species (endangered or not)... Is hardly the same as objecting to activities that distress pretty much all animals in the vicinity long term.

> Is hardly the same as objecting to activities that distress pretty much all animals in the vicinity long term.

A big thing which distresses pretty much all animals in the vicinity is "shipping".

One other specific animal harm that wind farm get blamed for is bird deaths. Know what is responsible for more bird deaths? Skyscrapers.

The only way to not harm the environment (with current science) is a choice which is unsustainable, because the choice requires everyone everywhere to not only agree now but forever, and "forever" is really hard because anyone defecting from "degrowth" is necessarily stronger for that defection.

So yes, objecting to wind turbines on these grounds is absolutely concern trolling.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#123

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #115
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #47

2028: "To be secure as a nation we need to stamp out all dissent against the government and require all citizens to swear unyielding loyalty to the President."

[flagged]

Why'd you leave out the "to prevent millions of deaths" part?

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#124

Post by pseudohadamard »

alanwreath wrote: post #22

Wasn’t diversifying US energy sources also a national security issue? And wind energy was set aside because, wait for it, they killed animals. Birds to be specific.

"National security issue" is the root password to the constitution and the rule of law. It'll get used whenever someone wants to bypass either or both.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#125

Post by tehjoker »

tablarasa wrote: post #91
tehjoker wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people don’t vote because it is difficult for them, they don’t see a difference in their lives because they get screwed one way or the other no matter who is in power, and if you’ll recall the last administration was complicit in genocide which is why I voted third party. It’s true trump is bad but so is genocide. Really hard to make the case of the lesser evil when it’s just variations on top tier criminality.…

Yes many people don’t vote because of deliberately fettered access to polling and/or a generally correct understanding that the electoral college nullifies or makes redundant their vote in their jurisdiction. Your vote for a third party is a signal but essentially a qualified abstention. Your high horse however is so misguided and absurd- to suggest that you held a moral high ground because the Biden administration s…

Voted in PA. I suspect that regardless of who is president next, from either party, US policy will be changing towards Israel. The right, because they are anti-Semitic, and the liberals, because they lost an election over genocide. If the only thing the establishment wants from us is our votes, well they're going to have to earn them. They have no qualms about being transactional with other folks. They just get mad that we're transactional with them because we're supposed to behave.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#126

Post by xnx »

alanwreath wrote: post #22

Wasn’t diversifying US energy sources also a national security issue? And wind energy was set aside because, wait for it, they killed animals. Birds to be specific.

Reminder that cats and buildings kill more birds than windmills.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#127

Post by JackYoustra »

glitchc wrote: post #107
JackYoustra wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would Trump have to do for you to not give him the benefit of the doubt from that point forward?

Okay, since you asked (unpopular, but I have karma to burn, c'est la vie): This myopic focus on Trump ignores the real issue: Environmentalism is a secular religion, a theocracy, a dogma. Like any religion it employs circular reasoning to justify its existence, namely stemming from this assumption that nature is sacred, vulnerable and deserving of our protection. This faulty assumption is treated as a self-evident ta…

fun fact kropotkin's entire thesis was "yeah so this is wrong social darwinism is always motivated reasoning"

and you can see it in your thing! Environmentalism is good because it turns out burning millions of years of information as well as our only source of medicine and life sciences is not worth you feeling persecuted because you wanted to have a dirt bike that smells awful.

It's sure not cost anymore! LCOE of solar is the lowest!

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#128

Post by dlev_pika »

ch4s3 wrote: post #51
dlev_pika wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The fascism of Europe in in the 1930s was EXPLICITLY anti-capitalist. You can read tons of statements by various prominent fascists about how capitalism was the tool of the British empire and "globalists"(they often used a different word). They viewed it as separating the people from the land. Capitalists were not in any way fundamental to the rise of Nazism. If you're on about Pinochet, he only embraced market refor…

From a Historical perspective, my learning makes me disagree with your statement - that fascism is in essence anti-capitalist.

> At the moment that the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium – the turn of the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat – all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy.

> The social democracy hoped that the docile conduct of the workers would restore the "public opinion" of the bourgeoisie against the fascists.

“Fascism: what is it and how to fight it”, Leon Trotsky

https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/trotsky/fascism-how-to-fight...

Mussolini, after political defeat as a socialist and editor of “Avanti!”, pivoted, started calling himself a “libertarian”, and courted capitalists (industrialists, oligarchs) to fund his newspaper “Il popolo d’Italia” (1914).

Ultimately, in Fascism, the only thing that truly matters is the regime itself, as demonstrated by fascist regimes that don’t fit so cleanly in our definition of Capitalism (like Argentina’s 1950s union based, military Peronist movement). From this perspective, I concede that Fascism is anti-capitalist in the sense that it is anti-everything that is not the regime.

However looking at the historical European, and contemporary American evidence, capitalistic mechanics and actors (ie. the oligarchy), seem to be the preferred route to it.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#129

Post by MiguelX413 »

danans wrote: post #90
MiguelX413 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US should simply ban energy exporting.

> The US should simply ban energy exporting Why would an oil company go through the trouble (and expense) of oil exploration and extraction if they don't have the right to sell it to the highest bidder anywhere in the world?

They could still satisfy domestic demand.
Post reply on HN