I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[twa]

tough crowd 

 peter the link included this link

 

https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/

 

and clearly stated

Quote

New York City is the first city in the United States to eliminate processed meats.

Mayor Bill de Blasio approved an ambitious $14 billion Green New Deal on Monday, April 22, to combat climate change. The plan will cut purchases of red meat by 50 percent in its city-controlled facilities such as hospitals, schools, and correctional facilities. The new commitment builds off of the Meatless Mondays campaign that was adopted by all NYC schools in 2017.

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

23 minutes ago, twa said:

 

a tweet with a link to those facts is misleading?

 

 

 

The headline is misleading. Do you really want to dispute that? 

 

"NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate" 

 

Of course you do. 

[twa]

Just now, clietas said:

 

The headline is misleading. Do you really want to dispute that? 

 

"NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate" 

 

Of course you do. 

 

of course I do

 

let's have the vegan's take

Quote

 

https://vegnews.com/2019/4/nyc-government-to-slash-beef-consumption-by-50-percent-phase-out-processed-meat

 

 NYC’s Green New Deal also includes a historic measure to phase out the amount of meat served within city-controlled agencies such as hospitals, schools, and correctional facilities. In the coming years, the mayor plans to reduce the purchase of beef by 50 percent and completely remove processed meat from menus served at such facilities, as well as focusing on banning single-use plastics in foodware. “You’re not going to find climate deniers in New York City because we suffered through [Hurricane] Sandy. We also believe the estimates that tell us that we have only 12 years to get it right. Let’s be clear, we have until 2030 to change things fundamentally, or our lives won’t be the same,” de Blasio said, emphasizing the importance of the actions he will implement through OneNYC2050.

 

 

 

 

[twa]

35 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

It doesn't include those facts.  The cutting of processed meats isn't really related to the climate change.  It is related to making the community healthier.  The New York "Green Deal" is really part of a larger plan that addresses things not really directly related to climate change.  Processed meats are bad for people.

 

 

Mayor Bill de Blasio

 

✔@NYCMayor

 

 

Look — I like a good burger as much as the next guy. But our @NYCSchools students know that livestock farming produces 20 - 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. That's why they demanded #MeatlessMondays. Saving our planet is about saving their future.#EarthDay

 

418

5:49 PM - Apr 22, 2019

 

753 people are talking about this

 

[Llevron]

 

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

you know what you are? You’re a hot dog denier.

 

I don’t care what you say hot dogs are the wurst. 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, twa said:

 

 

Mayor Bill de Blasio

 

✔@NYCMayor

 

 

Look — I like a good burger as much as the next guy. But our @NYCSchools students know that livestock farming produces 20 - 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. That's why they demanded #MeatlessMondays. Saving our planet is about saving their future.#EarthDay

 

418

5:49 PM - Apr 22, 2019

 

753 people are talking about this

 

 

That tweet is not made in the context of the move to reduce processed meats.  You are taking to distinct things and making a connection between them does not exist.

 

It is possible to reduce process meats, but not decrease total meat intake.

 

In fact, since many processed meats are largely filler, it is possible to decrease process meat intakes while increasing total meat increase.

 

What is being done is part of a larger plan that includes climate change, human health, and other things.  And the reduction in process meat component of the plan is under part related to human health.  Not climate change.

 

There is zero presented evidence that the objective of reducing processed meat is NYC facilities is related to climate change.

 

On top of reducing processed meat, NYC is taking steps to reduce to reduce the total meat in take in its facilities.  That effort is tied to climate change.

Edited April 26, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

 

There is zero presented evidence that the objective of reducing processed meat is NYC facilities is related to climate change.

 

I think between the mayors comment and the Vegan article featuring someone driving it is a bit of evidence.....especially combined with the red meat reduction.

 

of course I think they are wrong to link them to climate change though. 

 

Perhaps you agree with me they are using it improperly to advance other goals?  

[PeterMP]

22 hours ago, twa said:

 

I think between the mayors comment and the Vegan article featuring someone driving it is a bit of evidence.....especially combined with the red meat reduction.

 

of course I think they are wrong to link them to climate change though. 

 

Perhaps you agree with me they are using it improperly to advance other goals?  

 

No, they aren't doing it to improperly advance other goals.

 

The headline was false.  NYC hasn't banned hotdogs.

 

The piece was misleading the main objective of reducing processed meat is to improve human health.

 

They clearly have no issue going after meat in general for climate change.  If they wanted to go after process meat for climate change they could have put it directly in the plan under climate change, where the other meat reduction part was.  To believe what you are pushing you have to believe that they are worried about getting push back for using climate change to reduce process meat consumption, but not general meat consumption.  ("Hey, we want to reduce red meat consumption for climate change."  "Great let's just come out and tell everybody that's what we are doing."  "We also want to reduce process meat consumption to fight climate change."  "Whoa, people might get mad over that.  We need to lie to them." ) Which makes ZERO sense!

 

They didn't put processed meat reduction in with climate change because it makes no sense because reductions if processed meats don't necessarily cause reductions in meat in general and because of the fillers in processed meat using processed meats can actually reduce total meat consumption.

 

The head line was false and the whole piece was misleading.  Hot dogs aren't banned, and the real goal of reducing process meats isn't due to climate change.

Edited April 26, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

So they are not banning them, they will simply no longer buy or serve them in places the NYC controls?

 

 

If I said I wasn't going to to hire or serve black people in places I control that would not REALLY be banning them...right?

[Captain Wiggles]

Equating human beings to hotdogs. Bravo.

 

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, twa said:

So they are not banning them, they will simply no longer buy or serve them in places the NYC controls?

 

 

If I said I wasn't going to to hire or serve black people in places I control that would not REALLY be banning them...right?

 

Are you saying no black people can't come into the places you control?

 

And the NYC controls NYC.  Hot dogs can be bought and sold in NYC.   NYC is not saying that hot dogs cannot be sold or bought in the places they control.

 

NYC banned Styrofoam.  They didn't just ban it in city facilities.  They banned it in the whole city.

 

NYC banned artificial trans fat.  They didn't just ban it city facilities.  They banned them through restaurants throughout the city.

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ban-artificial-trans-fats-nyc-restaurants-appears-be-working

 

NY state is banning single use plastic bags.  When they do that, they aren't banning it in NY state facilities.  They are banning it every where in the state.

 

Your analogy is failed.

 

NYC banned trans fats.  NYC banned styrofoam (more or less).  NY state is banning single use plastic bags.

 

NYC did not ban hot dogs.  The headline is false.

 

And you know this.  You know what you posted is garbage.

Edited April 27, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

8 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

NYC did not ban hot dogs.  The headline is false.

 

And you know this.  You know what you posted is garbage.

 

So I can request a hot dog in city facilities, but they cannot be bought or served any longer.

 

Do they have a bring your own wiener day?

Are buns still served?

[PeterMP]

46 minutes ago, twa said:

 

So I can request a hot dog in city facilities, but they cannot be bought or served any longer.

 

Do they have a bring your own wiener day?

Are buns still served?

 

Can you get a hot dog in NYC?  Can you take a hot dog into a NYC facility?

 

Using your logic, guns are banned in this country.  It isn't like I can buy a gun in any government facility in the US.

 

But nobody uses your logic because the headline was false.  Hot dogs aren't banned in NYC, and NYC didn't stop serving them in NYC government facilities to fight climate change.

 

Just post better.

Edited April 27, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

I can get food with tranfats served to me in NYC, but transfats are banned according to you.

I can't get a hot dog ,yet I can get a hot dog.

 

if they don't want people to think they are linking climate change to meat consumption they should quit saying it.

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Will 7-11 still be serving whatever that is in NYC?

[China]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Will 7-11 still be serving whatever that is in NYC?

 

Yes.

 

RIF:

 

Quote

The plan will cut purchases of red meat by 50 percent in its city-controlled facilities such as hospitals, schools, and correctional facilities. 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Seems to me the city (and it’s voters) should spend their money the way they want.

 

Not a big fan of mandating the maximum sized drink I can have, but this sounds reasonable.

[PeterMP]

On a science note, scientists model general temperature and ice sheets over the last 3 million years of climate based mostly on orbital considerations and CO2 levels.

 

They find 3 degrees C for doubling of CO2 levels.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/04/first-successful-model-simulation-of-the-past-3-million-years-of-climate-change/

[Cooked Crack]

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

On 4/26/2019 at 8:52 PM, clietas said:

Equating human beings to hotdogs. Bravo.

 

 

It was really only a matter of time.

[Bang]

Science ought to get together and say having babies will make you a liberal.

 

we should be finished with these dumb ****ers in a generation or two.

 

~Bang

[Bozo the kKklown]

Quote

 

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the case of climate change. Scientists agree that humanity faces an existential threat. The global public overwhelmingly agrees with them. Young people even in rich countries like America and Britain, terrified of what the world will look like when they are in their 50s and the current governing elites are safely dead, are increasingly willing to embrace extraordinary measures. In both countries, more young people are questioning or rejecting capitalism itself.

 

To many of us, pretty much anything seems better than carrying on as usual, unto disaster. If ever a time called for grand visions, this is it. Yet politicians almost everywhere seem unable to think beyond the next election. The kind of vision in public works and collaboration that no more than a few generations ago created the United Nations, welfare states, space programs and the internet now seems inconceivable to the richest and most powerful governments on earth, even if the very fate of the planet depends on it.

 

How did this happen?

 

The last 30 years or so have seen a kind of war on the very idea of visionary politics. Where ’60s rebels called for “all power to the imagination,” the consensus of the opinion makers who took over as those social movements sputtered has been precisely the opposite: The very idea of unleashing the human imagination on political life, we are consistently told, can lead only to economic misery, if not the gulag.

 

And as left and right both look to the past — the one toward midcentury welfare states and the other, darkly, toward xenophobia and nationalism — the collapsing center warns us to fear political passion of any sort. It’s all so much irrational “populism” — a term now used to tar anyone who objects that all key decisions affecting their lives should be made by technocrats trained in neoclassical economic theory. Yet the technocrats have so far proved utterly incapable of addressing the climate crisis.

 

 

NY Times Op-Ed: David Graber - If Politicians Can’t Face Climate Change, Extinction Rebellion Will (rest of the article in the link)

[PeterMP]

Not sure if better here, the AOC thread, or somewhere else.  With the above, it seems like it fits here just fine.

 

James Hansen (somebody who first alerted people to climate change and has been calling for action for decades) calls the "Green New Deal" nonsense.

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2243045045760866

 

I've made this point before (though it has been a while), there is going to be a growing fight between the leftist left and the environmental left.

 

Edited May 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[FanboyOf91]

 

[No Excuses]

9 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Not sure if better here, the AOC thread, or somewhere else.  With the above, it seems like it fits here just fine.

 

James Hansen (somebody who first alerted people to climate change and has been calling for action for decades) calls the "Green New Deal" nonsense.

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2243045045760866

 

I've made this point before (though it has been a while), there is going to be a growing fight between the leftist left and the environmental left.

 

 

The Green New Deal in its current form is an economic restructuring of society masquerading as a climate-oriented policy measure.

 

When push comes to shove, many of the technological solutions needed for combating climate change are also not going to appease the progressive left.

 

At this point, we are probably headed for a close-to worst case scenario.