Note: this post has been banned from all democratic, republican, and political discussion forums.
I got very used to people calling me a 'bogeyman' and 'lunatic' for the last 50 years, but the fact is, artic ice is down ~80% since I was born (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/) , which in a nutshell is why all of the rest of the world except the USA has accepted 2050 as a target for net zero emissions. There's a reason for it. That's about when there will be no arctic ice left at the current rate of global warming. With measurements this year, a report is already expected in December that will state not even net zero will be enough.
In the USA, calls of 'bogeyman' continue unabated. The USA withdrew from the Paris Accord during the Trump administration, placing its future reliability to do anything at the same level as the other five nations that have placed their own esteem of independence over the well being of the world: Yemen, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. Meanwhile, every other nation on the planet agreed to use force if necessary to reach net zero. Whie the USA rejoined the accord, it is not party to that agreement due to a pervasive attitude to international policy called 'nationalism.'
I tested the waters here on writing on the limits of the concept of 'liberty.' China has held that the greatest freedom is known by acting for the greater good, because it frees the mind from earthly desires. First proposed by Confucius in 2500 BC it had its ups and downs, but China has unilaterally converged on the notion as a guidance for political action, pretty well ever since Zhou Dunyi merged Confucianism with Taoism and founded neo-Confucianism in the 11th century. Better known is that Buddhism stated the same thing, as did Christianity, for which Jefferson names 'pursuit of happiness' as a natural right 'under the laws of nature and nature's God,' because it enables society to progress. However under current notions of 'self-evident' wisdom in the USA, pursuit of happiness is regarded as a purely selfish activity. China's perspective on the USA's attitude to its rights as self-serving, and nothing else, is that Americans are puerile beyond redemption.
The consequences of the USA's attitude to liberty are rather manifest in the last 12 months. China has already wiped out COVID, whereas the USA is still bickering about wearing masks. As such, the political system in the USA seems woefully inadequate to respond to slow-moving crises like global warming. While it may appear that's superfluous, one may note that Biden justified 2 trillion in spending this year on covid because it had killed more people than world war one. At the same time, firearm fatalities since the Heller amendment approved rights to bear arms under the 2nd amendment are already more than world war one, but the government has spent virtually nothing on gun control since, except on fighting NRA lawsuits against it.
Meanwhile, global warming continues largely unchecked in the USA. It's impossible to avoid the observation that the amount of partisan bickering just makes it impossible for this democratic republic to do anything about it, and the supreme court doesn't want to touch it with a barge pole. So unless there is actually something I haven't thought of, it does seem like civil war is sadly the best solution. The alternative would be world war, with China and Russia taking over, because as already observed, single-party systems have been able to solve such problems better than the USA in the past. but in this highly divided nation, in which everyone will have to suffer sacrifices to stop the planet destroying itself, it's difficult to imagine that elected officials on each side of the party divide will even be able to decide who pays for it.
China's eradication of covid was not a freak event. China wiped out malaria in one year by giving everyone a flyswatter and telling them to swat. So it could easily do much the same about global warming while we are still bickering about what to do with old cars. It appears fusion won't make it in time so we will have to replace all our fossil fuel power plants. Listening to Bill Gates trying to be tactful about his failed attempt to create commercial fusion, and what that means for the world, is horribly depressing. And currently there aren't even cost estimates for that while quarrels about borrowing for infrastructure improvement continue.
Please forgive me for saying so, but it just seems hopeless, especially after Trump just removed all the environmental regulations he could, because the majority of Americans care about making money now more than the future well being of our children. Perhaps there is something I didn't think of, so Im asking you all. So, is there any way I haven't thought of to actually avoid a civil war, or a world war due to the inability to act cohesively, such as for covid and gun control in the USA already? What can the legislation actually achieve?
I'm not going to engage in any debate in this forum, but please feel free to post your opinion.