The Pentagon has done studies and has reported that climate change is a strategic threat to our country. Given that, is it possible that congressman who knowingly obfuscate or deny climate change could be held treasonous?
Many on this thread have held that Michelle Carter should be punished for her deeds, so shouldn't congressmen that are risking displacing and putting at risk millions of people also be punished?
The congressperson to whom you refer is not committing a crime, in my opinion, and should not be punished by the state. He or she might suffer consequences, but they should be limited to contradiction by those with alternate opinions, and possibly at the ballot box.
If I may digress from the topic for a moment:
It's interesting that you brought up the matter of climate denial in this context, where I just commented that Ms. Carter needed to be removed from the streets because she appears to be sociopathic and malicious, a dangerous combination. We generally assume that climate deniers are either scientifically illiterate or willing to damage the earth for profit, but not malicious. I'm beginning to wonder whether that is really the case, given how easy it is to see that our present course is virtually guaranteed to result in catastrophe and the loss of a lot of human and non-human life. After awhile, one begins to consider whether the imminent global warming is due only to greed and ignorance, or whether it isn't actually the goal.
Who both could and would do such a thing, and for what reason? How about a consortium of extremely wealthy Western entities that see emerging nations like India, China, Brazil and Mexico as a threat to their economic domination? What would famine and drought do to such countries? Remember, it is the poor that will be impacted the most. Presumably, you and I can always find food and water. The effect on us would be an increase in inconvenience and expense at worst - something that affects the uberwealthy even less than us. Such people might actually find thinning the impoverished herd strategically advantageous.
Is it possible to do such a thing for that reason? I don't see why not. We assume that the petrochemical industry does it for profit. If global warming were profitable in any other way, I don't see why a second incentive couldn't be in play.
Are there people that would commit such a heinous act for profit. Do we really need to dwell on that one?
Why propose such an idea? Does this hypothesis add anything to our understanding of this phenomenon, or explain anything not already explained by the presumption that all of this is the result of the petrochemical tail wagging the global dog?
I think so. For starters, when did this lone industry become so powerful that it could determine national policy in an area that appears to be against the interest of so much other money and power, not to mention ordinary people? This industry was forced to remove lead from its product a few decades back, The cigarette manufacturers were eventually reined in. Why is this issue different? Why are these people being allowed to scorch the earth? I'm suggesting that they may have allies that are even more powerful.
It's getting harder and harder for me to accept that stupidity and the profits of one industry that is indifferent to the environmental concerns of others are the entire story here. These people have grandchildren. Presumably, they aren't monsters. I'm proposing that we begin to consider that monsters are involved anyway - sociopathic, malicious monsters like Michelle Carter but in suits. How much would it satisfy such people that see themselves as masters of the universe to play god on a planetary scale and reconfigure the face of the earth?
