RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
47% Positive
Analyzed from 927 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#more#china#trump#climate#change#believe#large#doesn#countries#emissions

Discussion (22 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Contract labor is not booked as headcount so its not just the cost its also how its budgeted and looks to shareholders.
Obviously our industry hasnt cared a whit about what its employees think since at least 2005 when they thought they were going to send all of it elsewhere.
Unfortunately, as a 2nd order effect, I wonder if we'll see fewer layoffs and more outright firing to balance it out.
https://thehill.com/business/5603478-trump-organization-fore...
(Trump org requests record level foreign worker permits, 2025)
2. we are "amazed" on a nearly daily basis, better not to desensitize, that's what he wants, overton window and such
Sure they do. None of the Greenland stuff (or most of the Canada stuff) makes sense unless they believe in these things.
We assume that if they believed they would try to slow these things down, but they chose a different path, profiting off the accelerationism.
The claims of not believing are just fodder for the FOX News/OANN watchers and what they say publicly is not what they believe.
In much the same way that David Miscavige doesn't believe in Xenu, I'm pretty positive Donald Trump does believe in global warming, he just doesn't care... or rather only cares insomuch as it is a profit opportunity.
But similar to your angle, I’ve wondered if the climate change messaging is secretly targeted towards resource depletion. If USA switches off oil and oil runs out, who cares if others didn’t switch? But people have a hard time processing “going to run out in 50 years” as a crisis, so instead we get an apocalypse angle, I suppose because humans love the apocalypse (see: various religions).
It doesn't. The issue is likely more that you don't see or read widely enough.
Even here on HN you'll see mention of China and India's emissions and use of coal on a regular basis.
The US is a significant mention for two main reasons:-
* of all the human lofted additional CO2 of the past century plus (that sourced from formerly deep underground) the US is the single largest sole country contributor (although China is catching up (but may or may not equal the US)), ...
* the US is still a large per capita contributor today (ignoring tiny tiny outlier countries with small populations and near single export fossil fuel extraction countries) - it has an energy intensive economy.
My personal beef isn't so much with the US but specifically with US based fossil fuel and resource companies of the 1970s onwards (eg: Koch brothers) who were well aware of the problem with increasing the insulation factor of the atmosphere and doubled down anyway - spending large on "think tanks" to promote confusion via media, over sell the appeal of large cars, destroy any and all grass roots campaigns for public transport, etc. (CO2MaXXing ?).
The US has had influence across the planet post WWII, these campaigns just promoted a bad example for profit and deferred early and timely addressing of the issues.