One of the world’s biggest cities may be just months away from running out of water

https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-world-biggest-cities-may-103023024.html

Mexico City, a sprawling metropolis of nearly 22 million people and one of the world’s biggest cities, is facing a severe water crisis as a tangle of problems — including geography, chaotic urban development and leaky infrastructure — are compounded by the impacts of climate change.

 

"The concept of Global Warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. Manufacturing non-competitive."
-- Donald J. Trump. (Emphasis NOT mine.) From here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213003

 

He’s wrong on that, but I think that Trump is right on some pretty fundamental things, which explain his appeal to a large number of American voters.

In the previous month, an opponent of Trump has outlined some of these things and I think that he did a pretty good job with his description:

New York Times Opinion columnist Bret Stephens

The Case for Trump … by Someone Who Wants Him to Lose

“Begin with fundamentals. Trump got three big things right — or at least more right than wrong.

Arguably the single most important geopolitical fact of the century is the mass migration of people from south to north and east to west, causing tectonic demographic, cultural, economic, and ultimately political shifts. Trump understood this from the start of his presidential candidacy in 2015, the same year Europe was overwhelmed by a largely uncontrolled migration from the Middle East and Africa. As he said: “A nation without borders is not a nation at all. We must have a wall. The rule of law matters!”

Many of Trump’s opponents refuse to see virtually unchecked migration as a problem for the West at all. Some of them see it as an opportunity to demonstrate their humanitarianism. Others look at it as an inexhaustible source of cheap labor. They also have the habit of denouncing those who disagree with them as racists. But enforcing control at the border — whether through a wall, a fence, or some other mechanism — isn’t racism. It’s a basic requirement of statehood and peoplehood, which any nation has an obligation to protect and cherish.

Only now, as the consequences of Biden’s lackadaisical approach to mass migration have become depressingly obvious on the sidewalks and in the shelters and public schools of liberal cities like New York and Chicago, are Trump’s opponents on this issue beginning to see the point. Public services paid by taxes exist for people who live here, not just anyone who makes his way into the country by violating its laws. A job market is structured by rules and regulations, not just an endless supply of desperate laborers prepared to work longer for less. A national culture is sustained by common memories, ideals, laws and a language — which newcomers should honor, adopt and learn as a requirement of entry. It isn’t just a giant arrival gate for anyone and everyone who wants to take advantage of American abundance and generosity.

But I don’t see Trump’s opponents making headway against him until they at least acknowledge the legitimacy and power of the fundamental complaint. If you’re saying it’s “morning in America” when 77 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, you’re preaching to the wrong choir — and the wrong country."

You can read the rest here: https://archive.is/lo2mw

 

That was my only point.

 

I think the intent was man caused global warming vs naturally occurring global warming.
The debate at the time was how match of the global warming caused by humans.
That's what Trump meant.
I think?

 

I don't. Ever.

Trump didn't differentiate. I can't read his evil mind. He says global warming is a Chinese conspiracy. It isn't. It's Luxembourg.

 

.. or maybe it's Liechtenstein. Yeah, that's it. I learned it from my friend Walt. He's an undercover CIA man - lives in a tent in the public park. Walt knows the whole Truth - Christian Flying Space Lasers and everything. Want an introduction?

 

Not to twist, I remeber the time and content. The whole political debate was to reduce production of industries that harm the ozebe layer and cause global warming.
China at the time was polluting line nobody else.
And the Conservative argument was that the push was political to shut down factories, Coleminding etc competativeness of USA globaly would have suffered.
I think the save about him saying using bleach to attack COVID virus in lungs.
It wasn't literal recommendation.
I remeber
Limbaugh said liberals are “in the middle of a hoax, they’re perpetrating a hoax, but they’re relying on their total dominance of the media to lie to you each and every day about climate change and global warming.”
Trump tweet in 2012, he posted on Twitter a couple of messages that asserted that climate change was a hoax that China had devised to secure an unfair trade advantage, presumably because the Obama administration was seeking to curb coal consumption in the United States.

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” Mr. Trump wrote. That message has been reshared more than 104,000 times and “liked” nearly 66,000 times.

It's clear tome that the issue is man made polution and it connection to global warming.

 

Let's acknowledge that Trump's words are ridiculous. But let's not forget about the Biden administration when it engages in similar nonsense; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13093769/Climate-change-trans-assistant-secretary-health-black.html

Trans health secretary Rachel Levine claims climate change 'disproportionately effects' mental and physical wellbeing of black Americans.

 

The statement is consistent with the empirical evidence reviewed here:

Berberian, A.G., Gonzalez, D.J.X. & Cushing, L.J. (2022). Racial Disparities in Climate Change-Related Health Effects in the United States. Current Environmental Health Reports 9, 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-022-00360-w (Open Access, CC BY 4.0)

The description in the headline of the assistant secretary for health as "trans health secretary" sure seems off-topic and incendiary, but that would be consistent with the Daily Mail not having a good argument against the merit of the statement.

 

So if a white person and a black person live in the same poverty-stricken neighborhood with the same income level bracket, their mental health will be impacted in an unqual manner by climate change? Where's the evidence for that stronger claim? The claim that poor people experience worse impact from extreme weather isn't a revelation of any kind. You don't need any research papers to know that. And some of the cited research shows a greater impact on white populations, even according to the paper. Other important populations were not even examined according to the shown paper (Native Americans, etc.), so how would one know that the black population is impacted to a much greater extent? No, the statement by Levine is still ridiculous. And the trans movement is particularly prone to peddling anti-science, so the 'trans' addition makes sense. I won't even attempt to explain why that's the case.

 

That's an interesting question. But since Levine doesn't appear to have made that stronger claim, it's a new question introduced by you and it's a red herring to the issue of whether or not Levine's statement was "nonsense."

True!

True, and unsurprising for a big systematic review.

Untrue. Native Americans are examined in the shown paper. Any reader of the paper can find references in seconds using an easy control-F or command-F search in the window for the word "Native." Likewise, other population groups are examined in the shown paper and easy to find.

Again, that's an interesting question, but since Levine doesn't appear to have claimed the black population is impacted to a much greater extent than other minority populations, it's a new question introduced by you and it's a red herring to the issue of whether or not Levine's statement was "nonsense."

If the audience opposes trans people, the "trans" addition is poisoning the well.

 

As far as actual research, Levine only mentioned that "65 percent of Black Americans report feeling anxious about climate change's impact." This is entirely self-reported stuff. The actual statement about the disproportionate effect of climate change on blacks was left without statistics or backing inside the article or the commented Twitter video. You've then searched for entirely new research that wasn't part of the original message and said that I was adding questions that went beyond Admiral's claims. I did that. But you've also introduced a new set of data to our discussion, not having originated from the source.

I've skimmed through the cited research paper material and missed the highlighted parts about Native Americans. Pardon me. The actual statement was left without any evidential basis, though.

Newspapers add various descriptors. It's totally within their purview, especially when Lavine's chief concern is this:

"Shortly after her confirmation, Levine told NBC News that LGBTQ youth are topmost in her mind when it comes to addressing health disparities in the United States." (Wikipedia).

It appears that Rachel Levine sees the country through some kind of weird minority hierarchy lens (Black-colored disparity here, LGBT+ disparity there), something that I find absurd. At least, the old left believed in class. I find this new emphasis hard to stomach and entirely nonsensical. Sorry.

 

Never underestimate these suckers. Their business model is mainly to help European companies do tax evasion, so I would easily think they can do that, too!

 

The subject of the article is a 1 minute 8 second video Levine posted this month, for Black History Month, in which she made a brief summary statement about climate change and Black communities.

A 2022 systematic review by Berkeley and UCLA public health scientists, in a high-impact environmental health journal, titled "Racial Disparities in Climate Change‑Related Health Effects in the United States," seems representative of the information available to her to summarize from. Levine's summary appears consistent with the information there.

Levine links to the Office of Minority Health at HHS, notes both it and the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity at HHS, and invites viewers to find more information at hhs.gov, where similar information about climate change and racial health disparities is readily available.

Imagine you come from a relatively poverty-stricken, neglected, flyover region of your country. You're then appointed to a national position.

It would be perfectly reasonable and unexceptional that if an interviewer asked you about concerns of the community you're from, you might say something indicating they'd be at the top or front of your mind in your national role.

You might well also say something similar for another community in brief remarks for a calendar event that honors that community and is marked routinely across party lines.

If a political opponent tried to spin this as indicating you'd substantively favour the community discussed inappropriately over other communities in your national role, I'd defend you against the implication.

 

They do that for others, too. It's proverbial in certain circles around here that, if you establish a Liechtenstein "Anstalt," you can pretty well get anything done, financially - in complete privacy and anonymity. Word is: nobody will see you, nobody will know. Unless there's a leak, of course - like Mossack-Fonseca and the Panama Papers, but that's not too likely.

I love stories of financial intrigue. Nice shivers.

 

Aren’t you conflating things like ethnic or local cultural communities in which you grew up and organizations based on cause advocacy? While we use the word “community” in both cases, I would not treat them as being remotely similar. There is a difference between speaking up for “your community” (meaning the regional community around which you grew up, or even the downtrodden in your local city or region) and the myriad of LGBTQ+, trans advocacy organizations, radical political organizations, etc. The word community is thrown around a lot these days. For example, I like metal music (even the extreme kind) and I could see myself as a member of that “community” (especially since longer hair is no longer expected for entry and listening to other genres isn’t typically seen as treason) but I don’t treat this as something worthy of politicization. From my perspective, Levine is not engaging in honoring his cultural community but advocacy in favor of a special interest trans groups/various political cause-dedicated organizations, those that don’t even have the support of vast swaths of gay voters.

 

It seems to me the subject in this thread doing the most to politicize trans people is the Daily Mail headline writer!