Example Of Environmental Outline 4-5: Fill & Download for Free

We don’t go along with the overall climate narrative of those on the environmental left because many of the major climate solutions are simply blatant excuses to enact massive government programs.Let’s look at the Green New Deal.[1]This is a climate change proposal made by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) during the winter of 2019. The Resolution claims that we must work to massively cut our emissions because the US is responsible for 20% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.Pages 3 and 4 of the resolution have this interesting language:[2]Whereas the United States is currently experiencing several related crises, with—(1) life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population;(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;None of that has anything to do with climate change.Wage stagnation, worker bargaining power, socioeconomic mobility, and income inequality are all economic issues. While these issues are absolutely worth debate, it is bizarre that they would be in a climate resolution.Page 4 of the bill then goes on to say this:[3]Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes that a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization ona scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era is a historic opportunity—(1) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;(2) to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and(3) to counteract systemic injustices:Again, this is an economic issue and not an environmental one.Even if this were simply used to make the bill look good, it is still odd to include in a bill. Usually bills have language that directly deals with the goal the bill seeks to attain. Unless this is an economic bill, there would be no reason to include job creation as an objective of the bill.Once we get past the aspirational fluff that is included in bills like this, we can get to the real crux of what the legislation will actually do.Page 10 has some good language for us to break down: [4][P]roviding and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;(emphasis mine)That is an overtly communist proposal.Marx specifically stated in his work that the ideal society would be one where the public own the means of production.[5] To say that this is anything other than an economic policy at this point would require deep intellectual dishonesty.Page 12 makes another such proposal:[6][G]uaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;A society with a guaranteed job is another example of a marxist society, and that is the problem with this legislation, and legislation like it.It has nothing to do with the environment.The Green New Deal is merely an attempt to have the federal government seize control of massive employment sectors in an attempt to create what adherents believe is the ideal society.We don’t even need to do Freudian psychoanalysis of the text of the bill.Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff admitted that it has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with the economy.[7]We are willing to discuss ways of improving the environment, but we are not willing to do so when those ways are merely ways of changing the whole economy.[8]Footnotes[1] Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline[2] Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline[3] Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline[4] Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline[5] https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php[6] Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline[7] AOC’s Chief of Staff Admits the Green New Deal Is Not about Climate Change[8] AOC’s Chief of Staff Admits the Green New Deal Is Not about Climate Change

From an evolutionary view, there are undoubtedly many different drivers of butterfly wing color. Butterflies evolved from moths, which fly at night and tend to be fairly drab. As bats appeared on the scene, night-time insects suddenly had massive pressure on them, and some moved their habits to become daytime fliers. Along with a host of other adaptations, the increased light opened up room for brighter colors.Why would butterflies "want" bright colors? Here are some reasons:1. Warning signals. Butterflies that are toxic, like Monarch butterflies, have brightly colored wings, warning predators not to eat them even accidentally. Here is a monarch butterfly, which is poisonous:2. Mimicking other butterflies which are poisonous. That way you get the benefit of avoiding predation, without the biochemical work of manufacturing or storing the actual toxins. Here's a non-poisonous viceroy butterfly:3. Camouflage. Though we think of butterflies as brightly colored, many are well hidden in their environment. Here's a leaf butterfly:4. Disguise. Even butterflies that aren't specifically imitating something may disrupt their outlines using shape and colors so that it's hard to recognize them as prey. Here's a comma butterfly:Patterns of bright colors may be disruptive alone, breaking up patterns (though this is debated, and I don't know which way it's resolved).5. Other ways of avoiding predators. Eye spots are often suggested to alarm predators, or to decoy their attacks. Eyespot display in the peacock butterfly triggers antipredator behaviors in naive adult fowl [Behav Ecol. 2013]:6. Sexual selection. Female butterflies prefer males bearing bright iridescent ornamentation.7. Species recognition, letting males and females of the same species identify an appropriate mating partner.8. Random. There's examples of butterfly wing colors that vary depending on environmental stress, without an apparent adaptive component.

Why do liberals think conservatives are "pushing an agenda" when in reality it's the other way around, conservatives are trying to retain their rights in the face of a liberal agenda?That’s an interesting question, given that folks calling themselves ‘conservative’ are arguably the most-active drivers of aggressive/radical policy change nowadays.The question tells us something- that either the querent (the person asking the question) honestly believes that today’s conservatives are just defending the status quo, or that they want to cue others to believe that it’s so.But, there’s a problem with this view: it isn’t really all that supported by anything like an objective reading of modern history. Sure, liberals have seen specific narrow advances in social attitudes (weed being legalized, gays marrying) and the occasional policy push (like enactment of the ACA, which really only offered subsidies to private buyers just like those with employer-provisioned health insurance have long received), but in terms of concrete policy agendas, it’s folks calling themselves conservative who are doing the following:Doubling down on substantive changes to tax policy (like cutting taxes on the wealthy without balancing those cuts) despite the repeated evidence that tax cuts don’t ‘pay for themselves by causing growth’.reversing centuries of openness to immigration (FFS, America is a nation of Immigrants)repealing financial regulations we enacted decades ago (with bipartisan support) to prevent another great depressionrepealing environmental regulations we enacted decades ago (WITH POPULAR SUPPORT FROM CONSERVATIVES) to prevent more rivers from catching firerepealing civil rights rules and regulations we enacted to end centuries of racial terrorism in the United StatesIn the face of a contracting conservative base, engaging in voter suppression and gerrymandering and thereby subverting democracy itself as a means of retaining power without the having-to-appeal-to-majorities’ interests part.Liberals take the view that they are defending settled law and institutions that people calling themselves ‘conservative’ are out to undermine. Things like the EPA, Social Security, Medicare, the Voter Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, these were all well-established and are now a part of our history, fundamental pieces of the America we all grew up in.In a very real sense, Liberals are out to conserve the America that America chose to be. The last century’s worth of decisions taken democratically- (the New Deal, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Glass–Steagall legislation, etc) that’s what the people calling themselves ‘conservative’ are out to subvert. That’s not a conservative undertaking, it is a reactionary one[1].Liberals think conservatives are pushing an agenda because they’re often the ones defending the status quo, while people calling themselves ‘conservative’ do their utmost to Roll Back the 20th Century.It’s also interesting to note that liberals are used to hearing conservatives talk about ‘The Liberal Agenda™’, and are used to it not being things liberals actually want. For example: they aren’t interested in having open borders, they don’t want Sharia, and their support for climate regulation and Universal Health Care aren’t all part of some secret plot to impose socialism on everyone. In this sense, when liberals hear conservatives talk about ‘The Liberal Agenda™’, they tend to understand it as something absurd, whatever fiction conservative media made up about liberals this week to keep their audiences good and outraged.Of course, this does not mean Liberals don’t have policy preferences or that they aren’t pursuing them with some success. For example, the Supreme Court finally figured out that the 14th Amendment means gay folk can marry- and along the way, SCOTUS handed down Roe v. Wade, which put a bee in Evangelical bonnets ever since they made it a mainstay of their politics. More recently, voters have passed referenda in several states to de-criminalize weed. Sure, the arc of history going where it does probably feels like it infringes on conservative prerogatives. And yet, conservatives haven’t been passively defending their rights against some sort of ever-encroaching onslaught; the right has undeniably been attacking and subverting the status quo ever since the 1960s, since the New Deal, even if you go back to the Reconstruction.[2] All of these were watershed moments of our history- in which we abolished slavery(only to see white supremacy be channeled through state laws that would be known as Jim Crow), in which we limited financial speculation (only to see capital supremacy channelled through efforts to subvert it). The enactment of the Civil Rights acts would galvanize further efforts to resist full equality, up to and including efforts to pack the court systems with judges sympathetic to the notion that the constitution does not require things like equal standing before the law, despite the 14th Amendment calling for precisely that.The far right has engaged in an effort to un-do the last century ever since the New Deal, ever since the USA became a first-tier global power- in large part because that’s when as a Democracy the USA decided it must check the abuses and excesses of its industrial titans and barons of industry in order to protect the prerogatives of everyone else. Ever Since, big money has spent big money to engage whomever it could to put Government back into its bottle- and it was especially effective when it created organized religion as its political sock puppet: [How 'One Nation' Didn't Become 'Under God' Until The '50s Religious Revival][How Corporate America Invented Christian America]. It has also funded and organized astro-turf political movements[3], groomed a judiciary favorable to its own interests[4][5] , and it funds cozy arrangements by which pliant legislators introduce legislation written by private parties- essentially turning legislators into a rubber-stamp for private interests[6]. In this manner, the activist right has managed to win for itself the ability to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money to influence politics, and has enacted a legislative agenda despite its particulars being largely unpopular with the public.[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] .By virtue of their ability to fund think tanks and dark money networks (and, of course, the presence of right-wing media networks to promote the view that “the liberals have gone crazy and are attacking you”), a good number of American conservatives are honestly afraid that it’s true- but their being worried about it doesn’t mean it is.Footnotes[1] Andrew Sullivan: Why the Reactionary Right Must Be Taken Seriously[2] What Is the Far Right’s Endgame? A Society That Suppresses the Majority.[3] The Secret Origins of the Tea Party[4] The Conservative Pipeline to the Supreme Court[5] How the Trump Administration Is Remaking the Courts[6] Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected[7] Deeply unpopular, DeVos and ALEC in lockstep in trying to destroy public education[8] Conservative Group ALEC Outlines 2019 Agenda to Erode Union Power[9] ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection[10] What Is the Far Right’s Endgame? A Society That Suppresses the Majority.[11] https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NELP-ALEC-Wage-Suppression.pdf