(12s) Climate change requires more solidarity and less reverting upon ourselve

Indeed, as the Guardian article mentions, climate change actions mean people work together to survive the transition to what may become a new world. Religious people and scientists agree that the world is changing such as melting of ice on poles and glaciers that changes the appearance of the world. And while I think everyone must work together, others such as certain religious people only want to help like-minded people: the same skin colour, religion, political and economic ideologies that can even worsen the situation.

Thus, while I think investments in farming and new economies such as clean energy but also conservationism should receive priority, others think it is better that our wealth is protected while the most greedy persons selloff what we have, often because it's not theirs so they have the money (that what we can't eat and drink) while society can pay foreign companies and countries as they buy the technology we developed.

As written in the article, standing up for a fair society equals standing up for actions to tackle climate change. Together. It also means not only to recognise that terrorist attacks by white supremacists cause fear and should be condemned (as the article suggests) but also recognise fear by white people for the migrants who flood our regions because most of us p understand the consequences it may have as descendants of colonists we know that invading other countries caused death but also history informs us that huge migration can cause the collapse of even mighty empires.

Climate march to show that climate actions are wanted and supported. Unfortunately, mainly white people marching and few nonwhites. If only the Gilets Jaunes would agree that protecting the environment is also good for them.

And thus, as the article mentions, supremacy (macho behaviour) and climate change denial go hand in hand. The financial sector are an example whereby greedy individuals invest huge sum that see from other people in fossil fuel and weapon industry, even when the owner of the money may have asked to invest it ethically. And taking risks was encouraged. Then the actions of these corrupt individuals nearly bankrupted banks that needed to be saved by society whereby ordinary people lost due to the collapse of shares (and the falls argument that investments in the economy is risky but is not on condition companies inform correctly) that resulted in the near or full bankruptcy of companies while countries that supported heavily to save the financial sector are forced by that same financial sector to balance their budgets that result in investments in education and healthcare while the corrupt elite bankers and hedge fund managers were able to buy cheap shares that have risen again while ordinary people receive zero on saving accounts to stimulate them to buy expensive shares after people recover from the losses they made during the crisis so shares go up further until the mighty sell their shares and become even richer, removing money from the economy into their own pockets while the rest lose again.

Instead, I think society should protect us against corrupt people who use our money to enrich themselves. Then people can accept to help others. Further, we should invest in food so when disaster hits (as today in southern Africa), (over)production in one place can be used as emergency in disaster regions elsewhere instead of destroying saying it's too expensive. Doing so, farmers can sell the products they produce (in a human way!) while people elsewhere are helped. When disaster may hit us one day (if nothing worse than destruction of fields), people elsewhere will be prepared to help us. Of course, when things go well we don't need to buy food in poor countries so those people can eat the food they produced. Instead, we saved bad banks so good banks gave unfair competition while we told farmers to produce less so we imported cheap food from Africa to sell here expensive so the intermediates earned the most.

And, yes, if solidarity is not preferred, than you may (if we can trust climate scientists are correct)need to earn a lot to buy expensive food and may need a gun to take food by violence. Then people turn to their own group while exclude others and try to close borders to prevent foreigners come to your country. Not the best solution because one person may want to exclude one group while a friend may want to exclude another group.

And thus as predicted, people in developing countries are the first to feel the consequences of climate change while they are the least responsible and thus they come to the West for protection and food. We try to stop them, partly because rightfully we fear terrorists. But, I'm sure, extremists from within are much worse. Indeed, a few migrants may not be grateful that we help, but extreme right in power does no only hate foreigners but also many of their own people. Yes, solidarity is the clue but many may not agree. Thus, at least good protection of workers rights as in the West such as working in a clean environment and being well paid may already resolve many problems so fewer migrants will come to the West.

And thus, violence by nonwhite should not happen but when we deny people a good life than this is understandable to a point because we invaded them in the past and stole but even today many Western companies steal by exploiting people in poor countries because they want to pay as little as possible. Yes, many of those people are angry that we have much and they not. Still, as in the West, they could unite in unions although often being an unionist in those countries is dangerous.

However, white people should not be angry as long as people don't hurt them as was the case in New Zealand. Indeed, people come here for protection and food. We have few excuses to deny them this as we have plenty and much is even imported today and during our colonisation from the countries where those people come from while some of our own people exploit them via companies and stopping this exploitation but also more local production of food and products may already stop much of the immigration ... and anger by people in the West whose jobs are now abroad.

Read the Guardian article, it describes well what I mean. But also my older post refers to solidarity instead of inversion towards ourselves and away from others.