I agree with what you say. Also about the headline, it was the one that was suggested from the "Generate title" thingy - so I just changed it to what is on the actual article.
solo
The statement in your first paragraph (that you later try to prove as true) is flawed because it is eurocentric.
Eurocentric does not mean talking about Europe. It's about having a biased perspective that favors or exonerates western civilisations for crimes they committed. Among other things, of course.
Just finished it and I really enjoyed their analysis. I'll definitely check out more videos of this channel.
This reasoning sounds very eurocentric. You talk about monetary values - rich, poor, diamonds - without taking into consideration that other civilizations, have other values, and these should be respected. At least as a proof of actual decolonisation.
The issue with colonialism and coloniality is that it destroyed (and still does actually), the way of being of thriving communities around the world to the point they are not able to be self-sustained as they used to be, before the colonisers arrived there.
For me, saying "yes, but I didn't do it", is not acknowledgement because you live in a society still profiting of it (btw when I say "you", I hope it's clear it's totally not personal). It's a matter of coming to terms with that fact and then use it as a starting point for the conversation.
Reparations for what?
So many things to say, but I'll be super brief.
It's quite common that people who come from colonial countries, they are taught to ignore that one of the reasons that they currently have a higher standard of living as societies (not as individuals) in comparison to the places their ancestors went and colonised is because they took/expoited/stole/etc the resources from these places, including people. In the process the colonisers also trashed the place, as well as local, thriving communities.
So the way I see things, there are stuff that needs to be acknowledged first. Solutions come after.
I don't think that's really the point. The point is that Israel is killing civilians including children, not soldiers.
Up until recently, I kinda thought something like what the IEA report on The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions said:
Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is an essential technology for achieving net zero emissions in certain sectors and circumstances, but it is not a way to retain the status quo.
Lately, I tend to believe that the latter part of this sentence is what's actually happening. That these topics of capture, removal and storage are promoted by Big Oil & Gas, to deflect the topic from the need of fossil fuels to stay in the ground, so that they keep doing business as usual.
Edit: Thought of adding a relevant article from last year.
In a way my initial reaction reading the title was very similar: we know this stuff already. Then I thought of taking a look at the article and realised there were several stuff mentioned I was not aware about, apart from this new memo I mean. I also liked the pictures from the archives and the links to the documents as reference to hat they say, so I thought it was totally worth sharing after all.
Apart from that for me revisiting a topics through the lens of another author/person sometimes helps me find actual answers or perhaps reframe the question: What can we do?
Relevant article that talks about Cop29 in relation to previous ones: What should we expect at COP29?
Last year at COP28 in Dubai, countries agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels for the first time ever.
But the ‘UAE Consensus’ was less a consensus and more of a watered-down pledge, leaving many advocates disappointed as no promises were made to fully phase out oil, gas and coal.
This outcome was likely shaped by the presence of thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists at the event, which was itself hosted by a petrostate and led by the CEO of a state-owned oil company who openly dismissed the need for a fossil fuel phaseout.
This is why we won't ever fix it.
I think I see what you mean, I must admit I don't really agree with this statement.
I think we (meaning people) can actually fix this by applying pressure to governments to implement the necessary measures/taxes/etc to the polluting corporations all over the world. This pressure can have many forms - protest, boycott, etc. Also, it should be intersectional since climate justice without social justice doesn't really mean anything - it's just an empty vessel with greenwashing tendencies. At least the way I see things.
I agree with you. Even after taking into consideration that a conviction will create fascist narratives like those mentioned in the article and most probably more of that kind.