Actor Mark Ruffalo blends film and faith-fueled activism in 'Dark Waters'

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Ruffalo produced the film and stars as Bilott. The story follows the attorney from defending chemical companies to taking them on after he is approached in the late 1990s by a farmer from his hometown who believes waste produced by the local DuPont plant is killing his cattle.
The movie also gets faith-fueled environmental activism right, according to Cassandra Carmichael, executive director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment.

Throughout the film, Bilott and farmer Wilbur Tennant’s Christian faith is portrayed matter-of-factly as a part of their lives.
Their depictions rang true for Carmichael, who works on environmental activism with Catholics, evangelical Christians, mainline Protestant Christians, Jews, members of the black church and Orthodox communities.

“From a faith perspective, we often try to carry the water for others, to help them when they need help, whether that's building the stage for their voice or being an advocate when their voice can't be heard or getting into the trenches with them and fighting injustice,” she said.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2019/12/10/actor-mark-ruffalo-blends-film-and-faith-fueled-activism-in-dark-waters/

[trotsky]

1. The anti-environment movement is also faith-fueled.

They certainly don't have any facts to go on.

[guillaumeb]

2. The Chinese atheists who control their Governemnt are very anti-environment.

With no facts to justify it.

[trotsky]

3. Don't need facts when you've got faith.

As you yourself have admitted.

[guillaumeb]

4. And these Chinese atheists have their own beliefs as well.

So what prevents them from seeing the facts?

[trotsky]

5. I don't know, it's your whatabout.

You answer it.

[guillaumeb]

6. Ironically, you avoided the article

to ask what about the non-environmentally conscious theists.

[trotsky]

7. My gosh you try so hard and yet you still fail.

I do so enjoy how you humiliate yourself.

I didn't ask "what about" the anti-environment movement, I noted that they too use faith. So that the OP's point about "faith-fueled" motives is multi-faceted. I didn't change the subject, I stayed right on topic.

You, however, pivoted and asked WHATABOUT the Chinese government. Nothing to do with the OP.

I'm convinced at this point you enjoy the embarrassment.

[edhopper]

8. "China Is Bankrolling Green Energy Projects Around the World China Is Ban"

https://time.com/5714267/china-green-energy/

Not only is China today the world’s largest producer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles, but it has also been the top investor in clean energy for nine out of the last ten years, according to the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. Since 2014, Chinese equity investment has supported a total of 12,622 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar projects in South and Southeast Asia alone, according to new research by Greenpeace. That’s the equivalent of 21 standard coal plants or enough to power New York City. The shift from simply exporting to bankrolling green tech—driven by both a drying up of domestic subsidies in China and new incentives to invest abroad—is a boon since “it means China really cares about the future profitability of each project,” says Greenpeace campaigner Liu Junyan.

[guillaumeb]

10. China is also building coal and nuclear facilities. eom

[edhopper]

12. At least China acknowledges Climate Change

unlike thefaithful Christains who run our Government.

[Voltaire2]

16. Yeah they have to both develop their

industrial capacity and the standard of living of their citizens to bring them up to western standards and balance how they do that against environmental concerns. So there are compromises and they cannot just rely on green tech.

Nuclear power has its own issues but it is not contributing to global warming.

[guillaumeb]

18. Climate change is an existential issue.

These compromises might be fatal to solving the issue, but yes, these Chinese atheists are behaving in the same way as their theistic climate deniers.

[Voltaire2]

22. So China and other emerging economies

should pay for the damage the west has done by sacrificing the economic development?

Seems fair to me.

Not.

[guillaumeb]

24. Should emerging economies be allowed

to "catch up" in polluting? That sounds insane.

[Voltaire2]

31. Yeah we got ours screw them.

As noted upthread China is doing what it can to build out a green infrastructure. But it also has to rely on fossil fuels, as do all other developed economies.

Your assertion upthread that “ The Chinese atheists who control their Governemnt are very anti-environment.” is obviously nonsense, they are investing in green technologies and sustainable energy systems.

China’s per capita ghg emissions are less than half of ours. What the fuck are our pious leaders doing? Oh right, nothing.

[guillaumeb]

32. It would be better if your assertions were true, however,

China tops world for air pollution and carbon emissions, officials admit
China tops the world in almost all types of air pollution, including sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, as well as carbon emissions, top mainland officials admitted.
The officials also told a Guangdong forum that the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region’s ­huge industrial output meant it was one of most polluted areas in the world.

To read more of the actual story:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2051914/china-tops-world-air-pollution-and-carbon-emissions

[Voltaire2]

33. Per capita: half.

Reading is difficult.

[guillaumeb]

35. China tops world for air pollution and carbon emissions, officials admit

Assuming that you read that, what is so difficult?

[Voltaire2]

36. Ok here we go yet again.

Me, post 31: "China’s per capita ghg emissions are less than half of ours. "
You, post 32: "It would be better if your assertions were true, however, China tops world for air pollution and carbon emissions"

You appeared to not understand that I was referring to per capita ghg emissions, otherwise your reply made no sense.

Me: post 33: "Per capita: half. Reading is difficult."
You post 35: "China tops world for air pollution and carbon emissions, officials admit Assuming that you read that, what is so difficult?"

The part where you still don't seem to understand the difference between 'per capita' and 'total population'.

Do I have to explain it? Here:

"What Is Per Capita?
Per capita is a Latin term that translates into "by head." Per capita means the average per person and is often used in place of per person in statistical observances. The phrase is used with economic data or reporting but is also applied to almost any other occurrence of population description."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/percapita.asp

[Major Nikon]

37. One has to wonder if he's being obtuse or not

I’m not sure which is worse.

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. Does China exist in vacuum?

You seem to think it does.

[guillaumeb]

11. Trump exists in a moral and ethical vacuum.

And a self-awareness vacuum as well.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. That isn't what I asked.

But I understand your reasons for not wanting to answer the question.

[trotsky]

14. He's even whatabouting his whatabouts now.

No one should ever make the mistake of thinking that guillaumeb is looking for sincere dialog and discussion.

[guillaumeb]

19. Whcih is why you immediately tried to chaange the subject

so you could pursue your "theists are bad" meme.

And your continued misunderstanding of the whataboutism logical fallacy is evident.

[trotsky]

20. The subject was being motivated by faith.

But you whatabout you. It's all you've got.

[guillaumeb]

21. Incorrect.

The subject was speaking about faith as a motivation for positive action.

And you immediately tried to change the subject, which is an essential component of the whataboutism fallacy. The need to change the subject.

[trotsky]

34. Faith as a motivation, thank you.

Completely on topic.

An ACTUAL example of whataboutism would be shifting to the topic of the Chinese government.

You know, like you did.

[Voltaire2]

15. Um actually they aren't anti environment.

But do carry on.

[guillaumeb]

17. They are.

But I understand the need here by some few to promote a meme.

[Voltaire2]

23. As documented in this thread you are wrong

on the facts.

But that has never deterred you in the past, so carry on.

[guillaumeb]

25. Do not confuse your assertions with documentation.

That can be problematic.

[dewsgirl]

26. This was a great movie. I gave it 9.5 on IMDB.

[guillaumeb]

27. I have not seen it yet.

But I hope to soon.

[dewsgirl]

28. I think you will like it.

[Upthevibe]

29. I haven't seen it yet

but will for sure....

[dewsgirl]

30. You'll like it, it kept me captivated.