Michael Schellenberger

Rank 43 of 47
|
Score -120
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
1040d
Like Gavin Newsom, I like walking through redwood forests.

Unlike Newsom, I've actually saved them. In the 1990s, I helped save California's last, unprotected ancient redwood groves.

Newsom cut funding for fire prevention, creating a forest fire crisis, and then lied about it.
1/9/2025, 3:36:23 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
59d
I have been raising the alarm about inadequate action to prevent catastrophic fires since 2019. During that time Gov @GavinNewsom and LA Mayor @MayorOfLA cut critical funding for fire prevention. Don't let anyone tell you they couldn't have prevented this.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
60d
Climate change is causing the fires in L.A., says the media. But one of the government's top fire experts says, 鈥淚 don't think these fires are the result of climate change." The media blame climate change to divert attention from the incompetence of the politicians they like.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the issue of wildfire prevention and management in California, critiquing political figures for their actions and policies. It challenges the narrative that climate change is the primary cause of these fires, suggesting political incompetence and funding cuts are more significant factors.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to hold politicians accountable, which can be seen as striving to do no harm by advocating for better fire prevention measures.聽[+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement criticizes public figures, which could be seen as disrespectful if not based on factual evidence. However, it does not engage in hate speech or harassment.
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in criticism of political figures, which could be constructive if it leads to dialogue and policy change, but it risks being perceived as a personal attack.聽[-1]