Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

The Tellus Institute, a non-profit sustainability research organization, created “sophisticated human population models” with their PoleStar project (PSP). Using data provided to them by the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank (WB), they analyzed parameters such as energy consumption, land use and pollution.

The PSP predicts simulated outcomes that are being used to shape international policy. Richard Rosen, executive vice president of Tellus claims that if we are to make this world a pleasant place to live, we should “get going immediately. There’s no leisurely way.”

Geophysicists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research states that only 282 billion people could be “packed onto the planet” with all other land reserved for food cultivation only.

The PSP infers 4 possible scenarios that will come to pass because of the growing human population.

Market Forces

If we continue “business as usual”, by the year 2100, we will see the poorer regions suffer from the growth of industry. Environmental problems abound and become more acute.

We can expect family planning policies that restrict the right to have children. The expectation of population growth would be pushing the boundaries of sustainability; being 9.3 billion.

With more humans on the planet will come income disparity. The average take home pay could be as low as 5 cents per dollar earned.

Water securitization would be implemented to ensure water stress is reduced to an acceptable minimum. However by 2100, water shortages could reach as high as 50%.

Under strict food securitization policies, less than 6% of the world’s population could be affected by starvation.

Policy Reform

In this scenario, by 2100, governments have adhered to the UN’s climate change targets and sustainability goals; however economic growth is hindered and stronger policies must be put in place to curb the effects.

With family planning services enforced onto the population, only 8.4 billion people would be straining natural resources.

The average income would only be worth 11 cents on the dollar.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || ).push({});

Expected water shortages would force 23% of the world’s water resources to be controlled by governmental policies.

International mandates controlling food would result in only 3% of the world’s population to suffer from hunger.

Fortress World

By 2100 this global society would be controlled by an authoritarian government in order to control distribution of resources. Economic, social and environmental downgrades would cause the wealthy to retreat to protected areas; leaving the masses to fend for themselves in the wastelands.

Implementing family planning services would be near impossible, leaving the global population to rise to 10.2 billion.

The average income would be reduced to 2 cents on the dollar.

Water securitization would control 46% of the world’s water supplies.

Global hunger could soar to nearly 15% of the entire population.

The Great Transition

By 2100, if the world’s societies were to radically alter their environmental preservation policies and prioritize social memes to reflect those of the UN, the planet could live in a world of social equality and cooperation.

American Natural Superfood - Free Sample

Family planning would have successfully controlled population growth to a stable 7.3 billion worldwide.

Take home income could be raised to 36 cents on the dollar.

With less people, water securitization could be kept to a minimum of 21%.

The incidents of global hunger would be negligible.

Regardless of global population decline, the UN’s Populations Fund (UNFPA) is calling for more family planning services in order to further decrease fertility rates worldwide.

The UNFPA released a report in 2011 that erroneously claimed that the world’s population will rise to 9.15 billion by 2050. In response, the UNFPA has focused efforts on STD immunizations, abortion and contraception more readily available under the non-discriminant term, “family planning”.

Their concept for the future appears to be miserable without the submission of all humans on planet Earth to their globalist Elite schemes. They are quite good at using fear to justify their policies to elected officials, governments and average citizens. Their continued success will surely lead to the worst of possible futures.

Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

Based on a new mathematical reconfiguration of the false claims that CO2 is affecting the earth’s temperature, a call for a “carbon deinvestment campaign” has been made.

By making carbon taxes a global and integral part of the “fee-and-dividend approach”, these climate change alarmists want to redistribute wealth from country to country as the globalists at the UN have outlined in various eco-terrorist manifestos.

However, real scientific data from real-world observations, and not the IPCC’s falsified computer model projections, are painting a different picture of what is actually happening with our weather and what the true effects of climate change actually are.

Anthony Watts, former television meteorologist, has conducted a study into the reliability of weather stations in the US Historical Climatology Network. According to Watts’ analysis of the position of the weather stations and their spoiling of assumed empirical data, results show the planet warming at just 0.155 degrees Celsius per decade, rather than the 0.309 C per decade cited by the government.

Watts believes that the reality of global warming is that it is not as “catastrophic, or as bad as it’s been portrayed.”

During the 2012 UN Earth Summit in Rio+20, a new global climate treaty was first and foremost on the agenda to force all the world’s nations to be bound by international mandate to follow the regulations of the UN with respect to climate change policies – which ultimately gives the UN control over each nation’s internal structures.

Alarmists are using efforts like the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) (pressuring Capitol Hill) to reintroduce this bill in letters to elected officials that use fear-mongering of man-made climate change as the purpose of such legislation.

The CCL claim :

Declare Your Independence!

Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!


Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom

#mc_embed_signup {clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 15px; }
.cmhead{color: rgb(255,199,27); text-shadow: 1px 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.5); text-align: center; font-size: 250%; font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: 700;}
.cmsubhead{color: rgb(255,255,255); text-align: center; font-size: 150%; font-family: sans-serif;}
.cmformhead{color: rgb(30, 29, 29); font-size: 160%; font-family: sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px;}
#mc_embed_signup form { display: inline-block; background-color: #FFF; background-color: #FFF; margin-top: 20px; border-color: rgb(31, 31, 31);
outline: none;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
opacity: 1;
border-width: 3px;
border-style: solid;
border-radius: 5px;
width:70%;
}
#mc_embed_signup input.email {width: 90%; }
#mc_embed_signup input.button { width: 93%; background-color: rgb(246, 137, 34); border-bottom: 3px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.2); font-size: 160%;}
#mc_embed_signup .button:hover {background-color: #e67409;}
/* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Claim Your FREE Issue Today!

As evidence keeps mounting about the dangerous trajectory of human-induced climate change, it becomes clear that Earth’s natural systems are rapidly approaching tipping points for global warming. Failure to act now will doom future generations to one cataclysm after another –shortages of food and water, displacement of millions from rising sea levels, more frequent and severe weather disasters, and the breakdown of civil society.

The hijacking of the environmental movement has produced non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and “green groups” that are able to raise funds and influence nations’ global warming policies for the agendas of the UN. By lobbying with fear-mongering they are successful in making overblown assumptions about the extreme weather, ocean acidification and melting glaciers.

Ocean fertilization, the use of plankton to push CO2 into the depths of the ocean, is a scheme invented by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) that approved ocean fertilization as a “preventative” measure of sequestering CO2 in the deep oceans. One of the most devastating effects is the increased acidification of the oceans.

Bill Gates and his colleague David Keith are funding alarmist scientists from Harvard University to spray thousands of tons of sun-reflecting chemical particles into the Earth’s atmosphere to artificially cool the planet. This solar geoengineering seeks to replicate volcano effects by shooting sulfates into the stratosphere using synthetic sulfate aerosols to reflect sunlight back out into space.

Solar geoengineering will directly amplify specific areas of study, as they have chosen sulfuric dust that mimics the emissions of volcanoes. An intended consequence of solar geoengineering is the whitening of our skies because of the nano particles being released to reflect sunlight. Sulfate aerosols cause whiter daytime skies, and sunsets to glow brighter.

American Natural Superfood - Free Sample

And further amplification of our atmosphere with the use of solar geoengineering will directly affect immediate weather patterns across the globe. Effectively, the global warming effects alarmists are complaining about and blaming on man-made CO2 are actually causation of the UN’s various restructuring of the Earth’s atmospheric chemical elements into something more toxically sulfuric.

You can support this information by voting for it on Reddit HERE

Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

To live in the 21st century is to live with the threat of weather growing more and more wicked.

Droughts, heat waves, and wildfires are growing more intense and dangerous from global warming and rising greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, we’re not reckoning with scientists’ predictions that worst-case weather scenarios will be more likely — and common — if we don’t change course. Only 41 percent of the American public believes climate change will affect them personally, a 2018 survey by Yale and George Mason University found.

Phoenix, Arizona, is susceptible to a heat wave that could peak at a staggering 122 degrees Fahrenheit. Southern California could face a wildfire that burns 1.5 million acres of land. Tampa, Florida, could see 26 feet of storm surge flooding from a hurricane, just below the record-breaking 28-foot storm surge of Hurricane Katrina.

In every case, these “Big Ones” could be huge disasters not just because of geography and proximity to threats, but also because of decisions to build homes and offices in certain places, ignoring nature. Many other communities in the same regions have similar vulnerabilities.

For too long, we’ve been complacent about climate change and the really scary possibilities of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more of average warming. Two degrees is the amount of warming we are likely to experience by midcentury, and it’s double the warming we’ve experienced to date. As David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth, put it in a Vox interview, “being scared about what is possible in the future can be motivating.”

Californians have long been taught to fear and prepare for the next big earthquake — and the state now has stronger infrastructure and wide engagement in earthquake readiness and planning. If more communities around the country feared climate “Big Ones,” they and their leaders would be more engaged in both stopping fossil fuel use and readying for disaster.

The scenarios in Phoenix, Southern California, and Tampa we describe in this three-part series are hypothetical. But they’re based on models scientists use to project what’s possible today, or tomorrow. There’s always uncertainty in these models. Things can change. These aren’t premonitions, but tastes of what’s possible.

We face more and more expensive disasters, and we are still building right in the paths of tempests. But our ability today to anticipate dangerous future weather creates an opportunity to reconcile with where we let people build, how we manage vegetation that could burn, and whether we replace more trees and soil with heat-magnifying concrete.

For a look at what’s in store, let’s begin in Arizona.

One day in the future, a massive wave of high-pressure air will park over Phoenix.

As the sun rises amid an already scorching summer, the pressure will hold the accumulated heat in place and the triple-digit temperatures will tick up higher and higher. 119 degrees Fahrenheit. 120. 121. 122. Health officials will warn citizens to stay inside, but some will venture out and emergency room visits will spike. At night, the temperature will drop only to 100.

It’s an alarming prospect for a rising population. Phoenix is home to 1.6 million people and is the second-fastest-growing city in the United States. The metro area is home to 4 million and is projected to grow to 6.6 million people by 2050. By then, more than 20 percent of the population will be older than 65.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that heat is already the deadliest weather phenomenon in the US, killing hundreds of people a year, more than floods, fires, earthquakes, lightning strikes, tornadoes, or hurricanes. With climate change, the threat is only getting worse, particularly for the elderly and the impoverished.

Over the next 24 hours of this heat wave, electricity use will surge higher as millions of air conditioners blast at full force, and the power grid will sputter as power lines strain. Power plants will run dangerously low on cooling water as the rivers that feed the region slow to a trickle and heat up. Generators will become less efficient.

The grid will succumb to brownouts and blackouts. Air conditioners will wheeze out, leaving many in homes that will grow dangerously hot. Water pumps will shut off, threatening people with dehydration. Freezers will thaw and food will spoil. Lines will form at gas stations as stalled pumps force drivers to refuel by hand.

Anxiety will grow about the region’s water supply. The Phoenix metropolitan region will already be in a drought and what little water is left will start becoming too hot to use. The nearby water reservoirs will be at record lows. Golf courses turn yellow as water restrictions go into effect.

By Day 5, city officials will declare a public health emergency. Officials will ask people to congregate in malls, libraries, and rec centers to minimize the cooling load.

Read full story here…

Nobody wants to listen to the evidence against Global Warming because the government doesn’t hand out money for research that fails to justify new taxes. Real scientists have just discovered a massive previously unknown source of nitrogen that could turn the Global Warming nonsense on its head. My bet is that it will be ignored. There is too much money on the table to just walk away.

This new discovery may dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that are now a religion. The findings were published in the prestigious Journal Science, whereby the previous eco-science assumed the only source of nitrogen was the atmosphere. Scientists recently discovered that the planet holds vast storehouses of nitrogen, which is essential for plant life, in its bedrock.

This new discovery alters the entire theory behind Global Warming caused by humans. The University of California at Davis environmental scientist and co-author of the study, Ben Houlton, said, “This runs counter the centuries-long paradigm that has laid the foundation for the environmental sciences.”

Now, pay very close attention to the word “paradigm” which he is using. Clearly, if Houlton’s discovery of a vast storehouse of nitrogen is correct, then it would have an enormous impact on global warming predictions. Why?

Climate scientists have long known that plants offset some of the effects of climate change by absorbing and storing CO2. But climate scientists assumed that the ability for plants to perform this function was limited because the availability of nitrogen in the atmosphere was limited.

A 2003 study published in the same science journal stated, “There will not be enough nitrogen available to sustain the high carbon uptake scenarios.” You see scientists who have NOT been on the payroll for Global Warming understand this is all nonsense. Ronald Amundson, a soil biogeochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, publicly told Chemical and Engineering News that “If there is more nitrogen there than expected, then the constraints on plant growth in a high-CO2 world may not be as great as we think.”

Remember high school science class? Remember that with more nitrogen available, then plant life will still grow? And guess what, they absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating. That means the dire forecasts that we have 12 years to live being championed by AOC and the Democrats are completely inaccurate. The planet won’t warm as much with plant life absorbing the CO2 mankind pumps into the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, because this field of research is not under global warming grants, we should not expect this information to ever make it to the mainstream media.

Read full story here…

Oftentimes, the climate alarmists are their own worst enemy. It sounds reasonable enough that carbon emissions might have an impact on the climate, but it’s a rather nasty thing to prove, especially when alarmist predictions fail, over and over again. It’s far from the “scientific consensus.” But the alarmists don’t tone down their rhetoric — they ratchet it up to 11. They want to take away your plastic straws, your cars, your burgers. Then there’s this behavioral scientist in Sweden who wants us to eat human flesh to deal with the effects of climate change.

No, this isn’t The Onion or The Babylon Bee. This is a Swedish professor appearing on Swedish television advocating for cannibalism, because climate change is just that dire. It can’t be lunacy if it’s done in the name of climate change, can it?

Earlier this week, Magnus Söderlund, professor of marketing and strategy at the Stockholm School of Economics, spoke at the Gastro Summit, a discussion on the future of food in the case of a climatepocalypse, The Epoch Times reported.

Söderlund spoke on the topic, “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?” He argued for breaking down the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and, well, cannibalism. The clip is available on State Swedish Television channel TV4 at this link. The end of the video’s description roughly translates to “the possibility of eating human flesh – to save the climate.” How cannibalism would have any impact on the climate is anyone’s guess, and it seems the professor is more focused on dealing with the aftereffects of climate change, anyway.

According to The Epoch Times, Söderlund dismissed taboos against cannibalism as “conservative.” He suggested that people’s resistance to eating human flesh “could be overcome, little by little, beginning with persuading people to just taste it.” In the video, he warned “that since food sources will be scarce in the future, people must be introduced to eating things they have thus far considered disgusting—among them, human flesh.”

While the professor also discussed breaking other taboos on eating pets and insects, his talk focused on cannibalism. Swedish articles on the debate use the term “mannisko-kötts branschen,” which translates to “the human flesh industry.”

According to his bio, Söderlund’s research focuses on “consumer behavior,” “reactions to marketing stimuli,” “psychological reactions,” and “our understanding of what it means to be a consumer (and a marketer) in a society increasingly obsessed with consumption.”

Taking this psychological approach, the professor said that people can be “tricked” into “making the right decisions.”

Söderlund appeared to equate resistance to cannibalism with capitalist selfishness. “Are we humans too selfish to live sustainably?” he asked.

Even the audience for a Climatepocalypse food summit seemed unwilling to break the “taboo” against eating human flesh. Then the professor asked the audience how many would be open to the idea, not many hands went up and some people groaned. The professor later told the media that 8 percent of conference participants said they would be open to trying cannibalism.

When asked if he would try eating human flesh, Söderlund said, “I feel somewhat hesitant but to not appeal overly conservative… I’d have to say… I’d be open to at least tasting it.”

Even if cannibalism were not grotesque, it would still be unhealthy. The Fore people in Papua New Guinea practiced ritualistic cannibalism. The women in the tribe would eat the human flesh of their dead relatives — so that worms and maggots did not eat it. The women — and some children — started dying of kuru, a disease meaning “shivering” or “trembling.”

Victims first had trouble walking, a sign they were about to lose control over their limbs. Then they would lose control over their emotions, and people dubbed the disease the “laughing death.” Within a year, the victims couldn’t get up off the floor, feed themselves, or control bodily functions.

Read full story here…

On the weekend of August 10–11, as if in chorus, major online news websites called on people to stop consuming meat. The calls echoed a recent United Nations report that recommended doing so to fight climate change.

It surprised many, but there are other more surprising facts about climate change that are hardly published in our everyday news media.

Below are some facts—scientifically recognized and published in peer-reviewed journals—that may raise your eyebrows.

1. Climate Has Always Changed—Always

All proxy temperature data sets reveal that there have been cyclical changes in climate in the past 10,000 years. There is not a single climate scientist who denies this well-established fact. It doesn’t matter what your position on the causes and magnitude and danger (or not) of current climate change is—you have to be on board on this one. Climate has always changed. And it has changed in both directions, hot and cold. Until at least the 17th century, all these changes occurred when almost all humans were hunters, gatherers, and farmers.

2. Temperature Increase in the Past Was Not Caused by Humans

Industrialization did not happen until the 17th century. Therefore, no prior changes in climate were driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. In the last 2,000 years alone, global temperatures rose at least twice (around the 1st and 10th centuries) to levels very similar to today’s, and neither of those warm periods were caused by humans.

3. The Arctic and Antarctic Are Doing Better than Ever!

Yes, you read that right. The 10,000-year Holocene paleoclimatology records reveal that both the Arctic and Antarctic are in some of their healthiest states. The only better period for the poles was the 17th century, during the Little Ice Age, when the ice mass levels were higher than today’s. For the larger part of the past 10,000 years, the ice mass levels were lower than today’s. Despite huge losses in recent decades, ice mass levels are at or near their historic highs.

4. Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing!

If you paid attention to the previous fact, then the following one is not hard to understand. Polar bears—often used as a symbol of climate doomsday—are one of the key species in the Arctic. Contrary to the hype surrounding their extinction fear, the population numbers have actually increased in the past two decades.

Last year, the Canadian government considered increasing polar bear killing quotas as their increasing numbers posed a threat to the Inuit communities living in the Nunavut area.

The increase in population size flies in the face of those who continue to claim otherwise in the popular news media. And it is not just the polar bears in the Arctic. Other critical species elsewhere, like tigers, are also making a comeback.

5. Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Temperature Control Knob

While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true.

The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t.

This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob.

These are some of the many climate facts that the media refuses to acknowledge, like the impending solar minimum that NASA has predicted for the next two solar cycles between 2021 and 2041, ushering in a period of global cooling like it did during the solar minimum of 17th century.

There are other facts that run contrary to popular belief, such that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported low confidence that global warming—manmade or not—was driving increases in extreme weather events.

The list is endless. It would be naïve not to acknowledge this blatant and lopsided reporting in our news media.

Read full story here…

Recently, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rejected calls for a presidential primary debate dedicated to climate change. DNC chair Tom Perez argued that focusing on climate change alone would be unfair to those whose campaigns are more focused on other issues—which might be a compelling argument if experts said those matters had the potential to lead to civilizational collapse.

This was a missed opportunity to demand that the candidates who have not authored or signed on to an ambitious proposal to transform our economy and energy infrastructure over a relatively short time frame, like the Green New Deal, explain how they’ll pay for their more moderate approaches.

“But how will we pay for it?” is rarely asked in discussions of the military budget or trillion-dollar corporate tax cuts. But the media consistently demands that Democratic candidates offer detailed explanations of how they would finance Medicare for All or dealing with the student loan crisis.

It’s the same with climate change. When Bernie Sanders released his climate proposal, The New York Times described it as a “$16 Trillion Climate Plan” and noted that it was the “most expensive proposal from the field of Democratic presidential candidates aimed at reining in planet-warming greenhouse gases” in the very first sentence of the story. Newsweek ran a piece headlined “Here’s How Andrew Yang’s Nearly $5 Trillion Climate Plan Stacks Up Against His Opponents.” And many outlets promulgated a scary but utterly bogus estimate, apparently just invented by Republicans, that Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s plan for a Green New Deal would cost taxpayers $93 trillion.

If we’re to have any hope of mobilizing the effort scientists tell us is necessary, we have to turn this question around. Because the reality is that even if we set aside the human and biospheric costs of climate change—the excess deaths from extreme weather and encroaching diseases, the refugee crises, habitat loss, and mass extinctions—the economic cost of allowing temperatures to rise even a couple of degrees above that target is simply staggering.

According to some estimates, they would dwarf the price tag associated with even the most ambitious proposals to tackle the problem, and that’s not even factoring in the new economic opportunities that transitioning away from fossil fuels would confer on countries that take the lead in that process.

Although the cost estimates vary, there is almost as much agreement on this broad point among economists who have studied the potential impacts as there is within the scientific community that human activities are warming the planet.

In 2015, the Economist Intelligence Unit compiled a peer-reviewed report warning that “the asset management industry—and thus the wider community of investors of all sizes— is facing the prospect of significant losses from the effects of climate change.” Using an average of current warming models, they projected that investors would lose $4.2 trillion in assets by the end of the century, “roughly on a par with the total value of all the world’s listed oil and gas companies or Japan’s entire GDP.” The researchers added that “the average losses to be expected are not the only source of concern; on the contrary, the outliers, the particularly extreme scenarios, may matter most of all.” In the worst-case scenario they considered, 10 percent of the world’s assets would be wiped out.

That’s just the losses to investors. They note that “while the value of future losses from the private sector is substantial, this is dwarfed by the forecast harms when considered from a government point of view.”

Read full story here…

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested on Sunday night that people should consider not having children due to climate change because there is a “scientific consensus” that life will be hard for kids.

“Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,” Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. “And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?'”

Ocasio-Cortez then took a shot at Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over an incident that happened in Feinstein’s office on Friday when a far-left fringe group tried to pressure Feinstein into supporting the Green New Deal.

“You know what’s interesting about this group?” Feinstein told the group on Friday, in response to the group storming into her office. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing.”

“You come in here, and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don’t respond to that,” Feinstein continued. “I’ve gotten elected, I just ran. I was elected by almost a million-vote plurality. And I know what I’m doing. So you know, maybe people should listen a little bit.”

Ocasio-Cortez said Feinstein’s response was “like not good enough” because the legislation that the Democrats support is “frankly going to kill us.”

“This idea that ‘I’ve been working on this for x-amount of years,’ um, it’s like not good enough,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Like, we need a universal sense of urgency, and people are like trying to introduce watered-down proposals that are frankly going to kill us. A lack of urgency is going to kill us.”

“The issue has gotten worse,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “So I don’t think that working on an issue for 30 years alone is what qualifies as, as what someone qualified to solve an issue.”

“That said, there are a lot of people that have been doing this work for decades that have proposed ambitious solutions for years and have not been listened to,” Ocasio-Cortez added. “So it’s not just, ‘I’ve been doing this for 30 years,’ so we need to listen to them because frankly people have been failing at the same things for 30 or 40 years. What we need to do is say, ‘What solutions have not been tried yet? And what ambitious scale have we not shot at yet.’ And let’s do it.”

Read full story here…