Is there a version of this that is readable that isn't a propaganda spectacle? Look at the narrative form and who it is trying to persuade. I thought climate change wasn't so much about meteorology as it was a general descriptor for a manufactured political climate, where one is either for the solutions or not, and therefore one can attribite literally anything to it. It is just a critical theory for dissolving reason and aligning people behind demagogues. Unemployment? Climate change. Social unrest? Climate change. Fertility rates? Climate change. Heart attacks? Climate change. It's intellectual chaff that only serves to center its ideologues. So long as you keep the reactionaries arguing about the weather they aren't going to offer meaningful resistance to the solutions being imposed on their countries and the co-ordinated demolition of national sovereignty to post-national governing bodies. It's a standard distraction theft.
I'm a bigger environmental advocate than any of these climate people, because I advocate boundaries on cities, anti-sprawl, changing building codes to incorporate passive energy methods and legalizing off grid and passive energy homes, national tarrifs on goods made in slave labour conditions, building refineries in the countries where resources are extracted, reducing unmanaged migrations from south to north to car dependent economies where people need heat 8mos of the year, dissolving the supply management of domestic agricultural goods and replacing them with high tarrifs on agricultural imports, among other things, because the job of a government is to sustain the national interests of the people it serves.
There are concrete economic and technology solutions to environmental harm. There are no solutions to "climate change" because it is about as intellectually rigorous as a yogic mantra. The only thing missing from that presentation was perhaps a Sarah MacLachlan soundtrack about how sad it was. Outside the bubble, this stuff is still very controversial. Propaganda is very persuasive, a lot of it is really inspiring and funny, and it's as soaring as a pop song, but just recognize when you are being played.
You make a lot of claims and sprinkle some rhetoric but I notice you don't actually provide any sources for your claims. Nor does it appear as though your claims are falsifiable.
>Is there a version of this that is readable that isn't a propaganda spectacle?
> Outside the bubble, this stuff is still very controversial.
Care to comment on why there Greenhouse gases are at their highest levels on 2 million years? Or why there is scientific consensus for human-caused climate change?
Talking about it in terms of greenhouse gases and carbon deliberately confuses a measure with the goal, with the effect of elevating and centralizing managers and their propagandists.
I was going to withdraw the comment because it had snark, and there are huge environmental issues with human causes - but there are concrete national policy solutions to them. What I object to is the use of climate change as a distraction for an unrelated agenda whose most basic principle is the imaginary idea of a zero sum understanding of nature and the world - and that every prescription for it stems from trying to be the authority who redistributes resources based on that zero-sum belief.
Even accepting the-scientific-consensus, I'd challenge any activist to show they are not merely using it as a so-called anti-capitalist straw man and a pretext for imposing management on people, instead of designing technology and principles that adapt to the feedback effect that we, like all other organisms, create by our very existence.
All organisms have an impact on their ecosystems. Humans have the ability to somewhat manage our impact on ours, but only at a limited scale. There is no crisis that justifies forfeiting self determination to a small cadre of technocrats setting global policy, as they are not equipped to fix it. So far, they have demonstrated they don't give a crap about the natural environment, but they do care a lot about imposing governance without accountability, and demolishing regional autonomy. Their propaganda is really tear jerking, but it's as cynical as the most rapacious capitalists in human history imposing ESG.
My argument is that people who affect the most concern about climate change are disingenuous opportunists exploiting fear and sentiment, and the ones who are indeed sincere are exploited by these forces of cynicism and mendacity who have greenwashed their own will to power. There's a clear line. There are those of us who see problems as opportunities for innovation, optimization, and adaptation, and those who see problems as a pretext to decieve and steal from others. When I see propagandistic displays, I'm pretty sure which side of that dichotomy they are on.
Thanks for taking the time to expand your argument.
But I don't understand where you get the notion of a "zero-sum understanding" from the linked article. Nor do I understand what in the piece you interpret as an instance of "propagandistic displays"?
I don't see why dealing with climate change is an anti-capitalist straw-man. Surely no one is arguing that wind and solar power should be state controlled. Across all western economies states are regulating a plethora of substances which are known to contaminate the environment, why should coal or oil be treated any differently simply because the damage they contribute takes longer to accumulate?
It is clear that the climate is changing, quite drastically at that, and that it will continue changing at an increased rate unless we change our behaviours. To me all the article does is point this fact out using local examples.
We likely agree about some behavioral changes. I'll go down the rabbit hole a bit because most people I talk to who think this way are too busy working land or running businesses to write much.
It's the propagandistic approach that discredits it. The article is well produced, but cloying and sentimental. The big question is who "We" refers to, as the people of Norway (or Canada for example) don't need to change most of our behaviours from say, 1980 or 1990 - but we should adapt our technology and de-globalize our supply chains to be in greater alignment to natural cycles.
From what I can tell so far, solar and wind have been a scheme to divert the tax base via subsidies to Chinese manufacturers, who paid back in kind through donations that kept the parties who did it in power via political donations.
Pollution and environmental harm are a function of political corruption, which is caused directly by the very large-govt managerialism climate change activists advocate for via ESG and the global governance movement.
The example from the article about the browning of water was the effect of less acid rain (an environmentalist success story), but they took the success from their ecosystem rebalancing itself and re-problematized it to create a renewed sense of panic and crisis for its own sake.
Closer to home, I live in an area whose aquifer has been emptied and wells over a rural area the size of a small city have run dry because, according to the engineers who dig the wells, the population of a downstream suburb has added tens of thousands of people over the last couple of years to neighbourhoods of single family homes that now house several families at once. This isn't industry driven climate change - this is ecological vandalism by politicians stacking districts with new people dependent on welfare promises, and political parties leveraging foreign government influence to stay in power. The real inconvenient truth is that our political classes are actively destroying our environment and inventing these sentimental narratives to avoid accountability for it.
The difference is that I think appeals to "climate" are bullshit, where only our environment matters, and they are not the same thing. We could neutralize our impact on our environment today if we rolled back the neocon globalization agenda of the 90s and rehomed our supply chains, built modern nuclear stations, actually enforced our respective national sovereignty, freed smallholder agriculture, and constitutionally pared back the public sector to a bare minimum. This kumbaya stuff is just cheap subversion to weaken our societies and position them for dominion by parties who want to centralize economic decision making for their own benefit, and climate is the pretext. This isn't climate denialism, it's principled objection to manufactured hysteria.
If you want to save the earth, lose 30lbs, stop using cosmetics, buy clothes that last and vehicles and tech you can repair. Educate your kids to be self sufficient. Grow a garden, even just some sprouts, and above all, take every opportunity to challenge the pernicious bullshit of mainstream narratives and propaganda that exploit and subvert your desire to be good.
I'm a bigger environmental advocate than any of these climate people, because I advocate boundaries on cities, anti-sprawl, changing building codes to incorporate passive energy methods and legalizing off grid and passive energy homes, national tarrifs on goods made in slave labour conditions, building refineries in the countries where resources are extracted, reducing unmanaged migrations from south to north to car dependent economies where people need heat 8mos of the year, dissolving the supply management of domestic agricultural goods and replacing them with high tarrifs on agricultural imports, among other things, because the job of a government is to sustain the national interests of the people it serves.
There are concrete economic and technology solutions to environmental harm. There are no solutions to "climate change" because it is about as intellectually rigorous as a yogic mantra. The only thing missing from that presentation was perhaps a Sarah MacLachlan soundtrack about how sad it was. Outside the bubble, this stuff is still very controversial. Propaganda is very persuasive, a lot of it is really inspiring and funny, and it's as soaring as a pop song, but just recognize when you are being played.