6 ms·

The capitalists who funded the mass propaganda effort to deny the reality of climate change - what is their endgame? Are they simply hoping to maintain the stat

by adwhit 9y ago

The capitalists who funded the mass propaganda effort to deny the reality of climate change - what is their endgame? Are they simply hoping to maintain the status quo as long as possible and bleed the planet (and public) dry in the meantime? In 50 years time, when things go seriously south for mankind and the history of our era is written, our children and grandchildren are going to regard us with the utmost contempt. As for the Kochs and Trumps of the world, what could possibly be a fair reaction to the people who destroyed the planet? A bloody uprising followed by a complete overthrow of the system? Perhaps the ruling class think that by that point they will have enough systems of control in place to keep themselves comfortable as civilization collapses around them, a la Children Of Men. I'm not sure the gravity of the evil has quite sunk in yet. We are witnessing the worst, most venal, most corrupt behavior that mankind has ever partaken. It is quite spectacular.

digitalzombie 9y ago
Well I read somewhere Human are more short term thinking than long term thinking. I think the simple answer to your questions is that they have no end game. They only have one time in mind and that's short term gain.
- tnzn 9y ago
  That's the case when you're in real time situation and stuff like that. When you're actually thinking through a whole politics, you should be able to think past that.
candiodari 9y ago
Disingenuous question, let me explain why. The biggest effect by far resulting from climate change legislation has not been the reduction of CO2 emissions, it has been the migration of manufacturing from developed nations to China. Unfortunately, developed nations are mostly powered by oil with significant nuclear power added. China isn't. China is powered by coal. Coal produces something like 10x more CO2 per unit of energy (kWh) compared to oil, and about 200x more than nuclear. So climate change accords have systematically worsened CO2 output rather than improving it, while destroying already severely damaged manufacturing industries in the developed world. With predictable results: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC (climate accords were signed in 1992, 2011 and 2015) The answer to your question is to lower further damage to industries in the US and Europe and thereby will both improve the economics of the situation and actually lower CO2 output. So your question is about as fair as asking why climate activists keep destroying the world and what their long term plan is. (e.g. Here are how the people "improving" climate actually act: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/paris-un-global-warming-summit-at-private-airport/ http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/paris-un-global-warming-su... - Claiming that these people actually care and agree that changing our ways to make things better for the environment is ... well, let's just say I see some arguments against that viewpoint)
- tzs 9y ago
  You are inferring that people who negotiated the Paris agreements don't really care about the environment because the conference center they met at is located at an airport? Seriously?
  - rdiddly 9y ago
    The Daily Caller article gets a little distracted with its hissy-fit about luxury, and neglects to state the actual problem, which is that air travel is the most energy- and CO2-intensive travel method per person-mile. Obviously moreso if you're alone on your own private jet, but it's still the worst mode, even when you're sandwiched in on a chock-full commercial flight. It's the dirty secret of these climate conferences. The criticism of the Paris meeting is valid on that basis.
- dplgk 9y ago
  I don't understand how your argument justifies climate change denial. Since the approach to mitigate climate change doesn't work (in your opinion) then deny it exists?
- oliwarner 9y ago
  Paying your people jack, pegging your currency, ignoring other environmental concerns (re mining and processing minerals), nationalising out competition in infrastructure that would have otherwise put the price up... But no, it's probably just coal's fault. Edit: I'm not saying that it's not a factor but it's one in a vast array. A country that can unnaturally and immorally suppress its workers and environmental goals will always manage to produce for less money. The real problem is we let things get this way. We ignored allowed open trade. We don't fix it by going back to coal, we fix it by forcing China —and its spiritual successors— off it.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    I get your criticism of China, but it was NOT China making the decision to for climate regulation on western firms but not on Chinese firms. That honor falls on the climate conferences and our "scientific policy stance".
ForHackernews 9y ago
> As for the Kochs and Trumps of the world, what could possibly be a fair reaction to the people who destroyed the planet? They'll be long dead. There will be no consequences for them.

by adwhit 9y ago

digitalzombie 9y ago

Well I read somewhere Human are more short term thinking than long term thinking. I think the simple answer to your questions is that they have no end game. They only have one time in mind and that's short term gain.

tnzn 9y ago
That's the case when you're in real time situation and stuff like that. When you're actually thinking through a whole politics, you should be able to think past that.

candiodari 9y ago

Disingenuous question, let me explain why. The biggest effect by far resulting from climate change legislation has not been the reduction of CO2 emissions, it has been the migration of manufacturing from developed nations to China. Unfortunately, developed nations are mostly powered by oil with significant nuclear power added. China isn't. China is powered by coal. Coal produces something like 10x more CO2 per unit of energy (kWh) compared to oil, and about 200x more than nuclear. So climate change accords have systematically worsened CO2 output rather than improving it, while destroying already severely damaged manufacturing industries in the developed world. With predictable results: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC (climate accords were signed in 1992, 2011 and 2015) The answer to your question is to lower further damage to industries in the US and Europe and thereby will both improve the economics of the situation and actually lower CO2 output. So your question is about as fair as asking why climate activists keep destroying the world and what their long term plan is. (e.g. Here are how the people "improving" climate actually act: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/paris-un-global-warming-summit-at-private-airport/ http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/paris-un-global-warming-su... - Claiming that these people actually care and agree that changing our ways to make things better for the environment is ... well, let's just say I see some arguments against that viewpoint)

tzs 9y ago
You are inferring that people who negotiated the Paris agreements don't really care about the environment because the conference center they met at is located at an airport? Seriously?
- rdiddly 9y ago
  The Daily Caller article gets a little distracted with its hissy-fit about luxury, and neglects to state the actual problem, which is that air travel is the most energy- and CO2-intensive travel method per person-mile. Obviously moreso if you're alone on your own private jet, but it's still the worst mode, even when you're sandwiched in on a chock-full commercial flight. It's the dirty secret of these climate conferences. The criticism of the Paris meeting is valid on that basis.
dplgk 9y ago
I don't understand how your argument justifies climate change denial. Since the approach to mitigate climate change doesn't work (in your opinion) then deny it exists?
oliwarner 9y ago
Paying your people jack, pegging your currency, ignoring other environmental concerns (re mining and processing minerals), nationalising out competition in infrastructure that would have otherwise put the price up... But no, it's probably just coal's fault. Edit: I'm not saying that it's not a factor but it's one in a vast array. A country that can unnaturally and immorally suppress its workers and environmental goals will always manage to produce for less money. The real problem is we let things get this way. We ignored allowed open trade. We don't fix it by going back to coal, we fix it by forcing China —and its spiritual successors— off it.
- candiodari 9y ago
  I get your criticism of China, but it was NOT China making the decision to for climate regulation on western firms but not on Chinese firms. That honor falls on the climate conferences and our "scientific policy stance".

ForHackernews 9y ago

> As for the Kochs and Trumps of the world, what could possibly be a fair reaction to the people who destroyed the planet? They'll be long dead. There will be no consequences for them.