3 ms·

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

by Tryk 4y ago

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.

motohagiography 4y ago
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.

by Tryk 4y ago

motohagiography 4y ago

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.