Environmentalism is Fascism

I am wondering what European people think about about the growing concern about saving Mother Nature. Is she really in that much danger?

While I am all for being reasonable about protecting our natural resources, it seems that government can use ecology to control its citizens.

It is a political game to regulate everything a person does.
Laws are being passed that dictate what kind of food one can eat/ and how much....thank you Michelle Obama to how many children one can have,what types of fuel are acceptable, what kind of car you can drive...so on and so on.

Pretty soon they will be taxing the air that we breathe!


http://www.ecofascism.com/index.html

I don't know how that's work in USA, but here, ecology is very important.
I think that the American approach is completely different from Europen, as can be seen on certain points such as CO2 emission and shale gas exploitation.
In Europe, the practice of greener means of transport is encouraging and even cities as important as Paris and London are working to use more in addition to less polluting public means.
For example, Paris aims to have 100% of the city cycle in 2020, and to completely disappear cars in 2030, thanks to an efficient public transportation network (metro / bus / river shuttle / bicycle / electric car).
The rental systems for bicycles, electric cars and electric scooters are widespread in many cities in France, but I think it's the same everywhere in Europe.
I think that the approach in Europe is very different from that of the USA, the culture is not the same and the cities of Europe are managed and different urban plans.

More generally, we can not deny the negative impact of humans on nature, global warming, mass pollution.
A whole continent of plastic has been created because of human pollution, whole species disappear because of man.
All the great scientists and specialists are unanimous, at this rate the world will become unlivable for our descendants.


This is a problem that may seem extreme because it involves changing our consumption habits.
The rich and developed West is the best equipped to take the ecological turn, because all infrastructures allow it.
It is the developing countries that are likely to pose problems because they believe that given the pollution generated by the West for their uses, they are entitled to do the same.

The world order will be jostling. Soft power is a very important force that measures a state's ability to influence others without using military force or economic constraint.
In the future, green power will have an important role to play, because a State concerned with the protection of nature will gain in soft power.

Many things are brought to change, especially architecture.
Many architects seek to change attitudes in this area, such as skyscrapers.
While the cinema presents the cities of the future filled with towers, the reality will certainly be quite different.
Indeed, the future will be ecological, whether we want it or not, because it is essential for the survival of the human species.
Outside, the construction of a skyscraper is extremely polluting, and its daily use even more, between heating and air conditioning, plus the routing of energy.
In the future, cities like New York, Dubai or Shanghai will appear as relics of the past.

The same goes for food consumption, we consume too much meat.
In addition to being a health problem, it is also a disaster for animal suffering, more than 7 billion animals are slaughtered each year.
Birth control can also be considered, which would make it possible to better manage resources.

I think ecology is a complex subject, but Sary's subject is very interesting and deserve more debate.

Aëlwenn wrote:I don't know how that's work in USA, but here, ecology is very important.
I think that the American approach is completely different from Europen, as can be seen on certain points such as CO2 emission and shale gas exploitation.
In Europe, the practice of greener means of transport is encouraging and even cities as important as Paris and London are working to use more in addition to less polluting public means.
For example, Paris aims to have 100% of the city cycle in 2020, and to completely disappear cars in 2030, thanks to an efficient public transportation network (metro / bus / river shuttle / bicycle / electric car).
The rental systems for bicycles, electric cars and electric scooters are widespread in many cities in France, but I think it's the same everywhere in Europe.
I think that the approach in Europe is very different from that of the USA, the culture is not the same and the cities of Europe are managed and different urban plans.

More generally, we can not deny the negative impact of humans on nature, global warming, mass pollution.
A whole continent of plastic has been created because of human pollution, whole species disappear because of man.
All the great scientists and specialists are unanimous, at this rate the world will become unlivable for our descendants.


This is a problem that may seem extreme because it involves changing our consumption habits.
The rich and developed West is the best equipped to take the ecological turn, because all infrastructures allow it.
It is the developing countries that are likely to pose problems because they believe that given the pollution generated by the West for their uses, they are entitled to do the same.

The world order will be jostling. Soft power is a very important force that measures a state's ability to influence others without using military force or economic constraint.
In the future, green power will have an important role to play, because a State concerned with the protection of nature will gain in soft power.

Many things are brought to change, especially architecture.
Many architects seek to change attitudes in this area, such as skyscrapers.
While the cinema presents the cities of the future filled with towers, the reality will certainly be quite different.
Indeed, the future will be ecological, whether we want it or not, because it is essential for the survival of the human species.
Outside, the construction of a skyscraper is extremely polluting, and its daily use even more, between heating and air conditioning, plus the routing of energy.
In the future, cities like New York, Dubai or Shanghai will appear as relics of the past.

The same goes for food consumption, we consume too much meat.
In addition to being a health problem, it is also a disaster for animal suffering, more than 7 billion animals are slaughtered each year.
Birth control can also be considered, which would make it possible to better manage resources.

I think ecology is a complex subject, but Sary's subject is very interesting and deserve more debate.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply,you have certainly hit on some controversial subjects. It is good to see things from another's perspective. I will give you my spin  

Your words and feelings are helping me to understand(even though I don't agree with them), why the USA has bowed out of the Paris climate agreement. Actually we are technically in till 2020 or something like that,when ever Obama signed us up.

American is trying to become less dependent on foreign oil,un like the 1970s ,when there was an "oil gas shortage,,now gas is relatively cheap.  Why should we as a people be dependent on other countries,when God has granted us this great land !

 The USA is rich with forests,deep with coal and oil we and has plenty of natural resources.  Forestry and mining,like farming  are also creating jobs. We do have our own environmental protection laws in place.  We know how to mange our land.

I guess France  has found its solution through nuclear generated electricity.
People around here generally are afraid of radioactive disasters and nuclear waste.
I can remember the Three Mile Island disaster ,back in the day. After that it seemed the government put a hold on building them.  There is a nuclear power plant in my state,down by the shore,it is pretty old
 I don't really think about it much about it,not sure how I feel about it .

I do feel that these strict environmental laws  are very anti  capitalism,anti American. they takebaway freedoms and give more power to a global government. That is not a good thing.  The government works for the people,not the other way around. We are not slaves  

Scientists should always be  skeptical,this lastest doomsday prediction of global warming,climate change ..... or what ever we are calling it now ,needs to be studied more closely.  
Not all scientists are buying it.  Most scientists are government funded,to me it seems like they are trying to get the data to match the theory.

Over the last 50 yrs,there have been numerous hypothetical ecological disasters that were predicted and now you never hear much about them.  40 years ago they told us that half of the earth would be plunged into an ice age,then it was acid rain,then O zone was melting ,the seas are rising. Over population .Predictions after prediction.  I just wish they could be more accurate on the 5  day weather report!

 It is very cold and windy  here today,it will be snowing soon.  The Northeast has been getting record snow falls and cold the last 5 or so years .  I personally own two cars,my summer sports car and my 4 wheel drive jeep for bad weather.  There is no train around here,people work in the suberbs
I can not imagine living in a country that did not allow cars, having to rely on public transportation,no wheels. Where do put the dog and kids,back packs,instruments ,sport gear,groceries ..I can't get that thought out of my mind. How awful.

I could talk more about the inhumanity against animals and population control,but that is probably enough for today

That Environmentalism is Fascism website looks interesting, Sary. I read a bit but are there any articles there you especially recommend?

This whole subject is complex and touches different concerns.

On the subject of pollution, I'm always reading reports of how plants and animals are being damaged by it, and potentially human health too in the long run. I don't doubt it. I support policies to conserve nature, reduce waste and produce things more cleanly/efficiently. There are too many people consuming too much, buying stuff they don't need to be happy, having their desires artificially increased by advertising and marketing - it's like the opposite of Buddhism.

I'm not an extremist and I don't want us to live like Spartans, but our consumer culture has got out of hand and needs cutting back like an overgrown weed.

The issue of Global warming & CO2 emissions is a bit different and I think there are definitely elements of religious thinking and political virtue-signalling involved. Yeah, what did happen to the new Ice Age? Anyway, the evidence is that warming is real but I do have some doubt as to how much man is responsible for it. If we are very responsible then it's probably too late to undo the damage; so says James Lovelock: http://www.newsweek.com/james-lovelockeartgaia-theoryclimate-changenatureweatheroverpopulation-604233  Stephen Hawking is also pessimistic: “I fear evolution has inbuilt greed and aggression to the human genome,” Hawking said. “There is no sign of conflict lessening, and the development of militarized technology and weapons of mass destruction could make that disastrous. The best hope for the survival of the human race might be independent colonies in space.” https://futurism.com/stephen-hawking-we-are-close-to-the-tipping-point-where-global-warming-becomes-irreversible/

So maybe we should give up tinkering at the edges with wind farms and carry on burning oil, coal and gas or go completely atomic. It's too late to save the planet for future generations so there's no point worrying about it.

I don't think Americans intrinsically care less about the environment than Europeans, but they seem to place more value on individual freedom, Sary's comments about her lifestyle being an example, and so are less likely to accept restrictions on what they can buy and own. If anyone thinks government policies on this or any other matter are like fascism then campaign to change your style of government. More people voted for Clinton than Trump but Trump is President so that looks like an illogical system!

Sary wrote:

Aëlwenn wrote:I don't know how that's work in USA, but here, ecology is very important.
I think that the American approach is completely different from Europen, as can be seen on certain points such as CO2 emission and shale gas exploitation.
In Europe, the practice of greener means of transport is encouraging and even cities as important as Paris and London are working to use more in addition to less polluting public means.
For example, Paris aims to have 100% of the city cycle in 2020, and to completely disappear cars in 2030, thanks to an efficient public transportation network (metro / bus / river shuttle / bicycle / electric car).
The rental systems for bicycles, electric cars and electric scooters are widespread in many cities in France, but I think it's the same everywhere in Europe.
I think that the approach in Europe is very different from that of the USA, the culture is not the same and the cities of Europe are managed and different urban plans.

More generally, we can not deny the negative impact of humans on nature, global warming, mass pollution.
A whole continent of plastic has been created because of human pollution, whole species disappear because of man.
All the great scientists and specialists are unanimous, at this rate the world will become unlivable for our descendants.


This is a problem that may seem extreme because it involves changing our consumption habits.
The rich and developed West is the best equipped to take the ecological turn, because all infrastructures allow it.
It is the developing countries that are likely to pose problems because they believe that given the pollution generated by the West for their uses, they are entitled to do the same.

The world order will be jostling. Soft power is a very important force that measures a state's ability to influence others without using military force or economic constraint.
In the future, green power will have an important role to play, because a State concerned with the protection of nature will gain in soft power.

Many things are brought to change, especially architecture.
Many architects seek to change attitudes in this area, such as skyscrapers.
While the cinema presents the cities of the future filled with towers, the reality will certainly be quite different.
Indeed, the future will be ecological, whether we want it or not, because it is essential for the survival of the human species.
Outside, the construction of a skyscraper is extremely polluting, and its daily use even more, between heating and air conditioning, plus the routing of energy.
In the future, cities like New York, Dubai or Shanghai will appear as relics of the past.

The same goes for food consumption, we consume too much meat.
In addition to being a health problem, it is also a disaster for animal suffering, more than 7 billion animals are slaughtered each year.
Birth control can also be considered, which would make it possible to better manage resources.

I think ecology is a complex subject, but Sary's subject is very interesting and deserve more debate.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply,you have certainly hit on some controversial subjects. It is good to see things from another's perspective. I will give you my spin  

Your words and feelings are helping me to understand(even though I don't agree with them), why the USA has bowed out of the Paris climate agreement. Actually we are technically in till 2020 or something like that,when ever Obama signed us up.

American is trying to become less dependent on foreign oil,un like the 1970s ,when there was an "oil gas shortage,,now gas is relatively cheap.  Why should we as a people be dependent on other countries,when God has granted us this great land !

 The USA is rich with forests,deep with coal and oil we and has plenty of natural resources.  Forestry and mining,like farming  are also creating jobs. We do have our own environmental protection laws in place.  We know how to mange our land.

I guess France  has found its solution through nuclear generated electricity.
People around here generally are afraid of radioactive disasters and nuclear waste.
I can remember the Three Mile Island disaster ,back in the day. After that it seemed the government put a hold on building them.  There is a nuclear power plant  in my state,down by the shore,it is pretty old
 I don't really think about it much about it,not sure how I feel about it .

I do feel that these strict environmental laws  are very anti  capitalism,anti American. they takebaway freedoms and give more power to a global government. That is not a good thing.  The government works for the people,not the other way around. We are not slaves  

Scientists should always be  skeptical,this lastest doomsday prediction of global warming,climate change ..... or what ever we are calling it now ,needs to be studied more closely.  
Not all scientists are buying it.  Most scientists are government funded,to me it seems like they are trying to get the data to match the theory.

Over the last 50 yrs,there have been numerous hypothetical ecological disasters that were predicted and now you never hear much about them.  40 years ago they told us that half of the earth would be plunged into an ice age,then it was acid rain,then O zone was melting ,the seas are rising. Over population .Predictions after prediction.  I just wish they could be more accurate on the 5  day weather report!

 It is very cold and windy  here today,it will be snowing soon.  The Northeast has been getting record snow falls and cold the last 5 or so years .  I personally own two cars,my summer sports car and my 4 wheel drive jeep for bad weather.  There is no train around here,people work in the suberbs
I can not imagine living in a country that did not allow cars, having to rely on public transportation,no wheels. Where do put the dog and kids,back packs,instruments ,sport gear,groceries ..I can't get that thought out of my mind. How awful.

I could talk more about the inhumanity against animals and population control,but that is probably enough for today

Do you think global warming isn’t a reality? Maybe I misunderstood it. Don’t you feel that weather is changed a lot during the past cca. 15 years? In my country the weather became totally chaotic. E. g. today is like a spring but tomorrow is like a winter or maybe summer. There aren’t four seasons like before, just winter & summer, but weather is so mild during Christmas like during spring. I miss my childhood, when I could enjoy all of the seasons.

Here  is an interesting article ,one that I think,speaks the truth.  
Quote.
The European Union is poised this week to enact a continent-wide ban on glyphosate, a safe and popular weedkiller used by millions of farmers around the world. The vote to outlaw glyphosate—better known as Roundup to us city and suburban folk—will be the culmination of a deceptive yet well-orchestrated effort led by “green” activists that has absolutely nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with punishing U.S. companies such as Monsanto, the maker of Roundup.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/23/european-union-bans-roundup-lead-global-food-crisis/#

I admire Buddhists and their passive peaceful way of thinking,but if the United States adopted that way of thinking,we would quickly become another third world country.
It makes me sad to see this type of passive attitude in young people,especially so today ,seeing that it is November 11 ,Veterans Day. America was born because people were sick and tired of being told what they could do. We were also founded on Christian values.


The millennium generate has been spoiled and coddled their whole life.  They have no idea what fascism and communism is.  I think they think that great harmony and peace will manifest if we all just meditate love and accept each other's views

Our founding fathers were very wise men,for writing God into the Declaration of Independence because it tells us that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr3.html
How do you argue with that? It is abstract ,a way to protect citizens and the innate longing to be free. It is an American philosophy,some atheists get it.

The way that we elect president has also been thought out and it works.  We vote by state.  Some states are more rural,less populated,but their opinion still counts .  Every state has a say,not just the heavily populated rich liberal city states like New York and California.
I am actually a registered democrat I vote for the person,not the party.

I have faith In the human race,we will survive one way or another.  

I would not be surprised if we  have already begun to colonize other planets. Why would the government tell us,if it is not for everyone?

Indeed, the American point of view is very specific.
I will avoid judgment.
So I'm far from being an extremist in ecology, but I feel that being in favor of more ecology categorizes people seen from the USA.

Already in Europe we do not aim to ban cars.
My example on Paris lacks a precision, and it's my fault:
Paris (like London), but more generally the European countries, want to eradicate gasoline cars.
To replace them with non-polluting electric cars and to improve battery recycling technologies, such as converting them to energy storage units for buildings.It is an ecological advantage (less pollution, therefore less disease), societal (it is a global advance) and geo-strategic (much less dependence on the oil-producing country).
The example of France is concrete, and you are absolutely right Sary: there is no oil in France, but we are the most nuclearized country in the world, by inhabitants.
This can be scary, but already the nuclear production is non-emitting CO2, and the French research in nuclear technology is the most advanced and the closest to reach the ultimate goal of fission, which will close the chain of the nuclear, with a use garbage.
Basically, we are getting closer to infinite energy. The risk for power plants is low in France, not being a seismic country (there are some but very weak), nor subject to natural cataclysm, like tidal waves.
A nuclear power plant is also designed to withstand a crash with an aircraft.
But I fully understand that this can be scary, and this is one of the reasons why have also developed the renewable energy sectors, with the second largest wind farm in Europe, after the UK.

Speaking economically, developing green technologies that are more respectful of the environment means changing our habits, but also creating jobs and wealth.
It's the complete opposite of becoming a third world country.
Look at China and its considerable efforts to reduce its pollution very strongly, the result is that China become more influential in the world than the US, not only by its economic strength, but also by its example, one of the faces of soft power.

In ten years, the third world countries will be the ones who pollute the most.
Because the more advanced and developed a country, the more it will be able to produce as much (see more) wealth, while polluting less.
Combining wealth with pollution is a mistake.
I speak of the cities and countries of Europe, but even American cities follow the same path as the cities of Europe.
It is true that it is especially the Californian cities, which are perhaps apart from the rest of the USA. But it's a start.

I do not think that the question of capitalism is taken into account for three reasons.
First, I had the chance to work at the Defense and to know people (including my sister) who worked in the City.
They are respectively the financial centers of Paris and London, and are among the most important in the world.
Suffice to say that there, capitalism and ultra liberalism are commonplace, yet many people who work there have no car.
Because simply, a car in town is not used, given the quantity and the densification of the means of transport.
And if you need a car, there are solutions for co-sharing or car rental, to go on vacation or weekend.
It is less polluting, and more economical because it comes back cheaper.
Basically, it's more capitalist, you're free from the constraints of a car, in a sense it's a pillar of capitalism.
But I understood in what sense you use the word capitalism, and that's the third point.

Yes, have the freedom to choose your life without being guided by a state.
Already, I reassure you, this is the case in Europe.
By cons, I can be free to use my big polluting sedan, free to help increase the number of sick / dead because of pollution, increase the number of premature deaths and childhood infections.
Or I agree to question my attitude, to choose another way that allows me just as much to keep my freedom (the electric car in this case), while helping to reduce the damage caused by selfish use.
I do not know if you understand my example, which is without condescension I assure you.

For NK, speaking of Hawking, I totally agree with him.
The future of Humanity is in space. Moreover, we know that the Earth is condemned in the long term.
But is this a reason, since we are going to go into space, to make fun of the preservation of the planet?
Because even if we go elsewhere, it will not be for several centuries, we say it.
I think, and I'm not the only one, that we can reconcile the two: space conquest and preservation of space.
And someone well-known thinks like me: Elon Musk.
He advocates for space exploration and the preservation of the Earth.

It does not mean living like Spartan, just doing a little bit of work on our own scale.
For example, sort the waste. Turn off the lights when leaving a room. Avoid taking your car to go to a store located 200 meters (in addition it is excellent for health). Eat less meat (but Sary is right, it's another debate but just as interesting).

Magyar lany reason, the change of seasons is one of the most visible effects.
I am at the weekend in Annecy.
It was 12 degrees Celsius today.
Tomorrow it is -2 degrees Celsius.
A week ago it was 20 degrees.
This is unusual, this summer Europe has experienced an incredible heat wave, reaching 40 degrees in some places in Germany, France and high heat peaks in Switzerland (and apparently Hungary).
The south of England is becoming more and more recognized in the wine industry for its wines, something unthinkable 20 years ago.
For the moment, Europe is protected by the Gulf Stream, but it is enough 1 or 2 degrees more than the temperature of the water so that the Gulf Stream no longer protects Europe.
And here we are heading towards an ice age all over Europe, from West to East, from North to South (we must not forget either that Europe is further north than the USA, a city as New York is at the same latitude as Madrid).
And the risk I'm talking about is not in 3 centuries.
We talk about it in 65 to 100 years at best, if nothing changes.

I think the fires in California this summer are also a preview of what is waiting for these American regions if everything stays in the state.
Hence the urgency of the situation, and the intervention of the States.
For States allow, whether we like it or not, to force people to change their habits, at least on a national scale.
It may seem annoying, but it is thanks to this same type of intervention that we eradicate diseases in Western countries, with state policies.
Under certain conditions this is necessary, and without any relation with capitalism, communism or other.
In the case of health, and in our case, of the environment, it is necessary and urgent.

In the case of glyphosate, it is much more complex.
Already, several investigations demonstrate that Monsanto to pay journalists for conclusions going in its direction, they did what is called lobbying.
This is known as "Monsanto Papers".
It's scientific studies were funded by the Glyphosate Task Force, a consortium of companies working for the renewal of glyphosate clearance by the European Union.
Several studies have stated that glyphosate is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
But on the other hand, negative long-term effects on the environment, by the effect of soil absorption (it is not biodegradable contrary to what Monsanto assert) and by atmospheric kinetics.

Moreover, he is a developer of antimicrobial resistance phenomena, which is increasing in the world and a real problem.
But the ban on glyphosate is blessed for Monsanto.
For to ban glyphosate in Europe is to ban it from all manufacturers, so Monsanto's competitors.
Off the patent glyphosate is going public in 2002, and Monsanto uses another molecule in its new herbicide, but not its competitors.
Which means that if banned there, Monsanto will be the only manufacturer to be able to sell herbicides in Europe.
So would not Monsanto be lobbying for a ban in Europe?
It's extremely complex, is not it?
I have a sister working in a French finance company, formerly based in London for its international activities but since June to relocate its headquarters in Paris.
She explained to me methods that we can not even imagine, about big groups, and how perverse it can be.
I have no name or details because it can not provide professional secrecy, but it would not be surprising that Monsanto promotes a ban.
But we move away from the subject ^^

Moreover, there has been a link between endocrine disruptors and the decline in general IQ in western (or generally developed) countries.
I think that deserves debate too, a solution to be found.

Sorry for this long text, I hope especially not to have been aggressive in form on how to express myself.
I am less comfortable in English than if I had written in French, and I am sometimes afraid that my words seem too crude and rough because of that.
It is by no means a personal or cultural criticism, I fully respect the different points of view.
After yes, being 27 years old is what we call a millenial, and our way of seeing is surely different from the generation that preceded us.

No Aelwenn,I do not feel in the slightest that you are being judgmental or aggressive. On the contrary ,I am very interested in the mind set of the European people. That is why I like to visit the castle . I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my topic.
Everyone here has been very nice to me,we all think differently and that is okay. No doubt,our age difference plays a role as well ,in the way that we see the world.
I will think about the things that you spoke about ,in your last post.

Magyar lany, yes I guess that you can call me a global warming denier,I am definitely not believer.......maybe a climatology agnostic is a better way to categorize me. I try to be open minded about things. I just do not see the proof.

This is a good documentary,if you are interested.

Sary wrote:No Aelwenn,I do not feel in the slightest that you are being judgmental or aggressive. On the contrary ,I am very interested in the mind set of the European people.  That is why I like to visit the castle .  I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my topic.
Everyone here has been very nice to me,we all think differently and that is okay.  No doubt,our  age difference plays a role as well ,in the way that we see the world.
I will think about the things that you spoke about ,in your last post.

Magyar lany, yes I guess that you can call me a global warming denier,I am definitely not believer.......maybe a climatology agnostic is a better way to categorize me. I try to be open minded about things. I just do not see the proof.

This is a good documentary,if you are interested.

Thank you for the video Sary.

[quote="magyar_lány"]

Sary wrote:No Aelwenn,I do not feel in the slightest that you are being judgmental or aggressive. On the contrary ,I am very interested in the mind set of the European people.  That is why I like to visit the castle .  I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my topic.
Everyone here has been very nice to me,we all think differently and that is okay.  No doubt,our  age difference plays a role as well ,in the way that we see the world.
I will think about the things that you spoke about ,in your last post.

Magyar lany, yes I guess that you can call me a global warming denier,I am definitely not believer.......maybe a climatology agnostic is a better way to categorize me. I try to be open minded about things. I just do not see the proof.

This is a good documentary,if you are interested.

[/quote

Thank you for the video Sary.

Your welcome magyar lany. If you do watch it,I would be interested in what you think. It is always good to look at things from different sides,before making up your mind on any issue.
The media has a way of distorting things.

If I watched I will write my opinion.

I've read a few articles lately relating to this topic. One of them was crticising the British government's plan to stop using gas to heat houses and a similar article was criticising the plan to switch completely to electric cars. There's the question of whether we'll have anywhere near enough 'green energy' generated for our needs, the environmental costs of destroying all the old stuff and manufacturing replacements, and the possible shortage of metals for electric car components:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7968085/Eco-edict-new-cars-electric-15-years-doomed-backfire-says-JOHN-NAISH.html

"Some experts fear that the planet's available reserves of lithium are insufficient to make enough lithium-ion batteries to replace all of our petrol-driven vehicles. Others say that the cobalt needed comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, infamous for its use of child labour and human rights abuses.

Most worrying of all is the need for rare-earth metals such as neodymium, essential for manufacturing the magnets that make electric car motors run. Mining neodymium releases such vast amounts of radioactive contamination and other murderous toxins such as sulphuric acid that only one nation allows it: China. China controls about 80 per cent of the global market for rare earth metals and their export is tightly controlled. Oil gave Arab nations power over the West for most of the 20th century; today neodymium may give China a similar energy weapon. Already the Chinese government is threatening to restrict supplies as retaliation against U.S. tariffs . . .

So, to return to my opening point: all we need to do to make a green difference is use our existing cars sparingly and keep them going for longer. Of course, that doesn't suit the carmaking lobbyists who sit at the Government's ear. They want us to keep buying new ones.

Come 2033, when I'm finally in the market for a new car, I predict that technological advances will have made fossil-fuel-engined motors significantly cleaner. The signs are already there in the technical journals. One of the most promising developments is in the world of . . . wait for it . . . cleaner diesel engines with far fewer emissions."


This article is about the unrealistic attitudes involved in environmentalism:
https://unherd.com/2019/06/climate-change-and-the-extinction-of-thought/?=refinnar  Selected quotes:

A by-product of worldwide industrialisation based on fossil fuels, the shift that is underway was set in motion by human beings. It does not follow however that humans can stop it.

As climate scientists have pointed out, global warming will continue for hundreds or thousands of years after its proximate causes have been removed. The demands made by Extinction Rebellion – net zero carbon emissions for the UK by 2025, for example – are impossibly draconian. But even if they could be enforced, they would make little impact on greenhouse gases worldwide, or prevent the climate disruption that is already baked into the system. Green movements at the present time are expressions of magical thinking – attempts to ignore and escape reality, rather than understand and adapt to it.

One of the realities Green thinking passes over is geopolitics. Consider the fashionable idea that the world – or at least the capitalist West – should stop burning fossil fuels. From an environmental point of view, this may be highly desirable — even though it will not arrest disruptive climate change. In geopolitical terms, it is a recipe for global upheaval. Some of the world’s most pivotal states depend on fossil fuels for their existence.

The trouble is that Green proposals involve a drop in material living standards for large numbers of people, and any such fall will be unsustainable in political terms. Macron’s tax on petrol fuelled the rise of the gilets jaunes in France, while the principal beneficiary of Hilary Clinton’s election pledge to shut down the coal industry has been Donald Trump. When Green policies impose heavy costs on the poor and the working majority – as they often do – the result is a popular blowback.

In theoretical terms, the solution to the environmental crisis is what John Stuart Mill in his prescient Principles of Political Economy (1848) called a stationary-state economy – one in which technical progress is used not to expand production and consumption but to increase leisure and the quality of life. The trouble is that a zero-growth economy is politically impossible. Populist backlash and geopolitical upheaval will derail any transition to a stationary state.

Over 170 years later, there is no prospect of anyone being content to be stationary. Nothing in the current climate of ideas is as unpopular as Mill’s neo-Malthusianism.

It is at this point that the extinction crisis looms into view. The industrial economy will not accept limits on growth because the civilisation it serves has rejected any constraints on what it can achieve. The fact that an objective is impossible to realise is, according to current attitudes, no reason not to attempt it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Impossible dreams – so we are told by countless secular sermonisers – are what make humans unique and special. In this modern religion, accepting any final limits on human power is the worst sin. As a corollary, magical thinking – which rests on a belief in the omnipotence of the human will – is obligatory.

Surviving the climate crisis is not an inherently unrealisable goal. What it requires is not sustainable development but something more like what James Lovelock in his book A Rough Ride to the Future (2014) has called 'sustainable retreat'. Using the most advanced technologies, including nuclear as well as solar energy, and abandoning farming in favour of synthetic means of food production, the still growing human population could be fed without making further intolerable demands on the planet. High-intensity urban living could enable rewilding of land that had been vacated. Resources would be focused on building defences against the shift in climate that will occur whatever now humans do . . . Hubristic dreams of “saving the planet” would be replaced by thinking how to adapt to living with a planet that humans have destabilised. If humans do not adjust, the planet will reduce them to smaller numbers or consign them to extinction.

A programme of this kind is the opposite of that proposed by Greens. It is also profoundly uncongenial to the prevailing culture. A consequence of the decline of religion is a parallel decline in the idea that the natural world imposes any limits on human will . . . If God did not make the world, humankind can – and should – remake it in its own image. That is the basis on which our supposedly secular civilisation stands, and it is also the ultimate source of the extinction crisis.

In fact, science has become a channel for the belief – inherited from monotheism –  that humankind can transcend the natural world. The paradox of today’s Green movements is that they promote this anthropocentric religion. The extinction crisis can be mitigated only by turning our minds to deal with reality. But realistic thinking is almost extinct.

So I think there are seven positions on climate change (CC):


1) CC is not actually happening much. The scientists have got it wrong and we can carry on as normal.

2) CC is happening but it's entirely natural and there's nothing we can do about it.

3) CC is happening and we should try to stop or reduce it by drastically cutting carbon emissions.

4) CC is happening but it's too late to stop it or reduce it much and we should concentrate on preparing for the consequences and not worry about cutting carbon emissions.

5) CC is happening but it will only really affect future generations, so why care?

6) CC is happening but human existence is finite and pointless anyway, so why care?

7) CC is happening but we all have immortal souls and the physical world is an illusion, so why care?


My position is a combination of 4 and 7 with some sympathy for 5.

^ My position on CC is probably most strongly aligned with #2 and #7.

So funny how you revived this thread, climate change is such a controversial topic these days. I miss reading posts from Aelwenn because of how differently she perceives the world as a younger woman living in France.  I hope that she is doing well.

Anyway . . .  I was thinking about the articles that you posted while preparing dinner. I turned on the Savage Nation podcast from last Friday and he just happened to have Marc Morano on.  Marc is the founder of Climate Depot https://www.climatedepot.com
The first half of the show was about politics which is hilarious and the second half is about the climate change hoax.
Michael Savage is banned in the UK, so I am not sure if people living there are allowed to listen but I will  try to post the YouTube.


It is a shame that the video I had posted before is no longer available. It was a good one.

It says the video ^ is private and permission is needed to see it  It seems Savage is barred from entering the UK, but they don't block YouTube videos. It's always worth hearing the views from all sides on various issues. They suspended fracking for gas here because of some minor earth tremors, which I think is an overreaction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48081314 :

The UK's shale gas commissioner is resigning after just six months, saying fracking is being throttled by rules preventing mini earthquakes. Current government rules mean fracking must be suspended every time a 0.5 magnitude tremor is detected. But Natascha Engel, a former Labour MP, said the cautious approach to tremors had created a de facto ban on fracking. She claimed campaign groups "were driving policy" - but the groups say fracking damages the environment. In her resignation letter, Ms Engel - who was MP for North East Derbyshire from 2005 to 2017 - said government was "pandering to what we know to be myths and scare stories" about shale gas extraction.