Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A team of scientists appointed by the United Nations has reported that a free market system cannot provide the economic transition required to defeat climate change.
Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism’s Imminent Demise
By Nafeez Ahmed
Aug 28 2018, 1:40amA climate change-fueled switch away from fossil fuels means the worldwide economy will fundamentally need to change.
Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General. The main reason? We’re transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet’s environmental resources.
Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems, the new report says that these are not really separate crises at all.
…
For the “first time in human history,” the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.” This applies to all forms of energy. Producing usable energy (“exergy”) to keep powering “both basic and non-basic human activities” in industrial civilisation “will require more, not less, effort.”
…
The shift to renewables might help solve the climate challenge, but for the foreseeable future will not generate the same levels of energy as cheap, conventional oil.
…
The new report is available here
From the report;
… Rapid economic transition requires proactive governance – markets cannot accomplish the task
It is clear from these examples that strong political governance is required to accomplish the key transitions. Market-based action will not suffice – even with a high carbon price. There must be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated plans. Otherwise, a rapid system-level transformation toward global sustainability goals is inconceivable. Mazzucato (2013, 2018) has examined this topic from the perspective of innovation policy and argues that historically, major system-level innovations such as the US Apollo program have required the state to set the mission and coordinate and finance much of the related research and development. According to her research, achieving system-level transition has required and will require proactive mission-oriented innovation – it will not be enough for the state to fix “market failures” reactively. Of course, innovation alone is not enough, and we will return to the question of limiting resource use and organizing jobs below. …
Read moreL https://bios.fi/bios-governance_of_economic_transition.pdf
No doubt the United Nations will step in to provide the necessary strong governance if we ask them to.
Orwell missed by only 34 years…..
The problem, good people, is that green energy schemes do not work – I wish they did – but grid-connected wind and solar power FAIL based on high-cost and intermittency – and there is no practical super-battery in most situations to solve the problem.
Energy is my area of expertise and I have a very successful predictive track record. I have two engineering degrees and have studied this subject for many decades.
Fully 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, and the rest is hydro and nuclear. Green energy would be near-zero except for massive wasted subsidies and use mandates. Only a few places have enough hydro to provide their needs, and greens hate hydro. The only practical alternative is nuclear, and the greens hate nuclear too.
Without fossil fuels, most people in the developed world would just freeze and starve to death. This means you and your family.
There is strong evidence that climate is relatively INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 and there is no real global warming crisis. The only major impact of increasing CO2 is greatly-increased plant and crop yields – and any resulting warming will be mild and net-beneficial.
Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity at this time – Excess Winter Mortality totals about 2 million souls per year.
Reference:
COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
Intelligent people should strongly reject green rhetoric – it is a false-front for the far-left’s political and economic agendas, which will lead to enormous human suffering and death.
The far-left killed over 200 million people in the 20th Century – do we really have to do all this again?
That is the deadly path the far-left and the phony greens are trying to take us on:
“Trust us! This time it will be different!” No, it won’t!
Regards, Allan
____________________________________
A GLOBAL ENERGY PRIMER
Fossil fuels still provide 85% of Global Primary Energy, whereas Hydro is 7% and Nuclear has dropped to 4%. This “Conventional Power Generation“ totals 96%, and Renewables have increased to 4%.
Despite tens of trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies, Renewables still provide only 4% of global primary energy, and CO2 emissions have INCREASED in the countries that have introduced the most Renewables. This is because Renewables are not green and do not produce much useful (dispatchable) energy. Renewables are too intermittent and require almost 100% spinning reserve (backup) of Conventional Power Generation to fill-in when the wind does not blow or the Sun does not shine.
This “4% Renewables” would drop to near-zero if our idiot politicians did not force renewables into the grid ahead of useful, dispatchable power – this is another huge hidden subsidy for Renewables. Grid-connected wind and solar power are harmful, because they drive up energy costs AND also seriously destabilize the grid. South Australia has experienced two long outages caused by wind power.
In Alberta, our imbecilic politicians are phasing out our coal plants, and replacing them with natural gas-fired units. While gas-fired power plants are much better than wind power, our energy prices are going to increase sharply and become more volatile in the future, because gas prices are at historic lows and will almost certainly increase.
The NDP’s argument against Alberta coal is “air pollution” – but ALL our coal-fired plants have pollution controls and all air pollutants from all these coal plants equal ~1/1000 of the air pollution we experience each year from forest fires. In effect, all we have to do is defer ONE forest fire per year (0.1%), and we can keep our coal plants operating and keep our electrical power costs very low.
The NDP also believe that CO2, essential for all plant and crop growth, is a pollutant. It is not, and it is not causing dangerous global warming. That falsehood is popular among the uneducated and green extremists.
The only measurable impact of increased atmospheric CO2 is significantly increased plant and crop yields.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1710798208997734&set=pcb.1710800675664154&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1710798512331037&set=pcb.1710800675664154&type=3&theater
ALLAN
Green policies are well on their way to surpassing the 20th Centuries appalling death rate of 200 million. The World Health Organisation predicts that 120,000,000 people will die in developing countries by 2050 from smoke inhalation caused by being forced to cook and heat with bio fuels, the romantic term for animal faeces and wood.
1,000,000 people a year die from lack of vitamin A in their diet, easily and cheaply addressed with GM modified Golden Rice, but the greens also hate anything GM so it can’t be used.
So far, we’re up to 170,000,000 and will be only half way through the century. Nor do these figures include the numbers that have died in the last 18 years. And what will the numbers be like from 2050 to the end of the Century?
Mau and Stalin will be considered humanitarians by the standards set by the greens and their socialist brethren.
Correct HotScot
And millions of kids died from malaria due to the ban on DDT .
The DDT ban and malaria, Excess Winter deaths from fuel poverty, lung disease from green opposition to fossil fuel energy in the developing world, the list goes on…
Radical greens are the great killers of our time.
No Allan, millions of kids did not die from malaria due to the ban on DDT. You see, you are ignorant of what the “ban” is. The ban is against the agricultural use of DDT, not against mosquito control (Stockholm Convention).
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~mpalmer/stuff/DDT-myth.pdf
David, you need to dig deeper into the history of DDT and the world wide effects of the USA ban on DDT. When the USA banned DDT many countries, most especially third world countries banned DDT imports. Their reasoning being, if the USA thinks its bad then they were not going to allow it in their country.
That said, mosquitoes were the first insect to develop resistance to DDT in the USA along the Florida East Coast where it was used for everything from aerial spray to larvicide. It still has its place when used as a surface spray around doors, walls, etc. Combined with bedding netting it can dramatically reduce malaria transmission and stop epidemics. Yet the reason malaria cases have grown is due to politics and the influence of naive environmentalists.
Edwin, follow your own advice and dig deeper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persistent_Organic_Pollutants
Part II, Annex B
David,
Wikipedia is not a trusted source. You behave like an undergrad student who does not understand that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should not cited. So, please put up the primary or secondary source of your information to support your argument.
FYI, when my wonderful daughter was doing her medical degree, she & her fellow students were warned well away from Wikipedia because of its poor accuracy of information. It’sperfectly ok for guidance but is not tobe relied upon for accuracy at all!!!!
As always, those who wish to defend the indefensible quible over definitions.
There was no “ban” on DDT. Instead there was a ban on funding any agricultural programs that did not promise to not use DDT.
The difference only matters to those who wish to escape responsibility for their actions.
Wrong MarkW
..
William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the EPA cancelled uses of DDT in the summer of 1972, and his action was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in 1973.
As usual for David, he didn’t even try to address the issue I brought up. Instead bringing in yet another non-sequitor.
Yes, the courts did rule that Ruckelshaus had the authority to completely ignore the advice of his scientists and ban DDT.
Nonsense David, and too-careful word-smithing by your sources – the “usual suspects” in this entirely avoidable disaster.
I have done considerable research on this subject.
DDT was effectively banned from 1972 to 2002 and re-introduced then. In that time period, deaths from malaria doubled , most of which were children under 5, just babies for Christ’s sake!
30+ years of many more dead babies from malaria due to the criminal banning of DDT – almost a million dead babies per year at the peak circa 2005. Too painful to contemplate.
Are there any greater crimes against humanity?
Here is one chart of the death toll – the red area is kids under five.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1566107003466856&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
After DDT was re-introduced to fight malaria, deaths again declined. The battle against malaria continues…
Actually David, you are wrong.
The green killers rewriting history does not change the fact that DDT, for decades, was unavailable thanks to greens.
We have genetic engineering techniques that could theoretically eliminate entire mosquito species from the planet. Only questions about unpredictable side effects and ethical considerations are holding us back.
D. we are having just such a debate in Florida relative to Aedes aegypti. Since there are 70+ species of mosquitoes in Florida, about eight more species than when I started in the game 30 years ago the ethical issue of losing a single species is only a concern for some environmentalists. They generally don’t understand that like feral hogs Aedes aegypti is an exotic species to the Americas it didn’t evolve here. As for filling the niche, Aedes albopictus would most probably step right in.
“Radical greens are the great killers of our time.”
Is that not consistent with and contributing to their longer-term plan?
Why are we tolerating the continuation of this genocidal ideology?
Sommer
Because we’re ‘safe’.
We expect others to rock to boat for us.
Shame on us.
Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, the Green Blob.
Yep, it fits.
Like the Pope and contraception, the greens are not opposed to energy, only to energy generation that doesn’t work.
Like the Pope and contraception, the greens are not opposed to energy, only to energy generation that works.
Fixed that for you.
“Climate Change” is just a means to an end. No argument or fact’s will change a communist’s view. I think this article illustrates the real intention of the UN.
I really don’t like the UN in NYC. The US should stop supporting the UN altogether and have them move to some country that is more in line with their thinking, like North Korea.
I see the UN as a divisive and meddling influence in US affairs. The sooner the UN leaves, the better.
Why wasn’t the UN on the list of places to hit on 9/11 ?
What utter drivel. Lies built upon lies.
On the contrary, I was surprised by the honesty
It is refreshingly honest that renewables only might help, not will help or do help, with climate change, and refreshingly honest renewables are not as efficient and will not generate the same levels of energy as cheap conventional fossil fuels.
They are revealing their true colours, and this simply emphasises that all of this is a political scam to change the world towards a more Marxist one world government. There is no case for any such shift especially as the less efficient renewables do not even solve the make believe climate problem. We just need some Governments with conjones such as that in the US
Not just a shift away from capitalism, but also a shift from democracy (rule by the people) to an autocratic (non-elected) government. Sounds like the philosophy of the old Soviet Union.
The alarmists have a long history of praising the Chinese system for it’s ability to do what the leaders want without having to worry about what the people think or want.
(Not just the climate alarmists, leftists in general have often wished for that power)
democracy (rule by the people) Do the American people get to vote whether to go to war or not ? or do you get to vote on how much to spend on defence ?
Here’s a small piece of American democracy at work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYzVjbnI7ZY
And by the way it works way better then the Australian democracy. Were had 7 leaders in 11 years and I don’t think it will be long and we will be voting in another capitalist puppet .
-and of the (unstated but there) philosophy of the EU.
That is not honesty, nor are the rest of their statements. Every one of their claims is phrased to appear innocuous to common audiences.
The sentence excerpt I quote is an admission that renewables can not, will not replace Fossil fuel, nuclear or Hydro generating facilities.
“for the foreseeable future” includes every technical fantasy improvement for renewable energy sources.
Nor does their alleged honesty evaluate all socialist and communist governments worldwide for:
1) Independent Eco-leadership; i.e. the government self started correcting their civilization and industrial environment negative influences. Instead of reacting to international pressures for publicized spot identified pollutions.
2) Communist and socialist governments act to improve their environment across the board while improving their citizen’s qualities of life.
3) Communist and socialist governments focus on citizen qualities of life and needs, before sacrificing any one of them for the “good of the state”.
4) Obtain 90+% accurate information from communist or socialist governments regarding the exact status of each and every genuine pollution source or environment hazard.
Instead their specious claims are all based on false Malthusian beliefs coupled with make believe dreamlands where communist and socialist governments are better than capitalism, because the authors are communist or socialist propagandists themselves.
Say what you want about Donald Trump, what he has done that is good is cause the Greens and those on the Left to reveal their true colors and intentions.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken
That’s almost the definition of Climate Science.
There’s some (unintended) truth in there – “Market-based action will not suffice” is code for “This stuff will never be profitable”
UN Environment/UNEP
“Lenders And Investors Environmental Liability”
Re: Yieldcos and Green Bonds
Role of the USA leadership in financing renewable energy.
http://unepinquiry.org/country/usa
UNFCCC
Search results: Green Bonds
Includes a bit of history such as first Green Bonds began 2008 by World Bank.
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=Green%Bonds
Correction: https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=Green%20Bonds.
The better translation of the UN word salad might be, “will never work”.
The paper’s lead author, Dr. Paavo Järvensivu, is a “biophysical economist”
Over time one becomes increasingly suspicious and disbelieving about measures tagged with “sustainability” and/or “environmental”.
We used to deride the green standard of science attached to those words, then we began to disbelieve less.
Such is a pattern of the madness of crowds.
Fellow thinkers, tell others to disbelieve this green propaganda, for a very good reason. The science associated with it, the standard of research, is too poor to accept.
Do not add credibility through support of such poor science. Geoff.
What in the name of (..insert favourite supernatural entity here…) is a “biophysical economist” ???
A made-up title, confers the delusion of expertise.
I had a boss that used to tell us that we suffered from delusions of adequacy.
A “biophysical economist” is an economist who spends much time playing with himself.
Then he maybe should stick to that instead of writing gibberish. Much more productive outcome (oh, wait!) 😉
I suspect that it means it is a carbon based lifeform dependent on selling bad mathematics to gullible people.
Sam Hill springs to mind.
Common sense is really having diverse bits of connecting information between seemingly unrelated things. Common sense is nurtured through generalization and diversity. Specialization therefore decreases common sense as narrowing the scope for detail can put cause and effect outside the scope of the specialization.
We have nurtured specialization and lost the art of generalization and thus lost the art of common sense. Such is surely the case with this egregious title.
Pierre: Doesn’t your comment point to the lust for political power both its acquisition and continuity overwhelms all other sensibilities common or uncommon? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the danger of the politicization of science is not only the corruption of the scientific method but the morality and ethics of scientists themselves in the pursuit of a political agenda and the maintenance of power and its rewards.
Never heard of that title but soon there will be many more forced into organizations to go with Diversity VP and Sustainability VP.
It’s a bean counter who beats you up if you don’t like his final tally.
It is a sciencey sounding synonym for ‘Charlatan’.
Thermoeconomics, also referred to as biophysical economics, is a school of heterodox economics that applies the laws of statistical mechanics to economic theory.[1] Thermoeconomics can be thought of as the statistical physics of economic value[2] and is a subfield of econophysics.
oooohhhhhhh. A bull$h1t artist!
I’ll bet he believes strongly in “climate justice,” whatever the #&$@ur momisugly% that is.
Oh schist! He is finnish! I’m so ashamed! I pay my taxes, and get this back!
Timo V
No problem mate, he’s finnished.
Dr. P. Järvensivu is a self-declared degrowther.
I don’t see any “demands”. Did you make that up Eric?
“Market-based action will not suffice – even with a high carbon price. There must be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated plans.”
If you didn’t see this, you didn’t look, Ryans
SR
I read it Steve, but there is no “demand” which is confected, emotive poppycock.
“There must be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated plans”. Seems pretty demanding to me! 1925 Pocket Oxford English Dictionary defines “must” as; expressing command, obligation, duty”!
Shhhh! Don’t confuse him with facts!
He’s already quite confused.
Like the rest of his ilk, Ryan is hiding behind the fact that nowhere in the piece does the author explicitly use the word “demand”. As always, he is seeking to distract, not to inform.
“Comprehensive vision” is what tripped the marxbrothers up! It wasnt something they knew anything about about. Their 19th Century vision remains firmly unchanged.
You read it, but clearly you did not comprehend it. What part of “must be” do you think isn’t a demand? Saying you “must do” something is a demand for that something to be done.
I really can’t believe that RyanS is an actual person. Only a program would continue to spit out garbage like that in utter defiance of logic.
Pro Tip: Subtext is a thing.
‘Market-based action will probably not be enough – I really do think there should be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated’
Nope, just doesn’t have the same zing.
~¿~
Pigeonholed ryans/giff in one go, Steve.
It doesn’t read or doesn’t understand or refuses to understand anything counter to it’s personal religion/delusions.
I couldn’t find any reference where this is demanded either. But an end to capitalism IS what most of what the NGOs, activists, and ‘scientists’ say is needed, am I right?
My question is, what economic system do they have in mind to replace capitalism? My bet is on a centrally planned global socialist system where they will make sure each ‘global citizen’ gets to use the exact same amount of natural resources (and whose views, communications, books read, etc. are monitored 24/7/365).
It is interesting to note that the current president of China, Xi, “wants his citizens to identify with “the motherland, the Chinese nation or race, Chinese culture, and the Chinese socialist road”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Thoughts_Chairman_Xi
I can also post google news archive links where the current leaders of communist Russia were quoted saying they support socialism.
So RyanS, if these commies support or supported socialism, why have they not ended communism and switched to socialism? In my opinion, they don’t want to switch to socialism, they want the control and security that communism gives them. Now if the whole world goes socialism, I think there’s a good chance that it’ll eventually end up communist. I believe they are pushing in that direction because socialism gets them a foot in the door towards communisum.
Fixing bad weather, caused mainly by old conservative, Christian, capitalistic white men is IMO, their tool to get them there.
I don’t bother to split hairs between socialism and communism. One leads to the other and it’s just a matter of degree.
Communism has never been practiced as Marx envisaged (although he wasn’t clear about how communism would work, it didn’t involve the State). Socialism is the precursor to communism, where the State controls the means of production and distributes wealth. Funnily enough, once the State seizes control, it never cedes control to the people! Socialism IS effectively communism. When people talk about ‘socialist’ economies like France and the Scandinavian countries, they are really talking about mixed economies. When young people say they prefer socialism to capitalism, they don’t know what they’re talking about.
I expect few would say they’d prefer to earn stuff versus getting it for “free”.
Clearly, you suffer under a reading comprehension deficit.
What a surprise. Capitalism is inconvenient for totalitarians. Now where have I heard that word before?
The bane of environmentalism is that things cost money and solutions have to be profitable. So their solution is Marxism and money printing.
Don’t weep for me, Venezuela….
If I read the excerpts correctly, the report is not so much advocating communism or rejecting capitalism as it is criticizing the operation of free markets. Free markets basically allow buyers and sellers to decide through their unfettered (well, largely unfettered) trading to determine what prices are and to allocate scarce goods and services on that basis. It does not include provision for an environmental “premium” or extra charge placed on prices to reflect the alleged environmental externalities not captured by free markets. Thus begins the debate. Who gets to decide the value of the environmental externality? What is the marginal value in 2018 of an alleged environmental cost of a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in 2018 on the 2100 environment? If the premium is to be captured by governments in the form of a tax, what will governments do with the revenues? (Experience shows politicians are delighted with revenue windfalls that they can spend on their favourite programs.) Where prices alone will not do the trick, what emphasis is to be placed on subsidies, programs and regulations? Above all, how will governments “manage” the transition to the energy system they, in their wisdom, have decided is the right one. The fact that governments have a terrible track record in picking technology or product “winners” is usually forgotten. Ultimately, if the crisis can be portrayed as serious enough (i.e. the end of the world), it becomes a justification for removing the rights of people to make their free choices about what they produce and consume. Because, in democratically governed countries, people have the nasty habit of pushing back when told what to do, authoritarian governments must be imposed instead – for the good of the planet, of course. It is all so logical.
Robert,
Nice comments you made.
There are several high quality books about capitalism and socialism that have stood the tests of time and operation for decades. Ayn Rand is pertinent and enjoyably readable with “Atlas Shrugged” 1957 as I am sure you know. There are many others.
Now and then someone claims invention of a better mousetrap and the debates have another round. I hope we do not have to suffer regurgitation with this issue, which seems to be that the problems have dimensions that only global intervention can handle. I do not agree.
The immediate problem is the frequent strangling of market forces aka free enterprise. Time after time, critics allege free market failure, but fail to note that the market was not free at all, but was excessively regulated by bureaucrats and politicians.
History tells that the world sorts problems better by capitalism than by any other ism. The success is higher when he regulation is least. OTOH, our greatest killing episodes this last 200 years have been by manic individuals of socialist bent.
Why does the UN even bother to mention socialism/communism? Blind Freddy knows they are lethally evil. Geoff
For the “first time in human history,” the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.”
They seem to think the energy companies are shifting to less energy efficient sources voluntarily. The issue isn’t that capitalism is at fault, it is that government control has steered the energy industries onto a dead end track.
SR
Relax. The point of any UN agreement like the climate accord is to get the US to pay. If we don’t, then environmental extremism meets blathering idiot politicians who have no intention of paying a dime. They will learn to follow Xi and yack about going green in 30 years after they get out of third world status or help all their poor or help all the poor in other countries, but man, they are on it then. BS and delay the Chinese have evolved into a fine art. EU states are learning how to follow.
Is that for the USA to pay before or after it has been systematically dismantled by them because of its evil wicked capitalist nature?
Paying is how they plan to dismantle the US.
Germany is bent on that suicidal path right now. Unfortunately close ally Macron’s Energy Transition minister Hulot suddenly resigned yesterday. Hulot became pro-nuclear, and went after pesticides. Looks like Germany will stand very isolated with “fidgit power”, instead of 24/7 nuclear. Talking back auto emission limits began yesterday too. Could be unstoppable.
Wait – are you saying, bonbon, that Macron does not have a tight grip on his own government, after all?
Is this an early clue to the new direction, along with those riots in Chemnitz in Germany and Merkel’s hand wringing?
Don’t toy with me!
Brainless people living in an echo chamber.
Funny thing is these same guys will loudly proclaim that any group that fails to agree with them is nothing but an echo chamber.
Mark, that’s because politicians prefer to heap aspersions. Rather like: my dad can beat up your dad! Followed by: nuh-uh, my dad can beat up YOUR dad, na na na!
They seemed to have overlooked critical aspects of climate justice and feminist intersectionalism in their scientific opinion on the global economic adjustments necessary to solve climate change.
The real agenda revealed?
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2794991
“as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments”
The UN knows quite a lot of impotent organisation, agencies, useless interventions.
“capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient”
And the greens know quite a lot of inefficient energy sources.
The Apollo Moon Project was a spare-no-cost, cost-doesn’t-matter, tax everybody to put a very few on the moon program. It would never have been able to put everybody on the moon.
Applying the same methodology to energy production would likewise give adequate power to only a few. I guess the “scientists” who wrote that paper, and those at the UN who requested it expect to be among the few…
SR
It is my fantasy that we will eventually be able to build habitats in space that will allow us to become “space aliens” ourselves. We must be very careful not to start “Star Wars.”
Apollo was a NASA project, N being National, that is foreign policy. No private firm alone could handle the risk. Instead 1100 firms and 440,000 staff did it. The economy totally changed – the very silicon these bytes traverse is a spin-off. A dollar in 1973 had nothing to do with a dollar of 1960 – monetarists look at the greenback and suppose, like Hayek, Apollo sprung spontaneously in an unknowable way from the currency. The intention was to totally change the economy with a very difficult mission, JFK’s legacy.
So Apollo changed everything on Earth. So back to the Moon with a settlement with the intention of again changing the economy here. He3 at the Lunar poles for Fusion being one mission.
Only government can handle big projects?
Is that really the line you want to go with?
Apollo wasn’t essentially a rock transport operation?
No surprise to see the Marxist conspiracy emerging from the global warming Trojan horse
Good one!
A call to Marxism. So basically no one is listening to them so their solution is force.
“So basically no one is listening to them so their solution is force.”
Always. Force and lies are the only way they can stay in the game and maintain power.
When given the choice, people do what they want, not what the left wing elite want us to do.
Which is why the people must not be given a choice.
Or conned into giving up real choices for fake ones.
Well of course, after all the left wing elite know better then the stupid little peons how best to run their lives. Or their deaths, considering the left wing elites think there are too many people this planet and thus there is a need to reduce the population (but not the population of the left wing elites, just that of the “little people”)
Perhaps we should ask the entire UN bureaucracy to set the example by relocating from fashionable Manhattan to somewhere more appropriate for the reduced lifestyle they envisage to conform to reduced energy consumption that will be necessary for all of us. I suggest they should move to sub-Saharan Africa or Venezuela to show us that they are serious about giving up on capitalism.
Or are they just global elitist hypocrites…oh what a hard guess to make!
I have long advocated Burkina Faso as an ideal location for the UN…
Venezuela is a good idea. They can then experience what life would be like in a Socialist “paradise”.
…and major power blackouts.
It seems to me that it’s obvious that we ‘can’t just all get along’, as some slacker in a suit whined a few years ago. Keep NATO and ditch the UN. Turn the real estate into high-tax properties and send those other people home.
It was an interesting idea, but obviously, Wilson’s “League of Nations” which became the UN was a daydream. We simply can’t get along.
Sara
We are a tribal race. Muddying the waters with ‘integration’ is a fools errand. Enemies have infiltrated every culture and act from within.
We can no longer identify those who would act against us.
Respecting boundaries is a prime requisite for the growth of trust. A firm sense of one’s identity and values is a prime requisite for genuine tolerance. By tearing down long-established boundaries and muddying the process of identity formation with their every new counter-cultural fad, so-called progressives, unwittingly or willfully, work to undermine trust between cultures and foment intolerance and hate.
The UN, having announced itself as an enemy of capitalism, has essentially declared war on the U.S. So like any other invader, it should be expelled from our shores pronto. One-way tickets to the socialist paradise of Venezuela for all UN Climate Nazis now!
¡Viva socialismo! ¡Viva Venezuela! ¡Viva la revolución! ¡Viva otra dinero de gente!
Once again, the true agenda of the left exposes itself – “Climate Change” is the false front for far-left economic policies, which were so utterly discredited in the 20th Century, BECAUSE FAR-LEFT ECONOMIC POLICIES DID NOT WORK – THEY FAILED UTTERLY AND CAUSED ENORMOUS HUMAN DEGRADATION AND SUFFERING.
AND THEN THERE WERE THE KILLINGS:
Stalin killed about 50 million of his own people. Mao killed about 80 million Chinese. Hitler was a Socialist and a Green, and his WW2 killed another 50 million souls. Then there were the lesser players like Pol Pot, etc who killed a few million Cambodians, but a much larger fraction of the country’s population. There were many more… This is the terrible history of the 20th Century.
I have travelled to Honecker’s East German AND to Fidel Castro’s Cuba. Both were failed states by any reasonable standards – there was extreme abuse of human rights, gross economic incompetence, and puppetry instead of Rule of Law.
This is the undeniable history of Marxist dictatorships – economic incompetence and huge systemic murder of civilians.
Can we not learn from history? Do we really have to do all this again?
Leftist leaders typically are psychopaths/sociopaths and leftist followers are delusional imbeciles.
Clearly, it takes people of far-less-than-average intelligence to want to relive the horrors of the 20th Century – and yet there they are, the so-called “Progressives”, concentrated in our public schools and universities, saying “This time, it’s going to be different! This time, it’s going to work! Just trust us!”
As George Carlin said, “Damn, there are a lot of really stupid people out there!”
That’s history for Dummies.
Truth is the WWF founded by Prince Philip (the virus), Prince Bernard (SS), Huxley (eugenist) et. al is not a Marxist plot (Marx was a Lord Palmerston Zoo project), rather an Imperial hoax.
Churchill only ran terrified to FDR when Hitler’s generals turned west instead of first going after the Soviet.
Even a cursory reading of Mackinders Geopolitics (word for word excerpted in Hitler’s book) shows why Trump has really disturbed the wasp’s nest in London – he effectively rejects Geopolitics, Britain’s keystone strategy since Edward VII. Witness the swamp’s McCain’s legacy, Trump’s non-remorse.
So no more fake history. Britain’s dying empire is going after Russia again, and prepared to poison the way. There were no thermonuclear arsenal’s when Mackinder wrote, but why let 100million degrees get in the way of a narrative?
It would seem your WW II timeline is a bit in error: https://www.historyonthenet.com/world-war-2-timeline-2/
Hitler attacked Soviet Union in June 1941 after signing a non-aggression pact in August 1939.
Germany bombed England from July to October 1940. Dunkirk (Germany occupies France) was in May 1940, along with Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Holland.
Looks like a lot of Germany going west before going east.
Isn’t that what bonbon said? “Hitler’s generals turned west instead of first going after the Soviet[s]”?
Albert Einstein famously said: “The definition of insanity is to continue to repeat the same series of actions and expect a different outcome.”
One of the main reasons that mammals and especially humans are so successful is that our brains are hard-wired to provide for and protect our family. Our ancestors who did not have this trait, died out leaving those who did as the dominant sub-species.
In a modern society this becomes complicated because people are wealthier now than they have ever been thanks to Capitalism and most of us don’t mind paying some taxes to help those less fortunate than themselves. Socialists view taxation of their perception of the wealthy, as some sort of social engineering exercise. Make everyone the same,! The problem with this is those who feel that their hard work is not benefiting their family and themselves, will not work hard, why should they? The economy slumps, everyone is worse off especially the poor, elderly and infirm. Socialism has never worked in the past, does not work in the present (Venezuela and North Korea are prime examples) and therefor cannot work in the future.
“Albert Einstein famously said: “The definition of insanity is to continue to repeat the same series of actions and expect a different outcome.””
I disagree with Herr Einstein. To me, that’s the definition of stupidity, the inability to learn from your mistakes.
Insanity is something completely different.
“”In a modern society this becomes complicated because people are wealthier now than they have ever been thanks to Capitalism and most of us don’t mind paying some taxes to help those less fortunate than themselves.””
Concentration of wealth into the hands of a few, we have been warned about. This sometimes can be controlled by regulation against “monopolies.”
In our current society we should be very wary of monopolies in social media, Facebook and Twitter come to mind here.
Andrew Carnegie acquired a wealth equal to 2.1% of the GDP at the time. That percentage of the GDP would equate to $390 billion, today. Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the US, is worth an estimated $112 billion. If that becomes a problem, we will address it as we did in the past.
“”Once again, the true agenda of the left exposes itself””
Thank you for the post. I agree, but don’t dare call it a ‘grand conspiracy,’ started long ago.
Those who know, watch the U.N.
Will this panel point to the reduction in CO2 emissions from Venezuela as a shining example?
Ok, I’ll play their game for a moment.
IF they get their way, and Capitalism is diminished in its ability to make profit, where the hell will their grant monies come from?
Where will the subsidies come from to build all the ‘green’ machines.
Where will the industries get their innovation and drive, to build new and better products and machines?
Where will the discoveries come from to help cure diseases and help fight poverty?
Ok – moment has passed now – now back to reality.
You misunderstand. There will party bosses and slaves. You will be told what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and how to do it. Refuse and you will be declared a reactionary and assigned to cleaning sewers and grease traps. Refuse that, and say goodbye to this plane of existence.
Which page of “Marxism is Infallible” fell open for them to come up with that one, I wonder? The UN, aren’t they the ones who banned DDT for no rational logical scientific reason causing some 65 million deaths from Malaria around the world? Weren’t they the ones who said AIDS wasn’t a deadly communicable disease therefore carriers were not required to be isolated & quarantined to prevent the spread of the disease, resulting in around 45 million deaths & rising? Weren’t they the ones who stood idley by whilst 3 million people were butchered in Rawanda afew years back? Yes we must definitley pay attention to all their wise pronouncements!!!! That makes about 113 million people died by their say so, more than Hitler & Stalin put together, one could probably throw in Pol Pot too!
Lord Bertrand Russell’s narrative of population reduction. He called for world gov’t by UN and preemptive nuking of the Soviet, that peacenik. The Lord bemoaned the lack of wars and pestilence to this end. Have a look at the a couple of his books. It’s all in-your-face and happening.
Malthusian pessimists say the earth can’t support more than a billion people. Put the UN bureaucrats in charge and they might be right.
Notably Dr. John Schellnhuber CBE, awarded the title in 2004 at the British Embassy Berlin by the Queen personally, for such “2 billion” statements. The Commander wrote the Pope’s Laudato Si, a paean to Gaia. As Merkel’s Science Advisor, set the Great Energy Transformation in motion. Could he possibly be at the UN now?
How are these plutocrats going to enjoy their current level of carbon consumption without capitalism?
Silly me, I forgot, it’s only the rest of us that have to do without….
Wot a dizzy I am….
“Let them eat cockroaches”…. h/t Marie Antionette…
Thanks for the invitation, but I think I’ll pass. We’ve heard it all before.
But it is at least another indication that they know they aren’t going to get what they want, so they’d like a bigger stick to try and persuade us with. The greens never were much into using carrots. Must be the Trumpy orange color they don’t like.
Greens hate capitalism because it is too sophisticated for them to understand
You left out the part about having to work to earn money to pay for things that they think should be free, like – EVERYTHING!!!
I disagree. Greens hate capitalism because it prevents them from getting their hands on the levers of power.
Just a slight amendment, sophisticated means corrupt & adulterated! I think the Greens will understand the word “simple” better, fewer letters & syllables for the poor dears!
Nobody understands capitalism. And that is it’s greatest power.
Capitalism is the result of billions of people interacting with other dozens or more times a day. Making decisions using the knowledge that in many cases is known to just them or at most a small group of individuals.
Even if we tied all of the world’s computers together into a single humongous network, we wouldn’t have the computing power to have even a glimmer of an understanding of what capitalism processes with ease.
What’s that? A global governing entity wants to dramatically increase the power of government? For the benefit of the people? You don’t say.
Well, Venezuela’s contribution to global warming has certainly dropped dramatically, so there’s that. And North Korea has always kept their emissions low, even without windmills.
“Well, Venezuela’s contribution to global warming has certainly dropped dramatically, so there’s that.”
I think that’s kind of what they have in mind. They want to turn every country into Venezuela by forcing them to give up fossil fuels.
The UN totalitarians proposing this are not living in the real world.
It’s funny how ‘deniers’ are mocked as conspiracy theorists when they say this is about global governance and destroying capitalism…and there we have it, straight from the horses’….
“arse”, is what I think you meant to end with? 😉
I was too polite to say it 🙂
Clearly, a lady of innate breeding, unlike those to who you refer!!!! 😉
That’s why you have us.
” … straight from the horses’ … ”
… enormous backside?
+1 “Conspiracy theory” is the Left’s “fake news”. Since the beginning of the AGW scam the UN has let out bits and drabs that the real intent is to destroy Capitalism and no one listened. With the UN’s record regarding the US I don’t know why we continue being a part of it. It’s nothing but another League of Nations that’s been given time and money to undermine Democracy and Capitalism.
David Legates provides the evidence against the authoritarian approach favored by th UN.