Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Another green sneer at Democracy; According to US Journalist David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth, future systems of government will replace concern for human rights, peace and prosperity with a focus on CO2 emissions.
Can liberal democracy survive climate change?
Mar 29th 2019
by N.B.A book excerpt and interview with David Wallace-Wells, author of “The Uninhabitable Earth”
…The Economist: Are the political and economic systems that have facilitated global warming capable of fixing it?
Mr Wallace-Wells: Certainly not without some significant renovation and reformation, I think. But I’m not sure it will take a total revolution, either. I may be too much a child of the 1990s—an “End of History” kid, trained by that experience even as I no longer regard those intuitions about markets and globalisation and neoliberalism as wise. But I do see a way that something like the post-Cold War international order could, conceivably, address the issue, by placing carbon and climate change at the center of its value set, in much the same way that human rights, peace and prosperity were put there—in name at least—in the aftermath of the second world war.
I also see the early returns from the Paris accords as pretty discouraging on that point. It is, after just a few years, a real failure. No major industrial nation is on track to honour its commitments, which if honoured perfectly, would still land us north of 3°C this century. But certainly other approaches are possible, too—ranging from left-wing forms of quasi-eco-socialism to right-wing forms of authoritarian nationalism and self-interest. And many more, too.
I’m not sure just what form our answer to climate change will take, and probably it won’t be just one form. But I do know that our politics and culture will be shaped by the force of warming in very profound ways, whether or not we take aggressive action soon, so that the systems of the 21st century will almost certainly be defined by climate change, in the same way that previous systems were defined, say, by the interests of financial capitalism.
…
Read more: https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/03/29/can-liberal-democracy-survive-climate-change
When future historians look back on the failed climate movement, they will rightly see green fanaticism as yet another of a long line of attempts by selfish elitists to overthrow Democracy and Freedom.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the article: “No major industrial nation is on track to honour its commitments, which if honoured perfectly, would still land us north of 3°C this century.”
He says, without even knowing how much heat CO2 adds to the atmosphere.
The fact is nobody knows that number and people who are making claims like “3C this century” have no evidence to back up these claims, yet they make them with such certainty. Certainty is not evidence of anything.
I’ll be kind and assume this person is just sadly misinformed, and that’s why he is making these unsupported claims.
It’s imperative that we pound home the fact that the US emits 14% of the CO2 total and dropping fast. No matter the merits of the theory, there’s little to nothing we could do about it even if it were true. It would be irrational to destroy our economy and sacrifice our freedom for nothing.
Stop arguing the merits of the case against AGW, and start pointing out that we are powerless to change the outcome. In this way, you’re presenting established facts. 14% and dropping is fact They can’t call you a denialist if you’ve got facts.
Don’t people see that this is socialism by the back door, the Watermelon approach. Completely totalitarian in its goals and impulses.
Here is an imaginary headline:
MASSACHUSETTS OUTRAGED OVER APPROVAL OF NEW POWER TRANSMISSION LINE GOING TO MAINE, DESTROYING THE BERKSHIRES AND ALLOWING EXPEDITED WIND DEVELOPMENT ON MOUNTAINS.
(Boston)
The approved line will be a direct connection to feed Maine’s rapid growth and will not connect to the Massachusetts grid…
Now here is the real story:
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/03/29/puc-staff-recommends-approval-of-cmp-power-line/
I’m no bible thumper but what do you make of the fact that carbon is 6 protons, 6 neutrons & 6 electrons, the human body is mostly carbon and these totalitarian psychopaths intend to replace cash with a carbon card, then a chip? Is prophecy staring us in the face as Science? Ironic since JUNK scientists aim to create a future so horrible the bible includes a dire warning. Do we heed the warning and get tough or indulge the idiocy with polite debate until it’s too late?
———
*Hosey,
-What about you Hosey?
-What about me?…sir
-Oh well, what did you do for your wife, any gifts, Hosey, for this woman’s day festivity and celebration?
-Oh well, you see sir, I am not wealthy sir, like you and your friends here.
That is why I am serving barbecue you and your friends today here, in this woman’s celebrity day.
Can’t afford things like you just have talked about earlier among you and your friends here, sir, like expensive travel packages for your wife and like same for this other high class gentleman’s woman, like trips to Caribbean or to Japan, or Australia, or sea cruising, or a week in Cabul, sir.
Simple people like me, sir,simple hoseys, we got to bear the burden, bite the bullet so to speak, in such as occasions.
-Hosey… what are you talking about, what burden, what burden to bear, or bullet to bite for you Hosey?!
-Oh well sir, The burden of having to frack my wife my self, sir…even in such given occasions of celebrations.
Sir.
—————
Sorry if this off line or off topic…
Not really sure why I had to do this comment!
But fun intended.
cheers
If humans survive long enough, after all the fossil fuel has been burned, I predict that the day will come when humans start using energy from nuclear and other advanced sources, for the sole purpose of converting carbonate rocks into CO2. The current obsession is not just wrong, it is the opposite of the truth. CO2 is necessary for life and, within limits, the more the better.