Guest essay by Eric Worrall
In the wake of serial failures like the collapse of AG climate litigation initiative, climate activists are desperately searching for other means to force the rest of us to accept their policy ideas.
Greta Thunberg is right – only a general strike will force action on climate change
McEver Dugan and Evan Cholerton
Thu 25 Apr 2019 00.16 AESTEvery day at work we all contribute to a system that is burning us alive. Downing tools on 27 September will help change it
Climate change is hurling humanity towards disaster. There is no more room to question the science, when nearly every climate scientist is in agreement that the implications of a global rise in average temperature will spell drastic changes for human civilisation. In the face of such a rapidly encroaching threat, political niceties and traditional incrementalism and compromise cannot come close to the level of change and upheaval required to solve, or even mitigate, the problem of global climate change.
…The current ineptitude and impotency of the ruling class is unacceptable when the consequences of inaction are so far-reaching. More than ever, it is time for workers – those who will be hardest hit by soaring food and healthcare costs, and by property destruction caused by natural disasters and the rising sea – to exert their power and force the hand of major players (governments and corporations) to avert what is almost certain to be the next global mass extinction.
…
Through all of this, as Greta Thunberg has said, one thing must be made clear. There is no greater way to capture the attention of the public, and the powers that be, than a general labour strike. An old and effective strategy, it is the holy grail of activism. And in such dire times, there is no question that a general strike is sorely needed once more. Earth Strike is seeking to revive the general strike in service of a global, apocalyptic problem – one that encompasses the lives of every creature on the face of this planet.
The reason Earth Strike exists is that shutting off the global labour supply will force governments and industry giants to listen. There’s no way to avoid the conversation when profits are in danger of eroding, and production has stalled to a halt. Every day we go into work and spend our time and labour building a system that is burning us alive. The top polluters in the world are directly dependent on this effort. It is time to withhold it.…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/24/greta-thunberg-general-strike-action-climate-change
What do you think? Are you worried about the impact of the upcoming climate change general strike?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The only strike I’ll ever attend is the one protesting “Climate Action,” because THAT will be infinitely more damaging than the imaginary crisis these idiots think we need to protest!
Oh and of course, the deluded idiots that participate in “strikes” or other “protests” demanding “climate action” will be taking selfies and videos of their collective stupidity with their Chinese made cell phones, and uploading them to the internet.
Thereby supporting the biggest “Carbon Bigfoots” on the planet.
When the Parliament moves to “ACQUIRE” the petrol industries, those companies should execute a general strike…to let the folks know what it will be like when they cease to exist.
Most likely, they’ll pull out as many assets as possible and sell energy to China and Southeast Asia. Trump might help them find a home to prevent that. THAT level of economic disruption will kill the stock market in London…$Trillions will flee the country…mostly to the US and Hong Kong.
Are media group revenues and rent increases that bad that it comes to this?
If this takes place I can see people suddenly finding out just how much they rely on reliable, affordable and constant power and how quickly things get bad when it goes off.
I for one will be turning up for work as normal.
James Bull
NYTimes
The Next Reckoning:Capitalism and Climate Change
Fixing the planet is going to be expensive. Can we stomach the bill for human survival?
By NATHANIEL RICH APRIL 9, 2019
The most fundamental question is whether a capitalistic society is capable of sharply reducing carbon emissions. Will a radical realignment of our economy require a radical realignment of our political system — within the next few years? Even if the answer is no, we have some decisions to make
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/09/magazine/climate-change-capitalism.html
Central bankers demand action on climate change
Their recommendations address environmental risks that also represent financial risks
https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/from-the-regulators/central-bankers-demand-action-on-climate-change/
Central Banks Are the World’s Newest Climate Change Activists
http://fortune.com/2019/04/26/climate-change-central-banks/
Paulson takes on China and climate change
September 19, 2008
One thing Paulson makes clear is that it’s in everyone’s interest to promote clean technology and energy efficiency in China, to curb global warming. According to Paulson, if China today was as efficient in its use of energy as the U.S. was in 1970, it would save the equivalent of 16 million barrels of oil a day, or almost 10% of the world’s daily oil consumption.
All of the world must learn to make do with less, he argues. “There simply are not enough energy resources to allow the world’s entire population, or even the third of it represented by the Chinese, to lead the resource-intensive lifestyle that Americans currently enjoy,” Paulson says.
Paulson’s an environmentalist – he is the former chair of the Nature Conservancy and the reason why Goldman Sachs, under his watch, became the first investment bank to call for federal regulation of greenhouse gases.
http://archive.fortune.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/gunther_paulson.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008091916
THE WORLD POPULATION AND THE TOP TEN
COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST POPULATION
https://internetworldstats.com/stats8.htm
I think you are completely wrong. The billionaires are the longest standing supporters of environmentalism. The club of Rome, and agenda 21 make this explicit. If you really want to reduce carbon emissions then you need to open up trading relations more, increase wealth creation, and thus reduce population growth. A brute force attempt to cut CO2 will only frustrate this kind of development and thus on a cost/benefit metric it will fail. It will enrich the green blob however.
Hello Martin,
None of the above “comments” are mine. Make of them what you will..
I have my own perspective however I haven’t articulated it in above post
cheers
brent