Be it resolved: ending climate change requires the end of capitalism as we know it Guests:
About this episode
The UN deadline of achieving net zero global emissions by 2050 is becoming an increasingly unrealistic goal as many countries fail to impose drastic measures to combat rising emissions. Some believe that capitalism is to blame: perpetual economic growth requires an increase in production, consumption and fossil fuel use. In order to prevent a climate change disaster, free market capitalism must give way to a new eco-fiscal reality that privileges the planet over profits. Defenders of capitalism think the opposite is true: while capitalism has contributed to climate change, it is also uniquely positioned to solve it. By harnessing the dynamism of the market through the pursuit of profit, corporations and individuals will create new technologies and the social change needed to avert the climate crisis and build a sustainable future.
You can read George Monbiot’s column on capitalism and climate change here.
You can read Andrew McAfee’s argument about how capitalism can help combat climate change here.
Andrew mentions the 1970 Clear Air Act. The US legislation aimed to prevent air pollution and gave the EPA more power to fight against environmental pollution. The CAA has been hailed as a success: total emissions of six major air pollutants decreased by 63% between 1980-2015
The Paris Climate Agreement was a adopted as a global effort to combat climate change. The goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well 2 °C. The agreement was adopted in 2016 with 195 signatories from around the world. In 2017, President Trump announced he intended to withdraw the US from the agreement.
When you are selling something that appears to have no practical use and a lot of bad side effects, costs a lot and is widely disparaged, you are not going to make a lot of sales.
It’s unfortunate that the snake oil salesman have gained such access to our children.
The long march through the institutions. Time to proscribe Common Purpose.
Id setle for common sense;-)
recent events have given the masses a taste of vastly reduced emissions
somehow I dont think many are going to vote to remain like this..
cynical I be;-) but the kvetching about “I cant go OS for …whatever “moans make me laugh a lot.
The problem with all of this “debate” podcast is it presupposes there even is a “problem”.
They are simply arguing over who gets to make the money from “solving” a problem which does not exist outside computer models.
From Andrew McAfee’s opening remarks:
So, that’s a problem. On the other hand, as Christopher Monckton has shown us, it is possible to accept some of the other side’s facts and show that their conclusions are wrong anyway.
On previous Munk debates I’ve listened to, there was an audience vote before and after the debate. The winner is the side that changed the most minds. We didn’t get that with this debate and that’s a pity. I would really like to know how the section of the population that attends the Munk debates thinks and whether they are amenable to reasoned argument.
The bright side: As far as I can tell, both debaters agree that nuclear power is a viable solution. We have a growing realization, even on the left of center, that wind and solar are an impossible solution.
So they’re both members of a cult.
It is even far more unfortunate that our political representatives are chosen by our electorate via their emotionally driven decision making during said “popularity contests” (elections).
Would you rather our leaders be chosen by Divine right, inheritance, or the dictatorship of the workers?
If you want rational elections, you need to ensure only rational people can vote. When as the franchise is expanded until everyone can vote, this is what you get.
This is why democracy can only ever be a temporary form of government. The franchise will always be expanded by politicians trying to get more votes, and can never be shrunk because those whose votes are to be taken away will never vote for it. And the more it expands, the more insane the policies people vote for, until society collapses.
Even the ancient Greeks recognized this.
They didn’t recognize it at all. It took the collapse of Athens for them to learn that lesson.
.The Athenian Constitution – In the Time of Draco: Section 4
Such was, in outline, the first constitution, but not very long after the events above recorded, in the archonship of Aristaichmus, Draco enacted his ordinances. Now his constitution had the following form. The franchise was given to all who could furnish themselves with a military equipment.
‘Yale.edu’ – ‘The Avalon Project’ – ‘The Athenian Constitution’
Have you heard of the climate mobilization of Canadian youth project?
See who is behind this?
It’s unfortunate that parents believe sending their kids to government schools is a good idea. The Prussians created them for indoctrination, not education.
But, the Pharmaceutical industry does just fine using that exact sales formula.
I just always wonder just who and how many have to die to accommodate these people?
I always just wonder who the hell elected them to rule over us and dictate how we live.
Unfortunately, Goldrider, we tend to vote when certain dogmas became embedded in the minds of our youth at government schools or accepted by the folks that do not get “news” from sources other than the 6 o’clock news on a local TV channel, or a well-documented fake news source.
If the same fallacious story is repeated over and over, then how do you think a poll will come out? If 9 outta 10 news “flashes” beat up on our president, how do you think the “job approval” rating is gonna come out. For example, and I am sure there are many for the climate change issue: The President had dinner on the yacht of a foreign leader and the host’s hat blew off. The President jumped off the boat and walked out across the water and retrieved the hat. The next day the New York Times headlines screamed, “Trump can’t swim!”
I strongly disagree with the many that think much of the climate change movement is some sort of conspiracy by folks wishing to destroy capitalism and impose socialism upon all of us.
Many of the climate activists are basing their “solutions” to save the planet on “business as usual” in the free market. They generally associate with the folks that think we are such a great nation and there are giga-million folks paying little taxes that we can provide all kindsa goodies to people here whether they are citizens or not, or have never earned a dollar in their life, or got shot at in an effort to defend/promote freedom.
What they do not realize is that drastic changes will have drastic results, many of which they never envisioned due to their unwarranted belief that business will go on as usual.
Best example of what could happen is what we are now enduring with closed eateries, theaters, shopping malls, beaches and parks, etc. Then we see limited hours and patronage numbers at grocery stores – only 45 shoppers allowed inside at one time. Then less fresh veggies because it’s hard for the truckers to get the stuff to market. The meat packers are home because one dude came down with the WuFlu and the owner didn’t want the other workers sick.
The next day the New York Times headlines screamed, “Trump can’t swim!”
I read that six minutes ago – I’m still grinning…..
Keying off Brad Keyes’ essay from a couple of days ago – we definitely need better pseudo-elites too.
ButIn your sales pitch, if you can convince the slack jawed, knuckle dragging mouth breathers in front of you that the alternative to your snake oil is death and disaster, you could make a tidy profit.
Monbiot is the loony left personified.
He is on the record that Brits should eat roadkill to supplement their protein needs.
What could possibly go wrong.
Squashed Pangeon anyone?
Most roadkill in the UK is HEDGEHOGS! And the spikes stick in your throat!
new eco-fiscal reality
This new proposed fiscal system is bound to operate int he condition of the reality, where there is only three base fiscal platforms, regardless of the proclaimed or profane privileges.
a) Capitalism, free market platform. (democracy)
b)Monopolism, not so free and highly dictated market platform, serving the interest of a selected
power-hungry group or club dominated by narcissism . (fascism)
c)Socialism, not at all free and completely controlled and completely dictated market platform, serving the interest of a psychopathic power-hungry pack. (communism)
So, this is the only three choices there for this new or any other fiscal proposed platforms to be operating,
where free market capitalism does not qualify, by default, due to it’s free market “spirit”.
Obviously it’s —
b)Monopolism, not so free and highly dictated market platform, serving the interest of a selected
power-hungry group or club dominated by narcissism . (fascism)
That is who we’ve got because that is what the world wants, just ask Nike!
I am afraid that I disagree with your premise that there are only 3 options.
Actually, politico-economic systems, the basic structures of society organization, have two components : a political system and an economic system.
On the political system axis there are two types:
– Dictatorship and Democracy
On the economic system axis there are also two types
– Planned Economy and Market Economy
Putting these together, gives you 4 basic systems :
1. Dictatorship with a market economy – Fascism
2. Dictatorship with a planned economy – Communism
3. Democracy with a planned economy – Socialism
4. Democracy with a market economy – Capitalism
If one were to put the above into a matrix, with political systems on one axis, economic systems on the other, and the above 4 options at the corners, all politico-economic systems would fit within the matrix, i.e. there are no pure systems.
The highest performing systems have shown to be democracy with a mixed economy; a market system for those parts of the economy where competition and a balance of power between consumers and producers are feasible, and a planned economy where there are natural monopolies, or where there is no balance of power between consumers and producers (such as police and military, education, healthcare, shared infrastructure).
Unfortunately for the U.S. and the EU, beginning in the latter half of the 20th century, the capturing of the political systems by money (i.e. a small group of wealthy elite) has resulted in the gradual transformation from democracy to dictatorship, and with it the transformation from a mixed democratic (democracy + planned/market) system to Neo-fascism.
The transformation to Neo-fascism, an inherently poor performing system, is at the root of the impoverishment that has been seen in both the U.S. and EU over the past 40 years.
I might add that ‘climate change’ is nothing but a marketing ploy to get the pliable masses to accept this Neo-fascism.
I don’t see our situation as “neo-fascism”.
I see a fifth system and I subscribe to that one as we have had in the U.S. since the first anti-trust laws were passed and so forth. Sure, we had other government interference before, but IMHO those laws opened the door for more and more intereference, most of it well meaning, but still in the way of the market forces.
So we now have in the U.S. a democracy with primarily a market economy, but includes a significant portion with governmental regulation. The central government does not specifically dictate what gets produced by whom, where and how much, but exercses much control by subsidies, grants, tariffs, etc. However, its most debilitating effects upon the market are the endless regulations and procedures not specifically legislated by our representatives to achieve some goal, normally a social one. They are enforceable by law, but are written by deep state civil service folks with little skin in the game – they won’t be fired/can’t be fired like the politicians who passed the law.
We here in the Panhandle are rebuilding over a year after Michael roared thru and destroyed a lot of Panama City, Parker, Tyndall Air Force Base, Mexico Beach and…. and… So a year and a half later the Air Force is waiting for an environmental impact study to be completed so they can build a few freeekeeng hangars!!! GASP!
And the beat goes on.
And then the CAFE standards for transportation and the endless requirements and standards applicable to your kitchen toaster, lawnmower, hairdryer, etc., etc.
April 12, 2020 at 11:19 am
You have the right to disagree.
But unfortunately there still happens to be only 3 choices.
a)free capital market
b)non free capital market (monopolism)
c) non capital market.
The main core of an economy always, since the beginning, has been only one asset, a capital asset, the work force.
The Socialism is a platform that achieves only one thing for certain,
the total devalue of the work force asset.
And this is not a hypothesis.
Socialism and democracy are antithesis of each other.
And this is not a hypothesis either.
Increase in value and growth of the work force capital asset leads to consolidation and growth of value of other assets to become capital assets in the economy… only due to free market economy.
Such as when consolidated and operating successfully as a capital economy, it can not be reversed.
Any attempt or forcing to reverse it or maim it, will only lead to unnecessary suffering, death an misery.
There always have been only three main base economical platforms,
.free with checks and balances,
.controlled-heavy planed, (managed only by an ever inflating bureaucracy, leading to the diminishment of the work force value)
.wholly-fully dictated by strict planing. (managed by incompetence and demagogy)
Everything else in between only shades.
Oh yes, well, I know, we agree to disagree.
From the GWPF
“Why Cows Are Not Responsible For Climate Change”
Moonbat not happy with the science, so make it up?
Moonbat makes everything up.
[catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate cooling… warming… change. Undeniable. Unfalsifiable.
Political Climate Change: single/central/minority/dictatorial solutions and distributions aided by faith (i.e. trust) in mortal gods/goddesses, selective and opportunistic religion (i.e. behavioral philosophy), and monotonically divergent ideology (i.e. realization). People… persons cannot be trusted to properly manage [private] capital/earnings. That said, PCC is demanded by the same “secular” sects that normalized the wicked solution in shared… delegated responsibility, diversity or color judgment, and 50 shades of progressive confusion. Even the PRC leaders were/are more honest with their motives, means, and methods.
What happens when no one’s buying what your selling anymore.
You find a sympathetic judiciary to force it on the populace.
This is a disturbing story
“This is a disturbing story”
And so is this story.
Democrats believe in …….. “Feeding the hands that bite you”.
I’d like to see what the project goals and objectives were before deciding. For one thing, funding research at the institute would grant some degree of access as well as increased knowledge. Two, 3.7 million dollars over a number of years is not very much money.
What’s disturbing is that it’s off topic.
Capitalism is the evil creator of prosperity and perpetual economic and population growth.
This is a formula that will kill the planet.
The solution is to cut off this beast’s head and save the planet.
The beast’s head is capitalism.
link#1: BEFORE Covid: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/16/theend/
link#2: AFTER Covid: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/12/desperation-eco-wacko-ism/
I do not think ending capitalism, or the human race would end climate change.
The climate change, get used to it and adapt.
M__ S__ April 12, 2020 at 3:38 am
The climate change, get used to it and adapt.
How is the gill adaption working. Any figures for how long you can stay underwater?
Along with gills, I assume the anti inertia device is well prepared for those hurricanes?
Any lunch raising your house on stilts yet?
How about the Hummer flotation system, and does this come with the snow driving stability device?
Humans of course cannot adapt to living at high humidity above 37°C, how about cows crops and other animals. We have effectively stopped migration of humans and animals to cooler climates so that’s one adaption gone.
Huh? Try that again, in rational English.
…. or sober up and get an appointment with a psychiatrist.
“Humans of course cannot adapt to living at high humidity above 37°C”
People in Oman do it every summer – I did it myself for 3 summers.
“Humans of course cannot adapt to living at high humidity above 37°C,”
Never heard of an air conditioner ?
How much of the world’s population lives in the Tropics?
Cows and animals and crops THRIVE in many tropical climates
“We have effectively stopped migration of humans and animals to cooler climates”
What a load of rubbish !
You are welcome to migrate to Siberia or Iceland or Alaska….. off you go !!
Um, that’s right. No humans, cattle, crops or any other animals can survive above 37c with high humidity.
Well except the billions that have lived along the equator for millions of years.
I suggest you stop smoking dope. No really. Its not called dope for nothing.
ghalfrunt April 12, 2020 at 3:53 am
Good grief, ….. ghalfrunt, ….. you must have averted your eyes and your mind to the 20,000,000+ illegal immigrants that have migrated to the cooler climate in the US of A.
Or are you on a “wild trip” yourself?
Ever been to Houston, ghalfrunt, most of the year? I guess if people could adapt to hot humid weather, then Houston might be a big town.
BTW, what happened to that enduring heatwave in Perth? It hasn’t moved to Colorado, where we have record cold for the next couple of days and snow. I had to cover up my “cold weather” seedlings that are in the ground.
Oh, I just checked on that Perth heat wave. It’s 21C now and got up to the blazing 24C in the last 24 hours.
Temperature dropped more than 50F (34C) in 20 hours since yesterday.
About the same here, only now we are freezing.
Here in South London, we had about 20 or 21 C this afternoon.
Forecast is for 7C at 0700 tomorrow.
Plainly – life will end.
For me, life wearing shorts will end.
“How is the gill adaption working. Any figures for how long you can stay underwater?”
If you need gills due to an incredibly low rate of sea level rise, that will eventually stop and go the other way, then maybe lack of gills is the least of your problems.
Your assumptions are incorrect. You are falling for the “thermal runaway” fallacy, which has been disproven many times here at WUWT. “Gills”? Why. There is zero possibility of this turning into “Waterworld”. There’s not that much water on the planet. “37C”? Over the whole planet? Again, not possible.
“Ending climate change” means ending all life on Earth.
The climate change, get used to it and adapt.
Yes the climate changes but it is wild and chaotic. It is not every predictable, not measurable to a very fine degree (of accuracy or precision) and so the chaotic changes continues. We can, unlike the highly specialized other animals and plants, on the planet just adapt, just try to continue for that is what nature demands of us.
Humanity is a part of nature, not apart from nature!
The goal is not to end climate change. The goal is to end capitalism. ‘Climate change’ is just a means to that end.
And with the end of capitalism, the end of democracy and personal liberty since they enable it.
Nothing new here. This article simply confirms what Margaret Thatcher wrote in he book “Statecraft”, which was published back in 2002…that the UNFCCC agreements were “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, and anti-American”. See the chapter “Capitalism and Its Critics”…then the heading of “Hot Air and Global Warming”.
Stay safe and healthy, all.
Thanks Bob for pointing out! This has been going on already for more like 50 years.
Hugs, another quote from Thatcher’s “Statecraft” follows.
The first paragraph under the heading of HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING reads (my boldface):
“The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”
Stay safe and healthy, all.
A couple of spelling mistakes: “eco-fiscal reality” should be: “eco-fascist surrealism”
The problem is that many countries, USA & UK included, have never experienced first hand socialism in their entire history.
Not quite the same here.
It takes a regional fight or a few hours of drive to reach a land and people with deep stigmas of back then, when travel was a prior permit required affair, those sneaking thru the border were shot, possession of a car was a lifetime achievement, that knock on the door in the early morning a tangible eventuality and housewife’s had the choice between scientifically formulated “doctor’s sausage” and last year’s potatoes as protein supply for their families.
Where is “here”?
Germany more precisely, sorry for mishandling.
from Monblot’s article.
“But the land (as Blackstone admitted) became a blank slate only through the extermination of those who lived there.”
This is an assumption not in evidence. When my ancestors arrived on the plains of Kansas there was no one living on the land they claimed. No extermination was required.
“Locke means not all humankind, but European men of property.”
Again, an assumption not in evidence. My ancestors on the Kansas plains had no slaves. They worked the land they claimed all by themselves. They farmed and raised livestock and sold their excess production – i.e. capitalism at its finest.
“Peel them away, and you see that the whole structure is founded on looting: looting from other people, looting from other nations, looting from other species, and looting from the future.”
Again, an assumption not in evidence. What the author is really trying to get at but is apparently unwilling to actually state is that he thinks using the land is actually looting from nature. If we were all to actually change over to a hunter/gatherer society we would *still* be looting from nature – there is no other option. Every apple you pick off the ground is looting future nutrients from nature. Same with every animal you hunt and kill.
This is just an untenable position. The land *will* be used by man. The only other choice is for mankind to die out from starvation – which would be a violation of the laws of nature, survival is one of the most important instincts instilled into one of God’s creation.
“it is clear there is not “enough”
Once again an assumption not in evidence. We continually see annual global record harvests of food. Starvation gets less and less globally every year. Lifespans increase globally every year. It would seem that there is plenty of “enough” to go around.
” One way of implementing this is through major land taxes, paid into a sovereign wealth fund.”
With no description of how this would ensure equitable distribution of the wealth fund to everyone this is nothing more than a pipe dream. This is essentially nothing more than communism. Communism does not ensure equitable distribution of anything in the long run other than misery. The proof is right in front of our faces. Capitalism tempered with charity is the only method mankind has developed to approach equitable distribution of wealth. It will remain so far into the future.
“The only other choice is for mankind to die out from starvation”
You’ve sussed it!
So now that the capitalist system has been brought to a screeching halt for the past few weeks, how much has CO2 dropped?
OK. Nice. They tell their real enemy in their own words. Capitalism. Bezos, Gates, Bloomberg. All people who are self-sufficient kulaks. I thought these clowns were buried in the past, like 40 years ago.
Call them the “League of Shadows,” including names like Rockefeller, Bezos, Gates, Steyer, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Rothschild, Soros, Chakraibati . . . and others whose names we don’t know. Remember that “environmentalism” is their religion, which replaced all the other ones and to them justifies (if not sanctifies) their actions.
Obama (a sock puppet who came out of nowhere) was to get us convinced he was The One to Manage The Decline that would be The New Normal. Hillary was chambered up behind him to finish the job and hand the US over to Agenda 21 lock, stock and barrel. This is why they see Orange Man as an existential threat; he has disrupted, bolluxed and exposed their creepy plans.
The MSM “news” is being wielded as terrorism. Produced and edited to create maximum fear, pathos and helpless depression, proving an effective tool to demoralize and frighten us into ripping up the Constitution and Bill of Rights wholesale. The nascent tyrant who runs my municipality is doling out $100 fines for walking on the beach or in the woods alone. They are busting married couples for sitting on a bench together! Churches have been smacked flat, out of business during their most important week of the year. Still think any of this is a coincidence? Or just the overwrought zeal of those who are afraid of being blamed to matter which way things roll? The timing is certainly beyond suspect.
Still, I seldom ascribe malice and conspiracy to anything that can be explained by incompetence, fear and the need to be publicly seen as “doing something,” even when doing less might be best. All I know is the lid is going to come off this pressure-cooker pretty damn soon, and the spatter won’t be pretty.
While I agree with much of what Andrew McAfee writes, he has also been duped by the use of “average global temperature”. It seems that many otherwise rational people believe that the average global temperature going up means the Earth is burning up from higher and higher maximum temperatures. It is higher and higher daily maximum temperatures which would stifle food production. And yet the average global temperature simply cannot tell you that maximum temperatures are going up. In fact, there is ample evidence that this is *not* happening. Higher minimum temperatures, on the other hand, *do* foster higher harvests because of increased nighttime growth in plants. And higher minimum temperatures can raise the “average global temperature” just as easily as higher maximum temperatures.
We *need* to move away from the use of the “average global temperature and toward something that is far more informative concerning the actual climate conditions we will see in the future. It is imperative to do this so rational decisions can be made by society as to its future actions. I have advocated here on wuwt for the use of degree-days as a far better measure of actual climate conditions. I understand the difficulties into changing over to such a measure, both politically and scientifically. But this, or something else more descriptive of actual conditions, must be implemented or society will be led down the primrose path.
The weather brought us a couple of inches of snow and record cold for the date here in the Denver area this morning. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, Perth endures its latest heatwave, 21C at the moment and 24C high over the past 24 hours.
“Global average temperature” is meaningless for another, very basic reason: That averaging temperature readings from different locations is physically meaningless. Temperature is an intensive property of the thing being measured. It has no bearing on other, unrelated things.
Anthropogenic Climate Change will end when the majority of our energy is provided by Nuclear Power. The remainder of the Climate Change is Natural. This Anthropogenic Climate Change will only end when the climate change activists realize this and take positive actions to implement the needed changes.
If nuclear power has a chance of being more available, it might well only be when the last vestiges of the Boomers and their China Syndrome paranoia are gone or are too feeble to influence energy policy in the US.
Ending climate change crisis requires recognizing climatologists grossly overstate the impact of fossil CO2 emissions on global temperatures.
The world’s fossil CO2 emissions have increased from 22,674 million tons (Mt) in 1990 to 37,077 Mt in 2017. A plot of CO2 in the atmosphere showed CO2 increased from 320 parts per million (PPM) in 1960 to 396 PPM in 2014. Yet the rate of change from 1970 to 1990 was essentially the same as for 1990 to 2014. Clearly the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions had little impact on the rate of increase of CO2 in atmosphere.
The whole basis for the fossil CO2 emission global warming concerns is that while CO2 allows the Sun to heat the earth if tends to block radiant heat transfer back to space. Climatologists have used computer models to conclude that the increased fossil CO2 emissions have 10 times the impact on global temperatures as that from increased heating from the Sun.
However if a 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions has not significantly changed the rate of CO2 increase in atmosphere they cannot be the cause for current global warming. The fact that global temperatures increased from 1970 to 1990 at the same rate as from 1990 to 2017 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions substantiates that conclusion.
The only rational conclusion is that global temperatures driven by the Sun have increased CO2 out gassing from ocean surface. Global temperatures are the cause for increasing CO2 in atmosphere not the result. The sooner the whole world recognizes that the better.
“Ending climate change crisis”
The only crisis is a crisis of alarmism, not of the climate.
It has NEVER been about climate change, but rather using climate change as a pretext to destroy capitalism. It is nothing more than Marxism dressed up.
Monbiot is a pompous fool.
I fear you over-rate him, for with academic qualifications comes the hubris of the idiot.
As I know where he can be found maybe I’ll put this point to him.
“…while capitalism has contributed to climate change, it is also uniquely positioned to solve it.”
Capitalism is about what I want. It’s not about what you want. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, do it by buying some solar panels. But capitalism is not a tool for your social or economic desires unless you believe in individual’s freedoms.
It may be that the above quote is correct. Government will not solve the problem of CO2 emissions. That is, individuals have to do it. Governments haven’t it solved it so far, and they’ve tried. What little they have left to play is world government or something like that.
George Monbiot is right. We do need a new human right for future generations- the right to life.
Are they talking about stopping it in Summer or Winter?
(and this debate has been held in the wrong sort of institution)
Yes, Tim Gorman, the concept of average global temperature is without practical meaning. It’s like average global per capita income, which has no relevance to anyone’s life.
There is no global climate, except as a theoretical construct with no practical value. I live in Alberta, Wildfires in Australia and droughts in California have no bearing on my wellbeing whatsoever. Any decisions I make about any action to protect the climate (not that any actually exist) are based on the climate here. Not the climate in Paris or Kuala Lumpur or Dallas.
I not too smart is, so I have never been able to understand the logic behind the statement that, if the global average temperature should increase by 2 degrees (or 1.5, or whatever the latest bogus figure it), that the Earth will become uninhabitable. Most of the cities in North America can point to other cities with an average annual temperature that is 2 degrees higher. I live in Edmonton and I have noticed that the people in Lethbridge are doing okay so far, despite their oppressively hot, 2 degrees warmer, climate.
Rich people live in Texas. The can afford to move to Vermont, but they stay in Texas, in spite of the living hell of the Texas climate. Seems kind of odd.
Far too many people doing “climate studies” have no real concept of climate other than as the output of some computer run. TX still grows a lot of pasture along with things like cotton, rice, corn, etc. And lots of cattle. It’s not an inhabitable place at all. And it is far more than 1degC hotter than Kansas or Nebraska in the summer.
As you say, Southern CA has a far different climate than does Northern CA. How can you possibly average the two together and be able to tell anything about the climate in either place?
Ian, did you know that the average person is a hermaphrodite who lives in Wuhan called Wang Fang Muhammad?
Emissions are a function of population.
Even if you believe in the GHG scam, 2/3 of emissions are coming from the developing world and these are the only emissions that have been growing since 1980 and will continue to grow this century. The extremely high populations of these countries are due to them having non-capitalist / democratic systems of government. The capitalist / democratic system has been shown to restrain population by imposing a capital cost on parents on raising a child, as well as providing eduction and medical facilities for family planning.
Considering the proposed change by the loony left socialists is socialism, It needs to be pointed out that socialism creates population expolosions by creating a welfare reward based on having more children, which is the exact opposite of capitaism.
All you people suffering from the present restrictions on earnings and freedoms, Welcome to a preview of “The Green New Deal”!
The UN deadline of achieving net zero global emissions by 2050 is becoming an increasingly unrealistic goal
How can a goal that was impossible to begin with become increasingly unrealistic?
Let’s have a look at those non-capitalist countries and how they have dealt with their environment. Anyone been on a Soviet oil field? Pretty ain’t it? When the Iron Curtain fell I was 20. As my parents lived 5km from it we needed to go onto the other side to see what it was like. The first thing that hit me was the stench of sulfur from the bad lignite coal they burned there. No filtering of any kind of exhaust gases of course. Any socialist country does not see a revival of its nature but rather produced some of the biggest ecological disasters this planet has seen. And that shall be the solution? Yeahh right …
Be it resolved: preserving freedom and free market capitalism requires the end of climate fascism as we know it.