14382866:SuspiciousFish said:
The thing is they have been saying stuff like the world will end over climate change etc since the 1970s. I remember when we were going to have an apocalypse over peak oil and that never happened. The thing about fear is that its addictive and that addiction is used to make money. In a way, that is why we all ski because we love that adrenaline rush. The same thing goes for blogs, movies etc that shove alarmist views in your face because they know you get hooked on it which gives them more clout views and money. Alex Jones is a prime example of this. It also helps drive other agendas. For instance if you convince people the world will end in 2030 and scare the shit out of everyone unless you follow their XYZ agenda then it is an easier sell because you get people in that fear state of mind.
Here is a good article on it:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...limate-alarmism-hurts-us-all/?sh=2972be7a36d8
Are we going to see different weather patterns and more extreme weather compounded by habitat destruction and poor planning? Yeah we are, the Boulder County fire is a good example of that. Are we all going to die and civilization collapse? Probably not. Should we still work to be more environmentally friendly? Yeah.
The word climate change is sort of a misnomer. Climate always changes! I'm not really sure why climatologists and environmentalists use this term. It is too generalized and does not pinpoint the problems causing the warming of the planet, air pollution, and the acidification of regions in the ocean, such as the Great Barrier reef, which is declicing in health at a rapid pace.
Globalization is partly the cause, and while the WEF, a forum for billionaire plutocrats and corporatists, claims the impoverished are significant polluters, all science points to the very rich being the worst polluters with the highest carbon footprint.
Globalisation, in that the 1st world exploits the third world for cheap raw materials such as fire wood, is a driver of deforestation... and forests take in Co2 and produce oxygen. One acre of forest can produce enough oxygen for 18 humans per yer. Forests are filters that are being destroyed by foreign multi-national corporations and Mafiyas subsidised by criminals and corrupt politicians for commercialisation projects.
The "wars for democracy" was just another charade polluting the planet for the benefit of Israel. The military burn pits added to this pollution. You can thank Bill Kristol, David Frum and other neocons, who are now paraded on CNN (once Fox News) as heroes for their bloodlust for war. Plutocrats don't care about violence, poverty or crime. The neoliberal and neoconservative order want open borders for simplified commerce—to speculate and profit. They want a new class of prolific consumers to keep late-stage capitalism afloat. Endless growth for the sake of growth is not only needless but totally incalculable with the environment.
Of course, immigrants, legal or undocumented, are exploited tremendously by multi-national corporations, which treat them as slaves on a plantation. Very poor conditions, very low wages, which is exactly why many large farming corporations hire illegals, because they won't advocate for higher wages. In fact, the demographic change in certain farming towns due to immigration becomes a problem for corporations who want diversified migrants. The uniform ethnic makeup of farmworkers allowed them to band together and file class action lawsuits against criminals such as Jack DeCoster. DeCoster had found that a less diversified workforce as well as bringing in waves of migrants for a temporary amount of time, was a good way to keep wages low.
Clean drinking water... we don't have that for billions of people including many living in the US... the bottled water industry is a big market and polluter. Certainly the bottled water industry doesn't want to curtail clean drinking water issues enough to destroy the bottled water industry, just like they don't want to teach locals to extract essential oils from their terrier which would profit them far more than lumber and livestock and the devastating impact deforestation causes.
CEO of Cornerstone Erika Karp, a Lesbian Jewess progressive and member of the WEF, who loves the ethnostate of Israel, advocates for "social justice," holding 90 trillion in assets! Kofi Annan is a friend and we know from the Panama papers how corrupt these fake philanthropists really are about saving the environment.
All these people care about is resource consolidation, speculation, the erasure of nations for easier commerce, and clandestine in-group nepotism for insider knowledge. They all advocate for 4IR and globalisation 4.0 initiatives which instate the need for human commodity markets and data-farming. For mass movements of cheap, exploited labor/consumer goods in the service of a neoliberal economy... in the service of the WTO's goal to "maximise foreign direct investment and global economic interdependence."
If these people cared about the environment, they'd subsidise organic horticulture and local permaculture! Instead they advocate for everything to be funnelled upwards to the 1%. Politicians don't actually care about the environment and if they do, it is under the vested interest to make someone, somewhere profit.
Take for instance the Green New Deal, while certain aspects of it are good, the primarily goal is to make large corporations profit through impact/value investing. Carbon emissions are considered the greatest problem by carbon billionaires but the solutions are pretty straightforward, curtail the exploitation of immigrants and stop immigration by building up countries under sustainable initiatives so that they can better their citizens and localities. Focus on localised trade and production on a local not globalised (what is the cheapest way to do something) view. Try to curtail commuting too while creating sustainable good paying jobs locally and plant more trees!
Louis Redshaw, former power trader at Enron, self-described progressive, doesn't care about any of this. He cares about carbon capture for profit reasons. See, these fucks only care about money, about trading stock, about making money from money.
Their pretensions are in the realm of abstraction. They don't give a shit about the onerous of things like tax burden (they find loopholes) on the middle class and they simply ignore pollution, deforestation, and environmental degradation.
Look at industrial gas credits for instance. In fact, developers found this so lucrative they created these gasses just to capture and sell them, which was awarded to Chinese and Indian companies straight from utility bills of Europeans which cost a total of 6 billion.
Dan Loeb owns a 52 billion dollar yacht but wants fo control the middle-class through carbon credits.
How about instead of these industrial carbon capture schemes, which make billionaires richer, replant, say, the 350,000 hectares of rainforest lost every year to pesticide ridden soya crop. 1 hectare of forest accounts for 175 cubic tons carbon from the atmosphere each year compared to 56 tons when bioethanol replaces fossil fuel. Destroy 1 hectare of rainforest, release 200 cubic tons of carbon!
And if everything we are told about climate change is true, that it is "our fault" not "their fault," then why do they continue to do the very things that hurt the environment, why do they hold stock in fossil fuels, while proclaiming slogans about "saving the environment?"
90,000 cargo ships to facilitate global trade is totally fine, I guess. 50 million times more pollution is emitted from cargo ships than a car annually. Buy local? Guess not!
Subsidise local organic sustainable initiatives, not big agra! Subsidise for public banks in rural areas so profits go back into community!
Billionaires have made if impossible for a large swath of the middle-class to stay and live in a accordance with the Paris Accord. Why not subsidise bilateral trade agreements for medicinal herbs and natural medicine that can be harvested from the forest of impoverished nations, which reap 2400 per acre as opposed to 60 for cattle and 400 for timber.
After all, the Green New Deal was neologized by Thomas Freidman, whose very first backers were Microsoft, Google, IKEA, Coca-cola, and GM, extensive polluters who use greenwashing and pinkwashing as a way to market their products.
