Is there actually a climate crisis? Because I’ve been told that “the end is near” for over 20 years now, and it’s like the “disaster” is just around the corner.
It feels like the “crisis” is manufactured by people making money and gaining power because the end is perpetually nigh. How long is this crisis supposed to last? It seems like it’s nothing more than a totalitarian cudgel used to achieve the economic restructuring dreams of post-Soviet Marxists.
Now an article claiming rice is “bad?” A staple food for most of the world’s population. If they can convince most of the world to abandon rice, that is the foot in the door for convincing anyone anything.
We should stop actual pollution and stop with the carbon dioxide hysteria. Stopping CO2 isn’t cleaning waterways or building toilets, or eliminating toxic chemicals in the food chain. But there’s not power to be gained by fighting plebeian pollution like there is with a literal re-ordering of the energy industry and economy.
No, there is no climate "crisis". What there is is a changing climate which may - or may not, the models which are used to gauge what is going to happen are notoriously inaccurate - cause problems in certain regions of the world due to increasing drought or - in other regions - increased precipitation. Depending on where the climate will go in the coming centuries - and that is the time frame you have to think about, not the '10 years to extinction' which is often bandied around by climate alarmists - there is a possibility of sea level rise causing problems in lower-lying regions like Bangladesh and the Netherlands. Most of the problems which are likely to occur can be solved using technological means ranging from building or raising dikes (like the Netherlands has been doing for centuries), moving to more water-efficient methods of agriculture, building desalination plants to increase the amount of water available for agriculture, building storage reservoirs to collect runoff in the cold months for use in the warm months and more.
The climate "crisis" is a political stick which is being used by various groups for their own means, some of them ideological - e.g. the economic restructuring you mentioned, viz. "green new deal" - and some of them more basic ploys to gain power. Yet others are simply attempts at using the climate scare to make money.
Yes, it would be far better to concentrate on reducing actual pollution instead of chasing the CO₂ boogeyman but the movers and shakers behind the climate scare seem to have decided there is more power to be gained from whipping up the populace with tales of flooded cities and parched fields than can be achieved with the prospect of dead oceans and silent springs - probably because that has been tried before and did not manage to scare the populace into compliance with their policy schemes. While exaggerated - just like the climate scare - there is more truth to the claims of pollution being a threat to future generations than CO₂ being so. The planet has become "greener" due to the increased CO₂ level, forest cover has increased [1], agricultural yield has increased while evapotranspiration has decreased leading to higher water efficiency [2]. But... who cares when whipping up the populace gives you clicks, votes, money and power.
Comments
Is there actually a climate crisis? Because I’ve been told that “the end is near” for over 20 years now, and it’s like the “disaster” is just around the corner.
It feels like the “crisis” is manufactured by people making money and gaining power because the end is perpetually nigh. How long is this crisis supposed to last? It seems like it’s nothing more than a totalitarian cudgel used to achieve the economic restructuring dreams of post-Soviet Marxists.
Now an article claiming rice is “bad?” A staple food for most of the world’s population. If they can convince most of the world to abandon rice, that is the foot in the door for convincing anyone anything.
We should stop actual pollution and stop with the carbon dioxide hysteria. Stopping CO2 isn’t cleaning waterways or building toilets, or eliminating toxic chemicals in the food chain. But there’s not power to be gained by fighting plebeian pollution like there is with a literal re-ordering of the energy industry and economy.
No, there is no climate "crisis". What there is is a changing climate which may - or may not, the models which are used to gauge what is going to happen are notoriously inaccurate - cause problems in certain regions of the world due to increasing drought or - in other regions - increased precipitation. Depending on where the climate will go in the coming centuries - and that is the time frame you have to think about, not the '10 years to extinction' which is often bandied around by climate alarmists - there is a possibility of sea level rise causing problems in lower-lying regions like Bangladesh and the Netherlands. Most of the problems which are likely to occur can be solved using technological means ranging from building or raising dikes (like the Netherlands has been doing for centuries), moving to more water-efficient methods of agriculture, building desalination plants to increase the amount of water available for agriculture, building storage reservoirs to collect runoff in the cold months for use in the warm months and more.
The climate "crisis" is a political stick which is being used by various groups for their own means, some of them ideological - e.g. the economic restructuring you mentioned, viz. "green new deal" - and some of them more basic ploys to gain power. Yet others are simply attempts at using the climate scare to make money.
Yes, it would be far better to concentrate on reducing actual pollution instead of chasing the CO₂ boogeyman but the movers and shakers behind the climate scare seem to have decided there is more power to be gained from whipping up the populace with tales of flooded cities and parched fields than can be achieved with the prospect of dead oceans and silent springs - probably because that has been tried before and did not manage to scare the populace into compliance with their policy schemes. While exaggerated - just like the climate scare - there is more truth to the claims of pollution being a threat to future generations than CO₂ being so. The planet has become "greener" due to the increased CO₂ level, forest cover has increased [1], agricultural yield has increased while evapotranspiration has decreased leading to higher water efficiency [2]. But... who cares when whipping up the populace gives you clicks, votes, money and power.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/tree-cover...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/037837...