Climate Change

"Climate Justice" Is Largely Just A Progressive Plot Against Capitalism

|

Climate Protest
Piotr Wawrzyniuk | Dreamstime.com

And an actual injustice to the poor people of the planet. The founders of the Breakthrough Institute, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, have sent out an email introduction to a terrific new essay by Brookings Institution political scientist Christopher Foreman, "On Justice Movements: Why They Fail the Environment and the Poor." As international negotiations and domestic efforts to impose top-down limits on greenhouse gas emissions continue to fail, Shellenberger and Nordhaus point out in their email:

What rushed into the vacuum was "climate justice," a movement headed by more left-leaning groups like 350.org, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. These groups invoke the vulnerability of the poor to climate change but elide the reality that more energy makes them more resilient. "Huge swaths of the world have been developing over the last three decades at an unprecedented pace and scale," writes political scientist Christopher Foreman in "On Justice Movements," a new article (below) for The Breakthrough Journal. "Contemporary demands for climate justice have been, at best, indifferent to these rather remarkable developments and, at worst, openly hostile."

For the climate justice movement, global warming is not to be dealt with by switching to cleaner forms of energy but rather by returning to a pastoral, renewable-powered, and low-energy society. "Real climate solutions," writes Klein, "are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users…"

Climate change can only be solved by "fixing everything," says McKibben, from how we eat, travel, produce, reproduce, consume, and live."It's not an engineering problem," McKibben argued recently in Rolling Stone, "it's a greed problem." Fixing it will require a "new civilizational paradigm," says Klein, "grounded not in dominance over nature but in respect for natural cycles of renewal." 

Climate skeptics are right, Klein cheerily concludes: the Left is using climate change to advance policies they have long wanted. "In short," says [Naomi] Klein [in The Nation], "climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative."(emphasis added)

Reason readers will not be surprised that an environmental "crisis" serves largely as an excuse for attempting to impose socialist policies on the world. In any case, Klein and other Progressive would-be dismantlers of progress miss the point that identifying a problem does not tell us what to do about it. Not too surprisingly, pro-free market folks pushed back against the leftwing environmentalist agenda. As Shellenberger and Nordhaus note:

As such, global warming is our most wicked problem. The end of our world is heralded by ideologues with specific solutions already in mind: degrowth, rural living, low-energy consumption, and renewable energies that will supposedly harmonize us with Nature. The response from the Right was all-too predictable. If climate change "supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand," conservatives long ago decided, then climate change is either not happening, or is not much to worry about.

There is still some debate over the scale and severity of future man-made global warming, but free market folks can usefully counter leftwing policy prescriptions by offering insights about how property rights, markets, innovation, and wealth creation can better protect both people and the planet. Ultimately, Shellenberger and Nordhaus correctly recognize:

Now, at the very moment modern energy arrives for global poor — something a prior generation of socialists would have celebrated and, indeed, demanded — today's leading left-wing leaders advocate a return to energy penury. The loudest advocates of cheap energy for the poor are on the libertarian Right, while The Nation dresses up neo-Malthusianism as revolutionary socialism.

The whole Foreman essay is well worth reading.

Advertisement

NEXT: Cop Gets 40 Hour Suspension After Threatening Woman With a Taser

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Climate Justice” Is Largely Just A Progressive Plot Against Capitalism

    You’re shitting me!

    1. KP: I did note in the post: “Reason readers will not be surprised that an environmental “crisis” serves largely as an excuse for attempting to impose socialist policies on the world.

      1. Look, if I’m going to get the first post in, how do you expect me to actually read the article too?

        1. I’ve thought this myself as well. Does Fist get advanced copy to craft his posts before the article or links go up?

          1. That, young paduan, is one of the mysteries of aitch-amper-arrgh. Some say that Fist is actually a Reason staffer. Others say he has a Sulibani time-distortion device.

            1. Others say he has a Sulibani time-distortion device.

              So, he’s a tool?

            2. The time travel device is the simpler theory.

          2. Subspace anomaly.

            Every goddamn time.

    2. It’s very similar to how racism and sexism are used as excuses for progressive politics. And all of them exhibit the logical fallacy of “collective justice.”

      1. is it semantics or does the notion of collective justice imply no small amount of collective guilt? Good thing the left doesn’t stoop to blanket statements that tar anyone outside the protected classes.

        1. No, they have very much retreaded the notion of original sin. Pre-industrial society is their garden of eden.

          1. Exactly, its amazing how many atheists actually are just as religious as more orthodox believers, it’s just that the greens deified the planet.

            1. Why? Atheism, after all, is a religious belief in itself. To be an atheist you must firmly believe in the nonexistence of any God or Gods. This, necessarily, is a faith based belief. Atheists accept the dogmatic statement that there is no God.

              Atheism has its own orthodoxy, which it often enforces savagely.

                1. +2013?

              1. What we need is a militant fundementalist agnostic theocracy.

                1. ” militant fundamentalist agnostic”

                  Motto: “I don’t know, and you don’t either!”

              2. great noodly one not this again.

              3. Atheism, after all, is a religious belief in itself. To be an atheist you must firmly believe in the nonexistence of any God or Gods. This, necessarily, is a faith based belief. Atheists accept the dogmatic statement that there is no God.

                Seriously? When will this retarded tripe die? Atheism is not a religion. It is, by definition, a complete LACK of religion. It’s right there in the fucking word, people A (a prefix denoting a lack thereof) Theism (a belief in a religion).

                Having said that, there IS such a thing as an evangelical atheist. There certainly are atheists out there that are as preachy, if not more-so, than southern baptists.

                1. It’s right there in the fucking word, people A (a prefix denoting a lack thereof) Theism (a belief in a religion).

                  Umm….

                  You might want to brush up on your definitions there dude.

                  Atheism is the non-belief in a deity, religion is not a component of the definition.

                  And atheists most certainly can (and a great many do) exhibit dogmatic religious tendencies.

                  1. If you’re going to fall back on the etymology of the word as somehow proving atheists are not a religion just because they say they aren’t, then you must believe that liberals are laissez-faire and progressives are the movement of the future and KFC was made in Kentucky.

                2. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, it’s a duck.

                  The vast majority of self-announced atheists I have ever heard of are at least as objectionable as the average Church of Christer, and many reach the level of the Westboro Bab-tists. The “We aren’t a religion” argument is to exempt them from the restrictions they would place of others, for which a pox on them.

                  1. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying those who are not stamp collectors collect non-stamps.

              4. Translated literally, atheism means ‘no belief in god”. This is not the same as antitheism.

                1. It is as it is currently pushed in our society.

    3. Nah man, them Climate Justice Leaguers are pissing on your leg and telling you it is warm rain….

      1. Warm acid rain.

        1. Well, it IS uric acid?.

    4. My local paper reported that methane is leaking from gas wells less that previously thought, so they asked one of the 350.org guys to respond. Read this anti-human asshattery:

      “We need a dramatic shift off carbon-based fuel: coal, oil and also gas,” Bill McKibbern, the founder of 350.org, wrote in an email to The Associated Press. “Natural gas provides at best a kind of fad diet, where a dangerously overweight patient loses a few pounds and then their weight stabilizes; instead, we need at this point a crash diet, difficult to do” but needed to limit the damage from climate change.

      1. What you and I call, heating your house and being able to cook food, he calls a “fad diet”. Bill Mckibbern wants us to die ablo.

        1. If, like 350.org and their bang buddies want, we all go and live in concert with nature, with renewable energy and locally produced food and singing Kumbaya around the campfire, a whole lot of the 7 billion people on Earth are going to have to die first.

          1. they’re okay with a certain number of people dying; you know, those “other” people the overpopulation crowd has wanted dead for decades.

        2. No no no…he does not want us or even himself to stop heating our homes and cooking our food.

          he wants poor brown people either to stop heating their homes and/or never start doing it in the first place.

      2. Um, a “fad diet” is bad because weight doesn’t stabilize, it comes back.

        “Crash diet” is pretty apt, though, given that one can indeed work, but will probably also be extremely unhealthy.

        1. Actually the difference between a “fad” diet and a “crash” diet is negligible; both involve a sudden and unhealthy drop in weight that the body will fight to oppose by lowering the metabolic rate.

          Indeed, “diet” (meaning weight loss by restricting calorie intake) is almost always doomed to failure. We are, as a species, designed to get fat, if possible.

          This tells us things about the “natural world” that the enviroweenies would do well to consider.

          1. Huh?

            This is bullshit. It is very very easy to eat less.

            Just eat like half of your meal next time…then stop eating for like 5 min.

            The choice to finish your plate after that point is pretty.

            It gets even easier if you don’t load up your plate in the first place.

            1. Read up on the effect of dieting on the metabolism. I live with this; my Lady has always been overweight (for a variety of reasons). The only way to not plateau and then gain the weight back is to be more active. That’s just how our bodies work. Which, as I pointed out, tells us a great deal about the primitive hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

              Our bodies are designed to store fat against the time when there is little food. Because in nature that time WILL come again.

  2. Seriously, these people are the most evil, anti-humanity types of all. Fuck them.

    1. That’s what I always try to make a point of: progressive are by far the most misanthropic group of humans in the world outside of outright commies/socialists.

      Beneath their facade of ‘compassion’ and concern for ‘justice’ is outright contempt of human ingenuity, creativity, and anything else that rocks the boat and may create inequality or something that they otherwise can’t control.

      1. It’s slave-morality wrapped in sophistry.

        “progressive are by far the most misanthropic group of humans in the world outside of outright commies/socialists.”

        They’re all the same thing, see above.

        1. “Political tags ? such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ? are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
          –Robert A. Heinlein

      2. They really show this on the abortion debate. They don’t just talk about women’s rights. They talk about the need to eliminate the existence of unwanted children, as if it is better to be dead than have a mother who maybe would have chosen not to have you. That really is a dog whistle for “fewer brown and poor people”. And the horrible sorted history of progs, planned parenthood’s support of eugenics should eliminate them getting any benefit of the doubt.

        1. it’s why they were silent on the Philly doctor case till one of their own called them out. The left’s policies are on the record as being destructive of black and brown families. If the Klan had been serious, progressivism would have been its tactic, not fear and lynchings.

          1. I really wonder what they will do if it turns out there is a genetic predictor for being gay. Are they going to ban abortion or restrict it?

            My guess is they will happily let various nuts use abortion to erase gays off the face of the earth in return for worshiping at the alter of death.

            1. Oh, two can play that game John – I’ve often opined as how fundagelicals will do a 180 on abortion in the case of gay fetuses. This position is exactly as defensible as yours.

              1. The legitimate fundagelicals don’t abort retarded babies, nor black ones, they aren’t going to abort gay ones.

                Nor should they. It plays right into the same dynamic of people judging that others lives are not worth living, that it’s more humane to kill the tards before they are born, just because they themselves would rather not live retardedly.

                But I don’t see all the tards commiting suicide.

          2. In the 1920’s at it’s height, the Klan was largely peopled with white protestant progressives.

            And had the governor of Indiana not called them on some blackmail and discredited them, they probably would have remained a powerful progressive institution.

            1. Somehow it is forgotten that Indiana of all places was the center of Klan activity in the 1920s. It wasn’t Mississippi.

              1. According to Pravda, the Klan still controls Indiana, John.

                Who are you to question such a legitimate source as Pravda?

                1. Who are you to question such a legitimate source as Pravda?

                  I’ve been waiting for that Irish.

              2. Ouch. Don’t remind me John, that’s always been embarrassing.

              3. Richmond, Indiana specifically. It is home to Gennett Records which was one of the first record labels to record and publish Black jazz and blues music. Simultaneously, they also recorded and published Klan speeches. Capitalism makes some strange bedfellows.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennett_Records

          3. Prog policies have hurt more minorities than the KKK ever has, e.g min wage, gang warfare in democratic strongholds and of course Detroit

          4. The Klan was serious. Not bright, but serious. The “Progressives” are bright enough to couch their racism in enlightened terms, which is why they get so pissy when called on it.

        2. Yeah, I’m militantly pro-choice as everybody knows, but that always was clear BS, even to me.

          If I had a choice between being a 15 year old lifelong child abuse victim, but with the rest of my life in front of me and a shot at turning it all around and being Andrew Carnegie or Albert Einstein – or never existing at all – I know which one I would choose.

          1. I had a very interesting conversation with a fertility doctor not too long ago. We are awfully close to getting to the point of being able to pretty much let you choose your own kid. Not super man or anything. But if you want a toeheaded little brat with blue eyes, you got it. No more really short people. No more people with down’s or other disabilities and such.

            That sounds nice. But do we really want to live in a world where we have eliminated the different?

            1. Meh, eskimos have 20 words for “snow”.

              If we gengineer ourselves into the J Crew catalogue, people will still see differences. And probably overestimate them, frankly.

              1. Sure. But that won’t make it any less of a bland, lousy future.

                1. I don’t want to live in a world without short women.

                2. For just as many people who would want to engineer their children to be the same, there will be as many people who will want to engineer them to be unique.

                  1. I want my son to be a hybrid of Kobe Bryant and Jet Li. Now that is a heroic mulatto!

                    1. ahem…bi racial

                      /pc police

                    2. No, no, no…not Jet Li, Donnie Yen!

              2. People will also create differences to remain unique. Just look at baby names for example. Certain names become extremely popular because some famous person has it, it’s a novel sounding name, whatever. However, those fads fade as quickly as they come.

                So, you’ve got a shitload of kids with names like Logan born in the last few years because Wolverine is popular in culture. How many girls named Katniss are there out there. Certainly more than there were 20 years ago, but it’ll fade out of popularity quickly.

                Genetic engineered kids will be the same. You’re gonna have batches of styles. One year, it’ll be green eyes and auburn hair. The next year, you’ll see a surge of black hair and violet eyes. It’ll just be another indicator of the period in which you were born. Kinda like if a woman is named Florence or a guy is named Walter, you can guestimate that they’re probably over 50.

                1. I seriously doubt having a kid who is too short or below average intelligence will ever come into style.

                  1. I seriously doubt having a kid who is too short or below average intelligence will ever come into style.

                    Probably not, John. Maybe the short thing will, though. If we get enough super tall kids, trends my shift to shorter and shorter.

                    And despite fads in custom kids, many people will opt for just the “no downs” genetic package and leave the rest up to nature, and many will forgo genetic modification in favor of completely natural genetics. Hell, look how many people adamantly don’t want to know the gender of their baby before it’s born.

                    I’m well aware that there will be gigantic batches of kids that all have the same features, but there will still be physical differences and personality differences.

              3. Meh, eskimos have 20 words for “snow”.

                http://www.mendosa.com/snow.html

            2. Do we really want to live in a world with sickle cell anemia, Down’s Syndrome, name anyone of a billion ways the reproductive process can go wrong?

              I’ll take the chance that humanity is a little samey but brilliant and healthy over what we have now.

              1. That is a good question Agammanon. To say that you don’t is to say that every single person who has such afflictions would have been better off not being born and the world would have been better off without them.

                The problem with all of this is that there is never ends. You start with eliminating just the kids with profound disabilities. And you quickly get to eliminating anyone who doesn’t fit the current fashion.

                1. To say that you don’t is to say that every single person who has such afflictions would have been better off not being born

                  Only if amniocentesis followed by abortion of all defective fetuses is the method by which this comes about.

                  If we can gengineer things so that nobody ever has an extra chromosome, that’s entirely different.

                  To say otherwise puts you on the side of “Being a retard is a culture!” or the “Cochlear implants are like genocide for the deaf” people.

                  1. That is a good point fluffy. I do not want to buy into the insanity that is “disability is a culture”. But at the same time have a nagging feeling that in eliminating all such things before conception we are losing something and am also quite certain that it won’t end with disabilities and will quickly move to other things making existence a question of fashion.

                    1. of course, we’re losing something – it’s called risk and it is a part of life. In smaller ways, you see it with the parents hyperventilating about whether their sons should play football and a host of other things designed to make things as safe, and as antiseptic, as possible. Problem is, there is no way to legislate and regulate all risk out of all activity, not that the proggies aren’t willing to try.

                    2. “and will quickly move to other things making existence a question of fashion”

                      I have trouble seeing how that ends badly, particularly when you take into consideration the length of generational cycles.

                      I don’t think any of it predicates the rights of born individuals.

                2. “every single person who has such afflictions would have been better off not being born”

                  You’re completely discounting the desires of the parents who have to shoulder the costs.

              2. exactly,

                think of all the diseases we can nip in the bud

                1. think of all the diseases we can nip in the bud

                  Yeah that will never get out of hand. The definition of “disease” will never be abused.

                  1. like personality type.

                2. I think exactly the opposite.

                  If you want to ward off disease, the answer is diversity.

                  If you want to get utterly fucking wiped out by a single pathogen, make everyone identically ‘perfect’.

            3. So we “choose” the child we want….and you are saying having that choice will eliminate the different?

              When was the last time giving people more choice has lead to sameness?

        3. Shit, John, you had started the week off so well, but like Mr. Dick in David Copperfield you just have to interject your pet obsession into every thread.

          It’s not always the blythe, convenient decision which you portray it to be. A family which already has two children who they can barely feed faces the choice of terminating a pregnancy or slipping into true poverty. And no amount of reality-denial or pious preachment on your part can change that.

          1. Sure, Tonio.

            But that is a case of a woman making a choice about what’s best for herself.

            And I support that.

            What I find absurd is the people who try to take the rhetorical and argumentative step of saying, “Even if it’s a child, the child is better off not being born into a family where it’s not wanted.”

          2. And no amount of reality-denial or pious preachment on your part can change that.

            And if we killed one of the kids they have now, they would probably do even better right? No amount of reality-denial on your part changes the fact that you are telling me the solution to poor kids is to make sure they are killed in the womb.

            1. Except we’re not talking about killing actual children (those already born), we are talking about killing zygotes, blastocysts and fetuses. You may not see a difference between a six-month old infant and a zygote, but many of the rest of us do.

              1. No we are not just talking about zygotes. We are talking about beings that have arms, legs, hearts and brains, that feel pain and are pulled partially out of womb to have their brains bashed in.

                We also talk about abortion like it is some little collection of a hundred cells that gets flushed. And yeah, it can be that. But usually it is not. Most of the time it is a horrible, disgusting procedure that involves a living being being pulled out of the woman and having its brains sucked out.

                Pro choice or pro life, that is how abortion works. An I really wish that people would talk about it as such instead of pretending that we are talking about a zygote, because we really are not or at the most rarely are, unless you are willing to ban all abortions after a few weeks. And I doubt you are willing to support that.

                1. We also talk about abortion like it is some little collection of a hundred cells that gets flushed. And yeah, it can be that. But usually it is not. Most of the time it is a horrible, disgusting procedure that involves a living being being pulled out of the woman and having its brains sucked out.

                  Except that’s wrong John. About 90% of abortions are in the first trimester, when the fetus is nonexistent or has just started to develop.

          3. And speaking of reality denying pious bullshit, that would pretty much describe every argument that life doesn’t begin until birth. The science tells you that fetus have the same DNA as you and I. They can hear and react to sound and start to learn language as early as 28 weeks. They react to pain in something like 12 weeks. Those are all pretty convincing evidence that is a person there.

            Meanwhile the pro choose side gives us horseshit philosophizing about “personhood” whatever the fuck that means. It think it is something that occurs when a given number of angels dance on the head of a pin.

            1. “every argument that life doesn’t begin until birth”

              I’m not sure it’s really an argument about “life” but rather an argument about “individual”. It’s the physical umbilical cord that matters to some, regardless of the total dependence that remains post birth, particularly as that total dependence is not bound to any one individual.

              This is why the non-viability of early fetuses makes for such an attractive bright line for most.

              1. MP,

                Someone in a coma is nonviable too. Are they not individuals then? Especially if we knew they were very likely to come out of the coma in less than 9 months?

                No matter what characteristic you pick to be essential to be an “individual” deserving of rights, I can name you some person out there that doesn’t have that capacity yet is still an individual deserving of rights.

                1. The fundamental difference remains the dependency on exclusively one individual. That is in my view what defines “viability”. Once that connection can be successfully broken, then “viability” has been established.

            2. John, I have never, NEVER argued that those organisms were not alive. Challenge you to find one instance where I did. What I have done is stated that an organism without a brainwave is fungible regardless of its genotype.

              You have, IIRC, never drawn a distinction between the morality of killing a zygote and the morality of killing a fetus at eight months. Here is yet another opportunity for you to do so, but I suspect you won’t as that scotches your whole emotional, reality-free argument.

              And just because I use some of the same arguments as are used by others who you don’t like doesn’t invalidate those arguments. That you resort to an ad-hom tells me you got nuthin’.

            3. The science tells you that fetus have the same DNA as you and I.

              Yes. So what? Are you saying that an unimplanted zygote is a human being?

              “Same DNA” is just magic words. Once again, do you have any principled justification for your view, or just magic words?

              They can hear and react to sound… [t]hey react to pain in something like 12 weeks.

              So can lots of organisms, even those with different genotypes than us.

              and start to learn language as early as 28 weeks.

              OK, this is a very recent discovery, and based on my limited reading they are not “learning” language, IOW, they can’t produce language (big difference), but they can recognize patterns in language. So can dogs.

          4. A family which already has two children who they can barely feed faces the choice of terminating a pregnancy or slipping into true poverty.

            tough predicament, no doubt. And yet, no one ever wants to notice that preventing that pregnancy from occuring in the first place has been within our grasp forever.

            I would hope such a family considers adoption if it has a moral issue with abortion. But it gets a bit tedious when ‘poor’ is equated with ‘stupid’ or some other euphemism for not being sharp enough to know anything about birth control.

            1. And yet, no one ever wants to notice that preventing that pregnancy from occuring in the first place has been within our grasp forever.

              I’m acknowledge that. But shit happens. We’re not dealing with ideal, perfect emotion-free creatures; we’re dealing with manifestly imperfect humans who often make bad decisions and then face even worse choices.

              And there is a correlation between poor and stupid, but pregnancy-avoidance is not rocket science. This is more about impulse control than anything else.

      3. They are, at best, just another Self Selected Elite, demanding that we the commoners do what they tell us to because of their moral superiority. Just like the Aristocrats, the Plantation Aristocracy, the Social Darwinists, and so forth.

        In short; ambulatory arguments for the revival of the guillotine.

  3. Who wants to take a guess about how many of these assholes think vaccines are a scheme by Big Pharma to give children autism?

    1. The anti-vaxxers are merely a class of useful idiots to them.

      I once questioned WI on who would make the smallpox vaccine in the post-gambolpocalypse world. His response was that technology didn’t have a monopoly on medicine. IOW, nobody will make the vaccine, nobody will be vaccinated, and if that means that humanity dies down to the few thousand individuals with smallpox immunity that’s fine with them.

  4. Ron,

    Anyone who was naive enough to have any doubts about this, should have had those doubts dispelled when the greens came out against Fracking. The US, thanks to fracking and partially to Obama’s war on the productive, actually achieved the Keyoto goals for it. Yet, the Greens still hate fracking, despite the fact that it is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions. You know CO2 and AGW, that problem the Greens claim is the most pressing and important problem mankind has ever faced.

      1. True dat, Ron, but so what? And I mean that in the sense that even if you get them to admit that (and good luck with that), they’ll find a way to weasel out.

        They won’t be happy until we’re all free to gambol in the unvaccinated eden of their dreams.

        1. Tonio, stop using that word. You are getting filtered out.

      2. the herd of independent minds that constitutes the environmentalist community

        Pure poetry, Ron. Nicely done!

      3. I remember that one. And they loved fracking right up to the point that it looked like it might actually work and make a real difference.

    1. Obama’s energy policy is “all of the above” including fracking and nuclear power (see Georgia Power and Plant Vogtle.

      The energy markets are the healthiest they have been for decades.

      I know, Fox News tells you something else.

      1. Fuck off, cockpuppet. I know you won’t go away until Obama gets off though. Until then you’ll continue to slap the keyboard in time with Dear Leader’s thrusts.

      2. That Obama cock won’t suck itself!

        1. You two should get together.

          1. We wouldn’t want to intrude on the two of you, OB.

          2. Weak rejoinder. 2/10. Needs more christfag.

      3. PB:And yet this.

        BTW, do you see the word “Obama” anywhere in my blogpost?

        1. PB sees lots of things that the rest of us don’t.

          1. And voices, don’t forget the voices.

          2. Yes, he does. Such as Obama’s ardent support for the second amendment. It is difficult to type that sentence without laughing.

            If anyone ever doubted that he is a lying partisan shill that statement alone should lay to rest their doubt.

        2. I have to wonder, Ron…you’re a pretty respectable journalist…do you ever sit back and question how life led you to end up talking to people with self-selected internet handles like “Palin’s Buttplug”?

          1. I laughed. A lot.

          2. ^^^ Hahahahaha.

          3. + an extremely large number.

          4. I always kind of assumed that ‘humorous” handles like that were made up in a fit of “cleverness”, and then stayed through inertia.

            And, of course, the failure mode of “clever” is “@sshole”

        3. Don’t be jealous that you’re not as libertarian as Shreek and Obama are.

          1. Look you extremist, Shrike is a libertarian, he just doesn’t quite pass the purity test. Kinda like Stalin.

            I’ll give him some credit, though. He has lifted my opinion of Bill Clinton somewhat. Or at least, lifted my opinion of the Clinton government (complete with it’s obstructionist Republican congress).

        4. I was replying to John who brings Obama myth into every post of his. See –

          Obama’s war on the productive

          Like most of his obsession it sounds like gibberish.

        5. He can only perceive two colors: red and blue.

        6. Don’t feed the troll Ron.

      4. Hey buttplug. Did you hear that GWB’s approval rating is the same as your lord and savior’s?

        Have you found a way to rationalize that yet?

        1. Did you hear that GWB’s approval rating is the same as your lord and savior’s?

          shut up……his head will pop like in Scanners.

          1. shut up……his head will pop like in Scanners.

            And that would be bad…how?

            1. Somebody….his mom probably will spend all night cleaning blood and brains off the basement walls and ceiling.

        2. Too bad it was a result of GWB’s approval rising, rather than OButthurt’s falling.

      5. What has Obama done to explicitly support Nuclear power?

      6. Obama’s energy policy is “all of the above” including fracking and nuclear power

        he has also said if you burn coal for power you will go broke, he has delayed the oil pipline to Canada and he illegally shut down all offshore drilling.

        His words have not matched his other words nor his actions.

    2. Hell, those of us who are old enough remember when the greens were absolutely mad for hydroelectric power. Then Jimmy carter got elected and actually threatened to build some. That is when I realized that the true definition of “alternative energy” was any means of generating power that is in no danger of becoming practical.

  5. Its always interesting to observe the reactions of eco simpletons when presented with the FACT that the state is, by far, the biggest polluter.

    1. I remember as a kid the oil tanker that would drive down the dirt roads, spraying them with oil to keep the dust down.

      Meanwhile if someone is caught spilling a couple drops while changing the oil in their car, the EPA is up their ass like a sherry enema.

      1. It is remarkable that one person could know so much about both EPA regulations and sherry enemas. I didn’t even know sherry enemas were a thing.

        1. Great for cooking too.

          1. Great for cooking too.

            No way. Newburg is nasty. Give me a sause made with Marsala or Verdicchio (Vermouth), even Port, but you can keep the sherry. Or give it to Zeb for an enema.

            1. I only do Champagne enemas. It stings a bit, but the sound coming back out is priceless.

              1. This brings to mind an internet video I saw back in the late 90’s, well before Two Girls, One Cup.

                1. Tubgirl?

                  1. I don’t think it had a name like that, and I don’t think it was a big meme that made the rounds. But it involved champagne, colons, and drinking.

              2. I only do Champagne enemas. It stings a bit, but the sound coming back out is priceless.

                I laughed.

          2. Great for cooking too.

            Not after I hope?

        2. I believe it was this story here.

          http://www.reuters.com/article…..8520071004

          I distinctly remember being in the car searching for a cup of coffee for the wife when the story came on the radio. As badly as she wanted the coffee, she stayed in the car until the story was over. It was one of those “truth is stranger than fiction” kind of things you can’t tear yourself away from.

          1. That’s really something. Addicted to alcohol and enemas. I still have to wonder, of all the alcohol containing products to put up your ass, why sherry? Actually, on second thought, I don’t want to know.

        3. I didn’t even know sherry enemas were a thing.

          I’m assuming it’s a reference to butt chugging sherry, but I’d never heard the term before either. Amazing what one can learn from H&R.

        4. With friends like us Zeb who needs an enema?

      2. You can learn a lot here if you pay attention, Zeb.

        1. And “sherry enema” is just a fancy term for it. Most of us just call it “butt-chugging.”

          1. Oh, sure, butt-chugging (I had the pleasure of introducing someone to that concept recently). It was the specific use of sherry that caught my attention mostly.

      3. up their ass like a sherry enema

        This is why we can’t have nice things!

    2. “But that’s different,” LM. When the government does it, it’s a carefully deliberated decision vetted by the Top Men for the good of all. When anyone else does it it’s just greed.

      1. It’s “different” when the greenies do it to, Tonio. I know I’ve gone off on it before, but The Climate Reality Project’s “scientific expedition” to Antarctica was a well disguised money grab that only had a few (out of over 150 guests) scientists.

        They chartered a boat that pumped out more CO2 in the short time they were “exploring” than everyone who’s commented on this article will in their entire life time.

        But it’s ok, they bought carbon offsets…

        1. I perfer the old term indulgences. The old ways have their place.

      2. Yep, it’s the profit motive that makes it TEH EVUL.

    3. Or, at the least, that it enables people to pollute. Progressives can praise public infrastructure and decry the US for being huge consumers of oil in the same breath without realizing the connection. I love how they’re supposedly the “intelligent” and “creative” party and they can’t even make a simple intuitive leap.

      1. Hard stances on abortion are like an acid test for partisanship. Just ask them to justify their position, sit back, and enjoy seeing the onslaught rationalizing, blinders, and confirmation bias.

        1. Shit! Wrong post.

  6. And to think we used to laugh at WI as an outlier; not that POV is becoming mainstream.

    1. now that POV is becoming mainstream. Stupid fingers.

    2. Oh it has been out there Tonio. WI wasn’t saying anything new or anything the greens didn’t say privately. Remember the guy who bragged about “rooting for the hurricanes”?

      1. Yeah, but the eco-nut community used to try to keep these people away from the microphones.

        That’s a good point. I wonder if they were ever seriously for fracking, or whether that was just shit they said.

        1. Shit they said. I think they honestly thought it would never amount to much. So it was a great way to camouflage their hate of cheap energy. When I worked in the oil and gas industry in the mid 1990s most people thought the natural gas supply was going to run out before oil did. I knew people who thought it was completely stupid to heat homes with it or generate power with it because it was limited in supply and was needed for a lot of industrial uses because it burns so clean. That was before fracking.

  7. “Climate Justice” Is Largely Just A Progressive Plot Against Capitalism

    No, next you’re going to tell me that progressives just accuse dissenters of racism to stifle dissent.

    1. or hating poor people and children…HATE!!!

  8. From the essay:

    Even as the pace of development and modernization has accelerated in the developing world, billions have been left behind.

    I realize it’s an obligatory condolence for writers, and not really the point of Foreman’s piece, but the canard at the heart of sentiments like this sounds a little like complaining that the passenger and sleeper cars are still technically in the station while the engine and dining cars pull away. Resource acquisition isn’t a tug-of-war between peoples, it’s more of a tractor-pull (to illustrate with an ever worse metaphor). Scarcity, famines, mass starvation, and undercapitalized economies are what we’re pulling against, not one-another.

    1. It also seems to suggest that there is one chance to get on the development train, or you’ll be left behind. I don’t think that’s how it works.

      1. Exactly. It’s more like… a long, endless caravan, and, like… the bigger it is, the more niches developing peoples can find in which to attach themselves to the greater body economic. And there are camels and elephants and but articulated lorries and tractors pulling sledges, and the whole thing takes place on the back of a giant tortoise forever marshaling onward.

        I think I’ve captured it.

        1. Yes, much better metaphor.

        2. Still makes more sense than a Tom Friedman metaphor.

          (and yes, good nit to pick)

  9. so they want us to go back to “a drought could mean a lot of people starve to death”.

    We should thank the proglodytes for telling us what they REALLY believe.

    1. WI was very clear that there would be a die-off. Somehow, he believed that people would simply go gently instead of forming into bands competing for ever-scarcer resources and governed by less-than-democratic principles.

      1. Mother gaia only has so much carrying capacity Tonio.

    2. so they want us to go back to “a drought could mean a lot of people starve to death”.

      Yep. Especially when you add on the trade restrictions and price controls that these people favor, they would block the market bringing food to a place that is having a drought so as to save the starving people from some corporation making an unfair profit off of them.

      1. Well, it’s much better to wait until people are starving to death and then send in food aid so you can totally destroy what’s left of the local economy. I’m not sure why, but I’m assured it is better.

      2. That’s just what a localvore bigot like you would say.

    3. ‘Probably…so what? People are the causes of all the problems; we have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.’

      Dr Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defence Fund when asked if people might die as a result of the DDT ban

      1. people like him should be the first ones to go

        1. Isn’t the most tragic DDT banning episode how in Sri Lanka, malaria deaths dropped to like less than 25 a year or something and then shot back to near genocidal levels after the ban? I remember Sri Lanka because I think it was the most dramatic case. I wish I could find the info.

  10. “In short,” says [Naomi] Klein [in The Nation], “climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.”

    I am glad they admit it openly. But then, they have been doing so from the beginning.

    “What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats”

    Margaret Mead, opening speech at the 1975 climate conference

    Ron, I hope you have given up your warmista ways.

    1. Well, it all blows like a supercharger, so there’s that.

    2. God Mead was awful. It has been established that all of her work with the islanders was complete crap. It was basically her being trolled by a group of teenage girls telling the silly white woman what she wanted to hear.

    3. “What we need from scientists are estimates….

      Yeah cuz the “estimates” we’ve received from sages like Paul Erlich have been so spot on!

      Fuck off Naomi!

      1. Its sad when I think about all the prosperity and the wealth we could have created had the envirocult never gone mainstream. Then again it plays into a larger assumption of mine, that 1960-1980 were probably the dumbest fucking decades in western history. Virtually ALL the bad ideas from green mysticism to the nanny state comes from people who were “rebels” during this period and now they are the establishment.

        1. I think we could have been building bases on the moon and mars 5000 years ago if it werent for statists, mystics, superstionists, warlords, and control freaks of various stripes. Of late the progressives are the foremost opponents of human happiness and accomplishment.

          All of human progress has been in spite of them.

  11. This man raided a company, merged it with his conglomerate, and fired all the employees. Get away from the bars you.

  12. “In short,” says [Naomi] Klein [in The Nation], “climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.”

    Just like the good ol’ days of the Progressive Era where forced sterilization and eugenics was all the rage among the edu-ma-cated elite.

  13. “I know, Fox News tells you something else.”

    -.-

    Ya know, one of these days I want to get the whole Reason commentariat together…..on a boat.

    1. …..powered by a coal-steam engine.

  14. The word “justice” means something so entirely different to progressives than it does to me, and I just can’t wrap my head around it.

  15. Climate skeptics are right, Klein cheerily concludes: the Left is using climate change to advance policies they have long wanted

    Yep, it’s long been obvious that the ‘problem’ of climate change was pre-packaged with a solution that too closely mirrors the Progressive wish list. And yes, I think that’s where most of the conservative skepticism towards the science was rooted. However, you can believe that AGM is a real phenomenon and still completely reject carbon rationing schemes and the like. Human ingenuity is the way out, not more human rule-making.

    1. Pollution is a much more acknowledged and addressable problem. I believe in the next 10 years we will see Diesel and NG cars and trucks dominate the market.

      1. I believe in the next 10 years we will see Diesel and NG cars and trucks dominate the market.

        Crude oil is a soup of hydrocarbons of different molecular weights. Refining is the process where the different hydrocarbons are sorted by molecular weight. One of the byproducts of refining is gasoline (C5H12 to C8H18). Diesel is a product of the carbon – hydrogen chains C9H20 to C16H34. So what are you going to do with the gasoline? Throw it out?

        1. Meh, just burn it.

          1. Burning it releases soot into the air. Just poor it into the river and let nature take care of it.

    2. Sure you can. But no one on the AGW side is going to listen to you. That is what Bjorn Lomberg does. And the Greens hate him more than they do the skeptics.

      The problem is any effort to deal with AGW is going to be immediately co-opted into a scheme to fit leftist ends. The leftists don’t care about AGW. So they will happily adopt schemes in the name of AGW that do nothing to prevent it as long as those schemes push the leftist agenda. So really there is no way to make any kind of reasonable accommodation with them. So anyone who tries to compromise or “do something about AGW” is on a fool’s errand.

      1. Well considering they have one solution to all problems, any problem -real or imagined- gives them a chance to advance their cause.

    3. Human ingenuity is the way out, not more human rule-making.

      In fact human rule-making tends to stifle ingenuity more than anything else. So thile they’re making their phony baloney rules that will accomplish absolutely nothing, they simultaneously stifle any chance for any real solution. And then when they’re rules fail, they just make more rules, because obviously we’re just one more big climate bill or international climate treaty away from achieving utopia. They’re some of the most retarded people on Earth, yet they regard themselves as the educated, elightened elites.

    4. b: “you can believe that AGW is a real phenomenon and still completely reject carbon rationing schemes…” Well, yes.

      1. There is no global warming Ron. There isnt.

  16. Climate change can only be solved by “fixing everything,” says McKibben, from how we eat, travel, produce, reproduce, consume, and live.”It’s not an engineering problem,” McKibben argued recently in Rolling Stone, “it’s a greed problem.” Fixing it will require a “new civilizational paradigm,” says Klein, “grounded not in dominance over nature but in respect for natural cycles of renewal.”

    That worked out really well in Cambodia.

    1. And that is exactly the world these people want. Listen to them talk about the load carrying capacity of the earth and over population and unsustainable lifestyles. Clear out the cities and get everyone living on small sustainable agricultural cooperatives with international trade, communication and travel restricted to the chosen elite. If you take them at their word, the Greens are absolutely terrifying people.

      1. Paradise flows the barrel of a gun and the butt of a whip to the head, donchaknow?

    2. I simply don’t understand how people can hear someone say something like that and think that it is a sensible course to follow. There is no fucking way that all of those things are going to happen. Even if it was the only way to preserve life on Earth, it’s not going to happen. No one has ever even been able to do that in a small country, let alone the whole world. Even if you could convince all Europeans and Americans and other rich people to go along with all that, the rest of the world will continue to happily buy all the fossil fuels they can get their hands on. But these fuckers would rather try to control everything than accept that some people might need to move inland at some point.

      1. But Zeb, you have the Right People? in charge this time. They only have our best interests at heart.

        This time, they’ll do a much better job of hiding the bodies. Pro tip: Check the mulch bin.

        1. Soylent Green, dealing with the issue by recycling. It’s a twofer.

      2. I think it is because they have managed to make so many people so ignorant. There is a sizable number of people in this country who have no idea how big our civilization is and what an enormous task it is to provide our standard of living. They really think that they could go out and have a local cooperative farm and some solar panels and live like they do today. The only reason we have all of these power plants and corporate farms and because the evil corporations control the government and keep people from doing the right thing. Many people really are that stupid. I have met them.

        Think of it this way Zeb. The President of the United States honestly believes that subsidizing solar and wind power is a way to turn the economy around and is by all accounts totally flummoxed by the fact it hasn’t worked. Think about that for a minute.

        1. Renewable energy isn’t quite the boon doggle that it’s often portrayed as. Indeed, the US wind power plant build out is probably a large, long term net positive.

          That being said, most Greens fail to understand that solar and wind both are intermittent sources and the cost of ‘storing’ power from them is uneconomical. They fail to realize or even admit that the cost of most storage plans exceeds the replacement cost of the power. Ergo, it’s cheaper to generate electricity via natural gas than it is to store renewable power, even if the renewable power were free.

          So optimally, solar power will be used to reduce air conditioning loads and wind will be used up to around 20% of the power supply. That’s the point at which most studies conclude you have to start building dedicate power storage facilities and the cost becomes prohibitive.

        2. “There is a sizable number of people in this country who have no idea how big our civilization is and what an enormous task it is to provide our standard of living.”

          I love telling greenies ” I personally have cleared tens of thousands of acres of forest, here, and in the amazon”

          Invariably they look at me in horror and ask “Why???”

          “So that you can sit comfortably in your air conditioned house and watch Dancing with the Stars.”

          I usually add something different every time…cars, hospitals, food, baby incubators, etc etc.

          Watching them get red faced and tie themselves into knots trying to answer that is so much fun.

    3. McKibben argued recently in Rolling Stone, “it’s a greed problem.” Fixing it will require a “new civilizational paradigm,”

      So says the man living like landed gentry on his Vermont estate. I’ll start listening to “Chiclet Teeth” when he starts walking the walk.

      Until then “Fuck off Slaver”!

  17. Sure, the socialists only want to co-opt environmentalism to serve their anti-American goals. That doesn’t mean the so-called “malthusian” world-view is wrong. Nor does it mean that, even if we don’t run out of hydrocarbon-based energy, it won’t hurt the planet. This is still a problem that needs a solution.

    1. Re: American,

      That doesn’t mean the so-called “malthusian” world-view is wrong.

      No, of course not. Sound economics already shows the depth of the Neo-malthusians’ mistake.

      Nor does it mean that, even if we don’t run out of hydrocarbon-based energy, it won’t hurt the planet.

      The planet is not a being, you neo-pagan.

      This is still a problem that needs a solution.

      Whose problem is it? Yours? You can move to Mars if you want.

      1. there was also global warming on mars (Martial warming?)

        1. And on all of the bodies in the solar system…but no way does it have anything to do with the sun. It is because I drive my jeep too much.

          1. The surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury, despite Venus being father from the Sun. The reason is Venus’ atmosphere, which is almost entirely composed of C02.

        2. Mars was likely warmer in the past because it had a thicker, CO2 rich atmosphere than it does now. The climate history on Mars is evidence of the role that CO2 and other greenhouse gases play in climate.

          1. And just to be clear, I’m not trying to deny the role that the Sun plays in influencing the temperate of this or any other planet. I’m just trying to point out that other factors do matter, especially when it comes to temperature differences (either historically on the same planet or between planets).

    2. “That doesn’t mean the so-called “malthusian” world-view is wrong.”

      How often does the predicted “end” not happen before it becomes obvious that the “end” isn’t going to happen as predicted?

    3. We already know it’s wrong, because it requires population to grow exponentially forever.

      There are no large populations in technologically advanced areas that have sustained exponential growth for more than two or three transitional rural-to-urban generations. None.

      Every major urban population in the world no longer reproduces at replacement rates.

      This is a problem that time will solve most expeditiously even if we do nothing at all.

    4. A: Malthus and his disciples are wrong. As for running out hydrocarbons, take a look at Charles Mann’s latest article, “What If We Never Run Out of Oil?” over at The Atlantic.

      Admittedly since climate change is occurring in an open access commons it could become a significant problem. Encouraging the production of more wealth and improved technologies will help people cope with whatever increased heat there may be in the future.

      1. I will make the prediction that mankind will NEVER run out of oil.
        It will continue to increase in price and the applications will migrate to the highest and best use and the cost drives out waste and allows competition.
        But oil in large amounts will remain in the ground.

  18. OT. I had a doctor’s appointment this morning. And I am sitting in the waiting room looking at the magazines. There was not a single weekly news magazine available. It looks like Time and Newsweek can’t even sell to doctors’ offices anymore. I was left wondering, if not doctors’ offices, who is buying them? Does anyone?

  19. From the essay:

    “Naidoo instead imagines a future in which climate change and global poverty might be tackled through a win-win deployment of low-carbon renewable energy that avoids emissions, meets the growing energy needs of the developing world, and lifts the poor out of poverty all at once.”

    But with the exception of nuclear, and *maybe* concentrated solar, none of the existing low-carbon renewables can generate anywhere near the energy needed to provide 1.3 billion people in poverty with an industrialized western living standard, unless you want to turn country-sized regions into power plants. And even then…

    1. But with the exception of nuclear, and *maybe* concentrated solar, none of the existing low-carbon renewables can generate anywhere near the energy needed to provide 1.3 billion people in poverty with an industrialized western living standard,

      It is almost like the Greens view that as a feature.

      1. They absolutely view it as a feature. I live in Montreal and pick up NPR out of Burlington. The progressives in Vermont hate coal, of course. The don’t want oil and are fighting like hell to prevent a pipeline from carrying tar sands oil through Vermont. They banned fracking. And they want to shut down the Yankee Nuclear plant. So of course, they must be in favor of wind and solar, right? Hell no. They are close to getting new rules in place that will make it harder to build wind farms, I presume because it will ruin the view of the mountains.

        The mountains are beautiful, but that isn’t the real point. The real point is that they want to actively lower living standards. They don’t want the poor to become rich, they want the rich to become poor.

        1. As I said above, the Greens are absolutely terrifying people. They are part of a modern day millennial cult and many of them are down right evil.

          1. Somewhat OT, I’m sure many of you have read Rothbard, ever read when he talks about millennialism as the theological/ideological DNA of the tyrannical lefties? It’s fucking unreal how the greens fit this to a T.

    2. “Naidoo instead imagines a future in which climate change and global poverty might be tackled through a win-win deployment of low-carbon renewable energy that avoids emissions, meets the growing energy needs of the developing world, and lifts the poor out of poverty all at once.”

      I imagine a long date with Katy Perry and she’s paying!

    3. “….with the exception of nuclear, and *maybe* concentrated solar, none of the existing low-carbon renewables can generate anywhere near the energy needed to provide 1.3 billion people in poverty with an industrialized western living standard…”

      You forgot about unicorn farts.

  20. The good thing is that, like the battle with the Islamists (and like the battle with the Bolsheviks before) all we have to do to win this one is stall.

    Us “Denialists” just gotta keep these fuckers in the clinches for a few more years, maybe 15-20, and the rural India and sub-Saharan Africa will follow China and Chile and Brazil out of the poverty trap, and it will be too late.

    There will be nothing they can do.

    And as soon as they realize they’ve lost, they will scatter to try to find the next ideological fashion that will give them another shot at it.

    And how hard is it to keep Naomi Motherfucking Klein from taking over the world? She probably couldn’t find her fucking car in the mall parking lot without a team of assistants. Are you telling me we can’t stall mental defectives like this for 20 more years?

  21. “For the climate justice movement, global warming is not to be dealt with by switching to cleaner forms of energy but rather by returning to a pastoral, renewable-powered, and low-energy society.”

    This sounds so preposterous that many leftists will counter (often as a knee-jerk reaction) that it is nothing more than crass defamation or simply engaging in creating strawmen arguments.

    And yet plenty of very serious members of the enviromental intelligentsia provide more than ample evidence of this way of thinking, so much that it becomes much more difficult to dismiss the criticism stemming from these ideas as mere propaganda. Case in point: A well-regarded naturalist like David Attemborough calling people “a plage”. Or Naomi Klein, who pretty much says the same thing as quoted above: “Real climate solutions[…] are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level.”

    So when will people on the left be honest enough to at least acknowledge that some inside their ranks harbor these wooly thoughts? Or be even MORE honest, come clean and admit that they agreed with them all along?

  22. Any movement named “_______-Justice” is simple another way of saying “We know better than you, do what we say, dammit!”

    A pox on all of them.

  23. “Real climate solutions,” writes Klein, “are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, … through … transit systems genuinely accountable to their users?”

    I’m guessing they don’t mean PRIVATE solutions where the owner cares deeply about pleasing the customers because that maximizes profits … prolly means “let’s get Teh Right (aka “Left”) People in Power.

  24. I have been telling people this for years.

    The give-away is the opposition to nuclear power. If environmental activists were only interested in preventing carbon emissions, they would be loudly advocating an immediate and wholesale shift to nuclear.
    But they are not. They want us to “change our lifestyles” by which they mean a massive economic and political restructuring of society along socialist lines. An agenda much of which will do absolutely nothing about climate change.

    1. ^THIS!

      Again, this is something I’ve ranted about on here as well, but if they even had the slightest interest in actual sustainable, non-polluting, cheap energy… We’d have LFT reactors replacing every coal and standard nuke plant in the country.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..um_reactor

      1. They don’t want “cheap energy” because “cheap enery” leads to heavy industry which leads to cheap products and high tech and big cities, all of which they hate.

        They WANT energy to be expensive, since only that will force us back into a pastoral agrarian lifestyle.

        1. What made up creatures are you talking about?

          If liberals want us to live pastoral lifestyles, why do they congregate in cities? (Cities being, on balance, more environmentally friendly than more spread-out population densities.)

    2. The give-away is the opposition to nuclear power.

      Agreed!

    3. As has been explained to you a hundred times, people concerned about climate change are not opposed to nuclear if it’s the only alternative to fossil fuels. You’re living in the 1970s dude. As has also been explained to you a hundred times, nuclear energy cannot and will never exist in a free market economy. It is (for good reason) very heavily regulated and allowed to exist only with the government handout of limited liability.

      Rather than being an indictment of the left, nuclear is what makes you a big fat hypocrite on government control as well as an industry-specific ideologue.

      1. You fucking liar:

        http://www.greenpeace.org/inte…..s/nuclear/

  25. It is still just a theory anyway. We cannot prove that global warming is human caused any more than we can prove that this is just a giant earthly cycle. There is evidence for both depending on interpretation. Humanity has not been brianwashed so easily on other subjects.
    Logic and scince have lost this debate to political will and manipulation.
    Also, were it not for natural gas, world wide fertilizer production would not have allowed the growth and feeding of masses of poor people. The left has to make up their mind. Do they want to stop the world from warming or do they want to kill millions of people?

    1. Not to tar all leftists with the same brush, but many of them do, indeed, want to kill millions, or even billions of people.

  26. Fixing it will require a “new civilizational paradigm,” says Klein, “grounded not in dominance over nature but in respect for natural cycles of renewal.”

    Speaking of natural cycles of renewal, isn’t it about time she self-composted?

    1. isn’t it about time she self-composted

      Only if the Universe were truly just…

  27. That Klein article was really something. Not to belabor that points I made above, but the specific polices she is advocating would almost certainly cause (probably violent) social unrest, possibly devolving into all out civil war, the jailing of dissidents, forced shortages to the points of famine…the list goes on and on. The world she wants to create is one in which people act counter to their own best interests, meaning they will have to be drug kicking and screaming into her ideal future. That isn’t selfishness or hyperindividualism, its survival. The only way to combat it is to create an even bigger threat to survival by not going along.

    And this isn’t just armchair prophetics, its history. The policies she supports were responsible for the deaths of millions during the 20th century and the suffering of millions more. Bloviate all you want about the horrors of income inequality and the fact that some people can afford 20 cars while others can only afford one. As far as I’m aware a truly liberty-loving society never engaged in genocide and liquidation.

    The truly scary part is that I can’t tell if she is that woefully ignorant or that horrifyingly aware.

  28. conservatives long ago decided, then climate change is either not happening, or is not much to worry about.

    One does not have to be a “conservative” to oppose the left and its agenda.

    Once again we are force fed the lie that everything not politically left is conservative.

    Shellenberger and Nordhaus can go fuck themselves.

  29. “”But what is to be done about an emerging future where the lion’s share of damages to vulnerable populations in the developing world is due to emissions from the developing world?””

    [DERP}well the white people and teh corporashuns deserve it and we know when they all die the poors and teh browns will make the planet a big kumbaya and renewable and sustainable [/DERP}

  30. Maybe it’s possible that liberals are not only right about scientific facts but also right about social policy.

  31. Why even bother, environmental extremisim has always been anything but rational.

  32. Since the left has now essentially become 18th century conservatives, can we have the word liberal back?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.