I see a return to feudalism and autocracy as frankly the more
desired outcome considering the mess we are in now. The human race
have survived for thousands of years under that system before
i don't see why we won't be doing it again.
As humans and as social animals we live under the thumb of one
person or the other, that has always been how social dynamics have
always worked. Either we are the wolf or we are the sheep, removing
the "corporatocracy" in the end is only the equivalent of
removing a cancerous growth, it would still grow in another
form even in the ideal world of the Venus Project.
We are nothing more than fleas on this ball of water called
Earth, life would still continue even if the world warms up
another 5 or 10 degrees. But the slight movement of a few
degrees in either direction would cause devastating effects
for humans, especially when the system is already at its
maximum with our population numbers.
Global warming isn't just a blanket increase of global
temperature, it is a disruption of what we consider to be the
natural cycle of global phenomenons. It means longer dry periods
and heavier monsoons. It means more severe droughts and floods. It
means a severe disruption of the food chain that keeps 7 billion
people fed and clothed. Even a minor disruption of a few weeks
could cause the death of millions.
Complain all you want about our political system, we are still
considered the richer minority of the world population, we can
still continue to buy food from countries who would let their
poor die so that their leadership could enrich themselves. But by
the time we start feeling the squeeze, there would be
no turning back and no reset button.
This derailing of the efforts to control global warming
as another attempt of "elites" to cheat money is a
distraction with potential horrific consequences. It is
written by people who has never done a decent day of hard
work and live as the most comfortable 5% of the human race, who
consume more resources on average than anyone of us outside of the
USA.
The global elites as you call them requires business as usual in
order to maintain their dominance while part of the efforts to stop
global warming is an attempt to reduce consumption. Why in the
world do you think America has been so against the Kyoto
Protocols?
This constant barrage of global warming denials, if one simply
use common sense would benefit the "global elites" far more.
In their attempts to fight these "global elites", these fools
have ended up fighting the war for the elites.
Extrapolating the situation of society today as consisting of
rulers and the ruled is similar to how Malthus extrapolated how
food production would not keep up with the rise in population. It
has no bearing on reality. This mentality simply limits one's
possibilities of the future. Society, like context, is changing all
the time.
I agree with you that removing the corporatocracy wouldn't help
but corporate corruption and collusion isn't the root problem in
the first place. It is merely a symptom of a larger problem, which
in a TVP world would have no basis, because the root problem being
a monetary system, would have been abolished.
That aside, do you consider global warming deniers the
equivalent of holocaust-deniers? But I'm not saying that
global warming is or isn't genuine, that isn't my point,
though based on my information, it is part of a natural
progression.
What I'm focusing on is that efforts at curbing global warming
have been hijacked in order to further the interests of the
corporatocracy. The Obama cap-and-trade bill (who says the US Gov.
is still skeptical about global warming?), far from promoting the protection of the environment
is all about enriching vested interests such as the energy
industry, relaxing energy standards, putting more financial burdens
on Americans and creating another speculative bubble for the
banking corporatocracy.
And why this fixation on the Kyoto
Protocol when it is totally irrelevant when it comes to solving
so-called "climate change" [note the dropping of
"global warming"]. Back in 2006, 60 scientists with backgrounds in environmental
sciences wrote an open letter to the Canadian PM Stephen Harper
in which they stated:
"Observational evidence does not support today's computer
climate models, so there is little reason to trust model
predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United
Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the
alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.
Even if the climate models were realistic, the
environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or
other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of
consultations, would be insignificant.
...
The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an
"emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever
tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly
understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless,
significant advances have been made since the protocol was created,
many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing
greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what
we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not
exist, because we would have concluded it was not
necessary.
...
However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians
will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate
in the climate-science community. When the public comes to
understand that there is no "consensus" [Only MSM-generated consensus]
among climate scientists about the relative importance of
the various causes of global climate change, the
government will be in a far better position to develop plans that
reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the
economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly
by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is
looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is
justified. Global climate changes all the time due to
natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to
distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian
government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution
is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change"
would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into
the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable
citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next."
In fact, even if Kyoto was implemented, it would only alleviate
0.06 degrees of the projecting warming, with the consequence of
much unnecessary economic pain. That reminds me of a documentary on
global warming, I think it was The Great Global Warming Swindle,
where this demonising of fossil fuels is aggravating poverty in the
Third World. If the developed world can't even become
energy-independent, then how can the so-called environmentalist
expect some Third World country to industrialise with the help of
renewables?
In any case, if the efforts to combat this "climate change" were
genuine, wouldn't we see proposals that would put renewable energy
sources with huge potential such as solar, wind, tidal, wave and
geothermal energy at the forefront instead of measures which would
largely result in profits for vested interest with
environmental protection being a side-effect?
"Geothermal aside, Solar, Wind, Wave and Tidal energy sources
also offer powerful possibilities if harnessed efficiently with
technology. The solar radiation striking the Earth's
surface each year is more than 10,000 times the world's energy
use. The problem then is not availability - it is the
technology to harness it most efficiently. From simple photovoltaic
panels that can capture energy into storage batteries for private
use, to full scale solar power plants, new technology is constantly
emerging which is improving this potential. Wind power, while often
denounced as weak and impractical, is a lot more powerful than most
people think. U.S. Department of Energy studies have concluded wind
harvested in the Great Plains states of Texas, Kansas, and North
Dakota could provide enough electricity to power the entire nation.
More impressively, a 2005 Stanford University study published in
the Journal of Geophysical Research found that if only 20%
of the wind potential on the planet was harnessed, it would cover
the entire world’s energy needs. And then there is Tidal
and Wave Power. Tidal Power is derived from tidal shifts in the
ocean. Installing turbines, which capture this movement, generates
energy. Tapping the flow of the Gulf Stream, Icelandic current and
other underwater currents can be harnessed. In the United
Kingdom, 42 sites are currently noted as available, forecasting
that 34% of all the UK’s energy could come from Tidal Power
alone. More effectively, Wave Power, which extracts energy
from the surface motions of the ocean, is estimated to have a
global potential of up to 80,000 TWH a year. This means 50%
of the entire planet’s energy usage could be produced from this
single medium."
- TZM Activist Orientation Guide
My issue isn't with the reality of "climate change"; the climate
is always changing. My issue is with the hijacking of this
emotionally-charged topic to promote non-environmental causes.
On that note, I'll quote from one of George Carlin's stand-ups. Coming from a
social scientist and comedian, I think this is rather profound:
"We’re so self-important. So
self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the
trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the
greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking
people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take
care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one
another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?
I’m getting tired of that shit.
Tired of that shit. I’m tired of fucking Earth Day, I’m tired of
these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois
liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there
aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save
for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit
about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the
abstract they don’t. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what
they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat.
They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be
personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest
doesn’t impress me.
Besides, there is nothing
wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is
fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is
fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great.
Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about
the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion
years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred
thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a
little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a
half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a
threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful
little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the
sun?
The planet has been through a lot
worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been
through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift,
solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of
the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets
and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide
fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some
plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a
difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere.
WE ARE!
We’re going away. Pack your shit,
folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace,
either. Thank God for that."
