The WEF King ascends to the British throne

submitted by cottoneyejoe from (dossier.substack.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Nah mate it's not the climate change issue that gives people pause it's the "if we don't destroy our economy right now all life will die in 5 years" rabid nonsense that is floated to scare people into voting for them and further the Bourgeoisie power consolidation that the expense of the proletariat that gives them pause.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I've not seen the line "if we don't destroy our economy right now all life will die in 5 years" advocated by anyone.

So I suspect you're constructing a straw man fallacy.

Can you link me to someone making that claim anywhere?

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'll fully concede it's an exaggerated straw man.

I won't concede the basic idea behind it as there's a push to enact environmental policy that had massive economic impacts that will cause heaps of problems. Like California's 2030 gasoline car ban will since the alternative technology isn't yet viable for the mass market and will see a huge increase and disruption of the automotive and transportation industries further alienating poor people from larger society and increasing the relative class disparities that are ever widening, which will further hurt the ability to pass effective environmental policy, and exasperate the problem over the long term in exchange for short term political gains.

This is possible because many voters who don't well understand the economy do well understand the concept that pollution is bad and that keeping the environment stable is ultimately more important than the economy. However without a good understanding of both economics and climate science they'll typically fall into the mass media to form their own opinions and the mass media is beholden to capitalist pressures to simply write sensationalist stories as they sell better than to write more accurate scientific information which is boring as fuck.

This leads to a situation where your average schmuck buys the "all life might end" sensationalist nonsense hook line and sinker so they believe economically crippling policies are their only salvation. Or they smell the journalistic bullshit and throw it all out the window. Politicians are waiting in the wings to capitalize on both extremes.

Most of the truly inane babblings are to be found on social media vs anywhere but if you want to see examples of the kind of sensationalist stories put forth you need only to open CNN on any given day in August when it's hot and those stories do well. For more extreme examples see shit like

https://www.space.com/venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect-earth-next.html

Somehow earth gains 90x atmospheric volume in the science fiction imagination of dumb internet users.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/01/climate-endgame-risk-human-extinction-scientists-global-heating-catastrophe

Climate change might kill everyone.

Reason it's under explored is because it's a rediculous notion.

Long term climate change has serious implications that need to be taken seriously. But a lack of good science education has led to a society of histeronic nincompoops who believe that the Hollywood fantasies are realistic outcomes and not sensationalist drivel.

Go to Reddit or YouTube comment sections and you'll find no shortage of people who truly believe climate change will lead to human extinction within their lifetimes. They're retarded. Even if the Earth's temperature raised something like 10 degrees tomorrow, while the effects would be devasting to civilization there is not way it would cause human extinction.

What we are looking at is a slow boil of maybe 3 degrees by the end of the century by worst case estimates. That's very bad for certain regions, that shouldn't be ignored, but the instant you do dumb shit that destroys the economy to fix it you utterly emaciate your ability to make long term effective policy changes. Case in point, Sri Lanka's recent coup. Government collapsed can no longer enforce climate policy, worse outcome than if they did nothing at all.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Like California's 2030 gasoline car ban will since the alternative technology isn't yet viable for the mass market and will see a huge increase and disruption of the automotive and transportation industries further alienating poor people from larger society and increasing the relative class disparities that are ever widening, which will further hurt the ability to pass effective environmental policy, and exasperate the problem over the long term in exchange for short term political gains.

On the other hand, it's better economically in the long term to change the regulations in one hit, rather than commit to sliding targets that require continuous instability of business practises in order to get to no fossil fuel use.

This leads to a situation where your average schmuck buys the "all life might end" sensationalist nonsense hook line and sinker so they believe economically crippling policies are their only salvation.

The claim "economically crippling" is blatant fear mongering. Wind and solar generate energy cheaper than most fossil fuel plants and with greater stability of costs. Cali in particular will need to look at demand shaping and/or storage which increases the cost marginally, but it's not economically crippling.

https://www.space.com/venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect-earth-next.html

This isn't about anthropocentric climate change. This article is about how conditions on earth will change on the billions of years scale.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/01/climate-endgame-risk-human-extinction-scientists-global-heating-catastrophe

Reason it's under explored is because it's a rediculous notion.

If there are tipping points that add 8°C to the warming, then it's not ridiculous is it. That would reduce the carrying capacity of the earth for human population enough that it would come with a very much non-negligible risk of global societal collapse. Certainly with a large population decrease, that would be very unpleasant for most people to live through.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It'd not fear mongering. The current California goals are untenable and extremely unlikely to be tenable by the cut-off date. Electric car infrastructure isn't there and even if it was electric car costs and manufacturing concerns have environmental impacts beyond the reduced carbon emissions from the engines themselves due to increases in mining and electrical demand to increase supply. Wind and solar have similar demands and the current market simply cannot sustain that, prices will increase dramatically for cars and electricity in tandem and California has proven itself incompetent to the point of lunacy in developing the mass transit and power infrastructure needed to counter this.

The only power source capable of meeting economic demand is Nuclear which will not be built due to too many hippies in California. End result, poor will be priced out transportation in California entirely leaving them unable to make a living and that will cause political and societal instability which will result in political shifts that will rescind the environmental policies.

What will happen to California in the 2030's will be a rampant and flagrant disregard to the rules by anyone in the lower classes as they'll literally be unable to afford cars, they'll simply buy illegal cars from nearby states and commit registry fraud. Meanwhile the only viable alternative will be hydrogen cars which are ludicrously expensive and out of ready for the lower class. And since there are no alternatives for the lower class in California as public transportation is ass terrible they'll be unable to get to work and the economy will absolutely collapse and drag the rest of the US down with it should they choose to enforce registry fraud. Looking at a major economic downturn in 2030's if they go through with this. I doubt it will happen as it will become clear by the late 2020's and they'll be forced to further extend the deadline.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The current California goals are untenable and extremely unlikely to be tenable by the cut-off date.

Even if that's true, it doesn't imply that making all attempts will be "economically crippling". Moving electricity production, and transportation where possible to zero emissions genuinely reduces the costs. The manufacturing of cars has negligible greenhouse emissions compared to the running of those vehicles.

Wind and solar have similar demands and the current market simply cannot sustain that, prices will increase dramatically for cars and electricity

Depending on geopolitics, you might have to ramp up extraction of some rare earths to increase production of PV solar. Wind turbines are made of pretty common materials. Structurally iron, mostly. Fibreglass for the blades. You use a bit of copper in the generator.

But putting them up doesn't hurt the economy. Worst case scenario, you have cheaper power for most of the time, and fire up the fossil fuel plants to fill some gaps, at the same price as now.

Who's modelling are you relying on for your claim that "prices will increase dramatically for cars and electricity"? Or is this fear mongering without basis?

The only power source capable of meeting economic demand is Nuclear which will not be built due to too many hippies in California.

What do you claim is the limit to wind? I'm not a geologist, by my impression of California is that it doesn't have the geological stability for nuclear to be as good a solution there as it is in other places. Although FAIK, there may be sites inland that have sufficient stability.

What will happen to California in the 2030's will be a rampant and flagrant disregard to the rules by anyone in the lower classes as they'll literally be unable to afford cars ...

Color me skeptical. This reads like chicken-little fear mongering. Show me the economic modelling.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Moving to zero-emissions is desirable and should be a goal however, as said it should be done where possible. Moving to zero-emissions too quickly and before the technology and infrastructure has sufficiently progressed to the point where it doesn't create an adverse economic effect or multiple spill over effects increasing emissions in other areas will result in further difficulties decreasing the emissions in the long term.

Limit on wind is wind. Climate change may change wind patterns and make current wind farms irrelevant while shifting the patterns elsewhere. I have nothing against wind energy per say as there are places it should be developed however it's an inefficient use of government resources as nuclear is far more effective and also produces zero emissions. One nuclear powerplant can easily provide the power requirements of a small city where you'd need hundreds of turbines to accomplish the same result.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-933/wind-nuclear-infographic/

Geological stability is not a valid prerequisite for nuclear power plants if they are designed well. I won't lie to you and say the risks of incompetence aren't high. It's smart to build them as far from inhabited areas as is feasible. However. The risk of accident is low provided they are built and maintained correctly. California already has some without incident but I believe they have largely shut due to age.

Prices of energy will increase greatly due to demand increasing. The cost of electric cars and hydrogen cars are both greatly higher than gasoline cars. Increased cost of vehicles and transportation costs will result in increased prices across the board in the same way fuel costs effect prices now.

If we were talking in timescales of, ban gas powered cars by 2050. I'd agree that is a more tenable proposition. To do so in 8 years will not work for California. The state is unable to manage its own failing infrastructure it can't be expected to build new infrastructure in time.

I think ultimately this means the hydrogen fuel cell car will be the car of choice as it's somewhat better than electric for a number of practical reasons and the infrastructure for electric cars won't be there in time. But the hydrogen fuel car is massively expensive in comparison. New models of hydrogen cars have a cost almost double that of traditional gasoline cars at the low end. Eventually the fuel manufacture costs will end up being lower than gasoline but the economies of scale aren't there yet. Plus with how Californians drive they'll be exploding constantly.