Why depoliticising the Climate Change Commission sets it up for failure
The Climate Change Commission is an attempt by the Government to depoliticise global warming, but is that the problem?
The issue with global warming is no longer a science issue, it is a culture issue and it is a culture issue mainly for ACT and National voters.
This debate stopped being about science some time ago.
Those with a commercial vested interest in generating climate change skepticism are big oil and they use the exact same tactics as the tobacco industry embarked upon to create misinformation about smoking and cancer.
A report put out by Greenpeace shows how Koch Industries spent tens of millions on inaccurate and misleading information regarding climate change.
- Koch Industries funded 20 organizations central to the global media echo chamber that was Climategate.
- In 2007, Koch Industries funded an astrophysicist to write an article about polar bears which, masquerading as a piece of peer-reviewed literature, attempted to refute the threat to the species due to climate change.
- Koch Industries also funded a Danish think tank which produced a “dubious study about the Danish wind industry”, rejected by the Danish environment minister, which was then used to challenge President Obama’s support of wind power while funding groups which supported a “widely debunked study” which claimed that Spain’s support of renewable energy had lost the country jobs.
- Koch Industries paid out huge amounts to other hard right climate denial think tanks like the Mercatus Center, Americans For Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.
…let’s add this to what we already know about big oil sponsored climate denial. This is the infamous 2002 Frank Luntz Memorandum to the Bush White House, on how to shut down the global warming debate?
Winning the Global Warming Debate – An Overview
1: The scientific debate remains open: Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.
So those with vested commercial interests to deny climate change fund the quack science and rely on ideological storm troopers like National Party & ACT voters to fight out of pure cultural spite. None of them can admit they have been wrong all this time and they will die in a ditch to minimize the impacts of Climate Change at all costs.
This is a cultural bitterness for them, further proof that the white bloke is being beaten down by a rainbow coalition of hippies. For them their denial is just a sad societal face saving exercise that no one is listening to any longer.
As progressives wrestle with the enormity of the consequences of adaptation to the new climate realties, we should always spare the time for a few contemptuous jabs at those who strive to hold the debate back.
Climate deniers are creationists in an evolution conference and attempting to depoliticise this fight produces weak kneed nothings like the Climate Commission suggested this week.
At some point we need to stop begging the NZ Right to accept climate change and just fucking tell them this is the way it is now, and if you don’t like, go get fucked.
We will no longer tolerate climate deniers as the planet burns before our eyes.
Climate deniers are to science what Qanon is to rational debate. The sooner the Climate Change Commission acknowledges that, the sooner we can force the radical adaption we will require to survive this.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.
Well said, Martyn.
However, there is still a lot of money to be made out of climate change (Planetary Meltdown) denial, just as there is still a lot of money to be made out of selling tobacco or selling other crap foisted on society by exploitive sociopaths.
On this aspect:
‘We will no longer tolerate climate deniers as the planet burns before our eyes.’
What are you going to do to change things, Martyn? Because the entire political-economic system is predicated on ‘climate denial’. That’s why nothing gets done by governments or bureaucrats to tackle it, and why everything gets made progressively worse.
If you write a blog, it will be ignored. If you write to your MP, PM, Climate Change Minister etc. you will be ignored. If you protest in the streets, you will be ignored. If you take direct action, you will be arrested and charged, and find yourself in court..
.
“The issue with global warming is no longer a science issue, it is a culture issue…”
That may well be the case Martyn. But above all it’s a political economy issue. At the root of the issue is the current economic foundation – the ways in which resources are made available to society and the state – not only relevant to AO/NZ but globalized. Let’s not forget that.
The Climate Change Commission highlights the need to change peoples’ behaviour and recommends the building of smaller houses, transitioning to sustainable/ clean energy (and all that that entails) and the continued use of forestation to act as a carbon sink. That’s reason for you. On the face of it the recommendations attempt to situate solutions in the political economy, but Voltaire’s bastards are sorely mistaken if they expect business as usual.
What profit, our carbon share.
Said twenty years ago,about the carbon money,can a have my money share knowin.
found it weird climate money, how come you what,how come these make our breathing money.
Shoot who,see the tele program,about, lords and politicians, see itt!s start about cock and self abuse,them girls,no mention, only him, remeber him with us.What who him. They crucified her,who her way out their left,why that blond,was way,out their self.Him MENTIONED,them pair laugh, him.us pair him.him.
Him, our Queens man.
The tele programe you will have to have a look.
Serious,next time,lose.
wHAT prince,he who knowing what./
THE TELE,see girls,us pair,us,see them ,see us.
Lords and,who him,cant say him,with us.
He us, compulsory Unionism, no excuse.
Pike River,no more lies.
Why,grasp,why never forgot ,Mother.
Pike River,doin nowin,no more lies,them sayin.
They, not mention him,can we now breath.’
Who, us both,he shagging us,both together, who him.
The Queens, Husband,shagged us both,Perfumo,he never, but the Queens,Husband,yes both us did shag him, us together.
Wit ye recon,this lot winnin again,ma sell sayin, douht.
Couldn’t you write all that mumbo jumbo in one comment Austringer?
Sea level rise could be worse than feared, warn researchers
Danish team predict possible 1.35m rise by 2100 and highlight issues with previous modelling
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/02/sea-level-rise-could-be-worse-than-feared-warn-researchers
More seawater less fresh water.
Extreme drought fears in Hawke’s Bay after streams dramatically dry up
Streams in Hawke’s Bay have dried up after being deep enough to swim just one week ago, stoking fears of another drought.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/435391/extreme-drought-fears-in-hawke-s-bay-after-streams-dramatically-dry-up?fbclid=IwAR0Z6UzFYXdcLJqvbU6IqSxNjdAdHxxC_XnuzTIqKEawxG0TlYmK6Lgtq58
A symbolic victory on our path to self-annihilation:
‘Court convicts French state for failure to address climate crisis
State found guilty of ‘non-respect of its engagements’ aimed at fighting global warming’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/03/court-convicts-french-state-for-failure-to-address-climate-crisis
I’d like to think that this will be the last word on electric cars, which have a HIGHER environmental footprint than petrol cars and in most cases generate MORE CO2 per kilometre than petrol cars. But I am sure it won’t be the last word, and the myth of this non-starter will continue to be promoted by the ignorant and the self-serving because electric cars have an emotional appeal (and much of the pollution goes unnoticed because it does not emerge at the point of use).
‘Studies detailing the carbon emissions necessary to manufacture an electric vehicle reveal that on a net basis, there are more emissions for vehicle bought and used for its expected lifetime, than would be generated by buying and using a conventional gasoline-powered vehicle.
Toyota can certainly make electric powered vehicles. It introduced the hybrid Prius, after all, and has a strong position in that market. Toyota’s mastery of the discipline of mass production of vehicles is such that it could do well no matter what power source is used. But the costs of complete conversion to electricity-powered vehicles are mind boggling.
Where will all, the electricity needed to power to entire fleet of cars in the US (or Japan) come from? Despite the fantasies of greenies, it won’t be from windmills or solar farms. They are too unreliable, take up too much land, and cost too much. Right now, it is coal and natural gas that produce the most electricity at the most reasonable cost. And they emit CO2. Plus, there is considerable loss of power due to resistance in the transmission lines, requiring an even greater amount of gross power before the net power reaches the battery in the vehicle, charging at the user’s home ort some other location. Nuclear power does offer some potential, but how many people want to live near the hundreds and hundreds of nuclear power plants that would be required to fuel the nation’s vehicles?
Then there is the small matter of batteries. The very large batteries needed for electric cars use lots of expensive lithium (and some other rare elements) whose supply is limited, and whose mining requires lots of scarce water. In fact, powering the world’s vehicles by battery is simply impossible, given the limited world supply of lithium, as this clever post by Powerline’s Steve Hayward makes clear. The title gives away the punchline:
WHO WILL TELL THE GREENS THERE IS NO BATTERY FAIRY?
For the longest while I have been asking, “Where do environmentalists and Democrats think all these batteries for our oil-free transportation fleet are going to come from?” It seems they think there is a Battery Fairy out there somewhere who will magically supply the ginormous battery capacity, and additional supply of electricity to charge them, in order to deliver us to our blessed fossil-fuel-free future.’
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/02/the_battery_fairy_and_other_delusions_in_the_demand_to_replace_gasoline_powered_vehicles_with_electric_cars_and_trucks.html
The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all
“The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.
A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.
The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.
The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.
They could explore the many credible climate action plans being pursued, including by those on the political right. But their cognitive dissonance forces them to the conclusion that because state intervention is wrong, acting to avert climate danger cannot be right. Intellectual gymnastics to “expose” climate alarmism then follow naturally.
But why do I say ignore them all? The climate crisis is urgent, and we need debate to drive action. ”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/30/climate-denier-shill-global-debate