Why greens don’t want to ‘solve’ climate change

[Cort Haus]

The OP article is actually written by a Marxist. Unlike the plastic, faux, human-hating commies of Apolyton, (with the possible exception of Serb) real Marxists believe in humans and their ability to solve problems through the progressive application of new technology.

Reactionaries are those who seek to reduce living standards by shutting down industry and imposing austere, peasant-level standards of living on humanity.

[Dinner]

Most of the greens I know really do want to solve problems in the real world.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Agathon


Not really. Perhaps we just think that people should be held accountable for their actions. After all, it is pretty obvious that a lot of people on the denial side are paid shills spreading bull**** to benefit their corporate masters. Genuine scientific consensus has been on the other side for years.

How many people will end up needlessly starving to death because of the bad faith procrastination of climate change deniers? They only mouth off like that because they believe there are no consequences for themselves.

Don't doubt that if anti-climate change sophists had not been engaging in pointless denial for years now (although they have moved from outright denial to "scepticism"), that more could have actually been done about climate change. Their procrastination has worsened our situation, and if anyone should pay for it, they should. Why should some Nigerian peasant who has done nothing die of starvation, when some idiot whose dishonest pronouncements led to the food shortage could die instead.

Can you really explain to me why it would not be just, if people have to die because of avoidable climate change, for Bjorn Lomborg to be near the front of the queue.

Just answer that question.

The same goes for pro Iraq war journalists who spread bull**** about that war. The fact that they are still in employment just demonstrates that there is no accountability in our society, and tens of thousands of people have died because of their lies. Yet they feel no real guilt and none have the balls to actually quit.

The majority of us live in the real world and though we may not agree with every opinion we hear, we realize that there is a pro and con arguement for everything. Just because you say something is a fact and claim undisputable proof, doesn't make it so.

[Aeson]

While new technology to clean up our messes is a worthwhile pursuit... so is new (and in some cases old) technology that won't make the messes in the first place.

Pekka got it right. WTF OP?!?

[GePap]

Given that human understanding of the complex systems at work in the natural world is still evoliving, I doubt some grand attempt at global engineering would have a plausible chance of success without significant and unforseen consequences.

Also, more importantly, no one is going to pay for those projects, so its a rather moot point.

[Blake]

Biofuels? Growing them will increase food prices, and stomachs must come before cars

Did I just read that ::boggle::

Bloody hell. Of all the things to find preposterous... the importance of full stomachs? No, cars are way more important than that!

Anyway I'd say that in general this article is "An astute misrepresentation of a real mindset".

The motivation is not however, hatred of technology (people are always too quick to assign hatred as a motivation), but for the love of joy. There is little joy in paving paradise....

[Geronimo]

nm that dead horse has been flogged enough I see

[DRoseDARs]

Anti-environmentalists' credo:
"Environmentalists can't snap their fingers and make things all better, therefore, ENVIRONMENTALISM IS A SHAM LOL!!1!OMG!!!1!!!11!!!!elvis!!!WTF

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Agathon
Can you really explain to me why it would not be just, if people have to die because of avoidable climate change, for Bjorn Lomborg to be near the front of the queue.

Just answer that question.

By the same logic some might argue that all communists should be exterminated now before they have the chance to set up another totalitarian despotism that takes millions of lives. After all, they've done it before. Alternatively, why should those people that deny third-worlders the chance to develop their economy to the point where they might alleviate some of the effects of change not be at the front of the queue? Not that I believe in any such notion, but evidently some people do.

Seeing as the people who are most likely to die from climate change are in third world countries which lack industrialisation and infrastructure to deal with the effects of change, this might suggest that they need more development, not less.

The prescription currently being offered to people of the third world is to remain in poverty as industrialisation and development is bad, mmmkay?

By being kept poor, they will be immediately suffering adversely from policies wrt climate change, and are also likely to suffer disproportionately from climate effects down the line whatever the causes of those effects.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Blake

Did I just read that ::boggle::

Bloody hell. Of all the things to find preposterous... the importance of full stomachs? No, cars are way more important than that!

Yeah, that looks a dumb line in the article. Perhaps a better way for him to have made his point there may have been to refer to claims that biofuels produce
more (non-C02) greenhouse gases than petrol.

There is little joy in paving paradise....

But there is joy in paving a road over a muddy hill here on earth.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
But there is joy in paving a road over a muddy hill here on earth.

I'd rather replant the trees.

[MikeH]

So you can chop them!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Blake
I'd rather replant the trees.

Then the goods would never get in and out of the city and the civilisation would wither and collapse.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by MikeH
So you can chop them!

Infinite chop exploits are so tedious, though.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Then the goods would never get in and out of the city and the civilisation would wither and collapse.

The foundation of civilization is goods. Gotcha.