Today's Environmentalists Are Really Luddites

[Steve R.]

Earth Day Founder Warned Against Mass Immigration as 'Tremendous Cost' to Americans' Quality of Life

Former Sen. Gaylord Nelson championed reducing overall immigration to the United States to protect America's quality of life.

www.breitbart.com

Today is Earth Day. Seems that I'm also in a posting mood. I've made a few posts in this thread: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing.

In thinking about what today's "environmentalists" are selling and how the Biden administration is responding by proposing ridiculous rules to stop claimed global warming, it appears that today's "environmentalists" are Luddites, they are not interested in technological and/or policy solutions that would supposedly help their claimed cause of stopping global warming. One solution, would be nuclear power. Another as the article above discusses would be closing the US border to immigration. Instead of rationale solutions, the Biden administration, as one example, wants to take away your gas stove. They also want to eliminate single family residences to replace them with high density apartment living.

Moreover, today's "environmentalists" don't really believe in following science because they are left-wing partisan hacks. They view "protecting" the environment within the divisive political contexts of Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). None of these efforts promoted implementing an environmental benefit because they are actually designed to achieve anthropocentric political goals.

Biden administration launches $1 billion effort to correct racist highway designs of the past

DOT said it’s about fixing the mistakes of the past.

www.theverge.com

Today's "environmentalists" are gaslighting the gullible public. Your thoughts?

 

[AccessBlaster]

The House Drinker Nancy Pelosi said of health care reform legislation: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

 

[Isaac]

The federal government MUST become smaller. The only candidate interested in making that happen is Trump at the moment.

There are about 3000 federal laws explicitly, and about another third of a million agency rules that carry criminal sanctions.

Most states on average receive no less than 1/3 of their budget from the Feds - and it comes with strings attached, ranging from A-Z.

This has gotten ridiculous. Most people don't have the time and money to familiarize themselves with enough of the law to avoid falling afoul of it.

Agencies aren't elected and up until the recent Supreme Court decision, answered to almost no one. I love the current Supreme Court, righting things that have been wrong for so many years.

 

[Cotswold]

More people should read CLIMATE UNCERTAINTY AND RISK by Judith A Curry. (2023)
In parts it may be a bit heavy going in a few places but it is nearer to the truth than you'll get from Al Gore and our Loony Labour government etc.

It is likely you will not find it in your library. Not quite the sort of book that would be approved. More likely to be censured as she doesn't sing from the approved song sheet.

I have old reports from the turn of the century predicting London being under water by 2012. Even our King* has dished out quite a few failed predictions, never mind the politicians.

*(when he was Prince of Wales)

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Re:- Even our King* has dished out quite a few failed predictions, never mind the politicians.

*(when he was Prince of Wales)

I believe her majesty the Queen remained monarch for such a long time because she didn't think Charles would make a good king and she wanted to protect the country from him as long as possible!!!!

 

[Mark_]

I wouldn't say they are luddites, as luddites were opposed to new technologies that would displace existing workers from their existing vocations. Rather, the current batch are far more interested in creating government mandated or government provided positions, thus keeping their workers beholden to the current government and political party for continued employment.

If a majority of workers are dependent up a "new-green" economy to keep roof over head and food on table, who's going to vote against it?

 

[Cotswold]

We have a government, a King and a King's son pushing net zero so much it is almost persecution. But is it for a policy without any scientific proof of cause, or success? In general it is costing everyone £1,000 to £2,000 a year in hidden taxes on energy bills.

There is a power station, DRAX that is seriously subsidised to create electricity from wood pellets that are imported from across the Atlantic. It is considered to be fine because it uses a renewable biomass! Disregarding the fact that it is basically burning trees at a rate that cannot be matched by planting and growing replacements. Meaning that we must eventually run out of trees to burn but we must ignore that fact.

The dream is to create all of our power by sun and wind, then ban all use of oil and gas. Presumably when this is achieved we will need to build a whaling fleet so that we can extract the oil we need to lubricate the massive windfarms from whales? After all, as in the DRAX justification, using the whale oil will also be using a renewable source and a perfect solution to banning extracted oil for lubrication. Maybe they will call it bismasslube, kindoil, or some other name to disguise its source?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Disregarding the fact that it is basically burning trees at a rate that cannot be matched by planting and growing replacements.

This is a key statement. In the carbon cycle, plants create nutrients that, through the process of living, will take CO2 out of the air and turn it into natural plant fiber. Whatever that rate is, burning is faster at turning fiber back into CO2. When you have a cycle but the speed of one half of the cycle is radically different than the speed of the other half of the cycle, you have a lopsided equilibrium that will stay in the state that is the end product of the faster half of the cycle. In this case, CO2. Chemists should know this. It's the same principle as the chemical process known as precipitation (which in this case has nothing to do with rain.)

 

[Isaac]

I can only heart your post and say I like it. No politics discussion but I suspect it is OK for me to React emojis.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Isaac, I don't think a simple comment - such as mine - is bad. I'm not accusing anyone of mopery and dopery. Comments are OK.

EDITED by TDM to correct a brain-cramp statement.

 

[Isaac]

Isaac, I don't think a simple comment - such as mine - is OK. I'm not accusing anyone of mopery and dopery. Comments are OK.

You mean you think it IS right? assuming that's a typo.
mopery and dopery - I like that haha, that's good!!

 

[Thales750]

The federal government MUST become smaller.

Okay, so what are we going to do when the only jobs left in the world are government jobs?

 

[Isaac]

Sorry, talking politics is off the table for me in adherence to support for the dangers facing Jon from the OSA

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Sorry, talking politics is off the table for me in adherence to support for the dangers facing Jon from the OSA

I can respect that decision. I think there are limits. I acknowledge that it is hard to stay within limits if some egregious ideas come up.

On re-reading my earlier comment, I see I had my head on backwards while typing. Got to remember to keep the brain in gear when trying to communicate. I think simple comments ARE OK - it is when it leads to the start of an argument that we have issues. I have edited the comment to be correspond to my beliefs.

 

[GPGeorge]

When the topic of censorship first popped up recently (and feel free to censor my use of the term censorship to describe what's going on ), I predicted what was going to happen. At the first mention of "government" actions we all start looking over our shoulders.

 

[Isaac]

It is indeed a serious thing that makes a person worry. I'll be the first to self censor in respect to the man who has gone to no small trouble to keep this open, since he could easily say f-it it's too much trouble, but I think he must enjoy keeping it open to some extent. Since I struggle to self censor once I'm in the 'middle' of a debate, I'll do so early on. Know thyself I guess

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Know thyself I guess

But we cannot forget the wisdom of Socrates: "It is the hardest thing in the world to be a good thinker without being a good self examiner."
Or there is Ben Franklin's comment: "There are three things extremely hard: steel, a diamond, and to know one's self."

 

[Isaac]

But we cannot forget the wisdom of Socrates: "It is the hardest thing in the world to be a good thinker without being a good self examiner."
Or there is Ben Franklin's comment: "There are three things extremely hard: steel, a diamond, and to know one's self."

True, it's no easy thing, as some of our lower forms and habits are the world's best salesman, our own minds...at lying to us

 

[Thales750]

This is a key statement. In the carbon cycle, plants create nutrients that, through the process of living, will take CO2 out of the air and turn it into natural plant fiber. Whatever that rate is, burning is faster at turning fiber back into CO2. When you have a cycle but the speed of one half of the cycle is radically different than the speed of the other half of the cycle, you have a lopsided equilibrium that will stay in the state that is the end product of the faster half of the cycle. In this case, CO2. Chemists should know this. It's the same principle as the chemical process known as precipitation (which in this case has nothing to do with rain.)

It doesn't take a chemist to know that Doc, 200 to 500 years to grow a jungle. burn it in a year. Now admittedly the jungle had been sending carbon into the ground for all centuries. Some of which will likewise be combined with oxygen during a major fire. But without a doubt, whatever is captured in the living flora, and in the undecayed remnants, will be converted.

 

[Thales750]

I think that this whole thing (out of control emotional responses) would have worked much better if we had actually policed ourselves, meaning each other. That was obviously not ever going to happen. People obsessed with their personal world view, and having measurable contempt for people that don't, will inevitably spiral out of control.


I think we should actually call out things people say, in public, to those folks that are out of line. Especially, if we happen to share their world view.

The second part is the wide brush method of avoiding specific topics, where more than a little fundamental agreement should be possible.