![]() Do we really need 241,000 new people to be added to the planet (net of deaths!) every single day? Seriously. The difficult piece is allowing population to naturally decline. Yes, the affluent must reduce their consumption! But that is very easy to accomplish through tax policy. The speed of destruction increases as population grows. And with a growing population, GDP must GROW. Gross domestic product (GDP) is a rough measure of the damage we inflict on the environment. But all development ultimately involves sacrificing Location A (a mine site, a destroyed forest, land that is paved over, clean groundwater, etc.) for "development" at Location B. Green development pollutes more slowly than dirty development. Why? Because ALL development, including green development, pollutes. Bright green "solutions," like clean energy, can only postpone the day of reckoning. So what's coming is not a lockdown, but a worldwide one-child policy. Overpopulation is the root cause of the environmental crisis. The need to transform and save ourselves for the sake of future generations is the crying need in an increasingly uncertain world. Why should I consider the recommendations of a middle aged(?) academic. A 75 year old body advised by “Elders” wields no power. But we are human after all and cannot see beyond our limited range. The anthropogenic framing is the fundamental fallacy cascading immediately across unseen nation-state boundaries, inhabited by licensed citizens, who depending on past atrocities wield power today to manage monetary wealth, building businesses as they please, spewing “knowledgeable narratives” that echo in chambers that only they visit and have the ears of policy makers who are only half listening while their attention is on the “democratic”process of election that needs greenback fuel from within this chamber. The other unheard creatures may have a different sensitivity. If a “greener planet” for all breathing life forms is the objective, the suggested reforms would at best be tweaks and never fulfill the actual requirement, which is in itself a bone of contention. ![]() While recommendations here may lead us in the right direction, fighting the current systems headon may not be the the most wise approach. Until then, I hear you, but I cannot be asked to listen seriously to any of this. But all I see when I read these sorts of articles is more fake news, more attempts at control (for the masses only, not those in power), money for special "green" interests and less freedom for us all. If blue cities took a pandemic that kills just 60 mostly old and very sick people per 100,000 population, I might trust their judgement. If Al Gore had not made so many claims about global warming that never came true and if the scientists of the 1970's were not panicked about global cooling, I might listen. ![]() If liberals spent their four years being good examples of how to live green instead of attacking a duly elected president with all kinds of fake charges and a partisan impeachment, I might listen. If the liberals weren't always skirting rules (like passing Obamacare strictly along party lines using a reconciliation bill in the middle of the night over a holiday weekend) I might listen to this.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |