OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Why Should We?

Entry 2296, on 2023-10-06 at 21:58:14 (Rating 3, Politics)

I'm pretty damn sick of the "elites" of this world preaching to us, and telling us how we should live our lives, while they do the exact opposite of what they are telling us to, and creating a story they want us to believe which is really just based on fantasy.

This is evident in many areas of political activism, but maybe mostly so with climate change. Before I go any further, I need to say (yet again) that I don't deny climate change is happening and that we need to react to it. All I am saying is that the current types of reaction are ineffective and wasteful.

This is my second recent post on this subject, but I think that is justified because it is a prominent political issue, and is often part of political debates here in New Zealand leading up to the elections. For example, I noticed several people encouraging people to "vote for climate action" (whatever that means) around town today.

Let's start by looking at the most repulsive and annoying elite of recent times, at least to me: our own Jacinda Ardern.

In mid 2021 RNZ made the following statement about her: "This week Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said acting on climate change is life and death, and not a choice, but an imperative."

There are several problems with this. First, it's not true. It's no more a matter of life and death than many other potential political issues. And it is a choice; one which many countries do not seem to be particularly serious about acting on. Finally, at that time, thanks in part to the PM's decisions, New Zealand burned more coal in three months than all of 2016 and 2017 put together (the time prior to her reign as PM). This was also reported by RNZ, a notoriously left oriented source and therefore one likely to be generous to Ardern.

So really, you can't take a thing she says seriously. And it's best not to even get me started on the repulsive nonsense she's been spouting since she ran away from the mess she had made as PM here.

Another point of extreme hypocrisy, often commented on, is the way would leaders fly in private jets - the worst possible way to travel based on CO2 generated per person - to conferences to discuss climate change. For example, 118 private jets took the "leaders" (AKA worthless parasites) to the COP26 Climate Summit, producing over 1,000 tons of CO2.

I know that's a small amount compared to the total for the world per year, but surely these people can see that telling everyone else to sacrifice on their own travel plans while doing the exact opposite themselves, makes it hard to take them seriously.

And what about our old friend Greta Thunberg? Well, remember that stunt she pulled by sailing to the US in a carbon neutral yacht of some sort? Well, apparently for her to return home required the captain of the yacht to be flown to her location to retrive her. And that was the second time that had happened, except the previous time a crew had to be flown for the same reason. So, like many climate activists, she is all about appearances, and her activities have very little to do with reality.

And it's not just individuals either. The countries who are often criticised for not doing their part are often the ones making the biggest cuts, while others which seem to be immune to criticism, are producing more carbon than ever.

For example, in the years 1990 to 2020, China's coal use has increased from 30% to 50% of the world total, while the US has decreased it's use from 25% to 17% of the total.

New Zealand uses approximately 0% of the total (even after the increases during Ardern's leadership) yet the hysterical children and other mindless activists are demanding reductions.

And what about the prominent rich business people and Hollywood posers? Well the rich are the cause of the problem, not the solution. A study showed that, per capita, the richest 80 million (top 1%) people in the world will account for 16% of total emissions globally by 2030, up from 13% in 1990.

Finally, despite all the meetings, agreements, and political rhetoric, global coal use is increasing faster than ever before.

So what is the point in "responsible" countries making sacrificies to their economies, and for "investing" vast sums in climate mitigation measures, while spending very little on climate adaptation? As I said above, this has nothing to do with denying climate change; it is totally related to how to deal with it.

There's a lot to be said for creating cleaner forms of energy production, for avoiding inefficient use of fossil fuels, and for being more aware of environmental issues, but only where there is a net gain for the people who are affected.

We could completely shut down our whole country and climate change would carry on with no perceptible change. Even the carbon production of the US could disappear overnight and China and India would more than make up for that loss.

So should the poor countries play their part too? Well, why would they? The obvious way for them to improve the standard of living for their people is to modernise and produce more energy, mainly through the use of fossil fuels.

I mean, what's the choice? Despite massive efforts in rich countries, renewable energy sources like wind and solar still make up a tiny fraction of total production (the amount varies a bit, depending on your source, but I've never seen anything over 6%), and even where they are used they are not reliable, because sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

Better energy production technology could be developed. It just needs the political will to make it happen. If you don't believe me look at history. The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Project were both massive scientific and engineering undertakings that were completed in quite short times, even though many people thought they weren't possible. If we want something enough, it can be done.

So is the current amount (again the numbers are hard to get accurately, but it seems to be in the trillions) spent on climate change mitigation worth it? Well, obviously I'm saying no. If that same amount was spent on research on nuclear power and on ways to adapt to the climate change which is already happening, I think we would be a lot better off. But then what would the climate activists and green politicians do with their spare time?

Let them go back to the pre-industrial age if they want to. But don't ask the rest of us to. Why should we?

Comment 1 (7499) by RPC on 2023-10-07 at 11:11:20:

I agree. You are saying what we are thinking.

Comment 2 (7500) by OJB on 2023-10-07 at 16:41:23:

I am not only saying what a lot of people are thinking, but I'm saying what makes a lot of sense as well. At the very least this approach should be considered along with the ineffective carbon reduction measures currently in favour. But, of course, the media will never acknowledge alternative views, except by ridiculing them.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.