We took a small break as there are too many topics we’d write about, though we kept thinking of Greta Thunberg and were lurking in shadows, looking for some good data to share with you.
Unpacking Extinction Rebellion — Part I: Net-zero Emissions (sept 2019)
The exact nature of the demanded action is not made clear, and warrants a close examination. There is a long history of powerful government and corporate interests throwing their support behind social movements, only to redirect the course of action to suit their own ends, and Extinction Rebellion is no exception.
That alone, and examples abound, should really be dealt with extreme caution. Lawmakers do not work for people’s welfare, as long as money will continue to regulate all human exchanges. And when monetarism will be abolished, the word “congress” will sound obsolete, and be replaced with “Stewardship”.
While the desire to take action to stop the extinction of the natural world is admirable, rebelling against the effects without directly confronting the economic and political systems that are the root cause is like treating the symptoms of an illness without investigating or diagnosing it first. It won’t work. Addressing only one aspect of the global system, without taking into account the interconnected industries and governance structures, will only lead to worse problems.
Yes, the several ongoing ecocides are no joke, unfortunately. Further have you notice that most of Greta’s supporters only speak of CO2 and fossil oil. They won’t debate any other ramifications because if they ever did, they would realize that addressing our ecosystem in crisis does not require to believe in “climate change”.
The words “climate change” are ultimate and not tradable so to speak. So there cannot be any debate, that’s “information war”. Then of course this gives the skeptics (or deniers) even more reasons to bash the whole situation, as Charles Eisenstein explains in the two videos below. There are about 10 mins each and worth your time. He clearly advocates for not taking side in this conflict because earth is really threatened with hyperconsumerism, so siding with the skeptics is not an option either.
Proponents of net-zero emissions advocate for the trading of carbon offsets, so industries can pay to have their emissions captured elsewhere, without reducing any on their part. This approach creates a whole new industry of selling carbon credits. Wind turbines, hydro-electric dams, biofuels, solar panels, energy efficiency projects, and carbon capture are commonly traded carbon offsets. None of these actually reduce carbon emissions in practice, and are themselves contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, so make the problem worse. Using this approach, a supposedly carbon-neutral economy leads to increased extraction and burning, and generates massive profits for corporations in the process. Head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, Louis Redshaw, predicted in 2007 “carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall.”
The biggest commodity market? …sorry, but isn’t it infuriating? The prediction is coming through. This is really about artificially making a product more valuable by criminalizing it so to speak . This is capitalism at its finest! Profiting from problems is more valuable, in this sense money “never” was about freeing society. So let’s create the CO2 threat!
Additionally let’s bear in mind that these mega corporations advocate for free trade and privatization of the commons. Just follow the money.
We found the article however, and here it is: 2009 Carbon trading: world’s next biggest market. Almost two years ago, the New York Times ran a rather visionary article which quoted Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, claiming that “carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall.” .. Investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have rapidly expanded their carbon businesses. Scattered among the hedge funds and private equity funds in the Mayfair district of London are recently arrived niche investment banks that generate one of the main currencies of this emerging sector: carbon emissions reductions MORE https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/business/worldbusiness/06carbon.html
These are XR’s allies in the call for net-zero emissions.
Renewable energy doesn’t reduce the amount of energy being generated by fossil fuels, and doesn’t do anything to reduce atmospheric carbon. Wind turbines and solar panels are made of metals, which are mined using fossil fuels. Any attempt to transition to 100% renewables would require more of some rare earth metals than exist on the planet, and rare earth mining is mostly done illegally in ecologically sensitive areas in China…. The amount of fossil fuels needed to power the mines, manufacturing, infrastructure and maintenance of renewables makes the goal of transitioning to clean energy completely meaningless.
Bingo! Actually we, at Earth Custodians, hadn’t thought of that at all but here is the best argument to debunk the whole “anti-CO2 narrative”. Pease read the whole article on Medium. The latter is too long to do it justice in this short blog. It is somehow jaw dropping — seriously!
The only thing that will work is to degrow the ecomomy steadily while implementing RBE progressively, and this to reduce shocks to the system.
We really feel for Charles Eisenstein whose videos didn’t get many hits so far, but Earth Custodians endorse his stance and hope you will follow us in this decision. We must end money and forever. The system is absolutely indefensible!
How Do You Form an Opinion on Climate Change?
It really seems to someone on the other side that anyone who disagrees with them is just an idiot. Like, “how can you even question it when the evidence is so overwhelming?! When 97% of the scientists believe in it?! Haven’t you seen the hockeystick graph?!”
Am I a Climate Alarmist or a Climate Denier?
Obviously the climate debate is highly polarized. On one pole are the extremists, the alarmists, the catastrophists, and on the other pole are those who are called “the deniers.” That is an epithet that already implies that that side is wrong, so I prefer to say “the skeptics,” which is not to say that I agree with them, but I like to use relatively neutral terms to describe each side.