Total War on Climate Change


Content Warning: Apocalyptic Environmental Problems. Really think twice before reading.

Do we give a shit about the world or not? About the human species or any others? About our own lives? Do we want to live in a disgusting hellpit – assuming we’re capable of living at all, when this is done? The latest IPCC report on climate change is a real motherfucker. Forty years until all the coral reefs die, even if we start doing things right this instant. That’s just one aspect of it.

The worst part is that we don’t know what effects that level of environmental devastation will have. Everything is interlinked in ecology. The coral reefs alone dying out (surely there will be more direct damage besides that) could have a knock-on effect that kills almost all non-bacterial life in the ocean. That could happen.

And some of that life helps regulate global temperatures – photosynthetic algae and the like. So what if that stuff dies off and the rate of greenhouse gas build runs away, beyond expectation? We could already be a dead species walking. That’s right. Even if we dropped everything right now and waged total war on climate change? It could already be too late. We could all fucking die over this.

I’d like to take a moment to thank the captains of industry and gold digging political bros for fucking our species to death for money. One love, baby. Capitalism is the only economic system that works with human nature. Human nature is to extinct itself like locusts gone wild, so, like, top marks my dudes.

What I’m here to say is this: We need to declare total war on climate change. In WWII we restructured our economy with fervor to meet the challenge of that time. Well the challenge now is, arguably, a lot more dire. Making “carbon markets” and all that kinda crap? Insufficient funds, man. It’s time to go all out. Now.

It might be too late, but at least if you get on board with this, you can say you died fighting. Any of you captains of industry and pet politicians not on board? You’re pissing on your own graves, fiddling while Rome burns. See how far that gets you.


Comments

  1. lanir says

    I think part of the problem is that the decisions are being made by elderly people who don’t have to deal with it. These people are already selfish, it’s how you make tons of money to begin with. You literally can’t make a mint without shorting someone else at least to some degree on the profit from their efforts. So these people who are remarkable for having been successful at being selfish, they’re going to turn around and make sacrifices to save the world?

    Yeah, right. That’s not happening. Not unless they figure out a way to make even more money out of it. Or in other words, they’ll hold the continued existence of the planet as we currently know it hostage until we give up even more to make them even richer. Watch for this sort of self-serving BS to pop up in the next decade or so as these predictions start to show up in ways even willfully ignorant fools have a hard time ignoring.

    The only real solution will be to force them into it. Or wait until it’s too late and things are visibly falling apart around us all and the crop of selfish old assholes we have at the time has to take measures to try to save themselves. But that’s as likely to be hidden bunkers as anything actually useful.

  2. says

    It’s such a crude piece of psychology but so effective. They tied climate change denialism to conservative identity, so that no one who wants to be a conservative or be seen as a conservative can dare respond to these burgeoning disasters with honesty or decency.

    • EnlightenmentLiberal says

      And they also tied the progressive identity to opposition to the only practical technology to fix the problem, nuclear. It’s a neat trick that the fossil fuel lobby did.

      See:

      Famous climate scientist James Hansen:

      Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

      4 prominent climate scientists, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, James Hansen, Tom Wigley,
      https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html

      75 prominent climate scientists with another open letter:
      https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/12/15/an-open-letter-to-environmentalists-on-nuclear-energy/

      And more, including a survey of the broader group of climate scientists, and 65% favor building nuclear:

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2017/08/03/the-real-climate-consensus-nuclear-power/
      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html

      There is no consensus among actual scientists that renewables can do it without nuclear, and there is a preponderance of climate scientists whop believe that we should be doing nuclear. There’s just a few people, liars, probably paid shills by fossil fuels, like Mark Jacobson, who say otherwise.

  3. says

    I’m undecided on the nuclear. Reportedly renewables are doing great in Europe, but I don’t know who to believe on that. And just bc we’ve done a godawful job of managing nuclear waste doesn’t mean that this must always and forever be the case. I’ve seen very reasonable-seeming takes from both sides.

    • EnlightenmentLiberal says

      To Great American Satan
      That is a fine position to hold. I’ll still have to stick to my position fiercely because I believe that I have good strong reasons that it is true, but I cannot fault someone for saying “I do not know”.

  4. Martin Zeichner says

    My two cents:

    I agree about climate change. We did something about chlorofluorocarbons in spray cans and elsewhere damaging the ozone layer and causing cancers. We should be able to do something about anthropogenic climate change.

    I’m not sure that it is any one group of people that is to blame. We are all selfish. We have to be selfish. We evolved to be selfish for some very good reasons. Selfish organisms survive while non-selfish organisms don’t. I’m not saying that selfishness is necessarily a good thing. It just is. ‘…there is nothing that is either good or bad but thinking makes it so.’ We should want to do something about climate change out of our own selfishness.

    Everybody’s goals are to live well and do well by their families and friends. When one group demonizes the other by claiming that the the ‘other’ has an ulterior motive, it is xenophobia writ large.

    Nobody is Ebeneezer Scrooge either before or after the ghosts’ visit. Most people are able to find a balance between one and the other.

    It’s not a question of old people versus young people, or experienced business people versus non-experienced business people or religious people versus non-religious people. If it were, the actual solution would be easy. Life is more complex than that. We are torn between the necessity of judging each argument by it’s own merits and the expediency of jumping to conclusions based on generalizations. If you want to put it in logical terms, Inductive reasoning, versus deductive reasoning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *