California’s “climate change” policies “have had a particularly devastating impact on manufacturing. California’s “renewable energy” push has generated high energy prices and the nation’s least-reliable power grid, crippling an industry reliant on fossil fuels and a stable electric supply.”
And that’s only one of its pressing problems. Read about them:
Yes, to paraphrase Trump, everything Democrats/leftists touch turns into crap.
I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that high energy prices are the objective, because the other explanations such as protecting the environment, or that the powers that be are just really stupid and don’t understand the consequences of trying to depend on renewables, are just not credible.
Having come to this conclusion I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to know why that is the objective either, especially if this trend continues, because things could get very serious indeed in all sorts of respects if this continues, and in the near future. Some sort of eugenics program certainly seems a more credible explanation to me. We need to know what’s really going on in the heads of the world’s leaders.
It is puzzling. I believe that the situation is actually a lot more complex than appears at first sight:
There are certainly powerful groups who are pushing “environmental protection” as the reason for their “renewable energy” zeal.
There are others who believe the world is infested with humanity and a cull is vital to save the Earth.
There are still others who just see this as a path to political power; if they pander to various groups they get funding, and funding = office (in our system).
It is absolutely clear to me (as an electrical engineer; retired) that our lawmakers and civil servants are clueless about physics, and have not done the detailed studies that would show that “renewable energy” is not compatible with a modern, functioning, industrial society that can provide the level of goods and services we have become accustomed to. And there are many people who believe, fervently, that western living standards are actually evil.
That TPTB may be irredeemably stupid is borne out by a multitude of historical examples.
The inane idea that wind and solar energy are “free” is typical. So is coal, oil, gas, uranium, etc. All free (do we have to buy those things from Martians?)
Humanity has a unique characteristic; we are the only creatures who know we are going to die, this knowledge produces anxiety. In some humans this anxiety becomes all-consuming, thus the “Karens” screeching about all manner of ills that they don’t understand at all, but which terrify them.
Unfortunately Karens vote, and, in California at least, they have out-voted the common sense crowd by a wide margin.
it is beyond doubt that some powerful people believe that a cull of billions of humans is an absolute necessity. Not too many politicians are campaigning on that platform, which just goes to show you what your vote and small donations are really worth.
There is hope that the US can change course. We need to have a President who has political skills and a team of supporters, with a real, concrete, plan of action. That may not help Ca. of course, but, hey, you lot made your bed, now lie in it.
Yes I’m sure it is complicated, lots of different people with different interests, objectives, and beliefs are involved. Very likely there are layers in the control structure, lower down we have people perhaps like politicians, journalists and academics who are both manipulators and manipulated. Some of these people may be “true believers” who believe the propaganda about catastrophic climate change, probably also in differing degrees - the Guardian writers apparently justify lying to the public by saying that they are portraying a “broader truth”, some of them may perhaps think climate change is a problem but are prepared to exaggerate the rate it is occurring in order to manipulate their readers into “doing the right thing”. Others as you say are undoubtedly just self-serving career politicians just doing what they think (or know) will please the mega-rich people.
However I do strongly suspect there is very broadly speaking an underlying agenda that the mega-rich people are pushing, with certain clear objective(s) which may include population reduction but certainly do I think include a desire to introduce a much more authoritarian form of government, and I think probably desire a truly global government and more or less open borders worldwide (to facilitate trade). Again even among these people there are probably varying opinions about exactly how far things should be taken, for example what degree of freedom of speech should be allowed, whether democracy should be abolished altogether, and so on. As I commented under another topic, Elon Musk definitely seems to be a maverick who has ideas a little out of alignment with some of those who want a greater degree of authoritarianism.
A huge question in my mind is whether the Chinese government is in league with the Western leaders or just playing along and biding their time till they see a good moment to take advantage of the West’s foolish policies that are undermining our competitiveness and driving us ever further into debt.
I’m pretty sure whatever the mega-rich are really trying to achieve there will be unintended consequences, that their plans will backfire to some degree. I think their faith in technology is probably ahead of where the science actually is today for one thing, as perhaps we have seen with the jabs. A major upset may come in the form of growing anger about jab harms, or we might even eventually see real violent revolutionary movements erupting in some regions. I’m certainly not calling for such though as I don’t think such revolutions would necessarily have a good outcome at all.
I think there is a huge problem in that the powers that be exist in a group-think bubble, since we do not know exactly what they are trying to accomplish we cannot point out the folly of their plan, there is no public debate about what they are doing, only suppression and division.
The leftist/globalist plan behind the climate crisis propaganda has always been to destroy capitalism and establish Socialism on a global scale.
Way back when everyone was discussing Agenda 21, I remember seeing a clip (in one of Jillian’s posts at TAC) of a woman who was a UN or some global official who stated openly that the purpose of it all was to destroy capitalism.
That’s really the only logical explanation for it anyway, since it is a totally idiotic, destructive bunch of B.S. that has no basis in reality, just like every other leftist lie, such as CRT and the LGBTQ child grooming agenda, which are being pushed to destroy children, families, and our culture in general.
You are right, Liz. Well remembered! The woman was Christiana Figueres.
Here is one of the posts that mention her and her confession that the goal of the warmists is to establish world government and redistribute wealth.
https://theatheistconservative.com/2016/04/01/turning-point/
Here Christiana Figueres talks about " re-creating the world" for “humanity’s collective future”.
Far from “words of hope”, they are words of despair.
Yes, that’s her! Thanks for re-posting it here!
This really tells you all you need to know about their agenda. And obviously, it hasn’t changed since then - its only accelerating.
“Words of despair” is a bit strong.
(Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been busy as hell with proposals).
There are issues that require a supra-national approach to reach solutions, climate change may be one of those issues. She calls for students to work for companies that follow a “people, planet, and profit” model.A bit squishy perhaps but hardly controversial.
She does use the word “collective”, a dog whistle word to those of the libertarian persuasion.
I remember a National Geographic article from way back, in the 70s I think. It was about the clearance of the Amazon rain forest and the potential damage to the worlds oxygen supply: The response of an American billionnaire, involved in the clearances, to the question: “Nobody is paying us for oxygen”. Stated like a true laissez faire nihilist.
The organisations that have been established to provide some degree of collective human government were founded in response to catastrophes caused by nationalist politics; WW1 (The League of Nations). WW2 (The United nations and the precursor of todays EU).
It has to said that these institutions have been profound failures at their stated objectives, but that is not a reason to give up.
There are many World problems that just cannot be solved at the nation-state level.
Man made climate change is not an “issue that requires a supra-national approach”. Its B.S., period.
The only reason this “issue” even exists is because leftists created it out of whole cloth, as an excuse to destroy the worlds energy supply and economy, and establish socialist “global governance” as the “solution”.
I didn’t mean that she was expressing despair. I meant that the world she envisions is enough to make us all despair.
So you believe in anthropogenic global warming?
Here is my opinion, written in 2016, of world government.
https://theatheistconservative.com/world-government-the-ultimate-nightmare/
Glad to re-read that very good article!
Also the one titled “Turning Point” above.
It is even more relevant today than when you first wrote it!
“Anthropogenic global warming”: The facts are these: The Earth’s deposits of coal, oil and natural gas, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years. Huge quantities of carbon and other chemicals were sequestered into the Earth’s crust during that time.
Humanity will, over a period of approximately 500 years, (1800-2300), dig it all up and burn it back into the atmosphere. You may believe that to be beneficial, or harmful, or a bit of both. What is impossible to believe is that it will have no effect whatsoever.
Dr. Tim Morgan has a graph in his Perfect Storm report; it shows the history of human GDP as a spike.
What it actually means is that in 300 years or so, the few surviving humans on Earth will be engaged in subsistence agriculture and/or hunting and gathering.
There will be no starships, halodecks, United Federation of Planets, or any other of the fantasies of Hollywood script writers.
If our current climate alarmists get their way, we’ll be reduced to subsistence farming and hunter/gathering alot sooner than that.
If we use the coal, oil and natural gas that we have, which will raise and maintain a decent standard of living for the world, we will probably figure out what to do next in 300 years.
Yes. As Liz says, let’s use it while we’ve got it.
It’s up to every generation to solve its own problems and find ways to satisfy its own needs.
And let’s give nuclear energy a chance!
The way things are going, illiteracy is a greater danger to future generations than fossil fuels.
Not possible. There is no substitute for fossil fuels. The human race has had a fantastic run, it is about to turn south in the worst possible way.
So you believe the climate alarmist B.S.!
Liz, as I explained above; there is no doubt that the climate trajectory has been changed by the use of fossil fuels. It is impossible that our usage of these resources, laid down over hundreds of millions of years, and dug up and burned by humanity over a 500 year (approximately; 1800 to 2300) period, has not altered Earth’s history.
The effect may be beneficial, or it may be harmful, or some of both, but it has had an effect.
Unfortunately we live in a time of total dishonesty. It is impossible to believe the spam that we are fed.
Academia, the media, politicians, scientists, govt. bureaucrats, wanna-be priests of all sorts of crazy sects; pretty much all of them peddle their agendas with no regard for truth.