I am not seeing a coherent climate plan coming out of the movement. If the plan were sound then denialist would have a much harder time. In fact, I see denial out of the climate movement with their so-called solutions. Many of these claimed solutions are a scientific farce when reality tested with economics and systemness. The ecology of some of the plans is plain dirty and destructive. We have our best and brightest scientist proposing technologically dubious plans. These plans are pushing science that has not been proven. They are not realistic with affordability. The scale of these proposals is monstrous. The ideas of how humans should live in these new worlds is unrealistic.
I will admit renewables have a place as an extender of our modern way of life. We can get greener with them. Please don’t tell me EV’s are green because they are not. You can’t green the car culture. Then there is the Degrowthers who speak about a circular economy. I love the idea of it but degrowth means collapse economically. How “collapsed” is a big question but there will be no circular economy except at very small scales. So, our climate lefties are plenty at fault for denial it is just on the other side of the discussion.
Denying climate science is very hard to do and remain legitimate. Yet is it legitimate to dream up all kinds of wild solutions to the climate problems ahead? This is OK because it is said that we must be optimistic. We should be like they were in WWII with a Green New Deal and so forth. Let’s be like Kennedy and propose a moon landing. We can do it if we try type thing. Has anyone ever thought that maybe this is just digging the hole deeper? Finally, man has hit the brick wall but nobody will admit it. Will more techno solutions and more behavioral delusions going to make this tragedy better? I don’t think so.
There is nothing I see out there that says we can cut emissions and clean up our activity by 2050 or even 2080. People like to think we can advance technologically and solve the problem because that is what we have done. How about just admitting defeat? Start outfitting lifeboats for adapting and mitigating the coming destructive period. How about hospices of meaning where people talk about decline and collapse? To be fair such discussions are not possible so I guess by default the climate movement wins. Yet, they do not win on merit but instead only default. Yes, climate deniers are wrong I agree but don’t tell me climate movement hype and expect me to agree. What happens if you don’t agree with these green radicals? If you don’t agree then they called you a climate denier or better yet a Trumper.
I am outfitting my life for decline. I invested in solar and many other green strategies. I am also adapting behavior. I am doing it for what I feel is the right reason and that is green prepping. I want to live locally so I am investing in scalability of a way of life post peak modernism. I am a tree hugger and believe in localism but I do not care for the climate movement. They are barking up a tree like lunatics. They are better than the browns but not by much. This whole show is going to crash green or brown.
“William Rees: Memo from a Climate Crisis Realist: The Choice before Us”
https://tinyurl.com/stdrcxy energy skeptic
So, where might we go from here? A rational world with a good grasp of reality would have begun articulating a long-term wind-down strategy 20 or 30 years ago. The needed global emergency plan would certainly have included most of the 11 realistic responses to the climate crisis listed below — which, even if implemented today would at least slow the coming unravelling. And no, the currently proposed Green New Deal won’t do it. Here, then, is what an effective “Green New Deal” might look like:
Formal recognition of the end of material growth and the need to reduce the human ecological footprint;
Acknowledgement that, as long as we remain in overshoot — exploiting essential ecosystems faster than they can regenerate — sustainable production/consumption means less production/consumption;
Recognition of the theoretical and practical difficulties/impossibility of an all-green quantitatively equivalent energy transition;
Assistance to communities, families and individuals to facilitate the adoption of sustainable lifestyles (even North Americans lived happily on half the energy per capita in the 1960s that we use today);
Identification and implementation of strategies (e.g., taxes, fines) to encourage/force individuals and corporations to eliminate unnecessary fossil fuel use and reduce energy waste (half or more of energy “consumed” is wasted through inefficiencies and carelessness);
Programs to retrain the workforce for constructive employment in the new survival economy;
Policies to restructure the global and national economies to remain within the remaining “allowable” carbon budget while developing/improving sustainable energy alternatives;
Processes to allocate the remaining carbon budget (through rationing, quotas, etc.) fairly to essential uses only, such as food production, space/water heating, inter-urban transportation;
Plans to reduce the need for interregional transportation and increase regional resilience by re-localizing essential economic activity (de-globalization); image atom Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist read more
Recognition that equitable sustainability requires fiscal mechanisms for income/wealth redistribution;
A global population strategy to enable a smooth descent to the two to three billion that could live comfortably indefinitely within the biophysical means of nature.
“What? A deliberate contraction? That’s not going to happen!” I hear you say. And you are probably correct. It should by now be clear that H. sapiens is not primarily a rational species. But in being correct you only prove me correct. Disastrous climate change and energy shortages are near certainties in this century and global societal collapse a growing possibility that puts billions at risk.