Our future?

[cromwell]

Just read this on another forum.

"Large sections of the politico/media/heath/econut establishment do not want living standards to rise. They want an impoverished working/middle class, with severe restrictions on travel and energy use, ostensibly to save the planet.
In most of the West, the US included, the share of wealth enjoyed by the working and middle classes has been falling for years. Since the pandemic, the wealth gap has grown significantly. While many medium and small businesses have been driven to the wall or are on their last legs, the oligarchs of Amazon and so on have enjoyed record profits.
We will soon see a similar transfer of wealth from poor to rich - all excused by the climate change scam - in the form of property. Already the young cannot afford to buy their own home. Now, those with them, especially those with older large properties, will have difficulty selling them, or be forced to sell them for much lower values, as the establishment plans to make it difficult to sell a home that does not meet their lunatic energy efficiency criteria (all enforced by an army of ignorant, otherwise unemployable fake surveyors who found the money to buy the certificate). The banks are on standby to hoover up homes at huge discounts.
Don't forget folks, the plan is that by 2030 you (not they) will own nothing."

Anything in it?

[medsec222]

Wouldn't be surprised.

[Workingman]

Anything in it?

Not really.

A Bezos, Musk or Branson with more billions makes no difference to me - or them or you. It's just a number. They still have to drive on the same side of the road, file a flight plan, breathe, eat and drink, same as you and me.

Are their riches making me poorer? Not in the slightest. The wealth gap between the super rich and the ordinary is overstated. The wealth gap between the middle and the super poor is way more important and that is still widening. We do need to address that. Your last paragraph points some of them out.

When it comes to things "green" there is a big problem. Like it or not we do have big issues with the climate and the environment, mostly the environment, and we all have to chip in to resolve them. Resolving them will mean radical changes to the way we live at some point. Does that mean a reduction on living standards? It depends on what is called a reduction. Not getting the latest model of a phone or car or a new handbag or pair of trainers could be classed as reduction of living standards, but they are hardly life changing.

We need to revaluate the things we now see as essential because big changes are coming, the pipeline is already primed..

[Suff]

Pretty much the same sentiment WM, but I do have one issue.

Like it or not we do have big issues with the climate and the environment, mostly the environment

Environment is fairly simple, there are too many of us. The climate is in an entirely different bracket.

On the - side, Just about every person on the planet, for the last 160 years, has been screwing the climate up.

On the + side, if we don't fix the climate it will fix us. Which then fixes the environment issue as there will be about 5bn less of us.

So whilst you think the environment is the bigger problem, it depends on what you are worried about. In a lot of ways I think that not fixing the climate is something the planet needs. Humans really do need a good culling if they won't control their breeding. However, in the process, the climate will kill off around 90% of the species on the planet.

So there is good reason for a transition. My main issue is with this "GREEN" BS. We need a carbon negative future for at least 5 decades and it needs to be NEGATIVE in BIG numbers. Now carbon negative doesn't need to be Green. It just needs to reduce our CO2 impact on the atmosphere, in the first instance and reduce it in real figures over time.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in whether it is "renewable", or green, or not; so long as the whole process from fuel gathering to burning is net CO2 negative.

After all if there's only a couple of billion of us left, the environment gets a freebie and those left have a much healthier awareness of pissing the planet off.

As to whether "interests" who are not "interested" in fixing either the climate or the environment are wagging the dog? Just look in the news on a daily basis and work it out.

[Workingman]

Shades of?

It is not the climate or the environment, it is both.

In fact the environment could help us get to -ve CO2 if we gave it a helping hand.

A big if and a big hand

[Suff]

A big if and a big hand

I think the hardest part for the man in the street to understand is that virtually everyone on the planet has been pushing the climate growth. There was some analysis done about 20 years ago which suggested that One modern city of around 1m people was enough to stop the planet ever having an ice age again at current emission levels.

So when we talk about a BIG hand, we're talking about everyone on the planet stopping the emissions they are currently emitting and then switching to Negative emissions to the same level for at least 50 years.

That is the size of the problem. Hence the NIMBY "environmentalists" in Germany trying to stop the creation of a factory to produce electric vehicles which might, just, help reduce emissions down to a supportable level.

Transportation is 1/3 of the problem. Yet it is one of the easiest fixed. That may seem like an odd thing to say, but, actually, it is. Especially if the electric generating grids are switched at the same time. 50% gain on current annual emissions.

The problem is that it takes time. But, still, it is the Easiest. Farming, land use, heating, industrial energy, shipping, flights. All harder.

[cromwell]

Just bumping this because of an article I read this week. This phrase especially struck home.
"I'm a libertarian who believes in genuine competitive capitalism, not a technocrat who wants to use economic weapons to manipulate society".
In particular the author gives as example road ricing (charging by the miles you drive).
Used properly it could simplify motoring taxation and generate revenue to build new roads.
In practice it will probably be used as a punishment tax, a tool of cultural warfare, a punishment to restrict mobility.
In a state where the only morally acceptable forms of transport are walking and cycling (and every proposal on future transport is always about only walking and cycling), motorists will be punished.

It used to be that governments wanted to increase the standards of living of the population, now all mainstream politicians are dedicated to making people's lives worse.
Exaggeration?
Maybe, but now the state is not in favour of you flying off to see family in Australia, driving to the shops, commuting via private car, or being allowed to choose how you heat your home. The new god is net zero, and is going to affect everything and everybody whether they realise it or not.
This is not to have a pop at people like Suff, but rather to point out that a new, authoritarian society is on the way and the excuse for that authoritarianism will be net zero.
A clue is in the governments new "Media harms" bill, which briefly mentions cracking down on "misinformation".
Citizen, you have been arrested for wrongthink!

[Workingman]

"Net zero" is a chimera, a fantasy, and one that can never be achieved in an industrial and capitalist world. It is nothing more than a catchy slogan. It might be almost achievable in small pockets of agrarian vegan populations without any industry, but for planet Earth: forget it.

I say that as a long time believer in climate change and supporter of environmental issues. I will also say that technology is not going to change things greatly, it is certainly not going to get us to negative CO2 as there are just too many of us wanting too many things unnecessary for life, and our numbers grow by the day.

We have gone way past the ability of Earth to sustain us naturally and neutrally and have become dependent on the artificial life support systems we have put in place. It will all end one day. I would not want to live the life of any of my great grandchildren.

[Suff]

OR

We will use the impetus to mine the solar system and continue to evolve.

Granted we need to solve the population issue. As well as to solve the climate issue and the damage we are doing to the environment and liveable biosphere.

The freedom to simply trash the climate of the planet because it is "convenient" to us, enshrined in so called "personal freedom", is not something the planet can continue to support.

I don't like it much, but I recognise it.

Like WM, I wouldn't change places with my grandkids. I will educate them on what they face though.

[cromwell]

Granted we need to solve the population issue.

Yes, strange how overpopulation never gets mentioned.
It appears to be political death to mention it, so they don't. Or at least it is impolite to mention it in political circles.