The No-Climate-Change Perspective "All Lies About Global Warming DEBUNKED in One Article"

Victor Skaggs wrote:

Len Ovens wrote:

What not to do about climate change:

Don't: Lobby for government action. First off, it is unlikely any government action will have the desired effect as the government is guided by rich companies and single minded emotional groups. The other thing is that any action the government can take will hurt the poor... while still doing nothing to change things.

Here again is the notion that govt is inevitably wrong and evil. Really? Should we then not bother voting?

The USA govt has done a number of things which have benefited this society. TVA. Medicare. WPA. NASA. Civil Rights Bill. Environmental regs.

There are many places where the "government" (and I am not speaking US gov. in particular... I don't live there) does good things. This is not one of them. The international community that most of the first world governments subscribe too has in my opinion "got it wrong" as to the best ways of dealing with climate change. It is broad brushed across the world and does not take into account each country's climate, or population density or many other things. This means that a small land area country that happens to have geothermal energy, even in a cooler climate, can keep their citizens warm in the winter with no fossil fuel easily. However, a vast, lightly populated country in a cool or cold climate such as Canada or Russia, end up only being able to tax their citizens with a carbon tax... which does nothing towards reducing pollution at all but does mostly affect the poor (and even the not so poor). The problem is more complex than just CO2 or even CH4. Yet there is an urgency to "do something" which seems to be causing solutions to be proposed that lack good judgement and are based (from what I can see) more on "will I get voted in again" or "who will pay for my next re-election campaign".

As a small example: Because there are so many people who do not know how to use wood heat... the thought is to ban any wood burning appliance. Rather than actually study the problem thoroughly and see if the stoves themselves might be the problem. (they are) It is possible to burn wood in a clean manner. What does a ban of wood burning appliances do? it means people who depend on wood to stay warm in the winter, wood which they gather at little cost (transport and processing) would have to pay either for a higher amperage power connection or a natural gas connection as well as heating equipment. There is no financial help available for this install after which the cost of heating their own home goes up 100 times or so. For some people this is not a problem, they just look at it as an upgrade they can recupe when they sell their home. For others it may be the difference between owning their own home and selling it to rent from someone else... and still pay more than they can afford to stay warm in the winter. As I said, a band aid solution in preparation for the next election that hurts the poor (who would in no way support anyone financially anyway).

As for voting in an election being worth while or not, I would point to the last election in the US where the choice was a loud mouth, jump first then study on one hand and a secretive person who does most things behind the public's back on the other... not much choice. I do think the US got the better of the two.... As for the young fool we hope will go away next election in our country... I will not comment except that it is disheartening to know that by the time the polls close in Ontario... the choice has already been made. Not much representation for the rest of the country. Not much incentive to vote west of Ontario either. Oh, we will anyway, just in case things are close enough it makes a difference...

In the end, in fact you are part of a large global population as well as national, state and local communities. Nobody is an independent actor. Nobody makes decisions which are not affected by the possibilities and restrictions instituted by governments, corporations, and other structural forces.

If govt does nothing, then the other powers, which mostly means corporations, will be making the decisions and taking all the action, and so do we really think we can trust the Koch Bros. more than the USA govt? The mythical "free market" should control everything?

Weak central govts are a hallmark of feudalism and other great ills.

A government that knows when not to interfere is not weak. The world is full of weak governments in my opinion, "The mythical free market" really large corporations, does tend to control the governments around the world much more than is healthy. The world of democracy has become, in my opinion, a practical anarchy where the one with the biggest stick rules... and that is not generally the government or "the people". As for feudalism, I am not to sure how far away from that most people are or perhaps outright slavery but this is all my opinion and not really relevant to this discussion.

Anyway, that was not my point. My point is that waiting for someone up there to "do something" is not a great way to live life. Rather it is better to look at what I can do personally to: A) survive the inevitable changes, good or bad, and  B) Do what I can to make things better at least for my family but also for the world around me. If it is changing how I do things by living a less polluting life style, moving to live somewhere else, or inventing something that can help others to live in the new world we find ourselves in. And yes even taking time to make an informed vote and being active in our government's decisions can be a part of that.

Len Ovens wrote:The international community that most of the first world governments subscribe too has in my opinion "got it wrong" as to the best ways of dealing with climate change. It is broad brushed across the world and does not take into account each country's climate, or population density or many other things.

I'm not convinced that is the process/goal.

"Decision 2/CP.23
Local communities and indigenous peoples platform
The Conference of the Parties,
Recalling the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
decision 1/CP.21 and the Paris Agreement,
Acknowledging that Parties should, when taking action to address climate change,
respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on the rights of indigenous
peoples and local communities,
Emphasizing the role of local communities and indigenous peoples in achieving the
targets and goals set out in the Convention, the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, and recognizing their vulnerability to climate change,
Reaffirming the need to strengthen the knowledge, technologies, practices and
efforts of local communities and indigenous peoples related to addressing and responding
to climate change, and the importance of the platform established for the exchange of
experience and sharing of best practices related to mitigation and adaptation in a holistic
and integrated manner,
1. Notes with appreciation the submissions from Parties,1
indigenous peoples
organizations and other relevant organizations2 on the purpose, content and structure of the
local communities and indigenous peoples platform (hereinafter referred to as the
platform);
2. Acknowledges the fruitful exchange of views that took place during the open multistakeholder dialogue that was convened by the Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific
and Technological Advice and co-moderated with a representative of indigenous peoples
organizations during the forty-sixth session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice, on 16 and 17 May 2017;3
3. Notes with appreciation the support provided by Belgium and New Zealand for the
participation of representatives of indigenous peoples organizations in the multistakeholder dialogue referred to in paragraph 2 above;
4. Welcomes the report on the proposals on the operationalization of the platform based
on the open multi-stakeholder dialogue referred to in paragraph 2 above and the
submissions received;4
5. Decides that the overall purposes of the platform will be to strengthen the
knowledge, technologies, practices and efforts of local communities and indigenous
peoples related to addressing and responding to climate change, to facilitate the exchange
of experience and the sharing of best practices and lessons learned related to mitigation and
adaptation in a holistic and integrated manner and to enhance the engagement of local
communities and indigenous peoples in the UNFCCC process;
..."

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2017/cop23/eng/11a01.pdf

https://unfccc.int/documents/65126

Can we think of projects that most people can agree on are good? Like Ethiopia planting 350 million trees?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49151523
https://www.africanews.com/2019/05/27/ethiopia-pm-launches-4-billion-tree-planting-project-starting-in-oromia/
Apparently the country had gone from a tree coverage of some 30 - 35% over a century ago to just some 4% recently. Ethiopia is an arid and warm country, prone to desertification.
They were obviously feeling the negative effects of having lost so many trees, like 2 million livestock dead in 2017 during a drought.

I believe climate change was not a theoretical discussion between scientists anymore for Ethiopians. They saw what was happening, and although I haven't really delved deep into the Ethiopian situation, and I'm seeing there's some criticism from people saying the government is trying to deflect from other problems, I do get the impression, because of the scale of the project, that it was widely supported.
Some countries will feel the effects of climate change earlier than others. It would be interesting to monitor projects like this one in Ethiopia, certainly arid countries could possibly take a lot away from it.

J Grouwstra wrote:Can we think of projects that most people can agree on are good?

Water cycle restoration https://permies.com/t/118080/Hope-World-Crisis-Water-Cycle

Regenerating native forests https://permies.com/t/119214/Regenerating-Native-Forest-Happen-Films#963358

John Liu's Ecosystem Restoration Camps  https://www.ecosystemrestorationcamps.org/foundation/john-d-liu/

US heat projections map:  https://ucsusa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=e4e9082a1ec343c794d27f3e12dd006d

OK, if the heat map is Exhibit A, how about the 100 companies that produce 71% of Global emissions of CO2 as Exhibit B.  https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

Hmmm... seems that list consists of coal, oil and gas companies.

My conclusion: I agree with Gert - don't buy stuff! Particularly, don't buy gas by driving less or driving a smaller/more efficient car when you do have to drive. Insulate your house so you use less energy to keep it comfy and build a rocket mass heater if your house can be retrofitted for one. Grow your own food, so you aren't contributing to the typical North American "food miles". If we don't use it, we don't have to buy it.