Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
However, I think I know you better and understand your point as a contrivance for not having to advocate for remedial action against extremely bad possible outcomes, as you couldn't give a damn about hundreds of millions or even billions of displaced or dead people around the world, as your stated attitude to refugees is to prevent them from immigrating if necessary by force (because if they are breaking a nation's laws according to you that should put them at risk of being killed).
1) i am not against the TOTALITY of possible remedial actions. I am against the absurd focus on emission reductions vs mitigation , and against any emission reduction effort which isn't predicated on the only acceptable principle , which is "the most emission reduction with the smallest sacrifice for citizens".
There is almost no 1 on the left working on the "how much exactly does this cost, how much exactly does this reduce emissions, this is the list, we go with the first things first".
It's all moral grandstanding, religious fervour, and the possibility of achieving more socialism with the excuse of emissions reductions.
How ******ed can policy makers be to cover germany in solar panels while closing nuclear plants? in which world is that a sensible way to address emission reduction with the lowest possible sacrifice from citizens?
After they do that and they aren't annihilated politically, canceled forever, criticized as the worst possible and so on (wrt climate change remedies), you start to understand they (=most climate activists on the left) are in bad faith.
Anyone who is not super-in-favour of nuclear for example is clearly a bad faith actor motivated only by nefarious intents. And that's a lot of climate change activists, especially a lot of green parties. They fought tooth and nail (losing narrowly) trying NOT to count nuclear energy as clean (=emission free) even if it is by far the cleanests source, in the emission sense (yes by far).
Once it's 100% transparent they are completly in bad faith, and i explained why that's the case, they can't be interlocutor about the topic anymore. Everything published by anyone linked to them automatically loses any intellectual credibility, any paper they use or cite to make a point loses all credibility and so on. It's not science anymore.
2) I don't give a damn about my own citizens mostly, imagine how much i care about foreign people. I dislike welfare and the only rationale for it is to avoid those citizens voting for something that damages me even more. If someone can't vote against my freedoms i am not up to sacrifice for him in any way in general.
There might be exceptions for some causes sometimes but in general, as all rational people do (the revealed preferences, through actions, prove that), i dont give much of a **** about people who aren't my family or friends.
That said even if climate warming is clearly going to be more damaging for currently-already-hot countries than for cold ones, and many of them are already poor, they are still going to be better off than today even accounting for climate warming because of baseline economic growth by far, UNLESS we suicide the glocal economy.
So the collapse of the global economy & trade is a far bigger threat to Bangladesh (possibly the big country that loses the most from warming) than climate warming. And what risks causing the collapse of the global economy? leftism in general winning and having it's way.
If people actually cared about residents in Bangladesh, the purported reason why someone in Berlin should consume fewer fossil fuels, they would first guarantee that the technocratic, capitalistic, global order of Pax Americana lasts another century, then perhaps discuss emissions.
But as far as emissions go, lying completly is unacceptable anyway. I know for the radical left it is, they have no moral principle in pursuing their agenda. But lying to Germans inventing the most insane possible negatives of global warming FOR THEM, while the reality would be at most to reduce emissions to make life even better for people in Bangladesh, Mexico and so on, is unacceptable.
But the point stays that in 2050 , even if the world is 1 celsius hotter than today, life in Bangladesh would be better than today if their economy grows as per the past 30 years trend. Same is true in 2100 even in the "bad case" warming scenarios.
So all the "climatic refugees" nonsense is just that. I completly made up scare. People wanting to move might increase in numbers, but not because they "die from the heat".
People come to europe from Africa today MUCH MORE than they did in 1970. And objectively life in Africa in 1970 was far far far far worse than it is today.