Perhaps this article should come with a trigger warning...
Could President Trump be one of the few leaders that sees the difference between the Global Warming Mania and actual environmentalism?
The problem with the idea of global warming as the most important environmental challenge facing humanity, is that it is patently false. Ecological destruction, local air and water pollution, ocean pollution and resource depletion are all far greater and more immediate threats to all life on the planet.
The issues with focusing on a global and abstract threat like 'global warming' are that:
- It is difficult for people to relate to or have a feeling of empowerment over. They are scared of the consequences but have no options to act. The solution is all down to governments donating taxpayers money to global institutions.
- Because of (1) people have adapted to make themselves feel better about their lack of action on a personal level through virtue signalling and collective outrage which perpetuates the misguided approach.
- At the same time this ideology embraces globalism, one of the biggest (and most unnecessary) contributors to carbon emissions and ecological destruction and, ironically, believes that the solution is to throw money into a global fund.
Actual environmentalism on the other hand, should prioritise local-level policy and action to drive changes towards cleaner power generation, cleaning up our water, air and food supplies, ecological protection and sustainable resource exploitation. Part of this comes from maximising localisation of the economy - the opposite of globalisation. It seems obvious that it is only on the local level where people feel they can make a real difference and can be fulfilled by their efforts.
Here is an excerpt from the full article
"He made the comments after saying that he would cancel payments to the United Nations for a Green Climate Fund under the Paris climate accord. Instead, the money would be “used to support our environmental infrastructure” with the goal of clean water and air.
Trump reiterated the same sentiment in a meeting with automakers early in his presidency
“I am to a large extent, an environmentalist. I believe in it,” he said. “But it is out of control.”
But Trump is no longer trying to convince people of his environmental leanings. Instead, the administration is implementing energy programs that focus on technological innovation over regulation, much like past Republican administrations.
The Energy Department has been making frequent announcements about funding, international agreements, and private-sector collaboration to push clean energy development."
I don't think I could disagree more. Donald Trump objected to an offshore wind farm off the Scottish coast. That was a local energy program that focuses on technological innovation. It was nothing to do with the USA, he should of let the people that live there decide how they produce the energy they consume.
I'm not sure you disagree with me. I am not taking a stance or claiming anything about Trump one way or the other.
If Trump, as a foreign business owner, was able to influence Scottish infrastructure development decisions then that is a problem for the Scottish people to resolve. Maybe there is something is wrong with the process there?
My point is that the US focus away from feeding into the global warming hype and towards effecting US policy, fits better into where I think the focus should be and where the real solutions lie.
There's nothing wrong with the legal process in Scotland. Trump lost his legal battle in the the supreme court. I used to think there was a lot of hype about global warming but then I looked at the small percentage of scientists that are skeptics. They convinced me that the majority of scientists that are claiming it's a problem that needs drastic action now are correct. Most of the skeptics I researched have a not very well hidden agenda or are more like conspiracy theorists.
Even if the small number of "scientists" that are still skeptical are correct, I don't see any harm in moving away from fossil fuels. There's wind farms, solar farms and a wave energy project near where I live. They might be expensive now but in the long term, they will be cheaper than digging up and burning coal. 15% of the UK's electricity was provided by wind farms last year.
I'm not surprised a businessman would object to something that would impact his business. But it is great that the right outcome was achieved.
I think you might be missing my point on the global warming issue. It is about what are the most important threats to life and having the focus on those threats in the appropriate proportion.
How many humans and other species are dying every year from 'global warming'? Provably? None.
Compare that number to the provable number dying directly from ecosystem destruction, like oceans & rain forests and from direct pollution in the air and water ways. Then from all the diseases that stem from those and others factors like diet & farming practices etc.
This number is in the tens of millions. And that's just humans.
The focus is completely skewed. And there is a clear agenda behind that. The global economic system that has developed relies on the practices that do the damage.
And regardless of whether humans cause climate change, the earth is always changing. The carbon cycle is alive. Humans would have to experience this process at some point even if we'd released zero carbon. Just look at the history of earth temperatures. It got a lot hotter when we were not about and it will do so again.
My career is in renewable energy so I am already sold on that part, its a given, nothing will stop it.
Last point: I think 'conspiracy theorist' has just become a new word for someone who questions any mainstream narrative. It doesn't carry any weight as a criticism anymore.
Why can't we do both at the same time? The scientific consensus is that global warming is going to cause huge problems. While there's a chance they could all be wrong, I think it's wise to take their warnings seriously. There's no reason why we can't improve the oceans, rainforests, water and air at the same time.
I know that the natural cycles of the earth mean that it will be uninhabitable to humans one day. Why should that prevent us doing our best to make sure that we aren't adding to the problem?
I disagree about conspiracy theorists, it seems quite an accurate description. I would say David Icke is a conspiracy theorist but I'm quite happy to call him someone who talks claptrap, if you want an older word.
I agree its better to do something just in case. And the areas I suggest to focus on, do also simultaneously push back on the potential drivers for climate change. The focus being the important point. Focus on the things that are destroying life and that people can affect.
I'm not sure David Icke is a climate scientist, although he has an opinion on it. There are plenty of well established scientists whose research does not support human-induced climate change. But as I mentioned it's not the big issue - its actually a futile subject to debate given we address it by focusing on the more pressing issues that people can affect.
Of the well established scientists, for every 3 that disagree with human-induced climate change, there's 97 that have the opposite opinion. I believe that prevention is better than cure and will save a lot of lives and money in the long term.
It probably is a futile subject to debate because the US is locked into the Paris agreement until almost the end of Trumps term in office. I dread to think what the US economy is likely to be like by then, if the democrats can find someone electable, Trump will be history.
It does not much matter what you believe the problem is, or what name you want to give it. The solutions are still the same if we want to pass on an inhabitable planet to future generations. Extracting and consuming fossil fuels is leading us to pollute our air and water. Unsustainable agriculture and livestock practices are destroying the arable soils. The proliferation of disposable plastics is despoiling the environment. There are alternatives that we can implement now, with technologies we have at hand, or that we can soon develop with some forward thinking leadership. Mr. Trump is dragging us backwards, when we need to move ahead with everything we have.
It matters because the solutions are dependent on human beings 1) truly understanding the issues 2) having the power to meaningfully act / skin in the game and 3) getting fulfillment from their actions.
As you can see, focusing on a big scary abstract like global warming is hard to relate to on all 3 points. So we are rabbits in headlights, while we should be focusing on the real issues that if we solved would make the global warming idea irrelevant.
I'm not sure if you read the article or just the headline...
good
hey, this post resteemed by @manikchandsk to over 7200 followers and voted. good luck
thanks for using our service.
send 0.300 sbd or steem to @manikchandsk and keep post link in memo that you want resteem + 60 upvote.
click for details..https://steemit.com/manikchandsk/@manikchandsk/post-resteem-upvote-service
Apologies for the delay, our network was mistakenly shut off by our ISP and I did not notice this memo yesterday while at the library.
Resteemed and upvoted :)
No probs. Thanks