"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

[dann]

Congratulations, Hans!

The story of Danish austerity measures and the sacrifices Danish consumers are forced to make to combat global warming, i.e. CO₂ emissions:

I don't think Hans sounds like an electricity junkie. And since we are in for a couple of stormy days in the very near future, I hope that his dishwasher and laundry basket are already full to the brim.

Blæsevejret sender elpriserne helt i bund

Det river og rusker uden for, og selvom det kan føles rigtig mandagsagtigt, når du sidder på cyklen i strid modvind, fører vejret i dag også noget godt med sig.
I hvert fald hvis du går op i elpriserne, som lige nu er helt i bund - og faktisk endda i minus.
Det skriver Ritzau, der henviser til markedsdata fra elbørsen Nordpool.
Når priserne for forbrugerne er under nul, er det elproducenterne, der skal betale for at komme af med deres strøm.
Men selvom elpriserne er under nul og fortsætter med at være det i morgen, betyder det ikke, at vi forbrugere slet ikke skal have penge op af lommen, når vi bruger strøm. Vi skal nemlig stadig betale afgifter.
Seneste nyt (DR.dk, Aug 7, 2023)

Strong winds lower electricity prices dramatically
The winds are tearing and shaking outside, and although it may feel like just another manic Monday when you're riding on your bike head on against the wind, the weather today also comes with benefits.
At least, if you look at electricity prices, which are as low as they can be right now - and actually even in the red.
This is what the news agency Ritzau writes, referring to market data from the electricity exchange Nordpool.
When consumer prices are below zero, the electricity producers are the ones who have to pay their customers for consuming power.But even if electricity prices are below zero and will continue to be so tomorrow, this does not mean that we consumers will not have to pay at all when we use electricity. We still have to pay taxes.


Those poor, unfortunate producers of electricity! (Well, I guess they will be paid by the Germans to turn off some of their wind turbines, which should make up for it.) And the sacrifices the consumers have to make! Austerity, indeed!

Hans is making a sacrifice and practicing austerity, by using an additional tool and paying additional attention so that his usage aligns with the availability of excess renewable energy, reducing his carbon output. That's less convenient than just running his appliances whenever he feels like. Doing some extra work, like bicycling instead of driving. Exactly the kind of thing you've called useless virtue-signaling. Have you forgotten how Bill Maher's private plane makes all such measures by us mere proles irrelevant?

For my next installment, I consider telling you about how Danes recycle bottles.

 

[Checkmite]

No, voting does work "as a practical matter of fact." Voting in a representative democracy just doesn't 'work' in the sense that you are obviously thinking of. It works as a way to make sure that the citizens of a country agree to leave decision-making to elected representatives who are not bound by promises or any other obligations to the voters. It does so both in theory and in practice. People hand over power to these people who then owe them nothing in return. On the contrary, that power is now a commodity that the elected representatives can sell to the highest bidder.

Okay, but a representative democracy is the kind of country I live in, and Myriad lives in, and probably you live in as well.

So, since you think voting does not work in the kinds of representative democracies where we live, once again, what DO you think would work?

 

[dann]

The Red Menace

Hell, why wait?!

In 2002, the Danish Deposit and Return System (Dansk Retursystem) was established as a non-profit organisation to build-up and operate a new, circular deposit system. Established in a close cooperation between the public and private business sector, the Danish Deposit and Return System has has been responsible for ensuring that bottles and cans are sorted, separated and sent to specialised plants for recycling.
20 years later, Danes excel at returning their empty bottles and cans, and the system has grown to become one of the world’s most effective.

1.7 billion cans and bottles are returned
Today, 93 percent of all bottles and cans are returned to the system so that the aluminium, plastic and glass can be melted and turned into new bottles and cans. In 2021 alone, this amounted to a total of 1.7 billion cans and bottles.
A world record of 93% of bottles and cans are returned (State of Green, March 17, 2022)

I know, I know: a non-profit organisation!
Won't somebody nuke those bloody commies already!!!

How to recycle cans & bottles in Denmark (Dejlige Days on YouTube, Feb 14, 2022 - 5:15 min.)

(Since it's a non-profit, I don't think that they'd mind if other countries follow suit. In fact, I think they'd encourage it!)

 

[lobosrul5]

Okay, but a representative democracy is the kind of country I live in, and Myriad lives in, and probably you live in as well.

So, since you think voting does not work in the kinds of representative democracies where we live, once again, what DO you think would work?

He's actually not 100% correct. Not in representative democracies with a recall system. There are also laws against abuse of power and graft. Though we, the reprinted people, rely on appointed or elected official to enforce the law.

 

[dann]

He's actually not 100% correct. Not in representative democracies with a recall system. There are also laws against abuse of power and graft. Though we, the reprinted people, rely on appointed or elected official to enforce the law.

Sorry, but you are not 100% correct. I think most (probably all) representative democracies have some kind of recall system. That is not the problem. The problem is what it takes to get an elected representative recalled.

I can't rule out that a version exists where representatives can be recalled for making false promises to their constituents or otherwise lying to them - be it during their campaigns or while in office. Cases in point: Sinema, Manchin, Santos and even fracking Biden as mentioned and documented above.

Santos may still get recalled, but it will be because he broke laws, committed crimes. Lying to voters wouldn't be one of those crimes because it isn't one, as we have been told several times in recent days in reports about the latest Trump indictment.

On the other hand, if we imagine a scenario where a voter tells a candidate: 'OK, I'll only vote for you if you promise to do your utmost to put an end to global warming once elected, and if you don't, I'm coming after you,' that would be a crime!

 

[lobosrul5]

Sorry, but you are not 100% correct. I think most (probably all) representative democracies have some kind of recall system. That is not the problem. The problem is what it takes to get an elected representative recalled.

I can't rule out that a version exists where representatives can be recalled for making false promises to their constituents or otherwise lying to them - be it during their campaigns or while in office. Cases in point: Sinema, Manchin, Santos and even fracking Biden as mentioned and documented above.

Santos may still get recalled, but it will be because he broke laws, committed crimes. Lying to voters wouldn't be one of those crimes because it isn't one, as we have been told several times in recent days in reports about the latest Trump indictment.

On the other hand, if we imagine a scenario where a voter tells a candidate: 'OK, I'll only vote for you if you promise to do your utmost to put an end to global warming once elected, and if you don't, I'm coming after you,' that would be a crime!

Umm, in some jurisdictions politicians can be recalled for any reason that the voters wish to recall them for, though I don't think that applies to Federal elections. Anyways, this is not the problem, heck our whole system even without recall elections isn't the problem. The problem is, we don't hold them accountable! Reps only serve two years. If they were all voted out of office out of term for not keeping their promises... they'd keep their promises much more often.

 

[dann]

I think they keep their promises to their donors! There'll probably be powerful campaigns against them if they don't.

 

[dann]

Heat Waves Are Killing Older Women: Swiss Women Sue Government over Climate Change Protections (NYT, Aug 8, 2023)

Not the only victims of climate change. And not the only perpetrator ...

 

[dann]

In other climate news ...

I assume that this one will be spared when GOP-controlled states get around to censoring books about global warming:

Mike Huckabee’s “Kids Guide to the Truth About Climate Change” Shows the Changing Landscape of Climate Denial (InsideClimateNews, July 31, 2023)
Mike Huckabee Is Now Peddling Climate Misinformation to Children (Mother Jones, Aug 3, 2023)

We want children to learn about climate change in a developmentally appropriate and scientifically-sound way, right? Of course we do. It is the responsibility of adults to prepare the next generation for the challenges they will face. However, “The Kids Guide to the Truth About Climate Change,” a children’s book from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, is a dangerous post-truth treatise. It argues that, yes, variations in the climate are a pesky nuisance, but they’re not something that children should worry about. Ignore the mainstream media lies, children, and now let’s teach you about Fun with Internal Combustion Engines.
(...)
Science educators and climate researchers have found the guide to be full of factual inaccuracies, so that “truth” in the title is little more than a bunch of alternative facts and feelings that carry more weight than evidence.
(...)
Even in light of the overwhelming evidence, climate debates continue to be contradictory and convoluted, as shown by Mike Huckabee’s climate children’s book. It’s reflective of a larger GOP plan for a 2024 Republican administration that would dismantle President Biden’s efforts to slow global warming — part of a sweeping strategy called Project 2025 for the first 180 days of a future Republican presidency. The plan, as reported by the New York Times, calls for shredding regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells, and power plants; dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government; and, boosting the production of fossil fuels — the burning of which is the chief cause of planetary warming.

Other children’s books in the Huckabee series have titles like “The Kids Guide to Socialism” and “The Kids Guide to Our One Nation Under God.” Bright colors and cheerful cartoons are designed to appeal to little ones.
Mike Huckabee’s New Children’s Book About Climate Change Is Filled With Scary Misinformation (CleanTechnica, Aug 7, 2023)

See examples of Huckabee's lies in the article - from the book and elsewhere.

Short YouTube video (1 min):

 

[dann]

The findings of the recent surveys also imply that President Biden is still struggling to repair his damaged image following several decisions by his administration that were highly unpopular among climate hawks and other progressives who helped Biden win in 2020. Many climate activists have since accused Biden of breaking core campaign promises, including a pledge to ban all oil and gas drilling on federal lands.
“Biden’s performance on climate change has been stronger than any prior U.S. President, but he has broken several key campaign promises about what he would and would not do if elected president,” Edward Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, said in an email interview. “Many of the people who are most worried about climate change are disappointed by those broken promises.”
It’s a political threat that has clearly made it onto the administration’s radar. Biden set out Monday on a stumping tour of Western states to tout his efforts to address climate change and draw a stark contrast between him and the Republican frontrunner, former President Donald Trump.
Most Americans Disapprove of Biden’s Handling of Climate Change, Poll Shows (InsideClimateNews, Aug 8, 2023)

When "fifty-seven percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of global warming," I assumed that 40 of those 57% would be Republicans disapproving of anything Biden has done and that the rest would be Democrats disapproving of his "breaking core campaign promises." I was probably right about their motivation for disapproving, but the percentages may be closer in size than I thought:

In fact, the recent surveys show that while majorities of both Democrats and Republicans disapprove of Biden’s climate efforts, their reasons for disapproving are very different, with liberals wanting Biden to do more and conservatives believing the president is overstepping his authority.

 

[newyorkguy]

From the link in Post #509-

It’s reflective of a larger GOP plan...[which] calls for shredding regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells, and power plants; dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government; and, boosting the production of fossil fuels — the burning of which is the chief cause of planetary warming.

How does the GOP justify this? Given our current reality, what?, the extreme heat and endless weather disasters are all merely part of a natural process? Is nearly every reputable scientist worldwide just plain wrong? How can Republicans be so absolutely certain of this?

This actually sounds like vandalism on a national scale. Like the GOP is degenerating into a kind of outlaw party of national vandals.

 

[Checkmite]

Still waiting.

If reducing personal energy consumption is useless because even cumulatively it would never have a large enough effect to make a difference, and voting for politicians who claim to support climate-defensive policies is useless because they can't be counted on to keep their promises, then what are we as individuals supposed to be doing instead?

 

[gnome]

From the link in Post #509-


How does the GOP justify this? Given our current reality, what?, the extreme heat and endless weather disasters are all merely part of a natural process? Is nearly every reputable scientist worldwide just plain wrong? How can Republicans be so absolutely certain of this?

This actually sounds like vandalism on a national scale. Like the GOP is degenerating into a kind of outlaw party of national vandals.

I wouldn't say exactly. The wealthy ones are betting they can isolate themselves from the consequences and gain in the short term. Also to some extent they're nominally believing their own propaganda, at least enough to mollify any worries. Everyone else on the bandwagon is buying the ******** that the phenomenon is exaggerated and that the government's too incompetent and evil to do anything good about it anyway.

 

[tyr_13]

From the link in Post #509-


How does the GOP justify this? Given our current reality, what?, the extreme heat and endless weather disasters are all merely part of a natural process? Is nearly every reputable scientist worldwide just plain wrong? How can Republicans be so absolutely certain of this?

This actually sounds like vandalism on a national scale. Like the GOP is degenerating into a kind of outlaw party of national vandals.

This is a party that looked at a pandemic filling hospitals with so many causalities they had to get refer trucks to hold bodies and then decided it was mostly made up. To this day they call it, at best, 'overblown'.

These are the kinds of stupid ***** who hide their zombie bites. They're just going to blame liberals, China, and transgender people. Maybe the Jews and 'the gays' for old time's sake.

Still waiting.

If reducing personal energy consumption is useless because even cumulatively it would never have a large enough effect to make a difference, and voting for politicians who claim to support climate-defensive policies is useless because they can't be counted on to keep their promises, then what are we as individuals supposed to be doing instead?

I'm not going to speak for dann, but it appears his point is that you have to vote in primaries as well, and then strongly advocate for the actual change. Hold them accountable.

I'd add that beyond voting and advocating for well supported regulations, run for office if you can. Be the primary challenger you want to see in the world.

 

[dann]

From the link in Post #509-

How does the GOP justify this? Given our current reality, what?, the extreme heat and endless weather disasters are all merely part of a natural process? Is nearly every reputable scientist worldwide just plain wrong? How can Republicans be so absolutely certain of this?

This actually sounds like vandalism on a national scale. Like the GOP is degenerating into a kind of outlaw party of national vandals.

You know how they justify this! It is not as if they've made a secret of it: "But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!" All their arguments for this are available to the public. They are meant to be so.
It is not as if if the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong. The people in charge of the GOP know this as well, which is why they have gone from criticizing what they called 'junk science' to being consistently anti-science.
The only certainty you need is the certainty of what you are being paid to say.

Still waiting.
If reducing personal energy consumption is useless because even cumulatively it would never have a large enough effect to make a difference, and voting for politicians who claim to support climate-defensive policies is useless because they can't be counted on to keep their promises, then what are we as individuals supposed to be doing instead?

Drop the "if". You know that it doesn't "have a large enough effect to make a difference." You also know that "they can't be counted on to keep their promises."
If I were one of your "we as individuals," I wouldn't be content with being oppressed by a a system that not only allows politicians to do lie about everything they do - both before and after being elected - but also makes it their duty to listen only to their own inner voice You know, their conscience, their Jeremy Cricket.
Yesterday's analyses of prosecutor Jack Smith's indictment of Trump once again made it abundantly clear that the most important part of it has been trying to work around the problem of Trump's right to lie!

If I had bought in to the ideology that democracy is all about letting the people decide and now all of a sudden noticed that the reality of representative democracy is that, instead, people are ruled by the forces that are ruining the whole planet for human habitation .... that would be a wakeup call for me, but it doesn't appear to be so for many of you.

I already knew about this.

I wouldn't say exactly. The wealthy ones are betting they can isolate themselves from the consequences and gain in the short term. Also to some extent they're nominally believing their own propaganda, at least enough to mollify any worries. Everyone else on the bandwagon is buying the ******** that the phenomenon is exaggerated and that the government's too incompetent and evil to do anything good about it anyway.

They could get away with it so far. And their wealth isn't threatened, on the contrary. Their only fear seems to be how they will be able to control their armed guards once they are isolated in their luxury bunkers and the current civilization, the one that made them rich enough to buy those bunkers, disappears.
(The GOP politicians in the know probably hope that they will be asked to join for services rendered, much the same way they hope that Trump will pardon them if only they remain loyal till the end.)

This is a party that looked at a pandemic filling hospitals with so many causalities they had to get refer trucks to hold bodies and then decided it was mostly made up. To this day they call it, at best, 'overblown'.

It reminds me of this tweet from a few days ago:

Your regular reminder that covid nihilists are generally also climate change nihilists... *
Stop panicking everyone! We will just shoot up a few satellites with mirrors and that should sort the whole mess out. *
Nicholas Loubere (Twitter, Aug 6, 2023)

Satellite reflectors are the kind of pipe dream varwoche dreams of while 'mitigating': "we'll need bold technological breakthroughs to avoid catastrophe."

These are the kinds of stupid ***** who hide their zombie bites. They're just going to blame liberals, China, and transgender people. Maybe the Jews and 'the gays' for old time's sake.

They have no zombie bites to hide. They have air conditioning and luxury yachts (also with air conditioning). They don't notice the heat. Their chauffeurs turn on the air conditioning in their limousine before they get into it. Only poverty-stricken billionaires have to go outside to get into their limousine.

I'm not going to speak for dann, but it appears his point is that you have to vote in primaries as well, and then strongly advocate for the actual change. Hold them accountable.

I'd add that beyond voting and advocating for well supported regulations, run for office if you can. Be the primary challenger you want to see in the world.

No, that's not my point.
How does voting in primaries and strongly (!) advocating "for the actual change" hold them accountable? It doesn't. They are not meant to be held accountable, and you are not meant to be able to hold them accountable. I'm sure there's a law or amendment against it.
It's their duty to do whatever they please (as long as it's not illegal) with no consideration for what their voters want or what they promised those voters they would do. It's rule #1 of representative democracy that you can't hold them accountable. All you can do in this respect is write letters to your 'representatives'. (That will no doubt have a major impact! )

Running for office requires huge amounts of money. Getting that money requires listening to what your donors want. Some people can hold politicians accountable. Those people are not called voters.

(Kyrsten Sinema was once a primary challenger. She used to be a progressive! Bernie Sanders is the exception, not the rule.)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Still waiting.

If reducing personal energy consumption is useless because even cumulatively it would never have a large enough effect to make a difference, and voting for politicians who claim to support climate-defensive policies is useless because they can't be counted on to keep their promises, then what are we as individuals supposed to be doing instead?

sabotage high-pollutant companies until the price of not going green exceeds the profit for staying in the burning oil age.

That's the way we have done things most of the time.

 

[Checkmite]

Drop the "if". You know that it doesn't "have a large enough effect to make a difference." You also know that "they can't be counted on to keep their promises."
If I were one of your "we as individuals," I wouldn't be content with being oppressed by a a system that not only allows politicians to do lie about everything they do - both before and after being elected - but also makes it their duty to listen only to their own inner voice You know, their conscience, their Jeremy Cricket.

The question was not "how are we supposed to feel", it was what are we supposed to do? It's not a complicated ask. Define an action, or a list of actions.

Out:
- Voting
- Reducing personal energy consumption

In:
- [insert specific action here]

 

[dann]

sabotage high-pollutant companies until the price of not going green exceeds the profit for staying in the burning oil age.

That's the way we have done things most of the time.

No, no, that's not a good idea. If I thought it would work, I would say, 'Go ahead!, and encourage you in every way. The Boston Tea Party worked, and "the episode escalated into the American Revolution, becoming an iconic event of American history," as the Wikipedia article says.
But it also mentions a major reason why it worked, and that condition isn't present in the current situation: "The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, a tax passed by the British Parliament in 1773."

It's the kind of thing that people often tend to forget when they take a superficial look at revolutions. One that I'm obviously very familiar with was the one in Cuba, which is often interpreted by revolutionary romantics in the following fashion: 'On November 25, 1956, Che and the Castro brothers set sail from Mexico heading for Cuba where they took to the Sierra Maestra mountains and conquered the rest of Cuba in time to celebrate New Years Eve in Havana on Dec 31, 1958.'

In particular outside of Cuba, hotheads tend to forget the sentiment of the citizenry all over the country, the thing that small guerrilla movements depend on: People were sympathetic to their cause! Castro's small band of guerrillas could count on the support of a majority of Cubans. And the victory of Castro's guerrillas was "the culmination of a resistance movement."

If that is how you interpret the current situation in the USA, i.e. popular support for an armed uprising against the fossil-fuel industry, I would indeed say, 'Go ahead, and ¡Hasta la victoria siempre! Is there any way I can support your (our!) cause?'

But as it is, you should know that it's not the case. Even people who wish (!) for CO₂ emission to stop prefer to cultivate illusional ways of thinking about the issue:
- 'We don't have the required technology yet!' ('We' obviously do, and 'we' have had the technology for decades.)
- 'All I can do as an individual is to take cold showers, recycle and ride my bike to work.' (Yes, some people can indeed do that, but it doesn't make a difference. It only serves to make you feel good about yourself while letting the real polluters continue to pollute.)
- 'And as a voter, I can vote for somebody who promises to do something about global warming.' (Yes, you can, but as for holding them accountable, all you can do is to appeal to their goodwill, and your appeals are up against the lucrative offers from much more affluent people than you. And the constitution forbids you to do anything other than appeal to their conscience.)

The first step is to show these people how wrong their ideas are, and giving up on those ideas is an emotionally painful process, which makes it an uphill battle. If you doubt this, read this thread again from page 1.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No.

It comes down to market forces.

The Boston Tea Party worked, because it made it clear that English Profits were in danger, not because they represented the "Will of the People". That triggered English repression, which in turn galvanized resistance.

The strategy is to cause purely physical damage, which, apart from raising costs, will cause an overreaction and disproportionate backlash, that will bring public opinion to the side of the Climate Protectors.

 

[dann]

The question was not "how are we supposed to feel", it was what are we supposed to do? It's not a complicated ask. Define an action, or a list of actions.

Out:
- Voting
- Reducing personal energy consumption
- Hoping that the future will bring bold technological breakthroughs to avoid catastrophe.
In:
- [insert specific action here:
Debunk the Out ideas, i.e. the major obstacle for establishing an effective movement against the powers that cause and profit from causing global warming!]

FTFY.
Since the technology already exists and obviously works, it's pretty obvious, isn't it?! At this point, it is not a secret why solar panels and wind turbines haven't already replaced fossil fuels.