How much longer can people who claim to care about the health of the planet put up with the wind and solar power industries?
Public opinion in the US appears to be trending our way.
An overwhelming majority of Americans say that conserving local land and wildlife is more important than building new sources of renewable electricity, even if that slows down the world’s response to climate change, according to the inaugural Heatmap Climate Poll, a scientific survey conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group last month.
The poll finds that even though Americans love renewables in the abstract — with 94% endorsing the benefits of rooftop solar and 88% embracing large-scale solar farms — they are skittish about their potential trade-offs. Some 79% of Americans said that new renewable energy should be rolled out “slowly” rather than “quickly” and that the conservation of land and wild animals should be prioritized above rapid greenhouse-gas reductions.
Looking at the link to the survey cited in the paper, it is dominated by the urgency of the climate problem and it is necessary to go to the detailed results of the survey to find question 23 which elicited the opinion that RE should roll out slower to protect the environment. But the emphasis is slower, not stopping!
Not such a great result after all!
And have a look at the answers to question 24.
Advocates of dramatic social and economic disruption for the purpose of ‘preventing climate change’ are neo-colonialists seeking to reconquer the third world.
Who controls the new technologies these neo-colonialists are demanding everyone embrace? First worlders. Who controls the financial resources required for third world countries to embrace these technologies?
First world, predominantly Caucasian individuals, governments, and corporations, are holding a black powder musket to the head of undeveloped and developing countries. Sure, the first world has promised them money to accede to their demands, but when has money been given freely, with nothing expected in return? The third world will owe the first world, and will be re-colonised in all but name.
This is a thought that deserves development.
Yes but the situation is very complicated, take South Africa where the power system is going down the drain due to the push for RE as required by the wokes of the west but what form wil re-colonization take, given that the place will be in ruins before long. From the pure self-interest point of view the west would do better to trade with South Africa and encourage them to have a vibrant economy driven by cheap and reliable coal power:)
Colonization by the Chinese has been going on in South Africa for some time and they are taking the more rational road of encouraging development of the resources for the good of both parties (but especially China of course.)
In order to make sense of what’s in my mind (never an easy task) regarding my above comment, I’ll need to use analogies (or metaphors? I don’t know why, but I often get confused between the two) which make sense to me, but which may seem abstract to others of my species.
In pre-modern warfare, to be pierced by an arrow was likely to have seldom been a fatal blow. However disability or death may have followed due to sepsis, as the dirt that was on the arrowhead before launching, was now introduced into the victim’s bloodstream. The arrowhead itself had pierced the body’s outer defense (the skin).
This piercing of an outer defense is what is required in the ‘climate change’ challenge.
Basing our argument on what used to be called ‘evidence’ is not making enough headway to prevent the radical transformation of our society and economies from inflicting irreparable damage. (I don’t hold any faith in polls of public opinion).
Despite being impeccably armed due to the efforts of passionate individuals and groups such as Rafe’s, no measurable penetration has been made into the outer defenses of the (to return to my analogy above) expensively-armoured heavy cavalry. (We can argue ad infinitum about whether we are making progress, but for me, the fact we were arguing about it supports my assertion).
We have not penetrated the outer defenses of our opponents because those defenses are constructed emotions.
Think about it: The primary (tip-of-the-spear) tactic of the neo-colonialist (see my previous comment above) radical transformers, is emotional: ‘What kind of planet are we leaving for our children?’ ‘We are noble defenders of Gaia, fighting against the faceless barbarians who wish to ravage Gaia to her very sinews.’ Let’s not forget the gang-culture based: ‘Are you with us, or against us?’
Against the above, we have used what we are familiar with, and what was once an acceptable element of discourse: Reason and Rationality.
Ask yourself this, though: When two people are having an argument, with one emotive and the other calm and using logic, how does that go?
None of this means we need to abandon empirical evidence. I’m not putting down or ignoring the fine work done by many (including at Jo Nova’s), and saying it is irrelevant.
What I am postulating is that those efforts are not breaking the skin like an arrowhead does. Before we can introduce dirt and bacteria to the organism of transformational climate change, we need something else to pierce the thick, layered, emotional outer defensive shield.
Something akin to what I initially wrote above in this post of Rafe’s is what I believe we need to consider. (If they answer with nuance, that’s when we introduce critical race theory). Once a breach has been made, THEN we use what we have traditionally been good at, and introduce it into the bloodstream.
We’ve skipped a step. That’s all.
constructed OF emotions.