Climate Hypocrisy
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
t the end of 2022, climate startup Make Sunsets announced it had launched two payloads of reflective sulfur into the New Mexico sky as proof of concept for its planet-cooling technology. By filling the sky with sun-reflective sulfur, the company hopes to attack climate change directly by simply reducing the world’s temperature — and it’s hoping to make a fortune in the process by selling carbon credits to greenhouse gas emitters.
But because blocking out the sun would produce catastrophic consequences for food and energy production and even human health, these credits would have to include both the “cost” of each ton of carbon dioxide offset by the sulfur and the negative effects of less sunlight reaching the Earth. Once accounting for the damage from blocking our sun, it’s likely Make Sunrise’s credits are worth less than zero and are a net liability for humanity that could, if scaled, cause significant damage to our planet.
To prevent financial fraud and ecological catastrophe, including acid rain, the Biden administration must take immediate action to shut the company’s operations down for good.
In the meantime, however, Make Sunset’s business model has an unexpected silver lining. By so destructively following the logic of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing to its conclusion — cutting carbon dioxide at any economic or environmental cost while massively undercutting the cost of every competitor and reaping arbitrary carbon credits — Make Sunsets could herald the end of the ESG capital dumps. Perhaps investors will finally realize that pouring money into worthless projects while global supply-demand imbalances grow is a bad idea.
thefederalist.com
But because blocking out the sun would produce catastrophic consequences for food and energy production and even human health, these credits would have to include both the “cost” of each ton of carbon dioxide offset by the sulfur and the negative effects of less sunlight reaching the Earth. Once accounting for the damage from blocking our sun, it’s likely Make Sunrise’s credits are worth less than zero and are a net liability for humanity that could, if scaled, cause significant damage to our planet.
To prevent financial fraud and ecological catastrophe, including acid rain, the Biden administration must take immediate action to shut the company’s operations down for good.
In the meantime, however, Make Sunset’s business model has an unexpected silver lining. By so destructively following the logic of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing to its conclusion — cutting carbon dioxide at any economic or environmental cost while massively undercutting the cost of every competitor and reaping arbitrary carbon credits — Make Sunsets could herald the end of the ESG capital dumps. Perhaps investors will finally realize that pouring money into worthless projects while global supply-demand imbalances grow is a bad idea.
Perilous Sulfur Launch Exposes Carbon Indulgences As A Scam
A startup that launched sulfur to block the sun follows ESG investing to its logical conclusion and could damage our planet.
thefederalist.com
Lock Us Up: Joe Biden's Plan to Save the Planet
But the plan finds some measure of salvation in keeping us at home. Several times, the document touts the benefits of remote work. The plan mentions that remote work became common during the pandemic. It notes that an increase in remote work can change travel patterns, especially during peak commute times. In other places the document states:
As the Washington Free Beacon noted, small business owners are already upset about the plan, since they still vividly remember the effects of the quarantine on their businesses. Alfredo Ortiz, who is the president of the Job Creators Network, sees the same circumstances arising from the Biden administration’s plan. He told the Free Beacon, “Once again, the Biden administration is blindly pursuing a ‘green’ agenda despite the unintended consequences it poses to the economy and, more specifically, small businesses. Small businesses struggled to survive the pandemic and we don’t need to return to a similar environment in which in-person consumer demand is severely compromised.”
The plan does more than put small businesses at risk, although that is no small thing. It restricts Americans’ freedom. How much more complicated will trips or errands become? At what point will it become too cumbersome to lug groceries or other purchases around on public transportation? And what becomes of entrepreneurs when people lose the ability or desire to shop? Will our lives be subject to train and bus schedules? Will our choices for personal transportation be limited to EVs, scooters, and bikes? And will we be concentrated within our immediate communities with opportunities to venture further afield made illegal or unaffordable?
The Biden-Harris administration (their term, not mine) and whoever its handlers may be haven’t factored any of those things into their equation. After all, no one in their socio-economic circles will ever have to worry about these things. Or for that matter, keeping a business afloat. They are free to travel where they wish when they wish. To them, America is nothing more than a giant train set or stack of Legos to be torn down and reassembled to suit their vision. I picture them all sitting cross-legged on a floor, playing with toy monorails and tiny houses, completely oblivious to the fact that in reality, they are playing with people’s lives.
Last edited:
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
When it comes to climate change POLICY, I'm distrustful of anything out of Washington - or anything from the shrill voices on the extreme.
Both try to tell us that it is the most existential threat we have, endangering all life on the planet, perhaps permanently.
Both try to convince us - with limited success - that the threat is so very urgent and dire that we must act drastically and immediately.
The problem is manifold - the extremists vastly oversell the problem, and perhaps they KNOW that, because mild persuasion isn't working. At the very, very worst, we could make the planet unlivable for most of humanity, but we will survive and life on this planet has seen far worse. At the same time, you have the players in Washington, MOST of whom could give a rat's ass about it, but NEED to address it to keep their jobs - and they want to do what will keep their supporters - and DONORS - happy.
So they do the WORST thing they can do - do "something". Anything. Like mandating cloth masks that do nothing, they want to enact legislation that appears to fix a little of the problem, but it doesn't do anything, even if the most far-fetched scenarios of the extremists were real.
Of course, whenever you concoct draconian solutions for the enviromnent, SOMEONE will pay, and for the extremists - and Washington - it won't be THEM.
So what they do is trot out some utterly useless effort, waste taxpayer dollars, appease their support (somewhat) and essentially do nothing that fixes anything.
Because while you can "Keep America Beautiful" by a campaign - a successful one - to end littering in our country - you CAN'T fix a global problem, without global buy-in. And you can't GET global buy-in, if your solutions are always cutting off knees and crippling your economy. You MIGHT have a cure - but no one will BUY it if the price is too high - and no one TRUSTS you.
Both try to tell us that it is the most existential threat we have, endangering all life on the planet, perhaps permanently.
Both try to convince us - with limited success - that the threat is so very urgent and dire that we must act drastically and immediately.
The problem is manifold - the extremists vastly oversell the problem, and perhaps they KNOW that, because mild persuasion isn't working. At the very, very worst, we could make the planet unlivable for most of humanity, but we will survive and life on this planet has seen far worse. At the same time, you have the players in Washington, MOST of whom could give a rat's ass about it, but NEED to address it to keep their jobs - and they want to do what will keep their supporters - and DONORS - happy.
So they do the WORST thing they can do - do "something". Anything. Like mandating cloth masks that do nothing, they want to enact legislation that appears to fix a little of the problem, but it doesn't do anything, even if the most far-fetched scenarios of the extremists were real.
Of course, whenever you concoct draconian solutions for the enviromnent, SOMEONE will pay, and for the extremists - and Washington - it won't be THEM.
So what they do is trot out some utterly useless effort, waste taxpayer dollars, appease their support (somewhat) and essentially do nothing that fixes anything.
Because while you can "Keep America Beautiful" by a campaign - a successful one - to end littering in our country - you CAN'T fix a global problem, without global buy-in. And you can't GET global buy-in, if your solutions are always cutting off knees and crippling your economy. You MIGHT have a cure - but no one will BUY it if the price is too high - and no one TRUSTS you.
Most ANYTHING done by the Western World US / Europe is wayy offset by actions in China and India who refuse to play along
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I've read any number of articles about the floating islands of trash and the unbelievable pollution of the waterways around Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and they are nearly 100% created by the arc of nations from India to China. Neither of whom are making any significant effort to stop the dumping, much less the air pollution. We think of ourselves as so important, because of the West's collective economic and industrial power, but over half the planet lives in that corner of Asia. They need to have some stake in the solution.
Hot Air: No Global Warming for Eight Years
Recently published data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that there has not been global warming for the past eight years. And NASA satellite data reportedly confirms that evidence, showing no global warming for eight years and five months, according to JunkScience’s Steve Milloy. But leftists are quick to warn people against drawing the obvious conclusion that the world isn’t about to become a burning ball of fire.
Reuters actually issued a Feb. 3 “fact check” of the above Milloy tweet. The outlet can’t explain away the data, of course, but it hastened to assure readers that the eight years of global cooling are not a trend. Whole decades of such data must occur before we can stop expecting the imminent end of the world. Please fear, people!
Reuters ignores the fact that climate alarmists have in fact been wrong for decades — at least fifty years. But this time the “experts” are sure to be right. Your car is still killing the planet — trust Reuters. I like how we are not allowed to question scientists who extrapolate relatively minor temperature changes to predict the end of humanity and civilization, but we’re not allowed to “extrapolate” years of data to reach an obvious conclusion. Reuters is full of hot air.
TPD
the poor dad
No meat for you! Coming to a country near you soon.
Encouraging the public to eat less meat has been a bone of contention for the government.
The issue of meat consumption is delaying Finland's climate food programme—part of the objectives set by PM Sanna Marin's (SDP) government to achieve carbon neutrality by the year 2035.
The climate food programme aims to reduce food-related emissions, but wording related to meat consumption has been watered down, according to government sources.
The programme now aspires to "reduce meat consumption," which is vaguer than a previously stated target of reducing meat consumption by a third by 2030.
yle.fi
Encouraging the public to eat less meat has been a bone of contention for the government.
The issue of meat consumption is delaying Finland's climate food programme—part of the objectives set by PM Sanna Marin's (SDP) government to achieve carbon neutrality by the year 2035.
The climate food programme aims to reduce food-related emissions, but wording related to meat consumption has been watered down, according to government sources.
The programme now aspires to "reduce meat consumption," which is vaguer than a previously stated target of reducing meat consumption by a third by 2030.
Meat-eating taking a bite out of Finland's climate ambitions
Government parties disagree on how much meat you should eat.
yle.fi
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Increased CO2 *is* slightly acidifying the oceans. It's not something we can continue with abandon. We have to gauge ourselves.
I'm at least MARGINALLY on board with the climate change folks but for this obvious reason - it can't be good for the planet to pump harmful gases into the atmosphere - the smog of LA in the 60's and 70's - and the atrocious air in major cities around the world where, on some days they deem it unsafe to go out of doors - should make that clear. It's the difference between finding a roach in your kitchen - and LIVING in a foul smelling home (as in one I visited) that is swarming with roaches (case in point - we bombed that house and we were SHOVELING piles of roaches).
The Earth will recover from tons of toxins - but it's never a good idea to poison it, even a little, and we should always be looking for ways to reduce our footprint.
I disagree 100% with the screeching, gloom and doom and draconian measures to stop global catastrophe. It is MASSIVELY oversold, to put it mildly. You never need look any further than to notice that every remedy for it is to adopt yet another leftie agenda item.
If they're telling you it's 100% bad, I am saying it's 1% or 2% bad.
I'm at least MARGINALLY on board with the climate change folks but for this obvious reason - it can't be good for the planet to pump harmful gases into the atmosphere - the smog of LA in the 60's and 70's - and the atrocious air in major cities around the world where, on some days they deem it unsafe to go out of doors - should make that clear. It's the difference between finding a roach in your kitchen - and LIVING in a foul smelling home (as in one I visited) that is swarming with roaches (case in point - we bombed that house and we were SHOVELING piles of roaches).
The Earth will recover from tons of toxins - but it's never a good idea to poison it, even a little, and we should always be looking for ways to reduce our footprint.
I disagree 100% with the screeching, gloom and doom and draconian measures to stop global catastrophe. It is MASSIVELY oversold, to put it mildly. You never need look any further than to notice that every remedy for it is to adopt yet another leftie agenda item.
If they're telling you it's 100% bad, I am saying it's 1% or 2% bad.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
That is literally how those countries get rid of trash. They are so populated, land is too valuable to put trash in so they throw it in the ocean.
Why, when climate doomsday predictions never materialize, do the nutjobs continue to believe them?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
See, the outrageous doomsday end of the world the icecaps will be gone stuff - that no one should believe.
The ones where ecosystems are degrading and species are dying off - that should bring us some concern.
We may not care if all of the frogs disappear, but when the bees disappear, we're screwed.
My sentiments about climate change are akin to the boiling frog story. It's happening, but it's happening slowly. We don't need to radically throw the world into the 19th century, but we can make adjustments.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Aren't we like 3 or 4 years from the end of mankind, according to AOC??
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
It never hurts to clean up the air and the oceans, but the climate is going to change and there isn't much we can do about it. The Climate has been changing since the earth was formed and it will continue to change. It's not all bad. Our mild weather this winter has sure helped with my heat bill.
Sure : It will get hot this summer and I will pay more for the air conditioning, but ripping the earth apart to find the right soil to make batteries with is not going to help me.
Sure : It will get hot this summer and I will pay more for the air conditioning, but ripping the earth apart to find the right soil to make batteries with is not going to help me.
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
Glaciers used to cover most of the US. Regions that are now desert in the middle of the US show evidence that it used to be under salt water. Not once, not twice, but as much as 8 times. NYC was south of the equator. No one sees the "bigger picture" of millennia of change.
I love these people that gauge the environment based on as little as 10 years change. Build jetties to prevent their sand beach from washing downstream or build houses on a sand dune and complain when nature does it's thing.
The tide in Taboga is 18/19 feet. She's too stupid to realize the tide goes out and back in.