Addressing ‘Climate Change’ Is Not Enough Or Something

It’s never enough for these folks with the Progressive (nice fascism) leanings, as we learn at the Huffington post

Why Addressing Climate Change Is Not Enough

The celebratory mood accompanying the recent Paris Accord, in which the entire UN membership agreed to hold global temperature increases to no more than 2°C, is quickly dissipating. As the Accord itself acknowledges, there is a “significant gap” between countries’ climate change mitigation pledges and the 2°C goal (not to mention the more aspirational 1.5° C limit). This means that promised reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, even if realized, will be insufficient to stave off major consequences of climate change.

Yet bolder pledges alone will not prevent impending failure because the Paris Accord reproduces the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol. Although reporting is binding, countries face no penalties for missing their targets. Most of all, market-based schemes for emissions reductions enable wealthy countries and corporations to continue “business as usual” by paying low emitters for their pollution rights, ultimately stalling real and equitable progress. As we write, environmental groups across the world are gearing up to challenge these shortcomings.

Interestingly, what the authors discuss are real environmental issues, and do it in a manner which has always annoyed me, linking those real issues with their silly climate change push

Climate change both exacerbates environmental degradation, and results from a growth-at-all-costs economic system that makes certain groups — especially indigenous peoples and marginalized and low-income populations — particularly vulnerable to both climate change and resource scarcity and contamination. Recognizing this fact can help climate-related activism and policymaking do a better job of protecting the planet and all who depend on it.

What are those conditions?

  • Depletion, contamination, and unfair distribution of water (the last is more of the social justice warrior garbage)
  • Threats to air quality (they complain over the use of wood stoves, yet refuse to recognize that their “green energy” and ‘climate change’ pushes increase the use of burning biomass for heat and cooking)
  • Ongoing deforestation and contamination of ecosystems (these are real issues. Why do we need to include this under the bannder of Hotcoldwetdry? The increase in deforestation from the increase in the use of palm oil is a direct result of “green” initiatives)
  • Chemical contamination (again, a very real environmental and health concern. Why the need for putting it under the banner of Hotcoldwetdry? It should stand on its own)
  • Toxic waste disposal (see previous comment)

What do they want to do about it all?

Underpinning all of these problems is an unfair economic system that privileges profits over people’s lives, exploiting the environment and humans alike.

Those concerned about the long-term sustainability and health of humans and the planet need to look beyond reducing greenhouse gas concentrations and adapting to climate change impacts, and recognize the role of the extraction, production, and consumption processes that drive all aspects of environmental degradation and cause tremendous social injustice.

It’s a subtle way of saying that capitalism in any form needs to be eliminated, and replaced with a Progressive social justice system, a command economy driven from the top down, run wholly by Government.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “Addressing ‘Climate Change’ Is Not Enough Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    Miss Aguilera was correct when she wrote:

    Most of all, market-based schemes for emissions reductions enable wealthy countries and corporations to continue “business as usual” by paying low emitters for their pollution rights, ultimately stalling real and equitable progress.

    This is just the cap-and-trade scheme which, as I’ve mentioned many times before, doesn’t actually lower carbon emissions — which is supposedly the goal of all of this — but simply moves money around. It provides a lower cost alternative — the buying of “carbon credits” rather than installing equipment to actually reduce emissions — and it enriches people like the repugnant Al Gore, all while claiming to be “doing something” about emissions, while not actually doing anything. But it is the result of democracy!

    Secretary of State John François Kerry insisted on a deal which President Barack Hussein Obama would not have to submit to the Congress for ratification, because both knew that our democratically-elected representatives would vote it down, by a wide margin. Thus they insisted upon, and got, an agreement which will generate a lot of hot air, but won’t actually do much of anything other than give the Republicans ammunition to use against the Democrats.

    It’s really pretty simple: the majority of people would like to see something done about carbon emissions, right up to the point at which they would have to actually pay for it. Once they learn that doing something would take money out of their wallets rather than just those evil ol’ corporations, support for doing something plummets. And that’s what the left truly hate, that people would, and should, have a democratic choice about this issue.

  2. […] Teach on The Pirate’s Cove: Addressing ‘Climate Change’ Is Not Enough Or Something For the “warmists,” the real problem is capitalism and democracy. The majority of […]

Pirate's Cove