Hmm, there’s something interesting here
Capitalists Want You to Stop Worrying About Climate Change
Andreas Malm and Wim Carton have an enemy, and it’s not “climate deniers.” These authors acknowledge that the original Big Oil brand of climate denialism — which rejected the scientific fact that through the burning of fossil fuels humans emit carbon dioxide, which in turn warms the planet — is now less prevalent than a newer denialist argument, asserting that “climate change exists but it is not much of a problem.”
Nor is their enemy as broad or systemic as “capitalism,” although the authors have half-jokingly described their book as a sort of “readable IPCC report of a Marxist nature” and advocate goals like the “infliction of serious material costs on fossil capital.”
For these professors at Lund University in Sweden, the authors of the new book The Long Heat: Climate Politics When It’s Too Late, the enemies du jour are the “rationalist-optimists.”
Um, they wrote a book, with the intention of making money via a capitalist system, right? Let’s skip through all the cult propaganda to the end
There is no path to net-zero emissions without discomfort, without the stranding of assets, without people and corporations losing money. While there’s certainly a role for CDR, and perhaps maybe even SRM one day, we must cut emissions above all else. With decarbonization at the fore, we can then — as a report from researchers at American University puts it — focus on how much CDR we can do well.
Doing CDR well means building CDR as a public good, marshaling massive public investment and policy — perhaps via a federal carbon authority — to deliver removals outside some make-believe free market. We need to ensure removals are publicly monitored and verified, set removal targets that complement but don’t replace emissions cuts, and sharply curb the use of CDR for enhanced oil recovery.
Unsurprisingly, tons of government. The article is in Jacobin, which is a seriously far left Socialist (really, far far right, because Modern Socialism is authoritarian) website. Anyhow, pushing ‘climate change’ sure seems like a Modern Socialist thing if it’s not a capitalist thing, eh?
The Green Jihad is matching forward ! It can not be stopped. It can be delayed, but not stopped. Each year the per capita carbon footprint of Americans goes down another 1%
The Carbon Black Jihad sometimes referred to as the “Carbonists” are unable to hold their defensive positions but are always retreating
More of their carbon belching ancient coal burning power plants are closing, accompanied by the railing and wailing of the climate change deniers.
Johnny-again, what’s being denied? No one denies the climate is changing so what the hell are you talking about?
“Per capita footprint..”. When the issue is total emissions, per capita really isn’t a good metric to use. Math-wise, there’s instances when per capita goes down while the total goes up
Jilly-one-note re-re-re-repeats “their” gripe – “What’s being denied?”
At first it was denied that the Earth was warming. Next (and still, for some), it was denied that CO2 caused the warming. Now, it is denied (except by KY Dana) that warming can have any effects on human life. Mr Dana approves of global warming during Jan in KY. And we expect low 60s today in MO!! Woo-hoo.
Most deniers, such as Jilly, do not understand enough to make a cogent argument. “Math-wise, there’s (sic) instances when per capita goes down while the total goes up.” Only if the “capita” goes up dramatically. Total U.S. CO2 emissions have dropped some 20% over the past 19 years, even as our “capita” has increased! Total CO2 emissions were highest in 2007 and have dropped steadily since, in part resulting from the Bush2 and trump1 recessions.
Almost all of the drop in U.S. emissions came from increased efficiency in electricity generation – from shutting down coal-fired power plants.
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
So in other words you still can’t verbalize what’s being “denied”. Shocking. “It was denied CO2 caused the warming”. Can’t be denied because it hasn’t been verified. “Can’t have any effects on human life.” Don’t know anyone who’s said that-it’s been said there’s no evidence that the alleged effect are mostly negative, which is true. One effect, greening of the earth, is of course beneficial. “ Per capita”. As I said, total emissions are the issue if you believe in the fear porn, which again is true. So we’re back to “what’s being denied”?
Teach’s position has softened over the years. After a very high temp record was set in 1999? That was not broken for some years, he claimed that showed global cooling . He no longer claims that.
Climate change deniers deny that burning fossil fuels is best hsd triggered the “skyrocketing” temp increases as well as the increasing rate of change the total USA
Yes jimmi there has been variances within both GGzh (greenhousegases) and CO2 gas USA
But overall they have been going down
Despite increases in population despite gasoline prices dropping 15% gasoline consumption in the USA has remained flat over the last year, even with that unbelievable 4.3% gdp growth
Flat emissions and yuge GDP growth !
“Increasing rate”. As shown, there was a recent paper saying the rate of warming was higher during the early part of the last century than now. Which corresponds to Tom Karl, then head of NOAA, saying in 1989 that “most of the warming happened before 1920”, and that “the globe actually cooled 1921 to 1979”.
“Climate change deniers deny that burning fossil fuels triggered the temp increases..” Johnny-one can’t deny something that hasn’t been verified in the first place. Can’t deny a negative
There was no “paper”, but rather an opinion piece parked online by a non-scientist.
You repeat your denial that CO2 is causing warming.
Then refute the paper. Good luck. If the data is correct, it doesn’t matter who wrote it or who published it. Another in a long line of attacking the messenger because you can’t attack the message
Moguls do not make their business decisions based on ten years out. The next quarter and the next year are important. Unfettered capitalism is naturally aquisitive and destructive. Extract all the oil, all the coal, all the minerals; harvest all the fish; cut down all the forests; fill the oceans with our effluent. Why -it’s simple – because that is what unregulated capitalism dictates. Negative externalities (look it up) be damned!!
But, while pollution is on the list of destructive outcomes of unbridled capitalism, global warming is NOT the most dangerous result – plutocracy – government by the wealthy for the wealthy – is. Envronmental destruction is a side effect – extreme wealth inequality, social instability, financial crises, and erosion of democracy, as profit motives override societal well-being are more destructive adverse events.
The battle over global warming is over and the capitalists (trump, MAGA, the right) won bigly! Live it up while you can!
Now we have the U.S. government working drectly with global oil interests to use taxpayer-funded military resources to access the largest crude oil reserves on Earth! trump later suggested that US taxpayers would reimburse the oil companies for their costs!!
Socialize the risk and privatize the profits.
trump discovered that the taxpayer-funded U.S. military is a great tool for de-risking capitalism!!