Pirate's Cove

I’d recommend moving on and realizing that this whole thing is a scam. Perhaps seeking out mental health help from a professional who is not a practicing member of the Cult of Climastrology. In lieu of that, Warmists with climate grief/eco anxiety should give up all use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral, giving up most trappings of a modern life

The 4 Stages of Climate Grief

The sky was dark in the distance, a blue curtain of virga predicting an oncoming storm. Desert rocks glowed even redder in contrast. I was passing through—not enough time to wait or really do the moment justice—but I wanted to be in the canyons, so I jammed my feet into sneakers and set off running.

The trail was a figure eight, and once I made it past the most popular loop, no one else was out. When I gained the ridge, a rainbow cracked the dark sky, and I got that rare elated feeling of witnessing something beautiful alone. But when I stopped—telling myself I was taking a picture when I was really just catching my breath—I got walloped by an ache of loss in a place that I’d held in my mind as untouchable.

I was on the edge of the Escalante Canyons, a landscape threatened by both large-scale climate change and aridification and land-use changes that have opened it up to more drilling and mining. It’s destabilizing when the places that have always healed you start to hurt. (snip)

There are times when I can handle the creep of warming—though it feels insurmountable—by getting angry at specific injustices: the dark knowledge that oil companies had back in the 1980s about their impact on the climate, the financially inconvenient truths about who is funding climate deniers even today. But I have a harder time with the selfishness of my own life, my desire to be in the wild, the hypocrisy of the gas I burn to get there, and the way all those forces could change this place. Here, in the deceptively fragile desert, these ossified rocks seem stable. But once you drill a landscape and riddle it with roads, water runs off differently, the soil cracks, and animal-migration patterns change. It should be less complicated to love a place than, say, a person, but it’s not. Anger feels less scary than the ache.

There’s no clear-cut way to grieve for a place. It’s a specific kind of heartache, because it’s grief in anticipation, grief without end. How do you know when a place is really gone? What could you have done? What can you do? Iceland now has funerals for lost glaciers; fires decimate forests and they come back different. Racing the edge of a storm might be too obvious of a metaphor, but it feels about right.

“I’m concerned about the people who aren’t feeling climate grief right now, because I think they’re not paying attention,” says Laura Schmidt, a former environmental organizer who founded the Good Grief Network, which provides a framework for working through overwhelming climate loss. “The word overcome comes up a lot, but you don’t overcome it, you work with it.”

I wonder how much money she’s making off of pushing this scam, essentially reinforcing the fake mental issues of Warmists.

Jennifer Atkinson, a professor who teaches a class called Eco-Grief and Climate Anxiety at the University of Washington, says that recognizing your grief is the first step of a survival strategy, especially if the places that you go to escape from the world’s roughness are the very ones that feel threatened.

OK, good, this bit of insanity is being reinforced via an actual class.

After acknowledging your anxiety, says Atkinson, the next step is to take action, whether that’s political work or personal change. Civic engagement is the best answer to grief. “I love this Rebecca Solnit quote,” she says. “‘It’s not hope that drives us into action, it’s action that drives us into hope.’”

You know that most won’t change their own lives. This is about making more activists.

Schmidt adds that community is another big piece of fighting the feelings of uselessness and isolation. It’s important to talk about climate change and loss of landscape and biodiversity, she says, and to make those conversations normal and constant. Accept the severity and predicament, but don’t do it alone.

That’s less a step than finding like minded people to reinforce your delusions

Then, Atkinson says, go outside. “It’s not just that it’s therapeutic to be connected to those places, even though there are physical benefits to being outside,” she says. “Connection reminds us why they’re worth fighting for. We’re dealing with tremendous loss, but there is so much left to save.”

Most of these people would freak out if they went anyone truly “outside” after living in their liberal big cities.

Read: There Are Four Stages Of Climate Grief, You Know »

It was just yesterday I mentioned the new New Zealand climate hysteria law, one which was literally passed on Thursday. Well, it didn’t take long for the uber-climate cultists to come out

New Zealand’s new climate change law: Inadequate and not really net zero

New Zealand, that tiny nation of five million people is being lauded yet again. This time, it’s for passing a law that seemingly seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, a move in which it followed Britain and Sweden, among other countries.

As a concept, “net zero by 2050” stems from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) special report on 1.5 degree Celsius warming, which indicated that the world as a whole needed to have net zero emissions (that means any emission would have to be matched by carbon sequestered from the air) by 2050 to have a 66 per cent chance of limiting global mean temperature rise to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century.

While the world as a whole need to reach net zero emissions by 2050, developed countries need to do it sooner, considering their high historic emissions, high current per capita emissions and high capacity to act, invest early and thus bring down technology costs for developing countries.

I agree, New Zealand should do this faster: it would be a great example of the Theory Of Unintended Consequences as their economy collapses due to climate cultism.

But the larger issue with the New Zealand law goes beyond the many problems common to all “net zero by 2050” legislations. The new law explicitly excludes biogenic methane emissions from the net zero target, subjecting the gas to mere 24-47 per cent cuts below 2017 levels by 2050.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of over 25 times that of carbon dioxide. Globally, methane accounted for 16 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. But New Zealand’s large livestock sector means that methane emissions from ruminant animals accounted for 34 per cent of its 2017 emissions, making it the largest contributor to the country’s greenhouse emissions; a status held in most developed countries by the power, transport or industry sectors.

Yes, let’s demand that New Zealand get rid of most of it’s livestock. Give it a shot, see how quickly people decide that climate change, natural or anthropogenic, is just fine, and that the cultists can just go away.

Beyond the numbers, as a rich country with high methane emissions, New Zealand could potentially be a global model for emission mitigation in the livestock sector and the present law betrays that hope.

These people are always such nags and doomsayers.

Read: New Zealand’s New Climate Change Law Already Being Trashed »