I call this “soft” climate change denialism because a lot of liberals either resort to this kind of fatalism or they believe that some green “wounderwaffen” or “wounder-tech” like carbon capture, lab grown meat, AI or whatever is going to save us all deus ex machina style last minute by a huge push from all investors/the invisible hand and “one of the good” billionaires.
In practice this is no different from “hard” climate change denilasim.
they believe that some green “wounderwaffen” or “wounder-tech” like carbon capture, lab grown meat, AI or whatever is going to save us all deus ex machina style last minute by a huge push from all investors/the invisible hand and “one of the good” billionaires.
Even if such wonder tech is invented, it will be in China and western countries will do everything possible to stop on behest of their oligarchs.
It’s definitely on that 5 point scale of denialism:
-
It’s not happening
-
It’s happening but it’s natural/we don’t now why
-
It’s happening but it’s good actually
-
It’s happening and there’s nothing we can do to fix it
-
It’s happening and it’s our fault and there’s nothing we should do
You forgot: It’s happening, but it’s their fault!
points at some poor country with a per capita carbon footprint of like 1/10th of the average westerner
It’s happening but china is doing way more so we shouldn’t bother
China’s doing it but we shouldn’t because of the cost China is incurring in doing it
-
some of those things would work if we had climate stalin, other things would work too like putting all the cattlemen in gulags.
100% agree. Veering back and forth between ‘The world will survive so who cares’ and the wonderwaffen one size fits all fix is all they have left. Point out ‘the world surviving’ is just reducing it to salty water and amino acid sludge, not some edenic moment where the deer and foxes reclaim the cities and they just shut off entirely
My bet is on the crabs.
The anthrocene followed by the carcinoceneEventually, we will all CRAB 🦀
Britain can’t defeat the Mummy Lords. Scrap the amulet and embrace life under the Eternal Pharaoh.
IT JUST KEEPS GOING YOU IDIOT
IT DOESN’T STOP GETTING HOTTER UNTIL YOU STOP PUTTING CARBON IN THE AIR
IT WILL NOT STOP AT MEDITERRANEAN
The UK is not going to end up with Mediterranean climate (even setting aside the fact that globally things will just keep getting hotter). When the AMOC collapses, they’re going to end up with a Canadian climate. They’re kept much, much warmer than their geography would suggest because of heat transport from equatorial waters. That current is already wobbling.
They should be more proactive and just pre-emptively burn Britain to the ground
Sure, get used to the heat just in time for the Atlantic current collapse which means you get Norway’s winters now
In June 2018, [Heath] claimed that “cultural Marxism” was “running rampant”.
, but also 
ah so he’s duplicitous scum like so many national front->re[whatever] before and since and this is just the latest mutation of his shit-eating grift against humankind. who’d’ve known.
Strap this guy to a wind turbine
You dealing with hotter temperatures isn’t the elephant in the room you absolute jackass. You might be able to adapt, but it’s destroying the fucking ecosystem and will obliterate the ability to cultivate crops. And that’s putting aside the poor animals that are going to go extinct because our fucking species can’t limit itself for one fucking second.
googled this idiot’s name and found this article from 2004 where he peddles typical climate denialist talking points. Very predictable. We’re going to see this a lot - these people would go from “climate change isn’t real” to “it’s real but it’s too late to do anything about it”
There’s a Yes Minister clip they’ve been using as a blueprint since the 80s (well, before that too, but the clip exemplified it)
Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
Woolley: What’s that?
Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis. In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.
Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.Another classic is argument is: yes it’s happening, but we are smol bean so it doesn’t matter if we do nothing because China will release too much co2 regardless
There was an article posted here earlier this year (probably FT or WSJ, though I can’t find the link) that was literally “China is decarbonizing too fast, but at what cost”.
There are so many people who piss in the public pool so it doesn’t matter if I stop doing it. (Continues pissing)
Britain can’t stop nuclear proliferation. Scrap peace and embrace the sweet release of atomic hellfire.
Did climate change launch a tactical strike on that windmill
Sort of? It could have been attacked space laser owned by Trump’s Space Force. Or by a James Bond oil baron villain.
At least they’re getting a bit more honest.
“But consooming less is too HAAAARD! I love my treats! Can’t we just be deniers? It’s easier for me!”
And they lecture us about toughening up.
Does net zero even require consuming less? It seem like someone complaining that nobody will have food if we ban single-use plastics, as if we can’t work around it, but it wouldn’t be as profitable for the shareholders.
Reducing is a huge part of bringing down emissions. It doesn’t have to look like austerity, it can be like using stuff that would otherwise go to waste, Buying things that last, and when you do get plastic, even just using them for more than their single use helps a lot. For example, I’m bringing my lunch in a takeout box I got once into work.
Also the US military is the biggest carbon emitter on Earth and that doesn’t do anything good for anyone
That’s not true, it’s great for American businesses.
Consuming less goods also doesn’t only mean having less use value. It can also mean having items with use value which lasts longer (and have higher quality), taking care of things, and sharing useful things more. Collective kitchens, ride shares, public transport, libraries for sharing various stuff like books or tools and collective forms of entertainment. We could in many ways live better by other metrics than maximizing the tonnage of thrash we burn through
It means no mineral carbon that can’t be to 100% recycled. On a survivable timeline that’s almost certainly less consumption for a century or so. But survivable timeline doesn’t appear to be much of a priority.
Are these people capable of second-order thinking? They seem to think that the only thing that’s going to happen is that the mid summer weather is going to get worse.
“We did nothing and we are out of ideas!”
