We hear so much about climate change in the news and social media you might be wondering why there is so much inaction.
The climate messaging has been so intense it has created mental health issues for some adolescents.
I think the problem lies within the messaging itself and what the worlds population is being asked to accept.
A stick without the carrot.
Fear was for thousands of years an effective tool for manipulating populations. It was a go-to for organised religion, dictators and alike. I am not so sure it's as effective as it used to be. People have access to information form many different sources with the internet. If you want to push a message, you have to advertise, a channel that has today less credibility than ever. Cue the apparently qualified experts and their research papers. A quick search for any term associated with climate change will return a long list of articles from organisations that have in recent years lost a great deal of credibility for their propagation of unscientific socialist ideals. They feature highly in search results partly because any material questioning them is blacklisted. It's become increasingly difficult to find historic temperature data or information on natural disasters before the industrial age. It seems the left are extremely intolerant of opposing views. I debated in high school and as a result became skilled at identifying fallacies used in arguments and statements. Fallacies are often used by those who are lacking evidence or those that do not respect their audience. If you know your subject well you will stick to the facts and use direct language. Everyone should familiarise themselves with the top ten most commonly used fallacies. I have become deaf to it. I stopped reading left wing news sources, I don't read environmental 'studies' and I've stopped watching nature documentaries. Nature documentaries today are more likely to make you feel guilty to be a human than feel good about nature. They are complete fiction in fact with footage being purchased from freelancers and edited together with a narrative. See: suicide of walruses controversy
If you have read any of my other articles you would understand that I am a legacy environmentalist. I still deeply care about the environment, I’m just not accepting there is a catastrophe on the horizon. For me the justification for this alarmist messaging lies within the desire to divest wealth from fossil fuels to renewable energy. It comes as no surprise to me that the majority of renewable energy and net zero zealots hail from wealthy inner city areas. This has put them on a collision course with people who live in rural areas.
Dumb Country Hicks
Climate change alarmists will draw attention to statistics on regional education levels, conservative political views, regional employment as justification for regional resistance to renewable energy. The old 'ad hominem' fallacy. The truth is more complicated. Electric vehicles are completely impracticable for rural use, they don't meet most of the requirements rural drivers such as: range, carrying capacity, reliability or refueling. In the case of solar, battery and wind arrays, they are typically constructed far away from cities in our rural areas. We are directly impacted by these vast and ugly structures. A real slap in the face if you are like me and prefer trees to man made structures. As we have already seen, renewable energy advocating politicians and their supporters block attempts to put solar and wind farms in their own constituencies preferring to locate them in areas that typically vote conservative. These politicians are aware of the degradation to the environment, its natural aesthetics and importantly the property value depreciation vast wind arrays cause.
The fossil fuel advocates will claim the cost of renewables is the main reasons for the increase in electricity costs. I'm sceptical, partly due to the rises coinciding with COVID related inflation, but it's certainly looking that way. The costs of importing pre-built renewable infrastructure and it's shorter lifespan must impact Australia's bottom-line. Accounting alone isn't going to save the investor from the costs of replacement batteries, solar panels and wing turbines that lose their ability to generate power over relatively short time-frames.
Meanwhile both sides are spending an enormous amount of money funding their strategic think tanks to provide easy to digest studies that promote their cash cows. All the while prices soar and more land is cleared. On that note: let me ruin your day. This web search will show you the exact problem. Both the glowing reports on the benefits to emerging economies and the environmental degradation. The conundrum in one search
Cheap energy is a requirement for a prosperous economy. Those countries that have secured a cheap reliable supply are the wealthy ones. Fossil fuel mining and processing has always been a long term game that was fairly stable and typically held by conservative investors. Along with the skyrocketing government debt and higher living expenses the younger generations have been set up for failure.