The REAL reason for the Climate Crisis

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, the crisis in Germany WAS real. It wasn't as bad in 1933 as it was circa 1925----but it was bad. Germany suffered under the worldwide Depression, probably worse than we in the US suffered.

People used to have to carry wheelbarrows full of money in order to buy a loaf of bread.

There's a risk for that, and granted, it's huge.

But if we don't impose authoritarian rule to ensure climate control, there is a 100 % certainty that humanity will either cease to exist, or live in worse conditions than any authoritarian rule could ever impose.

In other words, we have everything to gain from Climate Authoritarianism and nothing to lose.

In how long, in your opinion, will humanity "cease to exist?" if we don't implement a solution to the "climate crisis"?

Hitler invented a "crisis" talking about "inferior people" being the root to all evil, and claimed that "inferior people" were the real crisis. But that's not what we're discussing here. Global warming is real, and is man-made on a global scale.

We need to suppress humanity and deny some rights, even some of which we consider basic rights, in order for humanity to survive as a specie and prosper in the future.

Within a thousand years from now. That may seem like a long time, but on the timescale of the entire human history, it's soon.

There’s a much greater risk of political tyranny in a much shorter time period than 1,000 years.

I truly believe that change will come about by friendlier means. There’s continuing to be more understanding, awareness, and research surrounding this issue than ever before.

The wall needn't be physical. Thrn you would not call it a wall, but a national economy, in contrast to the global economy we have now (which even Adam Smith thought impossible, because love for the capitalist's homeland would keep him from investing snd tax dodging abriad, as if by an invisible hand. Not kidding, look it up, that's where Adam smith uses the phrase 'invisible hand' in the Wealth of Nations. And nowhere else).

Chances are the climate crisis will be solved through massive effort of carbon capture and storage through US military, once the effects become undeniable. Miami will have to drown, first, though.

I still don't see how starting a world war would be good for the climate. Culling all the people that didn't fall into line might help but you would need a huge army to implement your plan. Lots of tanks and bombs. How do you feed the troops?
You would need to move abroad and forment a revolution from the sidelines, bide your time, then seize power, kill your allies etc...etc
THEN build your wall, though it might make more sense just to kill all the rich people. That could work.

That's pretty much what the Khmer Rouge did....kill all the rich people.

I've never liked radical sorts of solutions to things.

Ww2 only made a minor dent in the global population curve.... A nuclear war however would make quite the difference, in a combination of reduced population and nuclear winter.
I'm betting ten bucks the surviving population would go on burning fossil fuels, likely coal - assuming there's some left close to the surface somewhere so it can be accessed without the industry needed to build drag lines.
I'm not sure a civilization that could build solar panels could be rebuilt easily after such a war. Wind turbines - maybe.
So it's back to coal fired steam engines, at best. And medieval famine and disease for everyone else. Yay.

Let's maybe not do that

bad idea then, thanks for humouring me, back to the drawing board.

Yeah, but make it quick, Miami is living on borrowed time
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points

You misunderstood me. I hace nothing against air conditioning. My point was that rich politicians are so used to air conditioning that they are out of touch with the reality of climate change, whereas many poor folk can't afford air conditioning. Few people in my country can despite the hot climate.

But oyur country is slowly going more green and embracing the need for change.

The first thing that springs to mind is reforestation and green energy.

I have never been in any doubt that things will have to get worse before they get better.

Flight shaming and other types of virtue signaling will become commonplace. Its better that the media heaps praise on any celbrity that makes lifestyle sacrifices rather than build walls.

I imagine that in desperation, we may end up partially block sunlight from entering the atmosphere with clouds of reflective particles...bad scenario.

Investment in climate-technology requires so much money that you can't avoid increasing taxation, but when you increase taxes people will leave your country to avoid paying too much.

That's why I want a ban on people leaving the country.

Why is it that people refuse to understand this?

Dear OP, people do understand you're trying to ban leaving the country, like the Eastern nloc banned people from leaving. The association makes it clear however why this isn't really discussed.

Also because it's not necessary to physically ban people from leaving a country- as American corporations are demonstrating, you can be physically in one country, while being tax registered in another.

That's what you need to ban.
You have the world's most vicious army at your disposal, and you're the strongest economic power in the world, but you're powerless to crack down on the tax haven of Panama? - no. Someone in the US government wants there to be tax havens.
Same for Europe, etc.

Oh, by the way, no billionaire will move, physically, from the upper east side Manhattan to Antananarivo for tax reasons.