Nicely written, as the EU forms an LNG buying cartel. Can't wait. If anyone wants to befriend a sea captain, open to black market trading, add me on Substack ;)
They're also planning a critical minerals buying cartel. :D Good to have a sea captain with a flair for black market trading among one's friends in times like these.
Hmm. A Carbon Card sounds so much more innocuous than a CBDC. And it piles some guilt on the user too.
When I read this, my mind wandered to that WEF vision of what life could be like in 2030.....I may be an outlier, but I’m sure we can do better on the creative front. Otherwise we really are going to be somewhere between 1984 and WALL-E.
You know, one of the more unusual reasons I'm so angry about the whole transition affair is the utter lack of originality. It's insulting, really. As if they can't be bothered to make an effort in that respect.
Centralised planning (communism) was found to be counter to human nature before. One of the unintended consequences will be the emergence of a black market.
The article in question was not authored by scientists and it is not a scientific paper, unless we are calling philosophers and ethics researchers scientists now.
I don't think the authors are painting war-time style rationing as an oven-ready solution to climate change, they are simply arguing it should be receiving more attention as a potential policy to reduce runaway overconsumption.
I wouldn't be all that opposed to an egalitarian rationing system, it wouldn't affect me all that much with my lifestyle. Sure I like to treat myself to a new jacket or pair of shoes from time to time, but I could still get behind regulating the fashion industry to reduce its output, given the incredibly worrying rise of fast-fashion. I like to take a flight to somewhere sunny each summer (I live in Scotland), but I could get behind restricting the amount of fuel available for private jets and mostly-empty flights, which are undeniably wasteful, even if it reduced the number of destinations I could fly to.
I'm not so sure about the carbon cards policy, that would really be unworkable. But restricting supply of resources to people obsessed with frivolous consumption wouldn't be so bad. The worlds richest 1% are responsible for 15% of all carbon emissions, and the worlds richest 10% are responsible for 50% of emissions. Its will take more than a reminder that they share the planet and it's finite resources with other people to change their behavior.
The rationing you are talking about would do zip. "Overconsumption" in Western nations is an insignificant component of global emissions. By far and away emissions are climbing in Developing Nations where people just want basic things like transportation, housing, healthcare, education, legal system, refrigeration & heat, cooking fuel, irrigation, agriculture, waste disposal.
In Western Nations per capita energy consumption = emissions, is in decline, has been for awhile.
The real serious problem in Western Nations is their promotion, of nutty scam non-solutions like Wind, Solar, Agrofuels, CCS, Hydrogen, ITER & biomass burning. And even having the audacity to force those non-solutions on Developing Nations. Truly evil.
If you REALLY care about emissions, then you have to do the RIGHT THING and promote REAL SOLUTIONS, namely Nuclear Power, Methanol, Hydro, rational Electrification of Transport (not the current irrational method). Griping about so-called overconsumption is no help whatsoever.
I'm sure most of us would be on board with reducing what you call frivolous overconsumption. I know I will. But that's not what the authors are talking about, unfortunately.
My head hurts at the idea of falsely creating scarcity of resources to defend rationing them! Think runs on banks can happen? Try and ration resources that are actually available.
"More awareness raising about climate change" Have these people been living in a cave? I mean, I know they want the masses to live in a cave, but how could anyone think we can do more 'awareness raising'? I'd be drowned, dead, fineto (maybe that's the goal). I suspect what they really mean it's rationing for thee, but not me. Finally.... we'll do it properly.... and there you have it. Communism laid bare in full glory. I've always maintained that AGW is a Trojan Horse for Communism and occasionally the believers let down their guard.
Glad I know how to provide for my family without going to the store. There’s a population of 4 million wild hogs. My family will be fine lol.
Talk about luck!
Nicely written, as the EU forms an LNG buying cartel. Can't wait. If anyone wants to befriend a sea captain, open to black market trading, add me on Substack ;)
They're also planning a critical minerals buying cartel. :D Good to have a sea captain with a flair for black market trading among one's friends in times like these.
Hmm. A Carbon Card sounds so much more innocuous than a CBDC. And it piles some guilt on the user too.
When I read this, my mind wandered to that WEF vision of what life could be like in 2030.....I may be an outlier, but I’m sure we can do better on the creative front. Otherwise we really are going to be somewhere between 1984 and WALL-E.
Can’t wait for Part 2!
You know, one of the more unusual reasons I'm so angry about the whole transition affair is the utter lack of originality. It's insulting, really. As if they can't be bothered to make an effort in that respect.
Centralised planning (communism) was found to be counter to human nature before. One of the unintended consequences will be the emergence of a black market.
Ah, but this time it will be different because they'll do it properly.
It’ll work *this time*
/s
The article in question was not authored by scientists and it is not a scientific paper, unless we are calling philosophers and ethics researchers scientists now.
I don't think the authors are painting war-time style rationing as an oven-ready solution to climate change, they are simply arguing it should be receiving more attention as a potential policy to reduce runaway overconsumption.
I wouldn't be all that opposed to an egalitarian rationing system, it wouldn't affect me all that much with my lifestyle. Sure I like to treat myself to a new jacket or pair of shoes from time to time, but I could still get behind regulating the fashion industry to reduce its output, given the incredibly worrying rise of fast-fashion. I like to take a flight to somewhere sunny each summer (I live in Scotland), but I could get behind restricting the amount of fuel available for private jets and mostly-empty flights, which are undeniably wasteful, even if it reduced the number of destinations I could fly to.
I'm not so sure about the carbon cards policy, that would really be unworkable. But restricting supply of resources to people obsessed with frivolous consumption wouldn't be so bad. The worlds richest 1% are responsible for 15% of all carbon emissions, and the worlds richest 10% are responsible for 50% of emissions. Its will take more than a reminder that they share the planet and it's finite resources with other people to change their behavior.
The rationing you are talking about would do zip. "Overconsumption" in Western nations is an insignificant component of global emissions. By far and away emissions are climbing in Developing Nations where people just want basic things like transportation, housing, healthcare, education, legal system, refrigeration & heat, cooking fuel, irrigation, agriculture, waste disposal.
In Western Nations per capita energy consumption = emissions, is in decline, has been for awhile.
The real serious problem in Western Nations is their promotion, of nutty scam non-solutions like Wind, Solar, Agrofuels, CCS, Hydrogen, ITER & biomass burning. And even having the audacity to force those non-solutions on Developing Nations. Truly evil.
If you REALLY care about emissions, then you have to do the RIGHT THING and promote REAL SOLUTIONS, namely Nuclear Power, Methanol, Hydro, rational Electrification of Transport (not the current irrational method). Griping about so-called overconsumption is no help whatsoever.
I'm sure most of us would be on board with reducing what you call frivolous overconsumption. I know I will. But that's not what the authors are talking about, unfortunately.
My head hurts at the idea of falsely creating scarcity of resources to defend rationing them! Think runs on banks can happen? Try and ration resources that are actually available.
I remember the run on supermarkets in the early days of the pandemic when people were stocking up on everything, just in case. It's a powerful urge.
Three years later and I’m still sore from laughing at the Great Toilet Paper run of 2020 in the US.
It did have serious comedic potential and utilised it fully. :D
Cute, as you say. What do you expect from people who study applied ethics? (nothing wrong with this field btw).
But also - no wonder that not many political scientists came forward with a similar idea.
If there isn't enough to go around then perhaps we could reduce the number of people, starting with those in government and their family lines?
"More awareness raising about climate change" Have these people been living in a cave? I mean, I know they want the masses to live in a cave, but how could anyone think we can do more 'awareness raising'? I'd be drowned, dead, fineto (maybe that's the goal). I suspect what they really mean it's rationing for thee, but not me. Finally.... we'll do it properly.... and there you have it. Communism laid bare in full glory. I've always maintained that AGW is a Trojan Horse for Communism and occasionally the believers let down their guard.