In 2015, a conglomerate of the Center for American Progress, World Wildlife Fund, Cargill, Mars, and CNA, came together to war game, if you will, a potential scenario that included evolving structural problems in the global supply chain, severe weather events like droughts and floods, food shortages, and general civil unrest. It is an interesting document that is getting a bit of traction in conspiracy minded communities just based on some of the related shocks that are featured in the document. Notably, along with the previously mentioned scenario parameters, the government of Pakistan and Ukraine are both overthrown in the course of the game.
Uck is right. I remember a few years back, a professor from UBC (I think) lost her position for telling Kindergarten children the polar bears are all right. She had the research to support this, but that was not good enough for the cult of climate change.
I teach JK to college. The indoctrination is deep and tough to counteract. When tech students present research on wind turbines, I am sure to question them about the cost of mining the metals, transportation to the site, de-icing by fuel powered helicopters in Canadian winters, the chemicals to de-ice, and the ultimate disposal of the turbines, not to mention the cost to local wildlife. Most appear shocked with the questions.
Likewise, solar panels have their uses, but as recently learned in Canada's far-north, also have their limitations.
It's hard to wake them up the believers from the spell, though, and my friend and I have often discussed the parallels with the C19 hysteria.
The education system, media, and vote-peddling politicians have much to account for on this file too.
I'd rather see more attention paid to other aspects of keeping the Earth pristine. For example, focus on companies that pollute unimpeded into waterways, or companies who are free to take water for bottling from communities who then suffer drought (Ontario). Or, as you point out, more focus on how long items last and how they are re-cycled or disposed. We are living in a throw-away world. I still have my parent's freezer from the late 70s, and it works like a charm. Meanwhile, my husband and I have been through multiple appliances since we married in the 90s.
And then there are all of those medical masks lying around on the ground...uck is right!
Exploiting resources in such a way that the resource is destroyed is bad.
Polluting is bad.
Some changes to environment which we can cause, we can't correct.
It's really not harder than such simple principles. The rest is just legalese. Easy way to regulate import of chinese vendor trash, and get industries back to western nations with good systems forwaste handling? Change existing tax structures to target distance of resources, parts and goods travelled - this means both tariffs and internal taxs: it's insane that it is cheaper and more profitable due to swedish taxes to import meat from South America and New Zeeland than to be a cattle farmer (in Sweden).
Also, change VAT to a tax targetting the quality of the product. Very simple example: one of my axes is made in Sweden. The head is 150+ years old. Iron, not steel, so needs sharpening more often. The blade for my scythe is even older, just half an inch wide (was probably 1½" when new) and you sharpen it not with a whetstone but with a hammer, gently tapping the edge sharp every once in a while. My grandmothers now 75+ years old sewing machine is good as new, replacing the belt every 15 years or so is the only repair necessary. Yet, the taxes are the same for producing such quality as for importing and selling chinese shit which falls apart faste than you can say "Fu Manchu".
Lots of nitpicky details of course, but western nations could change their structures for taxation like that. Of course, that would mean lower profits for the politician's owners - lower profits in the short term that is, and lower profits from making money from speculation and from other money (i.e. the market's printing press instead of the state's).
Uck is right. I remember a few years back, a professor from UBC (I think) lost her position for telling Kindergarten children the polar bears are all right. She had the research to support this, but that was not good enough for the cult of climate change.
I teach JK to college. The indoctrination is deep and tough to counteract. When tech students present research on wind turbines, I am sure to question them about the cost of mining the metals, transportation to the site, de-icing by fuel powered helicopters in Canadian winters, the chemicals to de-ice, and the ultimate disposal of the turbines, not to mention the cost to local wildlife. Most appear shocked with the questions.
Likewise, solar panels have their uses, but as recently learned in Canada's far-north, also have their limitations.
It's hard to wake them up the believers from the spell, though, and my friend and I have often discussed the parallels with the C19 hysteria.
The education system, media, and vote-peddling politicians have much to account for on this file too.
I'd rather see more attention paid to other aspects of keeping the Earth pristine. For example, focus on companies that pollute unimpeded into waterways, or companies who are free to take water for bottling from communities who then suffer drought (Ontario). Or, as you point out, more focus on how long items last and how they are re-cycled or disposed. We are living in a throw-away world. I still have my parent's freezer from the late 70s, and it works like a charm. Meanwhile, my husband and I have been through multiple appliances since we married in the 90s.
And then there are all of those medical masks lying around on the ground...uck is right!
Exploiting resources in such a way that the resource is destroyed is bad.
Polluting is bad.
Some changes to environment which we can cause, we can't correct.
It's really not harder than such simple principles. The rest is just legalese. Easy way to regulate import of chinese vendor trash, and get industries back to western nations with good systems forwaste handling? Change existing tax structures to target distance of resources, parts and goods travelled - this means both tariffs and internal taxs: it's insane that it is cheaper and more profitable due to swedish taxes to import meat from South America and New Zeeland than to be a cattle farmer (in Sweden).
Also, change VAT to a tax targetting the quality of the product. Very simple example: one of my axes is made in Sweden. The head is 150+ years old. Iron, not steel, so needs sharpening more often. The blade for my scythe is even older, just half an inch wide (was probably 1½" when new) and you sharpen it not with a whetstone but with a hammer, gently tapping the edge sharp every once in a while. My grandmothers now 75+ years old sewing machine is good as new, replacing the belt every 15 years or so is the only repair necessary. Yet, the taxes are the same for producing such quality as for importing and selling chinese shit which falls apart faste than you can say "Fu Manchu".
Lots of nitpicky details of course, but western nations could change their structures for taxation like that. Of course, that would mean lower profits for the politician's owners - lower profits in the short term that is, and lower profits from making money from speculation and from other money (i.e. the market's printing press instead of the state's).
That's my två öre anyway.
Are you suggesting that climate change advocates will replace cows? Thank you, I finally get Shari Louis's joke of her puppet named Lamb Chop.
"ANTARCTICA PLUNGES TO -70.6C (-95.1F), ICE TAKES A SHARP UPTURN; + EUROPE CONTINUES TO FREEZE: FRANCE LOGGED 80 NEW *MONTHLY* LOW TEMP RECORDS YESTERDAY AS NATION SUFFERED COLDEST-EVER APRIL NIGHT" -- https://electroverse.net/antarctica-plunges-ice-takes-a-sharp-upturn-as-europe-continues-to-freeze/
Hat tip https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/todays-must-reads-09-april-2022?s=r