Is it? Obviously, the Warmists at Grist believe so or they wouldn’t run this “we’re just wondering” piece
Authoritarianism is on the rise. Is climate change to blame?
In November 2013, one of the strongest tropical cyclones in history made landfall in the Philippines. Known locally as Super Typhoon Yolanda, the storm pummeled the island country with 235-mile-per-hour gusts and a 17-foot storm surge; picked up limousine-sized boulders as easily as plastic bottles and deposited them hundreds of feet away; and officially killed 6,300 people, although the true death toll was likely much higher.
Rodrigo Duterte, then the longtime mayor of Davao City, made headlines for traveling some 400 miles to one of the worst-ravaged areas of the country, along with a convoy of medical and relief workers and roughly $150,000 in cash. He announced that he’d told security forces to shoot any looters who might try to intercept the convoy. (He went on to clarify, “I told them to just shoot at the feet. … They can have prosthetics after, anyway.”) As a presidential candidate in 2016, Duterte slammed his opponent, the former interior secretary, for allegedly misspending Yolanda recovery funds. He won in a landslide.
Over the next six years, Duterte proved that his foul-mouthed maverick shtick wasn’t harmless posturing. He presided over a brutal war on drugs in which police and vigilantes — emboldened by the president — killed as many as 30,000 people, imposed martial law on an island home to 22 million for two and a half years, and signed a law that gave law enforcement broad authority to arrest and detain suspects without warrants.
So, a hurricane hits, a strongman takes over (something which is rather normal in that part of the world), and it is all your fault.
The past decade or so has given rise to a grim parade of Duterte-like candidates around the world — politicians who have obliterated the bounds of acceptable political discourse, scapegoated religious and ethnic minorities, dismissed journalism as fake news, sought to imprison their rivals, and undermined democratic checks and balances. In India, commonly referred to as “the world’s largest democracy,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vilified Muslims and carried out a campaign promise to build a Hindu temple on the site of a mosque razed by Hindu mobs. In Brazil, former President Jair Bolsonaro promoted a bill that would strip Indigenous tribes of control of their lands and unsuccessfully plotted a coup to remain in power after losing reelection. And in the United States, former President Donald Trump — currently running for reelection — separated immigrant children from their parents and incited a horde of supporters to attack the U.S. Capitol.
See? Because you drive a fossil fueled vehicle Bad Things happen. Anyhow, this goes on and on and on. I saw this over at Watts Up With That?, which was reprinted from Climate Realism, as written by Linnea Lueken, with the title
Wrong, Grist, Climate Change Isn’t Causing a Rise in Authoritarianism
….
It may sound like an alright or reasonable conclusion at a shallow level, it is true that uncertainty and instability can lead to the rise of corrupt leadership, but the idea that climate change is generating these conditions is false.
I hate to disagree, but, the climate crisis (scam) is creating authoritarianism, though Grist has it exactly backwards. Authoritarians have always risen. Such is life on Earth. But, those rising from ‘climate change’ are the Warmists themselves. I’ve said thousands of times “for the sake of argument, let’s agree that the slight increase in global temperatures since 1850 are mostly/solely caused by the actions of Mankind, particularly the burning of fossil fuels: so, why is almost every policy being pushed by the Cult of Climastrology, especially by the big wigs, all about more and more government control over our individual lives? Why is that power trying to be centralized? Why are they trying to limit your freedom of speech, of movement, of where you can live, what you are allowed to eat?”
The climate cult is, at it’s core, Authoritarian. That’s who these people are. James Delingpole calls them watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. The commies/Socialists/Progressives infiltrated the enviro movement after the Soviet Union fell, then took over the climate movement, as it was a perfect platform to push their massive government policies. They’ve brainwashed a huge number of people into believing that Big Government is the way.
Of course it is. At last glance, “Climate Change” was responsible for everything bad, therefore this must be true.
I personally thank all my fellow Americans (both citizens and non citizens) for helping my country to continue to reduce their carbon footprint by 1% per year for the last 20+years. Government mandated vehicle fuel efficiency and household appliance efficiency have paid off.
And yes Mr Teach, incandescent light bulbs are still being sold in the USA
Sorry Carbon boy, as said before most of that reduction was due to LNG. But you already knew that…
Pure Used Food. The big change is because of the switch from coal to NG, because of lower prices. Which still puts us BELOW the CO2 emissions (if you believe the propaganda that CO2 is the sole and final determiner of temperature) of China and India.
This is the zenith (nadir?) of virtue-signaling. Look up the term “schmuck”.
The EPA disagrees:
“For the United States, during the period from 1990 to 2022 (Figure 1):
Emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, decreased by 2 percent.
Good try James but please note or as we college kids write, n. b.
your rebuttal answer was not quite a rebuttal to what I actually POSTED.
I did not state total carbon emissions, I stated that the INDIVIDUAL carbon footprint had decreased by 20% over 20 years, NOT the total carbon emissions. Population of USA 1990 was about 250 million. Current population is 340 million. See the difference that effiecincy makes ? Total carbon emissions up 2%, population increased by 33% ( i rounded off, you can use your calculator if needed.
See the difference ?
I would have given a grade of “D” in my math class, Problem Solving in Math, Set Theory and Venn Diagrams, the module that we just finished last week.
h, your original comment was ambiguous about whether you meant total or individual. Also, 2024 – 1990 is 34 years, not 20.
The TOTAL amount of electricity used in the USA DECREASED 4% between 2019 and 2023, even as the population increased. Transportation takes about 28% of carbon emissions that peaked in 2018, again even as population increased average American footprint DECREASED. Coal use is decreasing but that lack is being now supplied by renewables that INCREASE. The levelized cost for renewables is now less than gas fired electricity as LNG prices have gone up 50% since 2016. LNG is priced by therms directly related to the current oil price. If the USA stopped exporting LNG (biggest world exporter) the cost would be less for American consumers, but profits for companies would be less and under capitalism profits and shareholder value are more important.
Alan you seem to be applauding China and India which have populations 4 times higher than the USA for their carbon dioxide production.
The USA currently has fallen to #16 in per capita carbon production and that decreases each year.
No I do not believe that CO2 is the only determinant of temp.
Alan could you tell us all why YOU think that the temps are going up? Did our orbit suddenly change? Is the radiance from the Sun increasing ? Volcanic activity? something must be causig it
Love to hear what YOU think is causing it.
You (and many others) keep missing the point. I have no idea what is causing the small amount of warming the planet is seeing – and neither do you. What I HAVE seen is a lot of apocalyptical models whose output does not match up with the observations.
I DO know that in between glacial periods the temperature rises, and there have been warmer periods in the historical past that, shockingly, PRE-DATE fossil fuels.
You are falling into the “Obamacare Fallacy”. Proponents of Obamacare kept saying “Oh, yeah? What alternative are you proposing?” The alert student will notice that no one needed to provide an alternative to note that Obamacare was a painfully stupid idea.