Pirate's Cove

Apparently, you’re either a card carrying member of the Cult of Climastrology or a heretic

The myth of the climate moderate
“There isn’t a middle ground between a livable and unlivable world.”

After months of discussion and debate, Democrats are at an impasse on a raft of infrastructure legislation that could make or break President Joe Biden’s effort to fight climate change. The rift, as it’s framed in countless news stories, is between progressives who want an ambitious social and climate spending bill and moderates who have protested the price tag.

But there’s a problem with portraying these disagreements as a conflict between moderates and progressives. This picture leaves out the unarguable scientific reality that pollution is warming the planet at an unsustainable and dangerous rate. There is nothing moderate or debatable about the catastrophic changes that global emissions are wreaking on the climate. In August, a panel of United Nations climate scientists called it “unequivocal” that humans have warmed Earth’s skies, waters, and lands.

If you’re calling a trace gas necessary for life on Earth a pollutant, you’re a member of a cult, one not interested in science. Good grief, I just trotted out a saying that is so 2012.

“It is possible to find middle ground in many areas of politics; I know, because I have done it,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), an advocate of swift climate action, said in a recent press conference. “But we cannot compromise on science. There isn’t a middle ground between a livable and unlivable world.”

A narrative that pits progressives against moderates runs the risk of spotlighting climate deniers and centering fossil fuel interests. It arguably distracts from the substance of climate policies that a broad swath of Americans already support.

They may support them in theory, but, in practice, few make any changes in their own lives to match those beliefs. Anyhow, this is framing a “you’re either with us 100% or you’re an Evil denier”. Us vs them.

To take ambitious climate action, Senate Democrats need every single member of their party (plus two independents) to vote for a version of the Build Back Better agenda, a proposed budget that would, among other things, boost clean energy and reduce US emissions. That has put two holdouts, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, front and center in the negotiations, and gives them disproportionate power over the future of the country’s climate policy.

Policy battles like this show that Americans need a new way to talk about the politics of climate change, as a range of strategists, pollsters, and lawmakers told Vox. Instead of focusing on “centrist” or “moderate” politicians, they said, political observers should distinguish between the many Democrats who support addressing the crisis at hand and the few who support an unacceptable status quo.

And that’s what this is really all about, going after Manchin and Sinema, who have, so far, refused to bow to the climate cult. Two who realize how bad the climate provisions of the $3.5 trillion bill are for America and the citizens.

The time to take a moderate approach to climate has passed, argued Dana Johnson, who leads federal policy office of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, a climate advocacy group. “If we would have done this 20, 40, 60 years ago, perhaps we could take a moderate approach,” Johnson said. “The moment right now called for us to go big, and to be bold, if we’re going to achieve any kind of meaningful change.”

These people are as hardcore in their beliefs as Islamists and jihadis. They’re already taking “direct action”, committing mild violent acts. How soon till we see jihad style violence from them?

Read: Vox: There’s No Such Thing As A Climate Moderate »

And these are the people we’re supposed to trust to run the economy, government, and our lives

Cop26 corporate sponsors condemn climate summit as ‘mismanaged’

Companies that stumped up millions of pounds to sponsor the Cop26 climate summit have condemned it as “mismanaged” and “very last minute” in a volley of complaints as next month’s event in Glasgow draws near.

The sponsors, which include some of Britain’s biggest companies, have raised formal complaints blaming “very inexperienced” civil servants for delayed decisions, poor communication and a breakdown in relations between the organisers and firms in the run-up to the landmark talks.

The Guardian understands that a letter to the organisers, written by broadcaster Sky and co-signed by senior leaders from other Cop26 sponsors, has raised concerns with them over these and other problems, and followed another co-signed letter in July.

Alongside Sky, the summit has 10 other major sponsors, including energy giants Hitachi, National Grid, Scottish Power and SSE, US tech titan Microsoft, and FTSE companies GSK, NatWest, Reckitt, Sainsbury’s and Unilever. Unilever has denied signing the letter penned by Sky. Other lower tier “partners” include the car maker Jaguar Land Rover and the furniture retailer Ikea.

One source, employed by a Cop26 sponsor, said that “the biggest frustration” was the lack of information about how the event will run, and the role for its key backers, because important questions have gone unanswered and planning decisions have been delayed.

“They had an extra year to prepare for Cop due to Covid, but it doesn’t feel like this time was used to make better progress. Everything feels very last minute,” the source said.

Say, I wonder if these corporate sponsors realize that the hardcore cultists want to do away with capitalism, have the government control their companies, and dictate all terms of operation for those that survive? And who’s surprised by the incompetence in getting COP26 running? Will they be ready for the 10’s of thousands coming in via fossil fueled vehicles and planes? Will there be enough room to park all the private jets?

The source blamed the “very young, very inexperienced” civil servants tasked with planning the event for taking a “top-down public sector approach” that has raised hackles among sponsors.

“It’s clear that many of them have very little experience managing relationships in the private sector, or even experience attending a Cop event,” the source said.

In other words, a bunch of young climate cultists/SJWs who have zero knowledge of Real Life. They expect things to just happen correctly because they say so, because they’ve been coddled their whole lives and told how special they are.

A Whitehall veteran of Cop summits said: “It feels like some of these sponsors have forgotten the actual reason we’re in Glasgow. Cop isn’t about branding, it’s about tackling climate change. Keeping 1.5C in reach is the best thing you can do for your bottom line: they would do well to remember this.”

And these companies should remember what the climate cult wants to actually do.

Read: Bummer: Corporate Sponsors Complaining About COP26 Mismanagement »