They’re using it as an excuse you know

Many people think that economic justice is a nice add-on to the climate fight. It isn’t. Without economic justice the fight to tackle the climate crisis will fail. That is because if the great burden of this transition is placed on the shoulders of middle-income and lower-income groups (and especially if the risks of an economically unjust transition materialise, as our second edition will show,) then majorities will not only start to oppose the changes — as the Gilets Jaunes protests in France have shown us — but they will also become prey to fake news and demagogues who seek to overturn the climate justice movement. Tax justice, economic justice, and climate justice must be joined at the hip.

Says it all really, doesn’t it?

The bit they’re missing being this. We just had a nationwide poll on whether we should be having that economic justice. The preponderance of those who took part decided that no, economic justice wasn’t what they wanted. Nor social justice. Because the parties proposing that social and economic justice lost the election, didn’t they.

So, insisting upon folding in that thing which people do not want to the treatment of climate change makes treating climate change less, not more, likely, doesn’t it?

23 thoughts on “They’re using it as an excuse you know”

  1. It’s also manifestly untrue. A highly unequal country, where the rich fly Learjets and the poor ride bicycles, will have lower CO₂ emissions than an equal country where everybody drives a Trabant.

  2. I have seen greens claim that, even if climate change was wrong, we’d all benefit from the wonderful results of their program. As you point out, the loathsomeness of this program is enough to persuade one to give it the flick.

    But I’d also add that, even if you believed in climate change, their program simply would not work. The only thing it could achieve is to destroy coal fired power stations (and non-CO2 emitting nukes!!)and make sure the expensive wind and solar was backed up by expensive gas. This profit to the gas industry does explain why there’s always money available to support idiots like Greta.

  3. “So, insisting upon folding in that thing which people do not want to the treatment of climate change makes treating climate change less, not more, likely, doesn’t it? ”

    Good.

  4. From realizing that “social justice” is a major factor in the climate change bandwagon it’s only one short step to realizing that it’s a prime reason for the propagation of the scam in the first place.
    If it wasn’t for that, runaway climate change driven by human activity would only be vaguely remembered as a bunch of flat-earth obsessives touting the fraudulent statistics-torturing efforts of a handful of 10th rate, out of their depth, “scientists”.

  5. I’m all for better environment, start with my pet peeve, litter on the roadsides/rat runs. Public footpaths and bridleways, used kleenex and plastic bottles, empty crisp packets, fly-tipping, etc. Start with that. Tidy up your front and back garden. Take fucking pride of where you live no matter how modest.

  6. Jussi,
    To quote Jordan Peterson: “If you can’t clean up your own room, who the hell are you to give advice to the world?”

  7. ‘Says it all really, doesn’t it?’

    Yes. Add ‘justice’ to your cause, and you can feel justified in killing anyone who disagrees with you. Murphy isn’t in a position to kill people, but he supports Stalinist government which could.

  8. but they will also become prey to fake news and demagogues who seek to overturn the climate justice movement.

    Demagogues: President Trump, Matt Ridley, anyone old enough to remember when the story was “OMG GLOBAL COOLING!”

    Not demagogues: Ugly Swedish goblin-children, oleaginous former vice presidents of the United States, Hollywood sexual predators

  9. To think of all the years and all the billions spaffed on this imaginary crisis, when we could have spent it preparing for an actual one, like our current predicament.

  10. A minor example of some missing Climate Justice – this from the Heartland Institute, “Monckton’s Schenectady Showdown” on WUWT. (First comment here, Tim – great site! And I’m here from David Thompson’s bar, so ya’ know.)

    Australia passed a carbon tax in 2010. It was to run from 2011 to 2020, to reduce Australia’s CO2 output by 5%; in the event, a new government (that probably got elected by promising to cancel the carbon tax) was elected in 2014 and cancelled the carbon tax.

    But Australians only emit 1.2% of the world’s CO2 anyways. So if the tax was completely successful on the day it was enacted, and ran for the whole ten years, it would reduce the world’s temperature by 0.000038 of a degree Celsius, at an all-in cost to the taxpayer of $130 billion (I’m assuming, Australian dollars).

    So wouldn’t taxpayers’ climate justice actually involve several stout tree limbs and good boiled rope applied to the government that passed the tax? Curious.

  11. “But Australians only emit 1.2% of the world’s CO2 anyways.”

    Good grief! You are at about 0.05%.

  12. “To think of all the years and all the billions spaffed on this imaginary crisis”

    That’s true, Rob. 30 years of science down the toilet.

    “when we could have spent it preparing for an actual one, like our current predicament”

    Uh, no. Not really. The Chinavirus has only been known for 3 months.

    The only potential issue created by CV for which prior action could have been taken is ICU beds. Some locations – Italy – already report deaths from
    from insufficient beds.

    I saw a report on TV yesterday that the U.S. has 48,000 ICU beds, most of which are already occupied. But the report said that they could expand that by about 50,000 in an emergency, as CV presumably is. I don’t see 50,000 ICU cases coming from this, so I think the US is fine.

    Rob, I don’t think it practical to retain thousands of ICU beds that aren’t being used. There are better things to do with the space; better things to do with the money. So even numbers of ICU beds is something we couldn’t really prepare for.

    Hospitals can have contingency plans, but not infinite facilities, nor trained staff. They cost money. No one wants to pay for that which isn’t needed.

  13. Not the beds it’s the staff, you can’t just chuck any nurse in there it’s specialist equipment and procedures

  14. “Hospitals can have contingency plans, but not infinite facilities, nor trained staff. They cost money. No one wants to pay for that which isn’t needed.”

    I’m afraid your entirely wrong here Gamecock.

    There are legions of people who want unlimited spending on the NHS without specifying what the spending should achieve.

  15. The Meissen Bison

    To want unlimited spending on the NHS is perfectly compatible with not wanting to pay for it. Alas.

  16. Bloke in North Dorset

    The one good thing about the budget and all that proposed infrastructure spending is that the plans will get dragged through the courts on any number of green and climate change issues. This will then expose:

    1. The damage that is being done to both our sovereignty and economy because of the Paris agreement and our courts who will impose it over political choice

    2. Green objectors as the misanthropes they usually are because they don’t want to improve the economy but at the same time are Remainers because of the loss in GDP that they claim Brexit will cause

    3. Twats like Spud who always shout infrastructure projects as part of xQE and the solution to the world’s problems as being both ignorant of the process and hypocrites because they also support 1.

  17. How many of those legions have their chequebooks in hand, demanding that they be allowed to pay more themselves? There’s quite a gulf between saying that people are willing and eager to pay for a thing, and saying that they’re willing to force somebody else to pay for it.

  18. BlokeInTejasInNormandy

    Mr Gamecock

    ““when we could have spent it preparing for an actual one, like our current predicament”

    Uh, no. Not really. The Chinavirus has only been known for 3 months.”

    I beg to differ. It seems to me that we could have spent some of those wasted trillions on seeking to establish more general ways to (i) destroy any old virus we find or (ii) have a toolkit that rapidly develops a means of killing any old virus we find (iii) hey, let’s whack bacteria too! or (iv) all of the above.

    The stupid things (viruses, not darling little bacteria) seem to work mechanically, propagating cell disassembly. Time to whack serious supercomputer time onto the means of blocking the nasty little things, repairing the damage, blocking them,… whatever. Both outside infected cells and within. Good old fashioned “mechanical simulation”. (NOT “AI”)

    (Yes, it would help to be confident that side effects are less nasty than the virus itself).

    I kind of resent being disassembled to my own detriment by nasty nanomachines. Time to put a stop to it.

  19. @BraveFart

    There are legions of people who want unlimited spending on the NHS without specifying what the spending should achieve

    Spot on. Left thought wonderful that Brown doubled NHS funding and spent it all on more Managers & Admin staff

    @BiND March 13, 2020 at 5:22 pm

    +1

    DM’s Brummer believes ‘all Gov’t infrastructure good’ Teleg Ambrose is similar

    Private sector funded & built Channel Tunnel and HS1 infrastructure. Private sector ready to spend > £50 Billion on infrastructure, but Gov’t and Courts won’t let them

    @BlokeInTejasInNormandy

    The stupid things (viruses, not darling little bacteria) seem to work mechanically, propagating cell disassembly. Time to whack serious supercomputer time onto the means of blocking the nasty little things

    We’ve been doing that since at least mid 1990s One I remember is
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[email protected]

    The unsolvable problem is “Out of 1 trillion mutations of CV-1, 5, 10, 18, what will be the dangerous mutation?”

    I kind of resent being disassembled to my own detriment by nasty nanomachines

    Hence why God provided us with white/lymph cells to fight them

  20. “It seems to me that we could have spent some of those wasted trillions”

    Never conflate two different subjects. CV and climate change are completely, totally, unrelated.

  21. “proposed infrastructure spending”

    I can’t speak for UK. Here in South Carolina, the governments, state and federal, have all the damn money they need for infrastructure creation and maintenance. They choose to spend it on other things.

    “proposed infrastructure spending” should be fought to the death.

    Governments shirk their duty, then trot out special, emergency, economy-saving “infrastructure spending.” Ecks, PREPARE THE GALLOWS !!!

  22. “Not the beds it’s the staff, you can’t just chuck any nurse in there it’s specialist equipment and procedures”

    What are you going to do with thousands of highly trained specialists in the years between pandemics?

    It’s the same problem as beds. Worse. Beds won’t complain about being unused and having no career path.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *