Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: And we Deniers don’t think burning or not burning coal or oil has squat to do with the climate; it’s a non-issue except insofar as the Warmists want to ride that horse to wealth and power …

Excerpt:

“The Greens do not particularly want a carbon-free world.
They want a world in which there are many fewer people; they want a world in which those people who are left are subordinate to nature, living very frugal but more equal lives under the guidance of an elect caste of high priests who decide on the doctrinal issues which arise under such a regime. The Greens are an authoritarian sect, with a new religion to establish, and for them nuclear energy is anathema, since it promises energy in abundance for a world with even more people than we have today.”

Really? That’s the issue? It’s not even about the science? Hmmm.

So, just imagine: what if they’re right? OK. Impossible. OK, what if they’re not right – it has nothing to do with anthropogenic causes, but for some other random reason, things fall apart. Climate catastrophe ensues, crops fail, cities are drowned, things collapse, etc etc. The alternative to the above envisioned greens authoritarian sect where people try to make do with less and cooperate, is a world where whoever has the best monopoly control of violence (access to arms & capital) can control resources and screw the rest. (Actually, that’s the system currently operating in our world, you’re a bit sheltered from it here in the states because you’re with the guys with the monopoly control of violence).

I suspect the green folk are truly afraid of limited resources. This may be a limitation of their imagination. But taken at face value, in light of these limitations, they are trying to be fair. The “green authoritarian sect” would probably be a lot nicer than other sorts of authoritarian sects that would emerge in a bad case environmental scenario.

I don’t see the harm of learning how to share or make do with less. Or of trying to calculate who is benefiting from an action and how to get them to also pay the environmental costs of that action. A triple bottom line seems like a logical accounting practice. I don’t see the “subordinate” to nature thing, but I would love to be more in touch with nature and its rhythms. See elsewhere my reference to a migrating animal app.

I like that you’re hoping for a fusion-ex-machina solution to this conundrum, I likewise, am working towards that end to avoid either authoritarian scenario. But in its absence, you might have to face this question. If it comes down to it, are you the kind of person who will explore ways of egalitarian cooperation and accommodate others’ needs, or are you the kind of person who will blow others away and take as much for yourself as possible? In a limited resources scenario, your primal character is revealed.