At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism.
– quoting the remarks of Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, in 2015.
h/t David Bolton
Sorry, but that’s bullshit. That could be her goal, but it wasn’t “admitted” by that quote – it was about saving the planet. My guess is that she wants to save the planet by destroying capitalism, which is really stupid, but it’s still a means to an end, not the objective.
They say enough things that are genuinely dumb, we don’t need to fabricate more of them.
Capitalism goes back a long way. As soon as man laid claim to property as his own and was then able to trade goods or services with others, it was born. It’s transactions initially between individuals with no state/government intervention. Of course that’s what the UN really wants – to become a world government with total control.
Criticism not accepted, Alsadius, it is a distinction without a difference.
“Saving the planet” is a means to an end as well … or do you imagine that Christiana Figueres’ vision of the saved planet includes cantankerous freeholders sitting on stockpiles of weapons, ammo, recreational drugs, and bacon? And choosing for themselves what sort of lightbulbs they purchase, and what pronouns they use?
The true end is control over others, as it has been since at least the 1930s.
Communism always wanted to re-make human society and even Man himself. Mankind wasn’t perfect (according to their notion of “perfection”) so they set about to transform it, BY FORCE. They always believed that there is nothing that force cannot accomplish.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Wrong!
The Communists pretended to do exactly the same thing “to change the economic development model” of the world. By decree. From above – i.e. – by force. Nothing new here, Ms Figueres!
All agree and accept that the Nazis were stark mad. Communism, on the other hand, is acceptable to many (Corbyn, Bernie) – though, of course, the communists were as murderous and as mad as the Nazis, even more so.
Ms Figueres and other climate warriors are as obsessed with madness and power as those other ideologies. Thankfully, they do not YET posses the full power to carry out their mad plans.
Our civilization, and the welfare of the 7.5 billion strong mankind, depends on energy. If they disrupt our energy supply system, as they declare they will, our complicated civilization dies and billions will die as a consequence. The current number of people cannot exist without energy, plenty of energy.
The extreme environment nuts see mankind as destroyers of “nature” and as pollution, and they genuinely and openly wish to destroy mankind or, at least, drastically reduce it’s numbers (i.e. they want to annihilate billions).
The more main-stream nuts (like Figueres) only want to “”to change the economic development model” – i.e. want to destroy our energy supply…. (the result is the same thing – annihilate mankind).
Over the years I’ve noticed that most eco-enthusiasts have done quite well from capitalism, mostly as well paid employees of the large public sector that can only be afforded in richer capitalist countries.
I think it’s very possible to be a fan of capitalism per se, to believe that it is in and of itself a good thing (eg. as a direct expression of freedom).
I think it’s also possible to be a fan of capitalism because of its consequences – I personally believe that it has played an enormous part in making the world a better place, by lifting people out of starvation-level poverty across much of the world. There are a million other examples, lesser or greater, that others could point to.
On the flip side – I DO think it’s possible to be against capitalism because of it’s consequences. I don’t share these views, but: some people believe, in good faith, that capitalism increases inequality, is damaging the planet, exploits workers, and so on. Again, I don’t share these views, but it is inarguable that some people do.
And they are all bad things that people in good faith can wish to rectify, and are not immoral in wanting to do so.
I don’t think many people hate capitalism per se, they hate it because they perceive it to be harmful. Some people might very well hate capitalism per se, there’s always the extreme nutters, but that’s not the mainstream view at all.
I find it very likely indeed that people who truly believe that the planet is doomed believe that capitalism is a cause; further that saving the planet is the objective, and that destroying capitalism is a necessary step to do so – not that destroying capitalism is the end goal, and that climate change is just a kind of mask or distraction.
“They think we’re evil; we think they’re stupid”
I could find this easier to believe if only they could make up their minds about whether the planet was going to die by fire, or by ice. I am old enough to remember being told in school by stern-faced Progs that the northern US would be underneath a glacier by now … and that half the world would already have died of starvation.
And all the solutions then were the same ones they are pushing now … top men, making our decisions for us, for our own good.
It’s just too much coincidence to bear.
pete wrote:
‘Over the years I’ve noticed that most eco-enthusiasts have done quite well from capitalism, mostly as well paid employees of the large public sector that can only be afforded in richer capitalist countries.’
One need look no further than Ms Figueres, about whom this thought might have been written and fits to perfection. Her resume is a literal checklist of trendy lefty causes, always publicly-funded, and lacking only one minor feature – to wit, an actual value-creating job in the private sector. But I suppose we should not be surprised – she is, after all, the third complete generation of her family to take the exact same career paths. This is the kind of nomenklatura that now completely-dominate the ‘climate change’ mafia.
llater,
llamas
neonsnake:
I find it very likely indeed that people who truly believe that the planet is doomed believe that capitalism is a cause; further that saving the planet is the objective, and that destroying capitalism is a necessary step to do so – not that destroying capitalism is the end goal, and that climate change is just a kind of mask or distraction.
You are too obsessed with “goals” or “intentions” or “beliefs”.
You should examine more the actual results.
It does not really matter whether environmentalist (such as Figueres) really believe there is a climate danger, and really want to save the planet.
Their declared intentions are not that important.
The actual result of their proposals is going to be catastrophic, therefore they must be opposed and reigned in.
Take for example the Communists: many judge them by their declared intentions: they want to bring prosperity and equality to mankind.
You should judge them by their deeds: mass murder, enslavement, dire poverty imposed of huge populations…
Their declared beliefs and intentions do not matter…
Indeed – and what happened to that? As best as I can work out, capitalism got us out of that threat.
There’s an element of culture of fear in it; I strongly suspect that top down there are vested interests that use the media to keep us afraid of some new threat, in order to make us less resistant to more authoritarian measures. The easiest example for me to reach for is the increase in surveillance post 9-11 in the name of “our safety”.
Bottom up, I tend to the view that most advocates and agitators are genuine in their motives; I just disagree on their suggested solutions – top men, making our decisions for us, for our own good. Lord save me from those with my best interests at heart, and all that.
(I sometimes disagree with the severity of their beliefs in various problems, but that’s slightly different – I still think the beliefs are held in good faith)
It is also NOT necessary to engage in psychobabble and try to determine whether their declared intentions (to save the planet) are also their “true intentions” (to destroy capitalism) or not.
One should concentrate on examining the consequences of the policy they promote. One should recognize that the proposed policies are going to disrupt our energy supply. It does not matter whether that is their intention or not, or whether they understand the dangers of their proposals or are too dumb to understand them.
Perry says: ” Gottcha, you want to destroy capitalism!”
I say: “it does not matter what you want, you’re gonna destroy mankind.”
And given the direction that our governments are moving in, and that the electorate appear to support a climate change agenda, I say it does matter, very much, because somehow we need to change the direction of policy. As it stands today, “they” are so much better at getting the electorate to support a cause than we are, that it’s embarrassing.
We can’t change the direction for the committed nutters, because yes, they want to destroy capitalism.
We can change the direction for the good-intentioned, but only if we recognise their good intentions.
I’m with Alsadius – she didn’t admit anything that can reasonably be construed to mean “The aim of climate change alarmism is the destruction of the capitalist economic model”. What she said can definitely, and patently, be spun to support that allegation but she didn’t say that. To environmentalists, there is no difference between capitalism, communism, fascism and everything in between: they all have economic growth as their driving goal, with no notice taken of sustainability and the health of the non-human biosphere.
She said that climate change alarmism is an excuse, not to destroy capitalism, but to stop humanity being the most successful species Earth has ever produced.
Still dumb. Still dangerous. Different reasons.
Nope. As I suggested before, a distinction without a difference.
Jacob – apologies, I missed this post earlier.
I do obsess over “goals”, “intentions” and “beliefs”. Absolutely true. I’ll leave to others to decide whether it’s too much; I would hope I have demonstrated that I also examine the actual results that would derive from suggested actions.
That is precisely why I obsess over beliefs and intents, because my follow up to your statement is “Jacob, I agree entirely and wholeheartedly! How do we do that in a democracy where we appear to be losing this particular battle?”
Yes Perry.
If someone came up with a power source that was very cheap and produced no C02 emissions at all – the “liberal” establishment elite (including Mrs May) would be depressed – they would be depressed because all this (the taxes and the regulations) is about POWER and CONTROL – it is NOT about “saving the planet”.
The “liberal” elite want to control every aspect of human life – after the manner of Sir Francis Bacon and Jeremy Bentham. And like Thomas Hobbes and David Hume before them the modern “liberal” elite do not really believe even in the existence of human BEINGS.
The establishment elite want to control us (“for our own good”) and if it was not C02 they would come up with some other excuse – for excuse it is.
I’m with Perry in thinking her a watermelon, offering a green justification for a red-motivated plan. However, since she is certain to have watermelonish advisers, and the very fact that we are discussing this speaks to her total lack of interest in recognising them as such, let alone controlling them, it is a distinction without a difference in another sense. She would cheerlead it whatever her personal degree of understanding.
Paul M: “If someone came up with a power source that was very cheap and produced no C02 emissions at all – the “liberal” establishment elite (including Mrs May) would be depressed …”
Well, someone did come up with a power source just like that — and the liberal establishment did not get depressed, they got active. First they drove up the costs of nuclear power to an unnecessarily high level (changing the regulations when a plant is half-built will do that), and then they decided they did not like the lack of CO2 emissions at all.
There is a story out there that the UK’s Political Class is now softening its opposition to nuclear power — provided the Chinese build the nuclear power plant. Wheels within wheels!
Nuclear power is being extolled as “clean” on CO2, that is – not producing CO2. That is true, but not so all important as climate warriors would make you believe.
Nuclear power has other problems or hazards – radiation, which is dangerous and we don’t have an antidote to it.
I, personally, would prefer to see thousands and thousands of coal fired power plants (all over the world) rather than nuclear plants.
I do not mourn the slow demise (or closure) of the current crop of primitive nuclear power plants.
“the “liberal” establishment elite (including Mrs May) would be depressed – they would be depressed because all this (the taxes and the regulations) is about POWER and CONTROL – it is NOT about “saving the planet”.”
The question whether it is motivated by a desire to save the planet or by a quest for power and control – is not answerable (not provable), and not relevant.
I think it is important to stress that whatever their motivation – they are going to strangle our energy supply – and this is a very great danger.
It is not about spending (or wasting) tons of money – that will also happen and is bad; but the main danger is disrupting our energy supply. This is already underway.
“Nuclear power has other problems or hazards – radiation, which is dangerous and we don’t have an antidote to it.”
Coal power stations emit more radioactive waste than nuclear power stations do, and kill a lot more people per unit of energy produced. Nuclear power is about the safest method of power generation we’ve got.
Radioactivity certainly requires precautions to be taken, but then so do many other industrial processes. Electricity is dangerous. Many chemicals are dangerous. Fire is dangerous. Power tools and lifting gear are dangerous. The dangers of nuclear power are hyped out of all proportion.
I can’t comprehend why you think it’s not relevant. I genuinely can’t.
The local elections in the UK over the last couple of days lend themselves to a certain type of analysis. It’s mildly complicated, but essentially the Tories took an absolute kicking (for mishandling Brexit, presumably). Labour, who should arguably have gained, lost (because of a lack of firm position on Brexit, Jezza the Lad wanting out of the EU because of their rules on state intervention). Lib Dem gained immensely, on a pro-Remain platform (half the country, minus ONLY a couple voted Remain).
Green also gained. Why??
Because people believe that the world
is being destroyed by capitalism!
UKIP got eradicated. They’re gone. Why? Because they’ve cosied up to the kind of people that Nigel Farage was careful to keep out – the out and out racists and pricks (Tommy Robinson, Carl Benjamin etc) that basically deserve taking into the carpark of your local British Legion and having the shit kicked out of them. Meanwhile, the For Britain party, who are the type of holocaust-deniers and racists that even the new UKIP have decided are a bit much, have gained a couple of councils. None of this lends itself to liberty. We are divided as a nation.
WE ARE LOSING. Be very clear on that.
There’s a couple of ways to look at that.
We can either work out a way to win – you can look at my approach, call it psychobabble or whatever. You can believe me soft or SJW.
Or, this is the alternative: “It’s a macho fantasy invented by the sort of libertarians who secretly pray for the Poor People to rise up and start a civil war so their friends will stop laughing at them for keeping a cache of automatic weapons next to their Lexus in the garage of their suburban enclave.”
That’s what we look like.
I’d call you realistic.
We keep having these global conversations as if our purpose is to demonize and belittle – and stop – the hard-leftists. We treat the conversation as if we were speaking to those hard-leftists.
But our target audience needs to be the mass of people who, for whatever reasons, honestly believe and support the stated goals of the hard-left.
We’re never going to convince a hard-left person that their pronouncements have a hidden and unpopular agenda. They already know it.
The bulk of the people become convinced of the correctness of the leftist philosophy because the left has been so much better than we have at seeming concerned with their fellow man’s lot in life.
Jacob is correct to the extent that, when push comes to shove, we need to stop the hard left. But we’re nowhere near that point yet, and if we give up the idea of persuasion of reasonable but misguided people, we only guarantee that push comes to shove that much more quickly.
In the US, we saw the effect of belittling a large group of people in an effort to shame them into voting for you. It didn’t work. Why do we expect it to work for us? We need to do far more persuading and far less attacking.
neonsnake (May 4, 2019 at 5:58 pm), your analysis is more pessimistic than mine. Tories 28%, Labour 28%, LibDems 19%, Indeps/Others 25%. Record number of spoilt ballot papers. Especially low turnout. Very confusing election – not sufficient time between the end-March/mid-April mess up and the nomination closing to get Brexit on the ballot.
Traditionally, LibDems do well in locals. Last election they did very badly. This election they got 19%. They’d have done much better if there were an active majority for remain. They are the party to vote for if anyone wanted to signal ‘remain’ and they are viable in local elections in a way they are often not in national elections.
Meanwhile the Gore effect is in full swing. Big ‘Global Warming’ push on the news succeeded by ‘coldest May bank holiday on record’ for parts of the UK (and pretty cold for the rest).
Certainly feeling pessimistic. Not sure what I’m pessimistic about, just a general Saturday night feeling of malaise.
Bobby b – thank you. Can’t say much more, other than a feeling of speaking to the void. Thank you for giving me some comfort.
I’m British, so I’m understating it, but your post means more than you might think to me:)
You’re speaking of the hard-core top Marxist/eco-loon types. What you forget is that they are only empowered to the extent that they can bring along, through persuasion, the millions of voters who are in fact motivated by a desire to save the planet, and who have been led to believe that the left holds the key to that goal.
These people need to be convinced, not attacked and belittled. They have been convinced – so far – that their support for the hard left is in service to truth and justice and beauty and free chocolate bars for all. We need to act as educators, not as self-righteous zealots.
bobby b: “We need to do far more persuading and far less attacking.”
Yes, absolutely! … now wait for the but …
Seriously, this is a discussion we have circled around several times: but how does one persuade another human being to change his mind, especially on something based on faith rather than fact?
Specifically, how does one get through to the unfortunate young person who learned to read with ‘Heather Has Two Mommies’, has only rather poor skills in reading & arithmetic, spent his high school years putting condoms on bananas, thinks Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat, believes Winston Churchill was a fictional character, has no clue about the age of the Earth, has never heard of the Ice Ages, and learned only one very important lesson in college — regurgitating the Far Left professor’s foolish pap is a guaranteed A?
A while ago, someone on the corporate speaker circuit pushed the idea of the ‘Significant Emotional Event’ — the SEE. The only way to change most people’s minds is for them to have a SEE, like getting fired. The kinder way would be to rejigger the educational system from kindergarten on, reversing the Gramscian Long March through the Institutions — and that is going to be a multi-generational task, 40+ years if we started today.
bobby b gets it.
Gavin, this feeds into our prior discussions and chitchat, re: brexit (for example) itself doesn’t lead to a perfect world; and I hope that Jacob et al don’t mind me airing my thoughts at large, and trying to work my way through them. I won’t get everything right first time, certainly, but I think I have evidenced that I’m heading in the right direction.
What fun would a discussion site be without the “buts”?
In my experience (which is all I can attest to), first of all by not confronting them. No useful teaching session ever began with the phrase “ah, you stupid warmenists/communists/racists!”
You must first convince them that you are human – that you share their same ultimate goals, such as peace, prosperity, diminution of human pain, etc. You have to remind them, or sometimes be the first to mention to them, that we want to get to the same place, and mostly differ about the best route.
If they think your goal is white dominion, or your own corporate profits while trashing the environment, or the continuation of the patriarchy, (etc., etc.) they have no reason to listen to you. If they think you’re human, like them, you can start persuading.
Softly, softly, catchee monkey. Very tough in a polarized age.
Great (and topical, as well as Safe For Work) cartoon on Twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5vzBpnXoAA10oU.jpg
Ironically, if these people get their way, instead of saving the planet (whatever that means), they’ll end up destroying environmentalism, which is itself a luxury good. Hungry people don’t care what the planet will look like in 100 years.
I did not know that – very interesting, and not at all surprising. You’re right about it being confusing, due to the timing. There’s so many different things going on right now that it’s hard to draw one single robust conclusion – especially with the gains for independent councillors, as they presumably all stand in different places on the political axes.
I’m sick and tired of smart Alecs like you neosnake calling Tommy Robinson a racist. If people are going to slander others, they should maybe give some supporting evidence? He said such and such or did such and such and that’s why I’m calling him this. I challenge you to produce a racist statement by him or withdraw your unpleasant description of what you think about him and what you’d like to see done to him. Not everyone comes from a leafy white suburb neosnake, nor prepared to pretend there isn’t a problem with some Islamic citizens. Though, even Mr Farage recently highlighted the religious divisions in Oldham. Maybe he’s a racist prick too, who you’d like to beat up?
(Apologies to the host for not being on topic)
Unsurprisingly the left is vastly better at large scale collective action, but is always brought down by failure to deliver. Just as it looks like old Righty is toast, reality rides to the rescue and a charismatic figure like Churchill, Thatcher or Regan or possibly Trump (or God Help me, even Blair) pops up to deliver.
Then twats riddle the new right wing, move it left, give terrible advice (Oliver Letwin) and bring down dear leader…….
Rinse repeat. Countries everywhere are demonstrating a revived rightward lurch. Britain will be no different.
It’s selling actual solutions that fail. We need to fight smarter.
Trump is kicking the shit out of the media out of necessity, but tackle that first and every other solution is less contested.
So, a new genuine right wing government must kill the BBC and general regs on media ownership and use social media to amplify.
It also needs to deliver real results fast. Repeal regs with one in one out, freeze civil service recruitment, use rolls royce to produce mini sub nukes for towns (university ones have training reactors in the middle of towns).
bobby,
From what I read, I think that’s me behind every face in your cartoon! (Or anyway, at times I feel like all of them. At once.)
😆
I’ve seen one where the end panel is a bloke screaming at his laptop through a megaphone, and the “what my friends think” is that I trawl the internet looking for things to be outraged about.
Um.
Hm.
I mean, it’s not totally inaccurate…
Stop calling “Liberals” people that want to control everything. They are Marxists.