Rev. Michael Dowd, Death-Cult Environmentalist? |435|

I've heard of Agenda 21? For me at the time it was just too far down the rabbit hole for me. And would require a vast network of cooperation. As time creeps on I'm beginning to suspect it might be easier done than said.
Thanks for the video, looks interesting. I'll be sure to watch.

Most countries are already signed up to Agenda 2030. It's not a conspiracy theory. On the outside it sounds great, it is presented in very fluffy and appealing language. However the devil is in the details. It's already begun here with devastating consequences as I mentioned.

Check out the mental programming for our possible future enslavement in smart mega cities. These videos are made by "Forum for the Future".

If you want to learn more....

 
Agenda 21 is
I've heard of Agenda 21? For me at the time it was just too far down the rabbit hole for me. And would require a vast network of cooperation. As time creeps on I'm beginning to suspect it might be easier done than said. The human population is beyond docile and idiotic especially dare I say it it the left. I'm not sold on fema camps or Chem trails, or weather modifications (seen a youtube preview that claims USA said China has controlled the weather) few nights ago I watched a video by brother Phil Valentine who should be a guest on this show as brother panic has stated he doesn't care about doing podcasts, interviews etc. Phil's lucid and knowledge is something I envy in a good way. He puts in work and would be an interesting guest
Here's his latest tidbit
Agenda 21 is a fear-mongering campaign being led by the far-right and the conspiracy right. It isn't really an external psyop like QAnon because conspiracy culture and the paranoid Right does an excellent enough job creating their own monsters. The reaction to Agenda 21 is simply a transference from the John Birch and right-wing and Nazi rhetoric being pushed upon the evillly evilest of evils -- Communism. The same things said against Communism are now being said against Agenda 21. Such creativity.

Agenda 21 is nonbinding and not very effective. The same was true for the Paris accords. You know what is effective? Binding trade deals. You know what else? Military organizations like NATO. Ditto the trillions pumped into the US military. Ditto neoliberal and libertarian thinktanks. Occasionally the UN can have an effect, but rarely in this United States. The U.S. vetoes any proposal that doesn't make the corporate capitalists or the imperialists (or pro-Israel and Gulf State lobbies) happy.

Oh boy -- the fears over Agenda 21 are covering up something much scarier: the privatization of public lands and resources. It is a continuation of the capitalist psychopathy of privatizing the Commons for the pocketbooks of the rich and powerful elites. Why isn't this much larger and scarier phenomenon being covered by "Truthers" and conspiracy theorists? This privatization includes rivers, lakes, oceans, land, forest, parks, drinking water, DNA, education, etc. Forget Agenda 21. Time to take on the elite class who only invest in themselves and have run out of ways to make money, leaving privatization and warfare as the biggest moneymakers available. Oneworld communism isn't the goal, as so many people think -- it is the 100% privatization of the entire world. Some of us are being tricked into thinking the goal is one thing, when it is really another.
 
instead of wondering about global warming maybe we better be paying attention to what the SUN is saying. Solar Maunder minimum. Undisputed record of sun spots. The sun is quiet. The weather will be wild. MAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
 
And Alex. You brought up Climategate? That was debunked as a hoax a decade ago. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies -- I can provide all kinds of independent news media sources that have poured through the data and provide those links if you don't want the Guardian's take.

And even if some of the "Climategate" accusations by debunkers and deniers were real...

Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later | Climate Etc.

===
There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.
  1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
  2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
  3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
  4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
  5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
===https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/legacy-of-climategate-10-years-later/
 
Oh boy -- the fears over Agenda 21 are covering up something much scarier: the privatization of public lands and resources. It is a continuation of the capitalist psychopathy of privatizing the Commons for the pocketbooks of the rich and powerful elites. Why isn't this much larger and scarier phenomenon being covered by "Truthers" and conspiracy theorists? This privatization includes rivers, lakes, oceans, land, forest, parks, drinking water, DNA, education, etc. Forget Agenda 21. Time to take on the elite class who only invest in themselves and have run out of ways to make money, leaving privatization and warfare as the biggest moneymakers available. Oneworld communism isn't the goal, as so many people think -- it is the 100% privatization of the entire world. Some of us are being tricked into thinking the goal is one thing, when it is really another.
Agenda 21 is agenda 2030. What you describe as the privatization of all resources is EXACTLY the issue. I agree, yes much scarier because it hides behind environmentalism, prosperity and equality. It also hides by different names at the local level. The climate change narrative is the catalyst, it always has been. For a transfer of wealth and ultimately to transform the economy to one of energy. Control all of these resources and you do indeed control the world and every aspect of life.

All industry produces CO2, therefore you have a mechanism for attacking all industrialized countries. The man who was behind the curtain said exactly that.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?

Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

– Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme, )​
 
Agenda 21 is agenda 2030. What you describe as the privatization of all resources is EXACTLY the issue. I agree, yes much scarier because it hides behind environmentalism, prosperity and equality. It also hides by different names at the local level. The climate change narrative is the catalyst, it always has been. For a transfer of wealth and ultimately to transform the economy to one of energy. Control all of these resources and you do indeed control the world and every aspect of life.

All industry produces CO2, therefore you have a mechanism for attacking all industrialized countries. The man who was behind the curtain said exactly that.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?

Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

– Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme, )​
Agenda 21 and 2030 are nonbinding. They are not riding in on environmentalism -- quite the opposite. In fact, most of this privatization gets by on NOT doing environmental impact statements. Corporate greed at the expense of the environment is what is running the show, not the other way around. You are playing straight into the Heritage Society's (and other Libertarian thinktanks) playbook. That doesn't mean it can't provide some kind of future approach by neocons and neolibs to get the left to passively or aggressively agree, but right now privatization is running from the neocon playbook, not any UN agenda. LOL!
 
instead of wondering about global warming maybe we better be paying attention to what the SUN is saying. Solar Maunder minimum. Undisputed record of sun spots. The sun is quiet. The weather will be wild. MAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
It is simply absurd that the IPCC ignores the sun and only includes an overly simplistic view of irradience. And as it turns out even this has been nothing more than a guess.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b7/meta

But now we have the Solar particle forcing that has finally been included in the models. This is by far a bigger player, with no aspect of the climate untouched by this addition. Apparently since then, in the three years since the data was released not a single paper using this data set has been able to show a man made signal affecting the climate. This bad boy is way bigger. It is going to take some very imaginative fudging to keep this nonsense up.

We can't be sure about the GSM just yet. But it is only a matter of time. We definitely should be observant. Certainly we are seeing a significant minimum right now and all the effects that are occurring right now do fall in line with that.
 
Last edited:
Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later | Climate Etc.

===
There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.
  1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
  2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
  3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
  4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
  5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
===https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/legacy-of-climategate-10-years-later/
Alex,

I disagree with this analysis but let's say ONE study did get lazy or fudged some data or do whatever it is that you think was done. So what? Does that affect that literally thousands and thousands of other studies that mostly point in one direction -- many of which are independent of government and corporate grants and funding? Let me reframe -- so because ONE study on NDEs or PSI or non-local consciousness comes across as flawed, fraud, or exaggerated (or simply has a few issues that give us question marks on the process), we should, therefore, assume all studies on NDEs, PSI, etc are wrong or compromised? C'mon Alex. You are simply finding any way you can to reach the conclusions you already have. Keep the standards consistent. Otherwise, you should hang up the mic and end the podcast because the standards you have for Climate Change are not consistent with the subjects you cover on this podcast.
 
Agenda 21 and 2030 are nonbinding. They are not riding in on environmentalism -- quite the opposite. In fact, most of this privatization gets by on NOT doing environmental impact statements. Corporate greed at the expense of the environment is what is running the show, not the other way around. You are playing straight into the Heritage Society's (and other Libertarian thinktanks) playbook. That doesn't mean it can't provide some kind of future approach by neocons and neolibs to get the left to passively or aggressively agree, but right now privatization is running from the neocon playbook, not any UN agenda. LOL!
It is non binding. Yet most countries are already on board. Actually it is not that simple. Here's a list.
https://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/which-nations-signed-agenda-21.html

*The United Nations Information Center does not have the names of the parties that agreed to Agenda 21--hard to believe. The UN spokesperson doesn't even seem to know that Agenda 21 is not a treaty, but is an agreement. Further information obtained from the UN indicated that no one actually 'signed' it, and the agreement was made via consensus.
If you watched the video I posted you can see it has been beaten at the local level before, in Alaska. But only if we are informed. It is absolutely riding on environmentalism! This is undeniable! And yes corporate greed at the expense of the environment is the result. This is the trick. I am afraid you are not seeing the case I am making. You are the one actually playing right into the playbook here. It has been designed this way. You have to give them some credit. They know exactly how to push peoples emotional buttons, manipulate psychology and use information for their own agendas. It is how we have been fooled time and time again, it is how nations have been drawn into war time and time again. By now we should have learned, it is sad to see we are still being manipulated.

The word sustainable development comes directly from the United Nations 1987, Brundtland commission on environment and development. A book called "Our common future" . This goes back further to 1972, 1976. Habitat 1 and 2 determining that privately owned land is actually a threat to the social equity of people on the planet. Hence a transfer of wealth and destruction of industrialized nations. This is the key part of the UN's Agenda 21/30.

It is a corporatocracy!

It actually enables all the detrimental things you are talking about.

It also makes all those positive things you mention, and I agree with quite impossible.

It is absolutely a UN agenda.

 
Last edited:
I have revisited this post, and I find it either alarming or idiotic, and I don’t know which. On its face it turns a scientific endeavour into a political one, and that’s a huge problem for one big reason. The direction of argument and the motive to persuade is distorted. But I note it is date 2010. I’d want to see a contemporary equivalent to assess whether it was a stupid indiscretion or a real alarm bell.
 
It is non binding. Yet most countries are already on board. Actually it is not that simple. Here's a list.
https://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/which-nations-signed-agenda-21.html



If you watched the video I posted you can see it has been beaten at the local level before, in Alaska. But only if we are informed. It is absolutely riding on environmentalism! This is undeniable! And yes corporate greed at the expense of the environment is the result. This is the trick. I am afraid you are not seeing the case I am making. You are the one actually playing right into the playbook here. It has been designed this way. You have to give them some credit. They know exactly how to push peoples emotional buttons, manipulate psychology and use information for their own agendas. It is how we have been fooled time and time again, it is how nations have been drawn into war time and time again. By now we should have learned, it is sad to see we are still being manipulated.

The word sustainable development comes directly from the United Nations 1987, Brundtland commission on environment and development. A book called "Our common future" . This goes back further to 1972, 1976. Habitat 1 and 2 determining that privately owned land is actually a threat to the social equity of people on the planet. Hence a transfer of wealth and destruction of industrialized nations. This is the key part of the UN's Agenda 21/30.

It is a corporatocracy!

It actually enables all the detrimental things you are talking about.

It also makes all those positive things you mention, and I agree with quite impossible.

It is absolutely a UN agenda.

One of the problems we have here is that the UN is a mixed bag. It has a leadership role on key social issues, but is discounted and denigrated in other regards. The mere fact that something is boosted by the UN is meaningless - because what is proposed can be safely ignored by key nations.

What we need is a breakdown on the IPCC - who funds the research, who does the research, what are their politics, and who benefits from funding. These are fair enough questions we should ask of all research. Any data/thought?
 
Hi Michael, It's a deep rabbit hole for sure. I can't say I have all the answers. But it should be our duty to learn as much as we can. There is a lot at stake. Agenda 2030 may be the biggest issue that is imposing itself on us all and not many people actually know anything about it. I think this is more important than the climate change narrative being pushed down our throats. This is where that narrative ultimately leads to. This is the end goal.

Unfortunately it is not being ignored, quite the opposite. Most countries have already agreed. Including ours. It's a reality. How this has happened I have no idea. We are past it being a meaningless UN agenda that can be ignored. That problem is no longer a problem.

I'd recommend watching the documentaries I have posted. "Why big oil Conquered the world" It is long and divided into three parts that may not seem connected at first glance. It is well researched, it shows the root of the movement, including the IPCC, its policies and how it runs.

Basically it culminates in agenda 2030. So it is important to understand what this means. It is hard to get a handle on, it is an immense operation on a global scale but implemented locally. The video I linked on that is a good place to start. There is simply too much top cover here.

As for Edenhoffers quote, yeah i'm not sure if it was stupidity or just arrogance, but he is not alone in this admission. It is about the complete restructuring of the economy. This was outlined well before anyone had even heard of global warming or the current term climate change. It goes back to the seventies with the club of Rome documents. To restructure the economy to one of energy. It goes beyond money however, it is about the monopolization of all resources. A global resource grab of the highest order. Neo feudalism will be the result.

Right now in Australia we are seeing the privatization of water, flood plain harvesting. It is destroying river systems, exasperating drought and fires. At the same time the government is selling our water internationally even though we are suffering in drought which is not entirely natural. Farmers are not able to afford the increasing water prices and are struggling or collapsing and in some cases committing suicide. This is just a little taste of what Agenda 2030 will do to us, everyone actually. As an Aussie, you need to see this.


This is how you get people out of rural areas and into human habitation zones as the UN calls them.

When it comes to redistribution of wealth the key word here is social equity. Here are a few more shocking quotes. Just a few btw. Look for the common theme among these.

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” — Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“Man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” — Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” — Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” — Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” — Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” — Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” — Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.” — Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

“All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
 
Last edited:
I have revisited this post, and I find it either alarming or idiotic, and I don’t know which. On its face it turns a scientific endeavour into a political one, and that’s a huge problem for one big reason. The direction of argument and the motive to persuade is distorted. But I note it is date 2010. I’d want to see a contemporary equivalent to assess whether it was a stupid indiscretion or a real alarm bell.
Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said much the same thing in 2015.
 
Remember that 70's club of Rome document about transforming the economy? From one of money to energy? The plan has been several decades in the making. CO2 is the ultimate weapon to target all industrialized nations.



 
So the stuff above bothers me on multiple levels. There is an indisputable argument for a fundamental rethink of the economic model that currently drives the global economy. You don’t need climate to be wheeled into this argument. That doesn’t mean you exclude it either. It just means that there are more compelling arguments - moral and finally metaphysical.

However that territory has been completed screwed by crass self-interest and materialism. You can’t repair or replace this problem with an outlier like the climate. We have to get down to the core issues - the moral and metaphysical ones. If we don’t own these we are rooted.

There are multiple systemic crises impinging on our well being, so taking one out and making it a hero is unbalanced, ignorant and egocentric. It is the old rationalistic/scientific model of thinking.

Let us, for a moment, accept the proposition that our rampant production of CO2 is really causing climate change - a single factor. What is causing the excess of CO2? Let’s apply the Root Cause Analysis [RCA] method and ask what or why 7 times. Where do we end up? We end up in values and motivations.

The whole climate change debate has been made a botch job because the proposition has been largely about how we have our cake and eat it too, just with decreased outgassing. That’s a dumb debate to have because it functions at the level of conflicts of interest without addressing the nature of the interests that are cast into conflict.

There is a lot of energy being expended on poorly defined questions - stuff that’s easy and fun to argue, but which will have no real impact.

Let’s start asking what it is in our conception of our values and motivation that results in the generation of multiple systemic crises. This is kinda where Dowd was heading until he got deflected with the idiot job of redefining Christianity. If we allow that Christianity is a valid model to consider here the real question is why its core values and motivations have been distorted and perverted.

We have an economy predicated upon the endless production of stuff we do not need, and we are pressed into feeding the beast in order to survive. Economy once served the people. Now we are enslaved to it.

It does not matter whether the climate change debate is right or wrong, because the need for change does not dependent upon it. By connecting the two it allows deflection and misdirection in favour of BAU. There are only 2 questions we need to consider for now:
1. Is there a compelling need to change how we do stuff?
2. What is the actual ground upon which agreed change can/will happen?
 
We have an economy predicated upon the endless production of stuff we do not need, and we are pressed into feeding the beast in order to survive. Economy once served the people. Now we are enslaved to it.

It does not matter whether the climate change debate is right or wrong, because the need for change does not dependent upon it. By connecting the two it allows deflection and misdirection in favour of BAU. There are only 2 questions we need to consider for now:
1. Is there a compelling need to change how we do stuff?
2. What is the actual ground upon which agreed change can/will happen?
Right, and that is were the traditional green view came from. The idea, for example, that everything we buy and use should last as long as possible, and be repairable. That includes clothes - we have reached the point where people - probably mainly women - buy clothes for single use.

The other big thing has got to be population. If people pair as a couple and produce way more than two ofspring, you are obviously going to overload the planet sooner or later.

Sometimes I think climate hysteria was invented to distract from those ideas, and maybe ultimately to destroy green ideas for a generation.

David
 
Right, and that is were the traditional green view came from. The idea, for example, that everything we buy and use should last as long as possible, and be repairable. That includes clothes - we have reached the point where people - probably mainly women - buy clothes for single use.

The other big thing has got to be population. If people pair as a couple and produce way more than two ofspring, you are obviously going to overload the planet sooner or later.

Sometimes I think climate hysteria was invented to distract from those ideas, and maybe ultimately to destroy green ideas for a generation.

David
Actually I suspect it is a materialistic substitute for spirituality. And for this reason it is especially dangerous - lacking structure and boundaries, let alone clarity.

For me the big turn off about climate change is the assumption that 'science' is the determining factor. I don't need a climate scientist to tell me my winters are getting milder and my summers hotter. The trend, empirically, is plain enough. Science will not tell me how to behave, but it may guide me as to the magnitude of the change and the areas to be most impacted.

Re population, it is worth noting that 'advanced' Western cultures are breeding below replacement rate. Education and women's rights are better birth control methods than the pill. So is the sheer economic cost of having a child for those determined to make a lot of money. My mother had 5 kids when the attrition rate was sufficient to encourage higher numbers, but in an age when that logic ceased to be pertinent. We either reduce the breeding rate or increase the attrition rate - at the moment we are breeding less, but have a lower attrition rate than is needed to reduce populations.

So this is important. It isn't just the breeding rate that has to be managed. We need more people to die sooner, and this is what exactly what we are working against. I am not suggesting we kill folk, I am just pointing out that there is a mismatch in logic.

I don't think climate hysteria was 'invented'. We are too stupid to do that.We really have to stop crediting the 'They' with powers they do not possess. There are political and economic reasons for 'inventing climate hysteria'. We 'invented' 'oil hysteria' not so long ago to fuel a new economic model. In so doing we violated human rights and dignities and wrecked ecosystems, economies and cultures.

The impact of the carbon economy is wider reaching than the oil economy, but there is so much evidence that the latter has been profoundly harmful, it is not absurd to project that to the whole energy economy. I do not know whether CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on our shared ecosystems, but I know the overall energy economy is.

Virtually from the time we started using fire we have adversely impinged upon the world around us, and as human populations have grown that impact has become more and more telling. Industrial waste is a subset of energy economics, because the crudity of our methods projects downstream consequences. For me, CO2 is the least of our worries in many respects.

We are shitting in our nest on physical and metaphysical levels. As well as physical consequences, there are moral consequences for accepting corrupted and degraded conduct that supports our access to cheap products and jobs.

I don't know the finer details of what is happening in Europe, but I know the consequences of electing shallow transactional politicians in the UK. US and Australia reflect an intellectuagressivl and moral failure to adhere to the finer principles. The decline is a long time coming, but well tracked. I am less ghost at who has attained power and more shocked by the vacuity of the alternative discourse - the supposed 'opposition'. The contraction into desperate fear-filled paranoia is understandable in the face of a crisis. But why is the only coherent response coming from deranged right wingers? Where was Labour's coherent's alternative? Why has the 'progressive' message become so dumb?

I think the answer is simple. It is rooted in materialism, and the logic of Marxist analysis. I don't mind Marxism as a critical tool. It is no good as a solution. We see this crisis playing out in the US at the moment. Will the Dems pick a socialist candidate to stand against Trump? I have no real interest, but I am interested that critical commentators fear the Dems could again pick a candidate Trump could beat. How hard is it to come up with a 'progressive' message that will unite a nation?

Apparently very hard. For me Trump is a gross threat. If you can't win a contest against him you have no chance in winning an argument about the impact of climate change. And not winning is not about the merit of the message. Its about how well the actual challenge is understood - which seems to be not at all. The right does well because it can frame its cause in terms of dire existential messages. The left can't?
 
So this is important. It isn't just the breeding rate that has to be managed. We need more people to die sooner, and this is what exactly what we are working against. I am not suggesting we kill folk, I am just pointing out that there is a mismatch in logic.
I'm unsure how to interpret this. Do you mean that more people should die earlier, and that is what we are working against -- put another way, should be finding some way to facilitate? How could we without killing them? And if we did find a way, would you be amongst the first to volunteer your services?

Me, I'm an optimist. I don't believe things are as bad as is being made out. Your fears, everyone's fears, are greatly exaggerated, as they have always tended to be. We always seem to have to have a bogeyman of some description threatening us. If the "climate crisis" is proven wrong, sooner or later something else will rear its ugly head.
 
Top