Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Gus Van Horn blog

Reblogged:The Practical Equivalent of War

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Climate Change activists often call their cause "the moral equivalent of war." It is, in fact, the practical equivalent of one waged against the America and the West.

***

Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute considers the oft-stated rationale behind a raft of litigation against "Big Oil" and finds the idea that it is premised on "saving the planet" wanting:
power_plant.jpg
Image by Jason Blackeye, via Unsplash, license.
There is the further matter that that "Big Oil" is so small a part of global industrial operations that elimination of the [Greenhouse Gas (GHG)] emissions from consumption of the fuels produced by those producers would have virtually no impact on climate phenomena. Whatever the current or prospective harms caused by GHG emissions: Can anyone argue seriously that Big Oil is responsible for all of them? What about other fossil-fuel producers -- Aramco and the Russian oil and gas industry and many others come to mind -- and agricultural activities, cement production, coal output, ad infinitum? That the litigation is being aimed at only the five or so large producers actually vulnerable in American courts speaks volumes about the pecuniary, ideological, and political imperatives actually underlying this effort. Or is it the goal of the groups promoting such litigation to win these suits and then take aim at one economic sector after another, thus imposing massive losses upon the U.S. economy writ large?
One could just as well ask the Democratic Presidential candidates -- who all favor the Green New Deal or something similar -- why none of them has discussed bombing the coal plants in India or China. If, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has put it, her crusade is the "moral equivalent of war," why the lack of saber-rattling? (Just to state the obvious, I regard fossil fuels and the freedom to use them as essential to human prosperity and have no desire to see anyone anywhere forcibly deprived of their many benefits by tyranny or war.)

While we're on the subject, it amazes me that nobody calls out leftists like Ocasio-Cortez on war metaphors: They frequently use these, despite their constant protests against war as such, especially wars which are being fought based on the idea (mistaken or not) of national self-defense.

Despite appearances, the left is not as inconsistent as it sounds: It's just that they're coy about their actual enemy. A policy (or litigation strategy) that will obviously cripple the American economy is not just the moral equivalent of war: it is the practical equivalent of one waged against America. And protestations on the part of foreign powers that they have "clean" plants and have pledged to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions would (of course) be treated as cause not to begin the bombing in five minutes.

It is not so much that leftists really believe the foreign leaders as that they aren't truly serious or careful about their stated crusade. (Elizabeth Warren is both anti-fossil fuels and anti-nuclear. In other words, she opposes the only power source that can currently come even close to replacing fossil fuels in a reasonable time frame. This is lies somewhere on the spectrum between dictatorial and genocidal, at best.)

They are focusing all of their efforts on stopping America and the West generally from using the fuels we depend on to live and flourish. This fact deserves much more attention than anything they have to say.

-- CAV

Link to Original

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gus Van Horn blog said:

One could just as well ask the Democratic Presidential candidates -- who all favor the Green New Deal or something similar -- why none of them has discussed bombing the coal plants in India or China.

Why the fuck does this idiot keep dragging India into this again and again. India's greenhouse gas emission is extremely low. It was practically zero until recently and the only way it can go is up. India is barely industrialized. On the bright side, he didn't randomly start talking about rape and street-shitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid socialist: "Capitalism is bad"

Stupid capitalist: "If capitalism is so bad, why don't you nuke third world countries first? HMM?"

If stupid capitalists keep characterizing Nordic countries as socialist and countries like India as capitalist, they shouldn't cry when people vote for socialism. When people attack capitalism, these idiots should stand up for themselves instead of pointing fingers at barely developed third world countries which are not capitalist. It is not inconsistent that socialists who attack capitalism/industry does not want to attack India.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, human_murda said:

India's greenhouse gas emission is extremely low. It was practically zero until recently ...

Wrong. See here. India's emissions in 2017 were almost half that of the USA. (China's was more than double the USA.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, merjet said:

Wrong. See here. India's emissions in 2017 were almost half that of the USA. (China's was more than double the USA.)

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/32439-rebloggednumbskull-is-too-kind-a-word/&tab=comments#comment-360740

 

Comparing total CO2 emissions of India to that of Vatican City is nonsense. Only per capita figures matter. Otherwise, you're just comparing populations, not emissions. Everything from Total GDP to total number of rapes to total CO2 emissions are higher in India. None of that can be used to construct a moral argument (you cannot claim India is richer or has high rape rates or is a major pollutant based total figures). I already typed it out before. India has an infinite population. Anyone who expects any total statistic for India to be the same as that of Vatican City has no sense of reality, which is that India's per capita emissions are close to zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, human_murda said:

[1] Comparing total CO2 emissions of India to that of Vatican City is nonsense.

[2] Only per capita figures matter. 

[1] I said nothing about Vatican City.

[2] Nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, merjet said:

[1] I said nothing about Vatican City.

Of course you didn't. Not that you have the intellectual capacity to understand this, but if you're comparing the total emissions of different countries, you're comparing India's total emissions to Vatican City's total emissions by implication. Your precious data is irrelevant.

And India's CO2 emissions are still close to zero.

And USA's cumulative emissions are 10 times that of India anyway (even with one-fourth of the population). So whether it's per capita or total, USA still pollutes way more than India (and "the west" in its entirety obviously pollutes way more than India):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH1bD8IE6BU

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reidy said:

The video you link to does not give sources, at least in the part I watched. Do you have this information?

There are plenty of sources with the same information:

1) Climate Analytics, 2015 (Pg 😎

https://climateanalytics.org/media/historical_responsibility_report_nov_2015.pdf

2) World Resource Institute:

historical_emissions.png

Per Capita (Historical): (India and China are not even on the list)

1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes
2. UK: 1,127 tonnes
3. US: 1,126 tonnes
4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes
5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes
6. Germany: 987 tonnes
7. Estonia: 877 tonnes
8. Canada: 780 tonnes
9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes
10. Russia: 666 tonnes

3) CDIAC (US Department of Energy; It was shut down, apparently after Trump got elected):

Ranking as of the start of 2019:

1) US – 397GtCO2
2) CN – 214Gt
3) fmr USSR – 180
4) DE – 90
5) UK – 77
6) JP – 58
7) IN – 51
😎 FR – 37
9) CA – 32
10) PL – 27

4) Global Carbon Budget (Pg 19)

5) OurWorldInData (Data from CDIAC):

Cumulative co2 treemap

 

India has a lot of plastic pollution as well as dust pollution from construction and particulate matter which lowers air quality. But if you're talking about greenhouse gases, India has next to nothing to do with it. India is not industrialized enough. India could not possibly have caused global warming in the last century (and global warming didn't start in 2017). India may contribute to global warming in the future, but as of 2019 (and talking about things that have already happened), India hasn't emitted that much. 97% of world CO2 emission (historical total) happened outside India.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, human_murda said:

Ranking as of the start of 2019:

1) US – 397GtCO2
2) CN – 214Gt
3) fmr USSR – 180
4) DE – 90
5) UK – 77
6) JP – 58
7) IN – 51

It's not just this. India and China are leading the world in reforestation and shifting to renewable energy (and India is a dirt poor country). The idea that USA (or western countries in general) is unjustly punished, especially in comparison to India is retarded. India hasn't even started to industrialize and these American morons are already blaming India for shit that hasn't happened yet. They should at least allow us to fuck shit up before blaming us.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...