Why bother about Suzuki’s comments? Did you sleep through the first two levels? – Is it good?
“Logic is the art of defining without contradiction. A contradiction cannot exist. No concept [wo]The male form is valid unless [s]he integrates it without contradicting the total [her]his knowledge.”
This quote may seem esoteric (from philosophy) or confrontational (from Rand) but it is actually relevant beyond belief. Here’s what happens if you don’t think so.
Calgary has a new mayor, Jyoti Gondek. She must be good at a few things – smart enough to get a PhD and win an election – but is clearly incapable of thinking rationally. She had irreconcilable visions running through her head that she exposed within a week: her first business order was to declare a ‘climate emergency’, then several The day is enthusiastically welcoming the birth of a brand new discount airline. In case someone doesn’t know, discount airlines make flying easier and more popular, while also dumping fertilizers on crops.
One more interesting thing: During last year’s campaign, Joe Biden claimed that fossil fuel executives should be sent to jail for not being responsible for pollution caused by hydrocarbon production. This year, Biden is prosecuting the same executives for not producing than hydrocarbons. The prison sentence impact of fulfilling his claim was wisely avoided by his camp.
I could write seven hundred pages of such examples, but you get it. The same fog has entered the minds of every public figure who accepts the climate emergency narrative. The average citizen pays for the topic but often ignores it (polls show a majority of citizens declare concern/extremely worried about climate change, but in both Canada and the US, close to 90% won’t spend $500 per year to prevent it, and half won’t spend more than $100).
Ordinary people can live with this contradiction because they just say, “Anything…” and change the channel / refuel the car / book a vacation / get on with life. The problem with contradiction appearing in skulls is much more consequential: that of policymakers and activists.
Gondek, Biden, and every politician in between are imposing policies that are directly at odds with each other, according to the very statements and definitions they accept. The result is the madness we see in the mainstream media when it tries to interpret a situation where politicians are declaring that something of great importance both exists and does not exist. at the same time, when there is an emergency that requires urgent measures, but then pursue policies that can only make the emergency worse.
Activists are the representative card, and that brings us to David Suzuki. For those who may have missed it, Suzuki stated in an interview that if politicians don’t change their attitudes to climate change soon, there will be “blown water pipes”. A few days later, during some sort of strategic maneuver, he apologized.
His apology was duplicitous, and if anyone ruffled his feathers about his comments that week, it’s the apology they should be upset about. When he mentioned the pipes were likely to explode, for once he was telling the truth, even though he was not interested in finding out why.
For years, his cohort has caused panic by pointing out how difficult it is for all of us without immediate and substantial action (but one example of many). people – October 2021, title / subheading in The Guardian: “Climate disaster here. Earth has become non-existent. “).
Suzuki and colleagues have repeatedly pointed to the combustion of hydrocarbons as the cause of the ‘now here’ hellish future. New investments in fossil fuels will not be possible after 2021 if we reach net zero by 2050, the IEA said, which would mean a rapid decline in manufacturing sectors, meaning there will be the apocalypse shortage within a year. Biden knows this, which is why he begs for more oil.
However, if one accepts the premise that the burning of hydrocarbons is causing a climate emergency, that a hellish emergency is imminent or already here, and that is to prevent further consumption. The consumption of hydrocarbons must be stopped as soon as possible, which is reasonable and ethical. forced to stop consuming involuntarily, through vandalism if necessary, because humanity is refusing to do so voluntarily. Don’t jump on my head for calling it a moral imperative; this is from the horse’s mouth, an article in the Guardian titled “The Ethical Case for Destruction of Fossil Fuel Infrastructure”. There are other people; New Republic website already running a story called the “Climate Case on Property Destruction”. I have yet to see a fact-checking site or an ethics police force on social media that deals with either of these.
It is clear that people and governments will not stop consuming hydrocarbons anytime soon; in fact, the use of hydrocarbons is increasing every year. As an important example, the entire African continent – 1.2 billion people – is devoted to the development of huge hydrocarbon resources. Much of the world’s population is no different; They want lights, refrigeration and air conditioning, roads and parking more than they want to reduce emissions. They may want to do all of that in the most eco-friendly way, but, like their Western cousins, they won’t sacrifice a comfortable life.
However, what about others, is it not a small number of people who believe that a period of climate doom is imminent? They certainly exist – “environmental anxiety” or “environmental distress” is now a syndrome accredited by American Psychological Association, and the media sensation on the subject fueled the fire. Since their fear is so real that it has a name, is Suzuki’s tilted pipe hype warning relevant?
Not only is it relevant, but it is happening in one form or another. In October, activists attacked a remote control Enbridge Road No. 5 pumping station location. Many young people suffering because of ecology cut through the construction site fence to sabotage the pipeline. Dangerous stunts are for social media of course; one person wears a beautiful lute and plays a very bad song while one of the crew members turns the valve randomly and dangerously. The whole thing was streamed live On Facebook for the scheduled dance that afternoon.
They don’t know what they’re doing and it just happens to be that they didn’t hurt themselves. Just the lack of a proper fireball separates them from what Suzuki describes as coming. It was only by sheer luck that nothing exploded. It certainly could, and the event preceded Suzuki’s talk. So you’re not wrong at all. Eco-terrorists are trying to sabotage the infrastructure in one way or another, but the media mostly ignores it because they have not yet succeeded in causing an actual explosion. Fireballs carry eyeballs. Until then, don’t bother us.
So what was so offensive about Suzuki’s comments last week? Are not. Suzuki’s words point to just that the momentum of fear change is bearing fruit – “Hey people, you know, I’ve been stirring people up for years and making them scared and demanding. act, and now it seems they are starting to listen to me. , so you better watch out. “The nihilistic anti-fuel stance he had for years was the problem, not telling people that things could start to blow up. That train has already left the station, as evidenced by the articles cited above that are currently unchallenged in the mainstream media.
The phrase climate emergency creeps into the global dictionary as extremists run around, unchecked. We now have horror descriptions of every weather event. A heat wave is a heat dome. Abnormal rainfall is now an atmospheric river. Wind shortage in Europe is a global problem. A rapid pressure change over the ocean now becomes a bomb vortex.
Each term represents anxiety by design. Every uncensored and uncensored exhortation to ‘do something’ brings tension until it becomes acceptable to declare the moral imperative to destroy fossil fuel infrastructure. jelly. Don’t pretend these notifications go unnoticed. They do. While Trump was banned, children read Guardian articles for class projects. Who should teach them what the moral imperative is, you or The Guardian? 29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html
An emergency is an emergency. The words mean something. The definition means something. Political shapeshifters have embraced environmental causes and are reducing language to achieve political goals. Politicians join blindly because they are afraid and incapable of thinking their way to any form of clarity.
Is there a climate emergency from burning hydrocarbons? I take people very seriously when they say they believe it, and I believe children and illiterate people will believe it too, because ‘science’, the media and the government say so. Then they’ll start smashing things up, because they’re doing the right thing to prevent a climate apocalypse that seems to be escalating rapidly. Why are people surprised by this?
My opinion is that hydrocarbons, now and for a long time, are still life-sustaining. Hydrocarbons provide 80% of the world’s energy needs (same proportions for decades) and underpin everything we use, nearly everything we eat, and heat/cool the world. our world when needed.
If there is indeed an immediate emergency, it is because short of hydrocarbons for the world, not so much. I believe this position is more credible and viable because the hydrocarbon-focused view does not exclude wind turbines, solar panels, or Teslas – it simply states that they have a position to evolve along the way. time.
The view that focuses on the climate emergency has no such breadth – the more one believes in an emergency, the more action must be taken to prevent the apocalypse, which means putting a stick in. hydrocarbon wheel but your little noggin deems it necessary. Glory awaits those who can.
As an energy industry, we have a job to do: deliver energy reliably in the cleanest way possible and, where practicality allows, begin to transform systems to accommodate sources. new energy in a way that doesn’t interfere with the current system’s ability to do its job. That’s it.
Clarity is not only important, but very important. Either leaders who support and acknowledge the value of hydrocarbons in today’s society, or progressives will reinforce the idea that hydrocarbons are killing us all. Wise leaders will join the existing system, power it, and use it. Weak, poorly thought-out leaders will continue this utopian dance in their heads, preaching the climate emergency while demanding more hydrocarbons and more emissions-generating activity that their peoples desire. The stronger beliefs about the climate emergency, the stronger the moral imperative to smash the hydrocarbon infrastructure. Wrong thinking has consequences.
Clarity in thinking energy IS available. Watch “Fossil Fuel Madness Madness” at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com. Thanks for the support.
Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here. PS: Dear email reporters, the email flow is great and welcome, however I am having a hard time following up. In the past, I answered everything but became increasingly stressed. Apologies if comments/questions go unanswered; they are not ignored.
Related
