Yes, the veneer of civilization is thin, and the degrowthers are clueless about it.
I would note, though, that one can believe that manmade climate change is real, and still recognize that all of the plans to try to prevent it are economically insane, and disastrous for civilization.
I would note, though, that one can believe that manmade climate change is real, and still recognize that all of the plans to try to prevent it are economically insane, and disastrous for civilization.
Count me as such. A glaring example of the failure of climate change mitigation was the fad of agricultural ethanol. It resulted in a huge transfer of agricultural activity from food to ethanol production (much of which consumed more equivalent barrels of oil than they produced!).
That lead to consequences such as two big hikes in global food prices, a large number of people pushed into extreme poverty (0.5% of the world’s population in the lesser of the two spikes) and a one time spike in fertilizer prices. World Bank which described the above, places a large part of the blame on biofuels:
This is documented. Biofuels put at least 44 million people in poverty (from the weaker of two price spikes in food). And the timing is such that this is the trigger for the Arab Spring unrest which in turn makes it a trigger for the Syrian Civil War which has killed more than a million people.
Terrible mitigation strategy is no longer a theoretical harm at the global level.
In rebuttal, I’d like to note that farmers as a group are financially much better off than they were in the pre-ethanol days of say, the 1980s where gain embargoes that allowed US competitors to gain an advantage in international markets, preceded by speculative expansion plans thanks to abundant loan money from the late 70s strapped farmers with un-payable debts when interest rates skyrocketed in the early 80s. This also helped induced the ‘farm crisis’ that led in popular culture to the “Farm Aid” rock concerts. Such things would be considered ludicrous by the Left these days.
I will not debate the idea that the ethanol economy was just another government hand-out. I think that is true, at least in the beginning. But now it’s so deeply woven into our economy it would be hard to replace.
We need lower energy prices not higher. It’s not clear at this point getting rid of ethanol would achieve that. I’m all for removing subsidies where they exist. But the end game now, is to get energy prices down not up.
I’ve been told the 1.5C limit to average global temperature increase as an existence threat is a made-up number out of the Paris Climate Accords and has no basis in Science. Nor did the prior 2.0C limit popularized by an economist prior to that time.
I have an open mind. Prove the above assertions wrong, but you must show your work and provide falsifiable experimental or observational evidence, not computer models.