"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

The Great Zaganza said:
No.

It comes down to market forces.

The Boston Tea Party worked, because it made it clear that English Profits were in danger, not because they represented the "Will of the People". That triggered English repression, which in turn galvanized resistance.
Click to expand...


No, you are wrong. Dangerously so.
Wikipedia is right about this: People were already angry at British rule, which is why the Tea Party is describe as a culmination. It did indeed trigger "English repression, which in turn galvanized resistance," but for a resistance to be galvanized, it needs to already be there, as yet un galvanized. (Castro's Sierra Mountain guerrillas also managed to trigger Batista's repression, which in turn galvanized resistance, but the resistance was already there. Otherwise, there would have been nothing to galvanize. It would have been easy to defeat the very small band of Sierra Maestra revolutionaries. Three days after they landed in Cuba (Wiki), "Batista's army attacked and killed most of the Granma participants – while the exact number is disputed, no more than twenty of the original eighty-two men survived the initial encounters with the Cuban army and escaped into the Sierra Maestra mountains.")

When I am talking about hotheads, I am thinking of people like the German Rote Armee Fraktion (Wiki), who believed that their attacks on U.S. Army bases and conservative media would help 'galvanize' the (non-existent) resistance. They also believed that the repression, which they did manage to 'trigger', would be an eye opener to German workers. You are no doubt familiar with the Monty Python version: "Come and see the violence inherent in the system." The German workers did see the violence inherent in the system, and for the most part they applauded it!
Don't make the same mistake!

The Great Zaganza said:
The strategy is to cause purely physical damage, which, apart from raising costs, will cause an overreaction and disproportionate backlash, that will bring public opinion to the side of the Climate Protectors.
Click to expand...


That was also the strategy of the Rote Armee Fraktion and similar Western European groups. Also, at first, based on causing "purely physical damage." I know too little about groups like the Weather Underground in the USA, but I think they had the same idea, based on Marcuse's concept of 'repressive tolerance' (Wiki). If only workers and ordinary people get to see 'the violence inherent in the system', they will immediately rise up against it.

In the current situation in the USA, it is much more likely that it will give the fascists an excuse to take power. It wouldn't take much at this point to trigger that kind of change!
Your idea is foolhardy and extremely dangerous! And it will do nothing to help stop or even put a dent in the current level of CO2 emission.
 
Last edited:
The RAF was mistaken in how much resentment there was in Western Germany against the US - very little, given that Germans had a pretty solid understanding on what Life was like in East Germany.
And, of course, it targeted the German State instead of US forces, in the assumption that German Politicians would beg Americans to help them put the terrorists down, which was supposed to be the inciting incident.
That was the wrong thing to do.

But targeting Big Corporations, not people, with sabotage plus broadcasting of all the crimes these companies have committed against the environment, would totally work - many, many US cities are suffering from pollution caused by companies that paid a nominal fines for effectively killing people. People LOVE bad guys getting their comeuppance.

And/or a campaign to slash the tires of those giant SUVs or something similar would quickly sour American's taste for bigger and bigger cars.

And, it would not be disqualifying if some Nazis decided to become openly pro-Corporate as a result of that, making it thus clear on which side their are on (i.e. not the People).

It's always about incentives, and we have to get people and companies to see that there is a direct, immediate price to pay for not doing more to save the Planet for Humanity.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
But targeting Big Corporations, not people, with sabotage plus broadcasting of all the crimes these companies have committed against the environment, would totally work - many, many US cities are suffering from pollution caused by companies that paid a nominal fines for effectively killing people. People LOVE bad guys getting their comeuppance.

And/or a campaign to slash the tires of those giant SUVs or something similar would quickly sour American's taste for bigger and bigger cars.
Click to expand...

Tire deflaters in the US (started in the UK):
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/27/tire-deflators-suv-new-york-climate-crisis

Is targeting people

Edit: I'm not judging either way on this this BTW.
 
Last edited:
dann said:
There are several articles at Ruthless Criticism, but they don't reference global warming, and they are probably tl;dr for most people.


ETA: Oh yes, I found one. It looks good, but I have only read the last paragraph:
The consumer – a useful idiot on behalf of imperialist energy policy

This imperialist goal – to establish a global crisis-proof energy basis for one’s own nation – is offered to the general public, but under an entirely different logo, and that is: We protect the climate! The perpetrator who stands there is certain, namely: all of us. And so that we mend our ways, the state and the free press are ready to help us with calculations of all kinds. This bears some amusing fruits. In the automobile sector, something like efficiency classes with refrigerators is introduced, so one learns that the small VW Polo actually produces less CO2 than the large BMW. One might think: a Polo is better to drive. But of course the premium segment of BMW should not be harmed, so one can then read up again on how much a 6-cylinder BMW of the 7-series consumes as opposed to a Chrysler luxury car – and in that sense the 7 is then, of course, optimal under the climate protection point of view. We now know, too, that a Mallorca flight produces 10 tons of CO2 per head, but a train ride from Bremen to Rostock only as much as 35 kg per head – so where do we go? No, not to Rostock, because the airline and tourism industry would then be hurt! One should, of course, continue to fly to Mallorca, and that can even be done with a clear conscience, if one does something like plant a tree – so one restores the CO2 balance! It is difficult to imagine that such a little box-tree can offset the CO2 emissions of a Mallorca-flight, but it also doesn’t have to be imagined, because the reversal of logic jumps forth: an environmental protection act is here intended as a license to pollute! Anyone who wants to fly to Mallorca plants a tree, and because the short-term memory of the consumer is well known to be short, the national site custodians and corporate executives rush to aid this memory: One increases the price of plane tickets with a CO2 charge so that one doesn’t have to plant the tree any more ... The following balance comes out of the bottom line: 1. the major airlines continue to fly to Mallorca and produce 10 tons of CO2 per head; 2. the same result has now become more expensive for consumers; 3. humans are offered a sale of indulgences for the guilty conscience that they are given by the journalists, and indeed for consequences the little guy doesn’t cause, but the state and capital. And thereby a dirty trick is added to the stupidity. But nothing else should be expected of national capitalistic sites that want to reconcile ecology with the economy.
Climate Change (RuthlessCriticism)
Click to expand...
(It is translated from German, which explains why the examples are VW, BMW, Bremen, Rostock and Mallorca.)
Click to expand...


Oh, those strange and paradoxical Consumers. They're helplessly unable to choose a small car over a large one, or a short vacation trip over a long one, when all of those remain available and affordable as options. Yet at the drop of a hat they're perfectly capable of rejecting their present systems of government and economics, to install different ones that will force them to choose the small car and the short trip, by making the alternatives ruinously expensive.

Such bewildering creatures. Keep dropping those hats; they'll no doubt start behaving true to the above formulation, any hat now.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The RAF was mistaken in how much resentment there was in Western Germany against the US - very little, given that Germans had a pretty solid understanding on what Life was like in East Germany.
And, of course, it targeted the German State instead of US forces, in the assumption that German Politicians would beg Americans to help them put the terrorists down, which was supposed to be the inciting incident.
That was the wrong thing to do.
Click to expand...


No. Very early on, they targeted the U.S. military facilities, big department stores and big media (Bild Zeitung). Red Army Faction: Background (Wiki). At that point, many lefties still sympathized with them.
And you are underestimating "how much resentment there was in Western Germany against the US." It just wasn't the working classes that resented the USA - and its Vietnam war.

The Great Zaganza said:
But targeting Big Corporations, not people, with sabotage plus broadcasting of all the crimes these companies have committed against the environment, would totally work - many, many US cities are suffering from pollution caused by companies that paid a nominal fines for effectively killing people. People LOVE bad guys getting their comeuppance.
Click to expand...


Yes, like gay-bashing or woke-bashing, right?! Half the country sees fossil-fuel representatives as their beneficiaries who help them fill up their cars.

The Great Zaganza said:
And/or a campaign to slash the tires of those giant SUVs or something similar would quickly sour American's taste for bigger and bigger cars.
Click to expand...


Actually, no, it immediately sours Americans' sympathy with environmentalists. (It sours Danes' sympathy with environmentalists, too! Well, probably not as long as the victims are Americans and not Danes. :))

The Great Zaganza said:
And, it would not be disqualifying if some Nazis decided to become openly pro-Corporate as a result of that, making it thus clear on which side their are on (i.e. not the People).
Click to expand...


That is already clear whose side they're on! People have noticed who their victims are. They don't disturb Big Oil board meetings or Trump rallies. On the contrary.

The Great Zaganza said:
It's always about incentives, and we have to get people and companies to see that there is a direct, immediate price to pay for not doing more to save the Planet for Humanity.
Click to expand...


Companies can already see that there's a price to pay. But they can also see that they are not the ones who pay it.
So in principle I agree: They should be made to pay. Literally rather than figuratively.
 
Myriad said:
Oh, those strange and paradoxical Consumers. They're helplessly unable to choose a small car over a large one, or a short vacation trip over a long one, when all of those remain available and affordable as options. Yet at the drop of a hat they're perfectly capable of rejecting their present systems of government and economics, to install different ones that will force them to choose the small car and the short trip, by making the alternatives ruinously expensive.

Such bewildering creatures. Keep dropping those hats; they'll no doubt start behaving true to the above formulation, any hat now.
Click to expand...


You should read it again. Preferably, the whole article.
You don't seem to notice that the quoted paragraph was about the propaganda lies from the state, car manufacturers, airlines and the media. People, i.e. consumers, believe those lies and are happy to pay extra for the trees that will allegedly make up for the use of fuel (and even if they aren't happy, they still have to pay).
And like you, they think they have made a contribution to saving the environment.
 
dann said:
You should read it again. Preferably, the whole article.
You don't seem to notice that the quoted paragraph was about the propaganda lies from the state, car manufacturers, airlines and the media. People, i.e. consumers, believe those lies and are happy to pay extra for the trees that will allegedly make up for the use of fuel (and even if they aren't happy, they still have to pay).
Click to expand...


Do you think the state and corporate entities who use lies and propaganda to sell large cars and plane tickets won't also use lies and propaganda to preserve their own existence and advantageous status quo?

The contradiction in expectations that I pointed out stands. I'll ask again: why should anyone expect people who won't (regardless of the reasons) choose a smaller car, to choose a change in governance designed to economically compel them to choose a smaller car?

And like you, they think they have made a contribution to saving the environment.
Click to expand...


Please stop lying about what I think, especially when it directly contradicts what I posted.
 
GlennB said:
Some Brit deflators moved from jamming lentils into the valve and onto drilling holes. A bunch of them did cars parked outside an SUV showroom just a few days ago. The Guardian
Click to expand...


If they go for the valves, it at least ensures that they don't do it to electric cars. Some Danish owners of electric cars (in particular the big ones) were a bit miffed when climate activists cut their tires because they couldn't tell the difference. (Since climate activists don't own cars, they tend to be a bit ignorant about car models. So am I, but I haven't felt like deflating any tires since the mid-1970s when we were trying to stop strikebreaker truckers from helping a media company deliver newspapers.)

However, some of the climate activists don't care if the cars they inflate run on fossil fuel, electricity or hybrid. They do it because all cars put pedestrians, bicyclists and children in danger.

I don't think it accomplishes anything other than pissing off car owners and venting one's frustrations.

Unfortunately, media reports about regular climate protests without any property damage also tend to say very little about anthropogenic global warming. Maybe the participation of 'climate celebrities' only makes it worse..
 
Myriad said:
Do you think the state and corporate entities who use lies and propaganda to sell large cars and plane tickets won't also use lies and propaganda to preserve their own existence and advantageous status quo?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you are talking about. Selling large cars and plane tickets is how they got rich and get even richer. :confused:

Myriad said:
The contradiction in expectations that I pointed out stands. I'll ask again: why should anyone expect people who won't (regardless of the reasons) choose a smaller car, to choose a change in governance designed to economically compel them to choose a smaller car?
Click to expand...


Does anybody expect them to do that?! :confused:

Myriad said:
Please stop lying about what I think, especially when it directly contradicts what I posted.
Click to expand...


Again, I don't know what you are talking about. You wrote that consumers being “helplessly unable to choose a small car over a large one, or a short vacation trip over a long one." And then you wrote about installing different "systems of government and economics ... that will force them to choose the small car and the short trip, by making the alternatives ruinously expensive."

The quotation said nothing about any of that, so :confused:.
 
Last edited:
Even as an EV owner I accept that I'm only really reframing the issue of the ecological effect of personal transport.

It would be far better if I kept my travel to an absolute minimum and only moved under my own power. Unfortunately I'm too selfish and want to go places, carry stuff and interact with people. With the best will in the world, Mrs Don and I aren't going to make it the 10+km to band practice on our bikes when we have instruments to carry and the weather is often inclement :o

The responsible thing would be to only perform as a duo, acoustically (PA systems are unwieldy and waste electricity) at venues within walking distance - I'm sure that some people who have heard us would endorse that view:o
 
The Don said:
Even as an EV owner I accept that I'm only really reframing the issue of the ecological effect of personal transport.

It would be far better if I kept my travel to an absolute minimum and only moved under my own power. Unfortunately I'm too selfish and want to go places, carry stuff and interact with people. With the best will in the world, Mrs Don and I aren't going to make it the 10+km to band practice on our bikes when we have instruments to carry and the weather is often inclement :o
Click to expand...


We are all selfish, want to go places, interact with people and occasionally carry stuff that a bike is ill suited for. This is why suitable infrastructure is important. It is a well-known fact that some places were built to be more or less unlivable without owning a car:
The reshaping of city cores that were designed for cars (Forbes, Aug 6, 2019)
How automakers insidiously shaped our cities for cars (FastCompany, Sep 1, 2022)
American cities are designed for cars—which makes life worse for everyone (QZ, April 4, 2015)

This is why I have stressed that I don't ride a bicycle for any altruistic reasons. I never owned a car, but it wasn't a sacrifice that I made to stop global warming. On the contrary, getting around on a bike or on the Metro is almost always faster than with a car. (Even on a motorcycle, I have occasionally (but rarely) had to park it on the sidewalk and run the rest of the way to get where I was going on time.)
As I have described in earlier posts, biking in Copenhagen is convenient. And it has been made more convenient in the past 20 years or so.
A benefit from 'moving under one's own power' is also the free exercise you get without having to go to gym, so it saves time in more ways than one while keeping you healthy.

And as soon as all vehicles are electric, and the grid delivers only power generated from wind turbines and solar panels, there will be no reason to feel bad about not 'keeping one's travel to a minimum'. It won't cause any CO2 emission.

The Don said:
The responsible thing would be to only perform as a duo, acoustically (PA systems are unwieldy and waste electricity) at venues within walking distance - I'm sure that some people who have heard us would endorse that view:o
Click to expand...


Again, it depends on the way the electricity for the PA system is generated. The production of energy is what needs to change - and has changed and is still changing in my country. As mentioned in post 501, in case you didn't see it, for a couple of windy days you would have been paid for any frivolous use of those electricity-wasting PA systems - but only if you were living in Denmark. I tried to think of some way that I could use more electricity, but I couldn't come up with anything. The batteries were all charged, the laundry hamper was empty, and a roast is winter food, in my opinion.
 
dann said:
A benefit from 'moving under one's own power' is also the free exercise you get without having to go to gym


.
Click to expand...

It's a bit silly because I sit in my car about 1hr a day commuting, and then go home and ride a stationary bike for about an hour. Would be nice to combine these activities, but bicycling infrastructure around here is so bad it's basically a death sentence outside of slow traffic cities (and still dangerous there).
 
Debunk the Out ideas, i.e. the major obstacle for establishing an effective movement against the powers that cause and profit from causing global warming!
Click to expand...

That's it? That's your prescription for what I and Myriad and other individuals should be doing - sit around and talk about how voting and walking instead of driving don't work?

Okay, explain to me how this is the mechanism that will effect change.

I've already accepted that clean energy sources exist and that energy companies transitioning to them and away from fossil fuels is the high-level goal. Remember, I started out by saying:

Like, he IS completely correct that the most comprehensive solution - maybe even the only really effective one - would be for society to transition totally away from using fossil fuels for energy production...but at the same time he also strenuously, voluminously rejects voting for politicians with environmentally-friendly policies and messaging as a valid means for beginning that transition because according to him they'll just never do it in the end no matter what they say (because politicians, amirite?), and I'm not quite sure what he imagines WOULD catalyze that transition since voting doesn't work.
Click to expand...

But you either can't or are refusing to give your opinion on how we're supposed to be forcing energy companies to transition. Why can't you, or why won't you, give a straight answer?
 
Well, I'd like to not get involved with some cat-fight like exchanges here, but IMO what individuals do is important. What I personally save in energy is a drop in the ocean, but ...
1) It still benefits me, economically. ... At least mostly.
2) Any ocean is made of drops.

It may be some small, rich elite that drives much of the action, but they're only the rich elite as long as enough individual citizens buy their goods. If we all strive to use green energy, save energy, but ... well, green stuff (fruit and grocery not flown half-way around the globe, fuel-guzzling cars ... etc), the elite will be forced to maintain their riches and power selling more sensible things. And we'll be all saving money.

About voting: Of course it works, but not miraculously. Vote for people who have an environmental agenda, but don't expect miracles. Don't try to tell me that it doesn't matter if you vote for ... uhm, say, Trump or Biden, for the sake of the environment.

Hans
 
TurkeysGhost said:
It's a bit silly because I sit in my car about 1hr a day commuting, and then go home and ride a stationary bike for about an hour. Would be nice to combine these activities, but bicycling infrastructure around here is so bad it's basically a death sentence outside of slow traffic cities (and still dangerous there).
Click to expand...

Attach a generator to the bike. Problem solved.
 
ZiprHead said:
Attach a generator to the bike. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
What would you power with it? You can get about 200 watts out of a a bike if you ride reasonably hard.

Because a person on a bicycle is about the most energy efficient way any animal can get around on land (we don't count albatrosses and vultures riding the currents), its environmental impact is in the energy it doesn't use, not what it makes. If you can't turn that energy into motion, there's little benefit except to the well being of the rider.
 
bruto said:
What would you power with it? You can get about 200 watts out of a a bike if you ride reasonably hard.

Because a person on a bicycle is about the most energy efficient way any animal can get around on land (we don't count albatrosses and vultures riding the currents), its environmental impact is in the energy it doesn't use, not what it makes. If you can't turn that energy into motion, there's little benefit except to the well being of the rider.
Click to expand...

It would be the same as a generator powered by water, steam, or wind. Tie it into the grid or charge a battery.
 
ZiprHead said:
It would be the same as a generator powered by water, steam, or wind. Tie it into the grid or charge a battery.
Click to expand...

Sure, in type but not in wattage output. Remember, we're talking about 200 watt hours, not kilowatt hours. And steam isn't a very good compromise unless you live in Iceland, since you usually have to burn something to make the steam. Compared to the power used in commuting it's disproportionately small. You probably burn half an hour of cycling just running the car's starter motor. Sure, if you're cycling anyway you can use the generator instead of a magnet or friction drag, and generate some free power, though if you need the equipment to tie it into the grid it probably will never pay for itself. Use it locally, for example to run a TV you watch while you ride (or conversely, ride in order to watch) or to charge a deep cycle 12 volt battery that runs some lights. Didn't pedal long enough today? Lights out, go to bed.

Obviously this kind of thing can be effective in an individual way, but without getting into the argument here about saving the world, that bicycle generator just won't get it done in time. If you want to make a difference in the world, you'll have to find a way to stop driving the car in the first place.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Sure, in type but not in wattage output. Remember, we're talking about 200 watt hours, not kilowatt hours. And steam isn't a very good compromise unless you live in Iceland, since you usually have to burn something to make the steam. Compared to the power used in commuting it's disproportionately small. You probably burn half an hour of cycling just running the car's starter motor. Sure, if you're cycling anyway you can use the generator instead of a magnet or friction drag, and generate some free power, though if you need the equipment to tie it into the grid it probably will never pay for itself. Use it locally, for example to run a TV you watch while you ride (or conversely, ride in order to watch) or to charge a deep cycle 12 volt battery that runs some lights. Didn't pedal long enough today? Lights out, go to bed.

Obviously this kind of thing can be effective in an individual way, but without getting into the argument here about saving the world, that bicycle generator just won't get it done in time. If you want to make a difference in the world, you'll have to find a way to stop driving the car in the first place.
Click to expand...

Pedaling really hard will get you to 200 watts. And I mean bordering on elite athlete hard. Not 200 watt hours, unless you did so for an hour. You'd need something like 10 elite cyclists to power your home. And just the cost to feed them would far exceed any power source.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/12/08/504790589/could-you-power-your-home-with-a-bike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom