By: Shawn Alli
Posted: May 31, 2017 (on http://www.shawnalli.com/)
*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one.
*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).
We begin with actor Assif Mandvi in the forests of California. He's with Joseph Stewart (a conservation biologist). Stewart laments the loss of a few species due to a warming climate. Sigh. If animals don't adapt to the changing circumstances, that's on them. If we don't adapt, that's on us. It may not be fair but that's the way life is.
All animals start off with millions of years of evolution from the starting gate. That's all that nature does to square the inequalities. If animals don't adapt (including humans), we perish. It's not fair, but that's life.
Stewart says that animals won't be able to move north faster than the gradual warming of temperatures. Umm...wild animals are more connected to nature than humans. Our opinions on their ability to survive are not falsifiable and usually incorrect.
Stewart says that small animals are disappearing from Yosemite sites. In reality, Yosemite and Yellowstone are thriving. [1] [2]. The real problem is illegal hunting in Yellowstone. [3]
We then move to actress and animal rights activist Nikki Reed in Los Angeles who believes that climate change is the single greatest threat to humans and animals. She believes that a carbon tax is the only way out of this mess. She talks with environmental economist Yoram Bauman. Bauman says that a carbon tax makes sense in order to get less pollution.
In reality, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant (aside from the US Supreme Court ruling). The real pollutants are pesticides, GMOs, diesel fumes, and fluoride compounds. But do environmentalists go after that? Not really. They give lip service to such issues but give it a silent pass. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
Bauman says that we should pay more for bad things and less for good things. While that's a nice idea in theory, that goes up against the economics of a free market. Even if you agree with subsidies, whole food produce (which is highly nutritious), is still more expensive then junk food (which has no significant amounts of nutrients). I don't see Bauman advocating for more taxes on junk food or subsidizing whole foods. But then again, when you live in Los Angeles and have connections to Hollywood, grocery shopping isn’t really an issue.
It's hilarious that Hollywood gets celebrities to be in this documentary series when most people in Hollywood are completely out of touch with the general public in terms of lifestyle, economics, and financial aspects.
But Hollywood celebrities see themselves as a force for good in their own ideological bubbles, which the UN awards with new titles for Leonardo DiCaprio and Gisele Bundchen. [4] [5] Hollywood can't see that they're actually part of the climate change problem with a massive carbon footprint for productions, and a lifestyle of mass excess and abundance.
Bauman talks about the benefits of a carbon tax. Perhaps he should run for congress. Then we can see if people really buy into his carbon tax ideologies. But then again, running for any state/provincial/federal office is a soul sucking process. You may win, but you'll never be the same again. Why? Because the political bureaucracy will defile your soul, but only after breaking your ethics and character. This is why most good people are smart enough to steer away from politics. Hence, the sociopaths/corrupt run the show. Should we really be surprised at the results?
Reed says that the taxes on cigarettes work for her mother. In reality, the taxes are a massive source of revenue for states and the federal government. This is the reason why states or WE governments will never ban cigarettes. The tax revenue is in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars in total (see Introduction in Philosophy Reborn Part V: Naturally Unhealthy Big Gov't, Big Ag, Big Industry).
Using the tax system to influence behavior is social conditioning. WE governments are really saying that people aren't listening to us so we'll force them to listen with a cigarette tax. And that's disingenuous, even in a false democratic society (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
Reed talks about the oil lobby being against cap and trade bills. However, many oil corporations today actually support a carbon tax/cap and trade system. [6] [7] [8] Why? Public relations. It's good PR to appear to be on the right side on history. And it's much easier to get things done when environmental groups aren't devoting their life to destroying your company.
In Africa, Mandvi is in Amboseli National Park in Kenya. It's beautiful to see animals in a semi-natural environment vs. captivity in city zoos. He talks with Norah Njeraini (who takes care of the elephants). Elephants are truly majestic creatures. I like how Njeraini advocates for the unique personalities of elephants. (see Animal Consciousness in Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science).
The lack of rainfall prevents crops from growing during the 2009 drought leading to the death of some of the elephants. And that's the rub. Either humans have to let nature take its course or intervene during droughts and provide food for the animals. Two very different ideologies. People/organizations have to choose one.
What should conservation organizations choose? It's debatable. But I would advocate watering the land yourself using desalinated ocean water. It's not rocket science. Maybe someone could even build a permanent desalinated waterfall for the elephants and other animals in the park. It would cost a pretty penny, but it's possible.
The death of many African species to drought is tragic. But it's preventable via desalinated ocean water innovations. You only need vision, willpower, and money. And Hollywood definitely has the money.
The directors then show images of climate change protests advocating for carbon taxes. But all I see are a lot of middle class white people. I see very little low income visible minorities at these rallies. Why? Because they're too busy working. They don't have the luxury of taking off a few days from work. They're breaking their back just to feed their family and pay their bills (with the costs increasing in all cities).
And this is what the Years of Living Dangerously series fails to touch on. The climate change movement is largely a white middle-high income movement. Low income visible minorities rarely make up a significant portion in the protests because they're too busy surviving.
My question to all these white middle income climate change believers is whether they'll accept a super high carbon tax (to avert the carbon apocalypse), while visible minorities who make under $40-50K will pay zero through reimbursements?
And no, an internet or phone poll won't work. I'd like to see all of the millions of responses on camera with their full names (no anonymity) saying yes. Of course, that's not really feasible, so I would support all of these people agreeing to such a statement with their full names and states that they live in.
If the climate change movement can do that, I'll listen to their carbon tax arguments. The climate change movement says that the majority of people support climate change or a carbon tax. Okay. The majority means 51%. So, just over 160 million Americans (with their full names and state).
I'm asking the climate change movement to produce a letter with the support of at least 160 million Americans, claiming that mid-high income white people will support a super high carbon tax to stop a carbon apocalypse. Why a super high tax? Because the climate change movement believes that they don't have the time for incremental increases.
In the letter, the 160 million people have to claim that they're okay with anyone making less than $40-50K paying zero carbon taxes under reimbursements. If they can do this, I'll listen to their arguments (as long as they're also living in an apartment/condo, follow a vegan diet, living a minimalist lifestyle, and driving an electric car exclusively).
The directors show images of millennials supporting a carbon tax. They show a white basketball team leader pitching the carbon tax idea with the one black guy in the corner with his arms crossed . Hilarious. All the other carbon tax millennials are white and look like they come from a mid-high income family. It's hilarious and tragic to see Hollywood and the climate change movement unable to see their own white privileged bubble.
Jordan Vogel (a white millennial supporting a carbon tax) says that they're the last generation that has a chance to fight it. Seriously? Again, these people see themselves as superheroes saving the world. It's always fascinating to see how far apart ideology is from reality.
Reed focuses on Vogel, his family, and his efforts to create solutions. The directors show video images of Vogel talking to his family about climate change. And right off the bat I can see the look in their eyes. They're patronizing him because he's family. They're allowing all of this nonsense because he's family. But they don't believe in any of it.
Back in Kenya, Mandvi goes to a poor village to see the problems of climate change. The directors/producers have used this tactic so much that I'm getting annoyed by it. For the love of god, stop going to poor villages and saying look at all the damage that man-made climate change has done. The villages are poor because of economic and political reasons, incompetence, and corruption.
I like how Mandvi travels across Kenya and Africa in general using gas/diesel based vehicles. Again, it's hilarious that Hollywood and the climate change movement lament the evils of the oil lobby while using their products to travel and spread the word about these evil corporations.
Mandvi and the villagers lament the drought due to man-made climate change. Again, there's no objective falsifiable science that says that man-made climate change causes droughts in specific regions. Anything that you find in the peer-reviewed literature that says so is based on unfalsifiable science. Sadly, most of the peer-reviewed literature is steeped in ideological unfalsifiable science (see A Broken Peer-Reviewed Process in Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science).
Take a look at California. For the last few years and in numerous documentaries, the climate change movement, scientists, and liberals claim that California's drought will only increase and destroy the entire California agricultural sector. In reality, the drought ends in California a few months back. [9] Again, the climate change movement has zero basis in falsifiable objective science. It's all ideological junk science and ideological interpretations of snapshot observations.
Mandvi makes the ludicrous claim that the killing of wild elephants is caused by climate change. Nomads change their ways because of climate change and decide to plant crops. Elephants don't have enough food on their own so they come and eat the crops. The farmers shoot the elephants. Therefore, man-made climate change causes the shooting of elephants.
This type of philosophical deductive logic is useless in looking at real life problems. The real problems are vast. The lifestyles, mentality, and character of individuals in Africa is an individual/cultural problem. And then we have the corrupt political system. And then we have no real economy in Kenya and various parts of Africa. Claiming that the cause is man-made climate change is completely false.
Back in Los Angeles, Reed watches feeds of natural disasters and says that these are brought on by carbon pollution (man-made climate change). Word manipulation. Instead of using the word cause, which is stronger than influence, Reed and the climate change movement muddy causality by saying brought on. The term is synonymous with causation but without actually saying causation. Word manipulation at its best. Well done Hollywood.
Again, there's no falsifiable objective science that says that an increase of carbon dioxide equals extreme weather. Anyone that tells you that it does is spouting ideological junk science. I recommend that you be polite to such people, walk away, and never talk to them again about such issues.
Again, I feel bad for future generations who have to sort out all of this ideological junk science from objective falsifiable science.
Reed says that British Columbia, Canada (BC) has a carbon tax since 2008 and they're economy is doing great. And yes, their economy is doing great, but it's because they have the Pacific ocean for global transportation and electricity generation (along with tourism).
But Hollywood and the climate change movement tends to ignore the massive inequality that exists in BC. [10] [11] [12] I lived in Vancouver for a few months in the past. I saw beautiful mid-high income people on one side of the street and chronic homelessness on the other.
And don't even talk about downtown East Hastings in Vancouver. Oh dear god. Clearly, god left that area a long time ago. And the cost of living in Vancouver, BC is astronomical. [13] [14] [15] There's no low-mid income people anymore. It's just low income, homelessness, and high income people. Vancouver is like Canada's Hollywood. It's a city fit only for the rich.
Reed and Vogel go to Vancouver and talk to Mayor Gregor Robertson. The mayor says that Vancouver has the lowest carbon emissions per capita of any city in North America. And yet...the extreme weather still continues. [16] [17]
It should be noted that California, the most green state in the US, has yet to create and implement a carbon tax. And its cap and trade system with Ontario and Quebec is a joke (just like the past Chicago Climate exchange and EU emissions trading system). To be fair, the California state government is preparing to update their cap and trade system with fairly ambitious targets. [18]
In BC the price on carbon is currently $30.00/ton (CAD). Trudeau wants to set the price to $50.00 ton (CAD) by 2022. [19] Whereas Sweden prices carbon at $168.00/ton (USD). [20]
Let's pretend that $168.00/ton (USD) is the correct amount. Will the cost of everything increase to an insane level if the Canadian or US government adopts a carbon price of $168.00/ton? You bet it will. While the middle class in North America is declining, there won't be a middle class if the Canadian or US government prices carbon at $168.00/ton (USD).
Vogel talks to executive chairman of Alterra Power Corp. Ross Beaty. And yes, while hydroelectric is a safe, sustainable, and efficient form of energy, not every state has access to massive amounts of water.
Beaty says that by not pricing carbon we're giving corporations a subsidy. Umm...what? Contrary to what you may believe, there's no such thing as carbon pollution. If you think that there is then you better start taxing yourself for the carbon dioxide you're breathing out this very second. Tragically, in the past, scientists claim that visible minorities are polluting the purity of white people by mixing, all under the banner of objective science of course.
The directors show video clips of states and provinces around the world pricing carbon with no negative effects. Of course there are no negative effects. The prices are currently insignificant (aside from Sweden). When you price carbon at the price that's necessary to save humanity, that's when you'll see economies fail, with the gap between the rich and the poor becoming an unbridgeable chasm.
Back in Kenya, Mandvi talks with Fiesta Warinwa (a conservationist) who laments the droughts. Again, desalinated ocean water can solve all of these problems. She says that poaching is a climate change problem because man-made climate change destroys the crops. Hence, the farmers need income from something (the ivory of an elephant). Yah...no.
Poaching is due to unethical human activity. A person that respects the life of an elephant would never kill it just so they could have a better life. The fact that climate change is now the cause of every issue in the world should be a red flag that climate change is just ideological junk science.
The loss of elephants to poaching is not a climate change problem. It's a consciousness problem first, and an economic problem second. If there's no economy in Africa (aside from resource mining), there's very little economic and financial security for people.
The loss of elephants and other animals in Africa due to drought is preventable with desalinated ocean water infrastructure. It will most likely never be built due to corruption, but it's possible. Hence, if most of the animals die, we only have ourselves to blame.
Mandvi talks about the extinction of most species due to man-made climate change. Sigh. Fine...I'll throw him a bone. Relocate the animals to areas that have more natural resources. It's not rocket science.
Or, build artificial islands for them. Humans are at the point where we can build artificial land masses. And they don't have to be near sea level. While they can slope down to sea level, the actual land masses can be 100 meters above sea level. It only takes vision, willpower, and money for it to become a reality.
Mandvi talks to Doug McCauly (a biologist) about the extinction of species due to man-made climate change. And yes, I'm aware that animals play necessary roles in ecosystems. But the animals are not disappearing because of man-made climate change. They're disappearing because of human hunting.
Again, we can build artificial islands for animals if it's necessary. Or, we can create desalinated ocean water channels in natural/semi-natural conservation areas. The climate change movement only lacks the vision and willpower to do so. The money can come from Hollywood and billionaire liberals.
Mandvi talks to Dino Martins (a biologist) about the potential extinction of the human race. Sigh. While there are many dangerous diseases in nature, in the cities...not so much (aside from Ebola, HIV, and Zika).
Generally speaking, WE people have pretty good vaccination rates for viruses that don't have a high mutation rate (usually DNA and some RNA viruses. See Viruses & Vaccines in Philosophy Reborn Part V: Naturally Unhealthy Big Gov't, Big Ag, Big Industry).
And while humans are connected to nature in many ways, in the 21st century, there are people who live off the grid, grow their own food, and live happily. There are other people who live in their condos, buy stuff online, and rarely socialize and still live happily.
God forbid that all of Africa is wiped out one day (humans, animals, everything). But should it happen, I'm sorry to say that it would have little effect on most people in WE nations. While it would have a significant psychological effect, many will walk it off because it doesn't affect their lives. It's not part of their reality. While we're all connected to each other, at the same time we're connected to no one but ourselves.
Mandvi says that scientists claim that a new extinction is now beginning, one that wiped out the dinosaurs. I can't even dignify that with a response because it's so ludicrous.
The fact that there are only three white rhinos on the planet under armed guard is tragic. But this is due to unethical human hunting. It's not due to man-made climate change. For the love of god, stop pretending that it is. And at the very least, we can always harvest the DNA of white rhinos and recreate/reengineer them (see Genetics in Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science).
In Los Angeles, Reed meets with climate change activists who believe that they're superheroes trying to prevent game over for humanity, animals, and the Earth. One person even says that we're all victims of man-made climate change. Of course. And this victimization has psychologically distorted our perception of reality and ourselves.
Thank god that privileged middle class white people in the climate change movement can show us the error of our ways and lead us on the path of righteousness. It's always nice to see privileged white people saving the world for ignorant visible minorities. It's truly a miracle.
References:
[1] Wilkinson, Todd. Threatened Species Are Thriving in Yellowstone. Now What? National Geographic. May 2016.
[2] Yosemite National Park gains a lush mountain meadow. Trust for Public Land. September 7, 2016.
[3] Robbins, Jim. Rare White Wolf Killed in Yellowstone Park Was Shot Illegally. New York Times. May 12, 2017.
[4] Charbonneau, Louis. Leonardo DiCaprio named U.N. messenger of peace for climate. Reuters. September 17, 2014.
[5] UNEP Goodwill Ambassadors. Gisele Bundchen. United Nations Environment Programme.
[6] Carroll, Joe. Exxon's New Chief Endorses Carbon Tax to Combat Climate Change. Bloomberg. February 23, 2017.
[7] McDiarmid, Margo. Oil and gas companies among 60 groups urging Liberals to stick with carbon price plan. CBC News. November 24, 2016.
[8] Bakx, Kyle. Canada shouldn't lose resolve for a carbon tax, says Shell exec. CBC News. November 29, 2016.
[9] The California drought is officially over, but next could be 'around the corner'. Associated Press. April 7, 2017.
[10] Hunter, Justine. A growing divide. Globe and Mail. April 28, 2017.
[11] Florida, Richard. Lost in housing hysteria, middle-class neighbourhoods have gone extinct. Globe and Mail. April 24, 2017.
[12] Dolski, Megan. Vancouver's homeless create new tent city to advocate for social housing. Globe and Mail. July 12, 2016.
[13] BC Hydro rates to increase 28 per cent over 5 years. CBC News. November 26, 2013.
[14] Slattery, Jill. Vancouver ranked third most unaffordable housing market in the world. Global News. January 22, 2017.
[15] What British Columbians will pay more for in 2017. CBC News. December 27, 2016.
[16] Ghoussoub, Michelle. Vancouver's extreme weather shelters filling up as temperatures plunge. CBC News. December 17, 2016.
[17] Homes evacuated and highways closed as flooding hits B.C. Interior. CBC News. May 6, 2017.
[18] California tables new cap-and-trade plan that challenges Ontario, Quebec. Canadian Press. May 3, 2017.
[19] McCarthy, Shawn, et al. Trudeau reaches historic deal on national climate plan. Globe and Mail. December 9, 2016.
[20] Rubin, Jeff and Suzuki, David. Canada needs a single price on carbon. Toronto Star. September 2, 2015.