The Right on Climate Change

[Ceisiwr]

In the 1980's Margaret Thatcher was warning about the dangers posed by man made climate change. Why then is it today the Right has mostly opposed the very idea?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

She is talking about the banning of chlorofluorocarbons because of their impact on the ozone layer. Or rather, she was before some amateur video editor with an agenda got to the original footage.

She is not even talking about "global warming", let alone what has come to be known as "climate climate".

Similarly, there's two entirely different treatments to the alleged problems. In her day, it was an simple as prohibiting the use of chlorofluorocarbons in favour of hydrocarbons. Compare that simple product substitution with all the grand social and economic change that people demand be done in the pursuit of net zero and other targets.

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

She is talking about the banning of chlorofluorocarbons because of their impact on the ozone layer. Or rather, she was before some amateur video editor with an agenda got to the original footage.

She is not even talking about "global warming", let alone what has come to be known as "climate climate".

On the contrary, the talk focuses on greenhouse gasses and the need for action:

...
We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.

At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones. [end p3]

The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones.

We now know, too, that great damage is being done to the Ozone Layer by the production of halons and chlorofluorocarbons. But at least we have recognised that reducing and eventually stopping the emission of CFCs is one positive thing we can do about the menacing accumulation of greenhouse gases.
....
Fortunately we have a model in the action already taken to protect the ozone layer. The Vienna Convention in 1985 and the Montreal Protocol in 1987 established landmarks in international law. They aim to prevent rather than just cure a global environmental problem.

I believe we should aim to have a convention on global climate change ready by the time the World Conference on Environment and Development meets in 1992. That will be among the most important conferences the United Nations has ever held. I hope that we shall all accept a responsibility to meet this timetable.
...
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,

She is talking about the banning of chlorofluorocarbons because of their impact on the ozone layer. Or rather, she was before some amateur video editor with an agenda got to the original footage.

She is not even talking about "global warming", let alone what has come to be known as "climate climate".

Similarly, there's two entirely different treatments to the alleged problems. In her day, it was an simple as prohibiting the use of chlorofluorocarbons in favour of hydrocarbons. Compare that simple product substitution with all the grand social and economic change that people demand be done in the pursuit of net zero and other targets.

Metta,
Paul.

As mike said, she was talking about man-made climate change due to Co2 emissions.

[Ceisiwr]

So my questions remains, why do so many on the Right now question the very idea of man-made climate change let alone proposals to tackle it?

[mikenz66]

Wrong action and suffering have at their root greed, aversion, and delusion. I can see that in myself: I want to comfortable life, changing my behaviour would be troublesome, what difference would it make anyway - we're all going to die in the end?

It might be interesting to enquire whether there is really a left-right divide, or whether it's that it happens that there are some particularly noisy people on either side that makes it seem so and the majority just don't worry about it.

Here in NZ all major and minor parties have climate-action plans. The more conservative question the effectiveness of some actions, but not the problem:

ACT believes New Zealand must play its part on climate change. But any response must be simple to administer, politically durable, and effective. New Zealand will only prosper if we match our goals with actions which actually benefit the environment.
https://www.act.org.nz/policies/environment

Furthermore, businesses worldwide are factoring climate issues into their calculations. Obviously the insurance industry, banks, etc, but also energy industries, who see profit advantages in moving their efforts to more sustainable sources.


Mike

[DNS]

So my questions remains, why do so many on the Right now question the very idea of man-made climate change let alone proposals to tackle it?

I think conservatives should be concerned about the environment. I'm center-right myself, but I'm about as green as one can go. I have an electric car, solar panels, drought-resistant landscaping (no lawn grass), and I'm vegetarian, mostly vegan. A conservative is supposed to be someone who wants to 'conserve' things; be it wealth, resources, energy, expenses. Things that are sustainable are also more efficient, save in business expenses; which should be something conservatives should like.

I think the main reason conservatives (most of them, not all) are opposed to environmental issues is because the liberals/progressives have taken over this issue and the two extremes tend to go to their camps and don't look for commonalities, even when there are some that can be found. Another reason is that they feel the environmentalists will make demands on them that will lead to losing of some of their freedoms. I've heard some of the rhetoric from conservatives saying things like "the liberals will ban meat, we won't be able to eat meat anymore; we'll all be forced to eat only lab meat." Lab meat is still a long way off from being mass produced and nearly all of the liberal/progressive environmentalists eat meat themselves. I have a thread at Dharma Paths showing some of the liberal leaders all eating meat, including Bill Gates, AOC, Biden, etc.

Furthermore, businesses worldwide are factoring climate issues into their calculations. Obviously the insurance industry, banks, etc, but also energy industries, who see profit advantages in moving their efforts to more sustainable sources.

Yes, it decreases expenses and improves profits. You'd think conservative-capitalists should like that. I was at a green convention many years ago and all the speakers could talk about is how much money they are going to make promoting and producing green products. Many (not all) of the green supporters are leftists, but the promoters and producers of the green products are about as capitalist as one can get. Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla is center-right, conservative and of course promotes green energy, electric cars, etc and is an uber-capitalist.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

So my questions remains, why do so many on the Right now question the very idea of man-made climate change let alone proposals to tackle it?

It can't really be answered beyond what I said within the scope of what is allowable.

Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

As mike said, she was talking about man-made climate change due to Co2 emissions.

Ok, it looks like there actually was one paragraph about "global warming" buried in there, and her solution was to conserve the rainforests. Again, totally different to what is being promoted for "climate change" in [current year].

Metta,
Paul.

[Pondera]

So my questions remains, why do so many on the Right now question the very idea of man-made climate change let alone proposals to tackle it?

Because “going green” requires Cobalt, which entails the suffering of people in the Congo who are paid dollars a day to work in extremely dangerous mining environments so that you can drive your Tesla and put more dollars into Elon’s back pocket.

We rely on fossil fuels. One thing is going to change that. Nuclear Fusion. Virtually unlimited, non-radioactive, “green” energy.

And people are consumers. That’s what we do. Think of all the *garbage* in landfills and oceans. That’s only increasing. We are destined to fall from grace. All things are impermanent. The right simply doesn’t pretend that “sustainability” is the answer to our problems.

Until someone comes up with cheap and efficient fusion energy it’s going to be business as usual. We’re all going to drive our cars to work. We’re all going to consume the goods which come across oceans on freight ships.

Nothing is going to change and that’s how people want it to be. Nothing is going to change until the CO2 chokes us out and the photosynthesizing aliens come down to take over the world.

Humans are creatures of habit. If we master fusion and gravity and then space, and then time - we have a bright future. The future is inter solar travel and world terraforming. We’re going to rape this planet for every thing she has. If we don’t master the science before the worlds chokes us out, then we have our answer.

It’s kamma, baby. Payback’s a bitch.

[mikenz66]

Greetings,

As mike said, she was talking about man-made climate change due to Co2 emissions.

Ok, it looks like there actually was one paragraph about "global warming" buried in there, and her solution was to conserve the rainforests. Again, totally different to what is being promoted for "climate change" in [current year].

Metta,
Paul.

Are you reading the same text as I am? The vast majority is about climate change and the need to reduce emissions (bolded below):

I believe we should aim to have a convention on global climate change ready by the time the World Conference on Environment and Development meets in 1992. That will be among the most important conferences the United Nations has ever held. I hope that we shall all accept a responsibility to meet this timetable.

The 1992 Conference is indeed already being discussed among many countries in many places. And I draw particular attention to the very valuable discussion which members of the Commonwealth had under the Mahathir bin MohamadPrime Minister of Malaysia's chairmanship at our recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kuala Lumpur. [end p8]

But a framework is not enough. It will need to be filled out with specific undertakings, or protocols in diplomatic language, on the different aspects of climate change.

These protocols must be binding and there must be effective regimes to supervise and monitor their application. Otherwise those nations which accept and abide by environmental agreements, thus adding to their industrial costs, will lose out competitively to those who do not.

The negotiation of some of these protocols will undoubtedly be difficult. And no issue will be more contentious than the need to control emissions of carbon dioxide, the major contributor—apart from water vapour—to the greenhouse effect.

We can't just do nothing. But the measures we take must be based on sound scientific analysis of the effect of the different gases and the ways in which these can be reduced. In the past there has been a tendency to solve one problem at the expense of making others worse.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

I wasn't reading anything unless someone quoted it here. I was, however, watching the video and commenting on the selective editing.

As for the text you've just highlighted, the "greenhouse effect" isn't what current "climate change" advocacy is based on, though.

When prophecies about the greenhouse effect failed to materialise on schedule, the popular terminology changed to "climate change" as a broad and nebulous term for any weather pattern deemed undesirable, which deviated from some supposedly "natural" norm - whether it be warmer or colder, wetter or drier, or vaguely more "extreme" (whatever that means). Being malleable to mean whatever people wanted it to mean on any given day, it's conveniently unfalsifiable.

Therefore, this really is like comparing apples and oranges. Meanwhile, it's another decade, and another impending apocalypse that never arrives - see Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions for an entertaining and nostalgic trip down memory lane.

As for Western Buddhists, a lot seem to experience fear, concern, worry, anxiety, aversion and greed in relation to the climate, meanwhile reading The Guardian, watching state media, and cheering on society's climate superheroes as they fly their private jets to far flung corners of the world to schmooze, feast and further promote their industry. I don't see much value or wholesomeness in it.

Metta,
Paul.

[Pondera]

Greetings Mike,

I wasn't reading anything unless someone quoted it here. I was, however, watching the video and commenting on the selective editing.

As for the text you've just highlighted, the "greenhouse effect" isn't what current "climate change" advocacy is based on, though.

When prophecies about the greenhouse effect failed to materialise on schedule, the popular terminology changed to "climate change" as a broad and nebulous term for any weather pattern deemed undesirable, which deviated from some supposedly "natural" norm - whether it be warmer or colder, wetter or drier, or vaguely more "extreme" (whatever that means). Being malleable to mean whatever people wanted it to mean on any given day, it's conveniently unfalsifiable.

Therefore, this really is like comparing apples and oranges. Meanwhile, it's another decade, and another impending apocalypse that never arrives - see Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions for an entertaining and nostalgic trip down memory lane.

As for Western Buddhists, a lot seem to experience fear, concern, worry, anxiety, aversion and greed in relation to the climate, meanwhile reading The Guardian, watching state media, and cheering on society's climate superheroes as they fly their private jets to far flung corners of the world to schmooze, feast and further promote their industry.

Metta,
Paul.

Business as usual.

I have no complaints. Summer of 2001 was a hot one. Spring of 2023 has arrived just on time in my part of the world. Beautiful, sunny weather; buds appearing on flora; mild temperatures … like I said; no complaints.

I live in a coastal city. So when the seas rise and flood me out of my home, or when I can no longer breathe the air, I’ll complain. Until then, I’ll drive my gasoline powered vehicle to my conservatively paid job, and I’ll consume as much beef as I prefer, while using plastics and such.

People demand change. It’s funny. I think it was Jesus who said, “you’re pointing at the sliver of wood in your brother’s eye, when there’s a whole branch in your own.”

Decades of political will power have accomplished nothing but promises and goals which were never kept or won.

Lead by example. Jesus was one man. Buddha was one man. Gandhi was one man.

Change happens when *one* person sets an example. Greta Thunberg is a good example of one passionate, outspoken person who wants to preserve the life span of the world.

And yet she’s attempting to strong arm the powers that be into changing their ways. It was Trump who tweeted to Thunberg, “Go play outside!”

Just shows you how much progress you’re going to make by ordering people around and telling people what to believe. People who don’t recognize you as an authority. People who have bills to pay, and adult obligations.

One person or team of people will make fusion doable. It’s already proven to be net positive input vs. Output in some experiments ustilizing lazers.

As for us menial taskmen and women. Be *kind*. Make *small* changes in your diet, the products you chose to use, whether or not you leave the water running too long. Etc. etc.

The greatest rivers started out as a trickle. What this world needs at this time is a path away from the denial of our humanity which we’ve been living under for a while.

The realization of real love; joy; and Karuna in *everyday* people *everyday* to *everyone* is going to be the foundation of active environmental policy and change. You can’t change your actions before changing your thoughts.

Karuna

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

The realization of real love; joy; and Karuna in *everyday* people *everyday* to *everyone* is going to be the foundation of active environmental policy and change. You can’t change your actions before changing your thoughts.

Well said. If people cannot sort out their own inner world, then what is worth saving of them in the external world? Their akusala cittas? Lol. Hardly...

Che sera sera.

Metta,
Paul.

[BrokenBones]

Greetings,

The realization of real love; joy; and Karuna in *everyday* people *everyday* to *everyone* is going to be the foundation of active environmental policy and change. You can’t change your actions before changing your thoughts.

Well said. If people cannot sort out their own inner world, then what is worth saving of them in the external world? Their akusala cittas? Lol. Hardly...

Che sera sera.

Metta,
Paul.

It reminds me of Jordan Peterson's 'clean your room first'.

I've gone from being centre Left to Right wing by staying in the same place for the last 30 years.