Capitalism's endless growth paradigm can't be squared with sustainability. But no one – from politicians to the protest movement – is willing to admit the truth
No, it is not well-written. It is a piece of shit. I've already written two reply pieces, so far unpublished but that will change shortly. I only replied to two short passages from Shoniwa's awful article; my reply to those two passages ran into many paragraphs. All of the rest of Shoniwa's shit could be debunked in the same way, but it would take weeks to compose and run many thousands of words. The guy is obviously a denialist crank and ideologue, his article is stuffed with lies, misapprehensions, obfuscations, and other rubbish. I'm shocked that people would take such drivel seriously.
What you say is true if CO2 causes climate warming but there are serious scientists claiming that Solar/planet cycles cause changes to CO2. We need truth first. Some say CO2 is relatively low and we need more of it. If warming is not man made we are tying our hands by reducing it. Poor nations are deprived further. There are Corporates with vested interest in “green” industries with doubtful viability. Fossil fuel corporates pollute and exploit undoubtably and need urgent control and nationalisation but that is the issue we should emphasise. We need CO2. It is not the “enemy”.
Hi, Neil. Alan here (alan2102z on twitter). We've spoken recently.
"Some say CO2 is relatively low and we need more of it." Yes, a few idiots say that. Is that the old "plant food" argument you're talking about? That has been debunked by me and many others. Refs/links on request (drop me a line on twitter).
Yes, poor nations are for sure deprived further -- but not by climate action. The opposite is true. Climate change is already causing desperate migrations of 10s of thousands each year, and rapidly worsening. Large swathes of the planet will become barely inhabitable or uninhabitable within a decade or two. It is already happening. Open your eyes.
You call yourself a "socialist" but you are dreadfully out of touch with the realities that are about to doom vast numbers of the global proletariat/peasantry to misery and death. This is not alarmism, it is reality. Time to become a real socialist.
Libya wasn’t climate change! The huge migrations we see are man-made. Instead of international cooperation to prevent or minimise weather disasters we have military coups, regime changes and vast expenditure on armaments. In the US and elsewhere they are poisoning food sources. In Japan, Fukuyama they’re discharging nuclear cooling water into the Pacific. Atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by solar radiation heating the Earth in my opinion, having heard both sides. We have problems and the solutions must be based on getting science right. It’s not a debate. My socialism is well-founded, thank you.
"Instead of international cooperation to prevent or minimise weather disasters we have military coups, regime changes and vast expenditure on armaments. In the US and elsewhere they are poisoning food sources. In Japan, Fukuyama they’re discharging nuclear cooling water into the Pacific."
Agreed.
"Atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by solar radiation heating the Earth in my opinion, having heard both sides."
I see. Well that settles the matter, eh?
"My socialism is well-founded, thank you."
Not if you defend that anti-human, anti-civilization, fascist shithead Showina (or however it is spelled)
"the proposed measures aimed at curbing humanity’s alleged contribution to this climate catastrophe will not only be futile but will also likely be disastrous for humanity". And he refers to what he calls "potentially catastrophic decarbonisation policies".
Virtually all of the major climate mitigation routes on the table are the opposite of what he says. The energy and transport transitions, and the agricultural transition, etc., will not only NOT be "disastrous" or "catastrophic", they will be wonderful for many reasons. LIfe for everyone will be better, cleaner, healthier and less expensive. The world will be a better place in a list of different ways, and those are APART from any climate benefits (which could eventually be great as well). I could easily write an essay on this and in fact I already did write half an essay in response to that moron.
I say "moron" but that is charitable. He might be a moron, but there's also the possibility that he is a conscious disinfo agent and, as I said, an
anti-human, anti-civilization piece of shit. Either that or he is a dumbass. I cannot tell.
This is nothing but a summary of mainstream media talking points on climate alarmism. Totally science free, one-sided assertions.
According to you we are already past the tipping point (2019) and hurtling towards disaster. I hope you will have the integrity to take back your words and accept the reality when in 5 or 10 years time you are still sitting comfortably in your study writing articles and none of what you write today will have come to pass.
It's taken Gaia millions of years to get the percentage of CO2 in the planetary system this low by turning it all into limestone. This wasn't a goal of course, just a byproduct of an opportunity. Sea creatures are still doing this job quite well of course, while plant life is enjoying the slight rebound in CO2 due to recent fossil fuel combustion. Unfortunately, plant life can burn too. Hmmm....?
Humans have been enjoying all the "free" goodies that come with extracting fossil carbon as well. Much of this bounty is squandered and wasted because it has been too easy. But it's getting much harder now, and net energy is in steep decline. The richest 10% of humanity is using 50% of all resources. That fact alone tells us where the problem really lies. Fortunately, I'm not in that club, and it isn't because of the bouncers at the door - I simply have better and more meaningful things to do than amass wealth and burn oil.
Ultimately, the living planet is a somewhat self-regulating organism that doesn't play favorites. We are not so special, in spite of our self infatuation. There is always a price to pay for greed.
Humans love to exaggerate, but are hopeless with invisible threats. Nuclear armageddon is more likely than thermageddon, but we will not believe it until it actually happens. We are quite good however at dealing with the dangers we can actually see with our eyes. Whether we are in the final inning of this artificial globalist game is debatable, but Nature always bats last.
The extinction of the human species is a desirable outcome since it is the most destructive organism on the earth. It is destroying the earth and all it’s wonderful and innocent creatures. An organism that spends trillions of dollars on machines that are meant to kill other human beings and which can destroy the planet should disappear. When the human race disappears, the earth and the universe will not even notice and everything will continue as it has for billions of years. In the universe human beings are a speck of dust. The universe will be better off without the human race!
Jeepers creepers! You certainly pull no punches sir- I certainly hit the little heart icon to signal my support for the article but there is precious little to “like” - apparently we should be bracing for a “future most foul”! The most meaningful victories are likely to be achieved at the neighborly or perhaps the community level. Larger groups will not achieve consensus until BAU is properly vilified and banished (criminalized?)
Having vacationed there not long ago, I am particularly distraught by the holocaust unfolding in Lahaina- so many locals already living impoverished lives struggling for the “Yankee Dollar” now utterly wiped out.
Thank you Jonathan-a quite bitter but timely pill. Keep ‘em coming!
Don't worry, Jonathan. The USA gov't says they have been reverse engineering alien technology and any day now they'll be using it to save the climate. That or the aliens will intervene and make us stop destroying the Earth and each other.
For thirty years, millions of people have wept rivers and lakes of tears as we have watched what has been happening, joined groups, marched, protested, written to politicians - realistically assessed films like Planet of the Humans and been excoriated by our friends for doubting that renewables (or currently bicycles) would be the answer. We are now grieving for the inevitable loss of our lovely world to floods and fires and famines and lament the future which will be faced by our families in a world of chaos and instability.
Finding it totally necessary to share your documented and thorough analysis, here, Jonathan!! Sadly, it takes perseverance to read the entire article, and only the most committed and self-disciplined readers will do so! But I will not "throw in the towel', nor stop circulating this!! It's too important and will reach some and that is one of your purposes! Thank you! Arezu (Ellie) Ommani
The media is indeed the core of the problem with climatic change. It is owned by the same conglomerate that owns the petroleum industry, the arms industry, pharmaceuticals, food, and all other infrastructure.
Vanguard and BlackRock corporations seem to lead the pack on ownership of almost everything. This is not a conspiracy theory. Please go to Stockzoa.com and check it out.
Perhaps you could clarify some contradictions, Jonathan? Was there a scientific consensus in the early 90s, or was the truth of AGW known only to a cabal of oil company execs? The story had certainly reached the UN, which launched the IPCC in response, so in what sense was any of this being kept from the public?
And when exactly should we regard the science as settled? Your 1968 SRI quote ("there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe") doesn't sound settled at all, it's noncommittal puffery. You say the oil companies pretty much nailed it back in 1982, and also that models of the 1.5C target from 2015 have already been dramatically revised. Did the caliber of climate scientists tumble that far in the intervening decades? Either the experts understand the climate, or they're continually getting surprised that it's even worse than they thought, but both cannot be true at once.
You missed out how opposition to big pharma and to the 'covid' measures created a huge backlash, deliberetely orchestrated by the industry funded Heartland Institute, against all and any climate policy. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/what-is-the-heartland-institute?utm_source=publication-search
This is a very interesting and well-written response to this essay. Highly recommended https://plagueonbothhouses.substack.com/p/a-rebuttal-of-jonathan-cooks-climate
No, it is not well-written. It is a piece of shit. I've already written two reply pieces, so far unpublished but that will change shortly. I only replied to two short passages from Shoniwa's awful article; my reply to those two passages ran into many paragraphs. All of the rest of Shoniwa's shit could be debunked in the same way, but it would take weeks to compose and run many thousands of words. The guy is obviously a denialist crank and ideologue, his article is stuffed with lies, misapprehensions, obfuscations, and other rubbish. I'm shocked that people would take such drivel seriously.
What you say is true if CO2 causes climate warming but there are serious scientists claiming that Solar/planet cycles cause changes to CO2. We need truth first. Some say CO2 is relatively low and we need more of it. If warming is not man made we are tying our hands by reducing it. Poor nations are deprived further. There are Corporates with vested interest in “green” industries with doubtful viability. Fossil fuel corporates pollute and exploit undoubtably and need urgent control and nationalisation but that is the issue we should emphasise. We need CO2. It is not the “enemy”.
Hi, Neil. Alan here (alan2102z on twitter). We've spoken recently.
"Some say CO2 is relatively low and we need more of it." Yes, a few idiots say that. Is that the old "plant food" argument you're talking about? That has been debunked by me and many others. Refs/links on request (drop me a line on twitter).
Yes, poor nations are for sure deprived further -- but not by climate action. The opposite is true. Climate change is already causing desperate migrations of 10s of thousands each year, and rapidly worsening. Large swathes of the planet will become barely inhabitable or uninhabitable within a decade or two. It is already happening. Open your eyes.
You call yourself a "socialist" but you are dreadfully out of touch with the realities that are about to doom vast numbers of the global proletariat/peasantry to misery and death. This is not alarmism, it is reality. Time to become a real socialist.
Libya wasn’t climate change! The huge migrations we see are man-made. Instead of international cooperation to prevent or minimise weather disasters we have military coups, regime changes and vast expenditure on armaments. In the US and elsewhere they are poisoning food sources. In Japan, Fukuyama they’re discharging nuclear cooling water into the Pacific. Atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by solar radiation heating the Earth in my opinion, having heard both sides. We have problems and the solutions must be based on getting science right. It’s not a debate. My socialism is well-founded, thank you.
"Libya wasn’t climate change!"
Did I say otherwise?
"The huge migrations we see are man-made."
Some are, some are not. Most are a mixture.
"Instead of international cooperation to prevent or minimise weather disasters we have military coups, regime changes and vast expenditure on armaments. In the US and elsewhere they are poisoning food sources. In Japan, Fukuyama they’re discharging nuclear cooling water into the Pacific."
Agreed.
"Atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by solar radiation heating the Earth in my opinion, having heard both sides."
I see. Well that settles the matter, eh?
"My socialism is well-founded, thank you."
Not if you defend that anti-human, anti-civilization, fascist shithead Showina (or however it is spelled)
Shoniwa, for the record.
He writes:
"the proposed measures aimed at curbing humanity’s alleged contribution to this climate catastrophe will not only be futile but will also likely be disastrous for humanity". And he refers to what he calls "potentially catastrophic decarbonisation policies".
Virtually all of the major climate mitigation routes on the table are the opposite of what he says. The energy and transport transitions, and the agricultural transition, etc., will not only NOT be "disastrous" or "catastrophic", they will be wonderful for many reasons. LIfe for everyone will be better, cleaner, healthier and less expensive. The world will be a better place in a list of different ways, and those are APART from any climate benefits (which could eventually be great as well). I could easily write an essay on this and in fact I already did write half an essay in response to that moron.
I say "moron" but that is charitable. He might be a moron, but there's also the possibility that he is a conscious disinfo agent and, as I said, an
anti-human, anti-civilization piece of shit. Either that or he is a dumbass. I cannot tell.
This is nothing but a summary of mainstream media talking points on climate alarmism. Totally science free, one-sided assertions.
According to you we are already past the tipping point (2019) and hurtling towards disaster. I hope you will have the integrity to take back your words and accept the reality when in 5 or 10 years time you are still sitting comfortably in your study writing articles and none of what you write today will have come to pass.
Thanks
This stirs up a variety of things...
It's taken Gaia millions of years to get the percentage of CO2 in the planetary system this low by turning it all into limestone. This wasn't a goal of course, just a byproduct of an opportunity. Sea creatures are still doing this job quite well of course, while plant life is enjoying the slight rebound in CO2 due to recent fossil fuel combustion. Unfortunately, plant life can burn too. Hmmm....?
Humans have been enjoying all the "free" goodies that come with extracting fossil carbon as well. Much of this bounty is squandered and wasted because it has been too easy. But it's getting much harder now, and net energy is in steep decline. The richest 10% of humanity is using 50% of all resources. That fact alone tells us where the problem really lies. Fortunately, I'm not in that club, and it isn't because of the bouncers at the door - I simply have better and more meaningful things to do than amass wealth and burn oil.
Ultimately, the living planet is a somewhat self-regulating organism that doesn't play favorites. We are not so special, in spite of our self infatuation. There is always a price to pay for greed.
Humans love to exaggerate, but are hopeless with invisible threats. Nuclear armageddon is more likely than thermageddon, but we will not believe it until it actually happens. We are quite good however at dealing with the dangers we can actually see with our eyes. Whether we are in the final inning of this artificial globalist game is debatable, but Nature always bats last.
No I think thermageddon far more likely. Nukes are lucrative deterrents https://jowaller.substack.com/p/just-like-scary-contagions-and-911?utm_source=publication-search
Professor Michael Hudson has made it clear that the petro dollar guarantees that nothing will ever be done about the climate crisis.
The extinction of the human species is a desirable outcome since it is the most destructive organism on the earth. It is destroying the earth and all it’s wonderful and innocent creatures. An organism that spends trillions of dollars on machines that are meant to kill other human beings and which can destroy the planet should disappear. When the human race disappears, the earth and the universe will not even notice and everything will continue as it has for billions of years. In the universe human beings are a speck of dust. The universe will be better off without the human race!
Jeepers creepers! You certainly pull no punches sir- I certainly hit the little heart icon to signal my support for the article but there is precious little to “like” - apparently we should be bracing for a “future most foul”! The most meaningful victories are likely to be achieved at the neighborly or perhaps the community level. Larger groups will not achieve consensus until BAU is properly vilified and banished (criminalized?)
Having vacationed there not long ago, I am particularly distraught by the holocaust unfolding in Lahaina- so many locals already living impoverished lives struggling for the “Yankee Dollar” now utterly wiped out.
Thank you Jonathan-a quite bitter but timely pill. Keep ‘em coming!
You haven’t understood my argument and you’ve resorted to insults to refute it / defend your argument. Congratulations.
Don't worry, Jonathan. The USA gov't says they have been reverse engineering alien technology and any day now they'll be using it to save the climate. That or the aliens will intervene and make us stop destroying the Earth and each other.
For thirty years, millions of people have wept rivers and lakes of tears as we have watched what has been happening, joined groups, marched, protested, written to politicians - realistically assessed films like Planet of the Humans and been excoriated by our friends for doubting that renewables (or currently bicycles) would be the answer. We are now grieving for the inevitable loss of our lovely world to floods and fires and famines and lament the future which will be faced by our families in a world of chaos and instability.
Sorry Emma - irony antennae didn’t pick it!
Finding it totally necessary to share your documented and thorough analysis, here, Jonathan!! Sadly, it takes perseverance to read the entire article, and only the most committed and self-disciplined readers will do so! But I will not "throw in the towel', nor stop circulating this!! It's too important and will reach some and that is one of your purposes! Thank you! Arezu (Ellie) Ommani
The media is indeed the core of the problem with climatic change. It is owned by the same conglomerate that owns the petroleum industry, the arms industry, pharmaceuticals, food, and all other infrastructure.
Vanguard and BlackRock corporations seem to lead the pack on ownership of almost everything. This is not a conspiracy theory. Please go to Stockzoa.com and check it out.
Perhaps you could clarify some contradictions, Jonathan? Was there a scientific consensus in the early 90s, or was the truth of AGW known only to a cabal of oil company execs? The story had certainly reached the UN, which launched the IPCC in response, so in what sense was any of this being kept from the public?
And when exactly should we regard the science as settled? Your 1968 SRI quote ("there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe") doesn't sound settled at all, it's noncommittal puffery. You say the oil companies pretty much nailed it back in 1982, and also that models of the 1.5C target from 2015 have already been dramatically revised. Did the caliber of climate scientists tumble that far in the intervening decades? Either the experts understand the climate, or they're continually getting surprised that it's even worse than they thought, but both cannot be true at once.