In a recent publication "Nature Climate Change" entitled Civil disobedience by scientists, presses for urgent action on climate change. The interesting observation I made, is that among the 6 authors to the paper there are:
3 psychologists,
1 social scientist
1 policy study (whatever that means within science)
1 geography (?? science??)
Because these people see themselves as "scientists of sorts" they have an epistemic responsibility to comment on anything that can be seen as science (like cooking dinner). Mr. T Flannery is in this category.
What appears to be the root cause of general conversation today is "political correctness takes precedent over Truth.
They’ve been trying to con us for years with making us all equal and fairer but what they mean is all poorer and incapable with them at the helm. Same old, same old. Can’t stand looking or listening to Schwabb.
Absolutely not, but there are rocky times ahead of us. They must totally destroy the system that we have had to be able to offer their own solution.
We must accept that this system we have been living in is broken and will cease to be in the next few years, but we must also have our own solution to go forward and leave the WEF elites to clutch at their own straws.
If we do not place value on/in the things that they control, then they have no wealth or power over us.
It is only while we use their system that we are entrapped by them.
Sure, I'd sign up to a great reset IF ONLY the great reset was humane, reasonable and didn't leave billions dying in the gutter!
There are so many ways to achieve a better planet whilst still maintaining a decent way of life. Sure, we may have to shift how we do things a bit here and there, but to ask us all to eat bugs and take experimental jabs that kill and maim us and basically fall in line to a bunch of psychopaths so that THEY can have all the nice foods etc whilst we eat bugs and pretend to be happy about it? NO WAY.
I don't mind having to manage our resources a bit better and maybe we'd have a bit less, but that's OK, because we've mostly got too much anyway. We don't need ALL our 'stuff'. Some stuff? Absolutely yes. Most stuff? OK, why not. But to need ALL our stuff? No. We do NOT need all the junk currently in our lives. Living a bit more simply might actually do us the world of good - but we don't need to lose our humanity or our kindness or our courage or our future in the process. We OUGHT to manage our resources better - but my problem is who's deciding what's 'better'? How is it going to be be rolled out? And who's going to enforce it? And what about those who don't want to comply?
The way these WEF morons are going on about it, most should live in 3 foot city square apartments, eat bug protein for food and do whatever work is required by the WEF and be digitally monitored 24/7 ALL without complaining (or else it's a quick effective green needle). Some 'lucky' ones will get to plough the fields! I'm pretty sure their version of Utopia is most people's version of Dystopia...but plenty will agree to the madness anyway.
You and I won't sign up for it, but TPTB will sign up for it - because they get great kickbacks, so screw the rest of us, right? And after all, most people signed up for the death jabs, so they've really got most countries by the balls, here...
I agree with a lot of what you are saying and we could do things better and live more simply. However not just for the sake of it. If you think what would happen if we just reuse a lot of our ‘stuff ‘ , clothes etc, you have to then think of what happens to these companies for they are the ones that keep a lot of this going. It’s like plastic, the companies don’t want to stop making it or they go bust. I suppose if people could change a lot of their practices this might happen naturally. I do think like you that we could look after the world a lot better though I don’t like the word sustainable. Sounds too much like agenda 21 which is where it came from but I agree we could do a lot better just not WEF better.
That's a good point - we don't want to send a whole pile of companies bust like the WEF is trying to do!! We'd be just as bad as them, then!! Thanks for pointing that out :-) But I still think people could try to to do things better and live more simply, because we can't keep sticking our heads in the sand. Everyone's noticed the lack of quality goods in recent years - a reflection of the practices we're using, among others, perhaps...?
I guess I'd like to see people slowly, but definitely, changing their practices over time, to a more healthy way of living: for them AND the planet. 'Sustainable' in the true form, as in you can do it for the next 1000 years with no real problems, not 'sustainable' the way the WEF sees it! It doesn't have to be overnight, but if each company just made little changes here and there, for the better, and then some more over time, as needed, then we'd be doing better overall. And companies don't need to be fined for not making changes, they need to be ENCOURAGED. THIS is where the govt should be promoting things and helping businesses to make these changes - but they're not! They're effectively saying 'follow the WEF agenda or fail!'.
I cringe seeing the ingredients on 'food' packets sometimes. It's disgusting! It's not even food! It's a pile of additives and lab-made ingredients with almost no nutritional value. And I hate throwing so much plastic in the bin. Being Coeliac, I have to be careful about where I get my food from, so I can't just get my flours etc from communal trays at the local health food store etc. even though I'd prefer to do that. Too much risk of contamination. So I have to buy individual packages - but they all contain plastic! Plastics can be made from coconut & other plant material now, so why are we still using so much oil for our plastic?
Things ARE changing but it's so slow; too slow IMO.
Another example is the deodorant I use has changed their packaging. It's an annoying shape now, BUT it's made out of sugar cane! Cool, right? BUT the uncool thing is they're the ONLY one around that makes them - and because there's no competition, they can't be bothered changing their shape to a more useful design. No-one else is on this economic bandwagon in this particular instance. And that's what concerns me. Not enough people are willing to try new and 'sustainable' (in the good way!) things. So we've got a long uphill battle before us, I think.
By the way, I love your wording: "we could do a lot better just not WEF better." :-)
Yes it is slow and painful. My husband and I were just discussing the other day how furniture we used to buy lasted almost a lifetime whereas so much furniture now is flimsy and throw -away when tired of it. Same with clothes. They were made much better years ago. It’s hard to change this pattern after years of ease. It’s back again to companies needing to be encouraged or helped to change their ways as you say. Sort of less is more, better made lasts longer. Cost would be involved which is why many things started going offshore. We’d need to start manufacturing again and our own industries. ?? There’s no doubt that food and everything involved with it has become a minefield of research to know what we are eating. I go through the same searches on ingredients and trying to buy organic. Just another thing that needs changing.
Yes we need changes and we need this govt to see there is a way that’s not the crazy own nothing, eat bugs way.
I should explain that I do NOT agree with what the WEF is doing. I do, however, think we need to be a bit nicer to Planet Earth and work WITH it, not against it. If we can manage things more sustainably, and REASONABLY and where I'd like to think people could be happy about it if they understood it properly (and not just happy because they got tossed a few dead insects to eat that day!) then I see that as a win-win.
When there were a lot less people on the earth, we could make things with the natural resources much better - and they lasted. But now that we have more to feed, we've become a throw-away society where the end products aren't as good and don't last as long and there's a lot more waste. So I think we need to be a bit more careful. Kind of like when you have only 1 or 2 kids, life is mostly manageable and you can mostly have what you want. Fast forward to 5 or 6 kids, and there are a lot more mouths to feed. There's not enough to go around like there used to be, so things invariably have to be rationed.
BUT, things don't have to be bad. You don't have to have LESS (and trust me, no-one is really happy getting less, especially growing kids!). If we could learn to farm more efficiently, patch our clothes instead of throwing them away, learn to recycle and re-use a lot more and just 'get' that we need to do this, and figure out how to work WITH Nature better, then we can still have most of what we want. We don't have to be rationed, as such. We just need to change our outlook a bit and be comfortable with recycled instead of 'new'. The problem is that people want to stick to what they know and change NOTHING and expect the result to be the same, when more people are still pouring in at the dinner table. There's just not enough dinner to go around. So I think people DO need to think about making positive changes in their life - but not the WEF changes coz they suck big time!
I think we should've been making big changes back in the year 2000. Instead, we soldiered on in our consumerism and now we buy crappy saucepans and cars that don't last and are half made of plastic and food that's not really 'food'. Now our 'education' is dumbed down significantly and future prospects look bleak.
So something DOES need to change, but it CAN and SHOULD be a helluva lot better than what the WEF has in mind!! Those buggers can go jump. They're a bunch of psychopaths.
If you want to go hang in a lecture theatre @ 7000ppm CO2, be my guest. Everyone will be pretty damned drowsy, though!!! Anything over about 2000ppm is quite problematic, but hey, feel free to just make up stuff and don't bother reading the science; that's OK Tony!!
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have any CO2 in the air. I know how the cycles work (I did Geology for my first degree). But from any of my comments anywhere on Substack, I have not said that we should LOWER the CO2 level. I have just said that we need to work in harmony with Nature. Humans evolved in lower CO2 levels, this is true, and I pointed out that at 1000ppm humans have issues (here's one quick link so you can see that a person's Information Usage & Strategy bottom out at just 1400ppm: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27662232/4892924.pdf?sequence=1 ). There's plenty of science to show that this occurs. Given we're just over 400ppm or something now, I'm allowing for a bit of time for us to get our act together!
You and others are welcome to think of renewables as a scam, but we've enjoyed a very efficient hybrid solar system + batteries for years. Unlike the sometimes sporadic electricity supply in the country area we lived, we had permanent power available to us. I don't think it's a scam at all. Plenty of sunlight + batteries = permanent power + happy campers!
Time seems to be standing still on every aspect but that may be the calm before the storm when another deluge of words deeds pain and pleasure will occur in unexpected ways Do other people feel the same about impending changes and hoping that they will be of better nature than some present ones
Sounds like all the rest of the climate change green energy clap trap which is already proven a world wide failure, but no we will spend billions on it as a method to transfer the wealth of the nation and its peoples to the elite!
That’s what Covid was about, wealth transfer and control, and it is what climate change is about. Just the narrative change, nothing else.
We should not agree.
In a recent publication "Nature Climate Change" entitled Civil disobedience by scientists, presses for urgent action on climate change. The interesting observation I made, is that among the 6 authors to the paper there are:
3 psychologists,
1 social scientist
1 policy study (whatever that means within science)
1 geography (?? science??)
Because these people see themselves as "scientists of sorts" they have an epistemic responsibility to comment on anything that can be seen as science (like cooking dinner). Mr. T Flannery is in this category.
What appears to be the root cause of general conversation today is "political correctness takes precedent over Truth.
They’ve been trying to con us for years with making us all equal and fairer but what they mean is all poorer and incapable with them at the helm. Same old, same old. Can’t stand looking or listening to Schwabb.
I will not agree i wished they would leave us alone why dont the WEF build their utopia on the liveable planet they just discovered
No way do l agree to the great reset. Going on climate change all lies people so gullible believe everything what this so called politician say.
Absolutely not, but there are rocky times ahead of us. They must totally destroy the system that we have had to be able to offer their own solution.
We must accept that this system we have been living in is broken and will cease to be in the next few years, but we must also have our own solution to go forward and leave the WEF elites to clutch at their own straws.
If we do not place value on/in the things that they control, then they have no wealth or power over us.
It is only while we use their system that we are entrapped by them.
Sure, I'd sign up to a great reset IF ONLY the great reset was humane, reasonable and didn't leave billions dying in the gutter!
There are so many ways to achieve a better planet whilst still maintaining a decent way of life. Sure, we may have to shift how we do things a bit here and there, but to ask us all to eat bugs and take experimental jabs that kill and maim us and basically fall in line to a bunch of psychopaths so that THEY can have all the nice foods etc whilst we eat bugs and pretend to be happy about it? NO WAY.
I don't mind having to manage our resources a bit better and maybe we'd have a bit less, but that's OK, because we've mostly got too much anyway. We don't need ALL our 'stuff'. Some stuff? Absolutely yes. Most stuff? OK, why not. But to need ALL our stuff? No. We do NOT need all the junk currently in our lives. Living a bit more simply might actually do us the world of good - but we don't need to lose our humanity or our kindness or our courage or our future in the process. We OUGHT to manage our resources better - but my problem is who's deciding what's 'better'? How is it going to be be rolled out? And who's going to enforce it? And what about those who don't want to comply?
The way these WEF morons are going on about it, most should live in 3 foot city square apartments, eat bug protein for food and do whatever work is required by the WEF and be digitally monitored 24/7 ALL without complaining (or else it's a quick effective green needle). Some 'lucky' ones will get to plough the fields! I'm pretty sure their version of Utopia is most people's version of Dystopia...but plenty will agree to the madness anyway.
You and I won't sign up for it, but TPTB will sign up for it - because they get great kickbacks, so screw the rest of us, right? And after all, most people signed up for the death jabs, so they've really got most countries by the balls, here...
I agree with a lot of what you are saying and we could do things better and live more simply. However not just for the sake of it. If you think what would happen if we just reuse a lot of our ‘stuff ‘ , clothes etc, you have to then think of what happens to these companies for they are the ones that keep a lot of this going. It’s like plastic, the companies don’t want to stop making it or they go bust. I suppose if people could change a lot of their practices this might happen naturally. I do think like you that we could look after the world a lot better though I don’t like the word sustainable. Sounds too much like agenda 21 which is where it came from but I agree we could do a lot better just not WEF better.
That's a good point - we don't want to send a whole pile of companies bust like the WEF is trying to do!! We'd be just as bad as them, then!! Thanks for pointing that out :-) But I still think people could try to to do things better and live more simply, because we can't keep sticking our heads in the sand. Everyone's noticed the lack of quality goods in recent years - a reflection of the practices we're using, among others, perhaps...?
I guess I'd like to see people slowly, but definitely, changing their practices over time, to a more healthy way of living: for them AND the planet. 'Sustainable' in the true form, as in you can do it for the next 1000 years with no real problems, not 'sustainable' the way the WEF sees it! It doesn't have to be overnight, but if each company just made little changes here and there, for the better, and then some more over time, as needed, then we'd be doing better overall. And companies don't need to be fined for not making changes, they need to be ENCOURAGED. THIS is where the govt should be promoting things and helping businesses to make these changes - but they're not! They're effectively saying 'follow the WEF agenda or fail!'.
I cringe seeing the ingredients on 'food' packets sometimes. It's disgusting! It's not even food! It's a pile of additives and lab-made ingredients with almost no nutritional value. And I hate throwing so much plastic in the bin. Being Coeliac, I have to be careful about where I get my food from, so I can't just get my flours etc from communal trays at the local health food store etc. even though I'd prefer to do that. Too much risk of contamination. So I have to buy individual packages - but they all contain plastic! Plastics can be made from coconut & other plant material now, so why are we still using so much oil for our plastic?
Things ARE changing but it's so slow; too slow IMO.
Another example is the deodorant I use has changed their packaging. It's an annoying shape now, BUT it's made out of sugar cane! Cool, right? BUT the uncool thing is they're the ONLY one around that makes them - and because there's no competition, they can't be bothered changing their shape to a more useful design. No-one else is on this economic bandwagon in this particular instance. And that's what concerns me. Not enough people are willing to try new and 'sustainable' (in the good way!) things. So we've got a long uphill battle before us, I think.
By the way, I love your wording: "we could do a lot better just not WEF better." :-)
Yes it is slow and painful. My husband and I were just discussing the other day how furniture we used to buy lasted almost a lifetime whereas so much furniture now is flimsy and throw -away when tired of it. Same with clothes. They were made much better years ago. It’s hard to change this pattern after years of ease. It’s back again to companies needing to be encouraged or helped to change their ways as you say. Sort of less is more, better made lasts longer. Cost would be involved which is why many things started going offshore. We’d need to start manufacturing again and our own industries. ?? There’s no doubt that food and everything involved with it has become a minefield of research to know what we are eating. I go through the same searches on ingredients and trying to buy organic. Just another thing that needs changing.
Yes we need changes and we need this govt to see there is a way that’s not the crazy own nothing, eat bugs way.
This is an insight in to the ways of mega companies. The eat bug promoters. https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/conspiracy-of-silence
I should explain that I do NOT agree with what the WEF is doing. I do, however, think we need to be a bit nicer to Planet Earth and work WITH it, not against it. If we can manage things more sustainably, and REASONABLY and where I'd like to think people could be happy about it if they understood it properly (and not just happy because they got tossed a few dead insects to eat that day!) then I see that as a win-win.
When there were a lot less people on the earth, we could make things with the natural resources much better - and they lasted. But now that we have more to feed, we've become a throw-away society where the end products aren't as good and don't last as long and there's a lot more waste. So I think we need to be a bit more careful. Kind of like when you have only 1 or 2 kids, life is mostly manageable and you can mostly have what you want. Fast forward to 5 or 6 kids, and there are a lot more mouths to feed. There's not enough to go around like there used to be, so things invariably have to be rationed.
BUT, things don't have to be bad. You don't have to have LESS (and trust me, no-one is really happy getting less, especially growing kids!). If we could learn to farm more efficiently, patch our clothes instead of throwing them away, learn to recycle and re-use a lot more and just 'get' that we need to do this, and figure out how to work WITH Nature better, then we can still have most of what we want. We don't have to be rationed, as such. We just need to change our outlook a bit and be comfortable with recycled instead of 'new'. The problem is that people want to stick to what they know and change NOTHING and expect the result to be the same, when more people are still pouring in at the dinner table. There's just not enough dinner to go around. So I think people DO need to think about making positive changes in their life - but not the WEF changes coz they suck big time!
I think we should've been making big changes back in the year 2000. Instead, we soldiered on in our consumerism and now we buy crappy saucepans and cars that don't last and are half made of plastic and food that's not really 'food'. Now our 'education' is dumbed down significantly and future prospects look bleak.
So something DOES need to change, but it CAN and SHOULD be a helluva lot better than what the WEF has in mind!! Those buggers can go jump. They're a bunch of psychopaths.
If you want to go hang in a lecture theatre @ 7000ppm CO2, be my guest. Everyone will be pretty damned drowsy, though!!! Anything over about 2000ppm is quite problematic, but hey, feel free to just make up stuff and don't bother reading the science; that's OK Tony!!
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have any CO2 in the air. I know how the cycles work (I did Geology for my first degree). But from any of my comments anywhere on Substack, I have not said that we should LOWER the CO2 level. I have just said that we need to work in harmony with Nature. Humans evolved in lower CO2 levels, this is true, and I pointed out that at 1000ppm humans have issues (here's one quick link so you can see that a person's Information Usage & Strategy bottom out at just 1400ppm: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27662232/4892924.pdf?sequence=1 ). There's plenty of science to show that this occurs. Given we're just over 400ppm or something now, I'm allowing for a bit of time for us to get our act together!
You and others are welcome to think of renewables as a scam, but we've enjoyed a very efficient hybrid solar system + batteries for years. Unlike the sometimes sporadic electricity supply in the country area we lived, we had permanent power available to us. I don't think it's a scam at all. Plenty of sunlight + batteries = permanent power + happy campers!
The restart / build back better would more accurately be called
build big bigger !
Time seems to be standing still on every aspect but that may be the calm before the storm when another deluge of words deeds pain and pleasure will occur in unexpected ways Do other people feel the same about impending changes and hoping that they will be of better nature than some present ones
Last night Rick Munn went through https://saveourrights.uk/take-action/operation-overreach/ on tntradio.
What are the 10 equivalent bills in Australia we need to defeat?
Sounds like all the rest of the climate change green energy clap trap which is already proven a world wide failure, but no we will spend billions on it as a method to transfer the wealth of the nation and its peoples to the elite!
That’s what Covid was about, wealth transfer and control, and it is what climate change is about. Just the narrative change, nothing else.