The truth or falsity of climate change is irrelevant. Ask the question, “Will green energy sources be able to maintain the human/machine bond?”
Solar and wind power may not be sufficient to save us. The safer, more efficient nuclear power plants may not be built fast enough to rescue us from the disaster to come in ten years or even a few hundred years from now.
Nonetheless, green energy does not come without danger. The production of any power source requires industrial pollutants. The dismantling of even green power sources will never be a zero-emission game.
To sever man from machine now will be met with resistance and increases in human morbidity. To turn down a degree increase in global temperature, to stop fossil-fuel pollution, to lighten the load of garbage in landfills and oceans; all this may never be addressed without a drastic cut in human population growth and the corresponding love and need for machinery.
Zero Population Growth is important to the Green New Deal; Negative Population Growth might be essential. New laws to enforce NPG may be necessary and horrifying.
Our economy depends on consumerism. To consume things both necessary for human life and superfluous to human survival. Yes, Tiffany and Gucci must go. But travel to a modest family cabin or the cheap, throw away clothing purchases of teenage girls must become a thing of the past. A destroyed economy is a Green future.
Pain to the right of us, pain to the left of us, caught in the middle again.
“You better travel to Alaska while you can still see the glaciers. Climate Change is destroying them.”
That is what I heard from someone after she returned from an Alaskan excursion.
Air travel, with its voracious appetite for fossil fuel, contributes to climate change. I prefer the term People/Machine/Stuff (PMS) Disaster.
Am I missing the point? Why see the glaciers when the act of seeing them begins to destroy them? Dramatic increases in the human population, the machine population, and the overproduction of stuff in general got us into this environmental mess. Perhaps only dramatic decreases will stop the glaciers from melting.
But imagine the misery inflicted by a systematic decrease in people, machines, and stuff?
Do nothing = pain. Do something = pain. We are living “Catch-22.”
Less People, less Machines, less Stuff. The Democrats are saying exactly what I have been thinking and writing about concerning the real issues behind climate change.
New and improved sources of energy may or may not replace the old unsustainable and dirty energy sources of today. The end of these old sources will leave people in a polluted and literally a powerless position. Technology both gives and takes life away.
No matter what the world does to prevent climate change, or the PMS Disaster as I see it, pain and suffering is in the future.
I ask for no straw to come with my drink at a restaurant. More often than not, the wait staff automatically lays down a straw and rushes away before I protest.
If plastic is destroying this planet, why keep any of it? A twelve-year window to prevent the end of the world calls for drastic measures. Get rid of plastic straws and all things of their ilk.
What difference is there between straws and IV tubing?
Hospitals use miles of plastic tubing to keep people alive every day. Straws in our drinks seem frivolous, but can we differentiate between these two things that contain the same material of doom? A global catastrophe knows no distinction.
Choices must be made. Either the PMS Disaster is real or not. Maybe we can save only the best of the best in the human race with IV tubing. The sticky point is who decides?