In recent years, climate change has become a primary focus for politicians and elites in affluent nations, particularly since the 1990s. This shift in attention came at a time of global peace and economic growth following the Cold War, with significant strides being made to combat poverty. In the capitals of Europe, it seemed that most of the world's significant issues had been resolved, leaving climate change as the final challenge to address. Advocates for climate action passionately supported the goal of ending reliance on fossil fuels, which had driven two centuries of remarkable growth. While acknowledging that this transition would cost trillions, they believed continuous growth would offset the expenses.

 

However, this perspective has proven naïve and narrow-minded. The notion that climate change was humanity's last remaining problem or that the world would unite to solve it has been challenged by time. Geopolitical and economic realities indicate that a rapid global shift away from fossil fuels is unfeasible. Many parts of the world never shared this single-minded focus on climate change. Despite significant progress, some countries still grapple with poverty, hunger, and disease. In nations like India, the primary concerns are job creation and economic development. Understandably, outside the most developed economies, climate change has always ranked low on the list of voter priorities.

 

Despite rhetoric from European and American leaders suggesting widespread support for "net zero" policies, this supposed unity quickly dissipates upon closer examination. For example, the destabilizing actions of Russia, Iran, and North Korea do not align with Western efforts to address climate change. According to McKinsey, achieving net-zero targets would require Russian climate policies costing $273 billion annually, nearly triple its military expenditure last year. Such commitments are unlikely to materialize.

 

The geopolitical challenges extend even further. China's growth has depended heavily on increasing coal consumption, making it the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Although renewable energy constituted 40% of China’s primary energy in 1971, it had fallen to 7% by 2011 as coal use surged. Since then, renewable energy usage has only risen to 10%. Strong climate action could cost China nearly a trillion dollars each year, hindering its path to becoming a wealthy nation.

 

The reality is that most of the world, including major economies like India and other emerging markets, will continue to prioritize economic growth, often through the use of fossil fuels. Russia and its allies will disregard climate change altogether, while China profits from selling solar panels and electric cars to the West, making only modest efforts to reduce its own emissions.

 

Rich countries, in their bid to enforce climate policies globally through carbon adjustment taxes, risk deepening global divisions. Despite all the hype, wealthy nations have decreasing funds available for climate initiatives. Annual per capita growth in rich countries has declined from 4% in the 1960s to 2% in the 1990s and now hovers just above 1%. These nations face increasing demands to invest more in defense, healthcare, and infrastructure, as geopolitical tensions and demographic shifts make achieving stability and growth more challenging.

 

Nevertheless, in Europe and North America, advocates from a period of relative calm in the 1990s continue to push for deindustrialization and economic hardship in the name of combating climate change, even in emerging economies. This approach is bound to fail, particularly because carbon reduction efforts must be sustained over decades and across changing political landscapes. The economic case for strong climate action was always weak and is now evidently flawed. As former UK energy and net-zero secretary Claire Coutinho noted, "you cannot heap costs onto struggling families to meet climate targets."

 

In Europe, voters are already turning against politicians who argue for reduced growth and prosperity to address climate change. With six to seven election cycles before mid-century, costly climate policies that could impose financial burdens exceeding ten thousand dollars per person annually in wealthy countries are doomed to fail. Such policies increase the likelihood of voters turning to populist, nationalist leaders who will abandon expensive net-zero targets altogether, leaving climate policy in disarray.

 

The world requires a more pragmatic approach. Instead of pushing for a premature transition from fossil fuels to currently inadequate green alternatives, we should invest heavily in green innovation. This strategy will eventually lower the cost of clean energy below that of fossil fuels, making the shift attractive even for emerging economies like India. Rich nations must stop hemorrhaging trillions on ineffective climate policies that benefit few, are ridiculed by many, and primarily enrich China. Allocating a fraction of these climate funds to green innovation can address climate change while allowing us to focus on other critical challenges of the 21st century, such as education, defense, and healthcare.

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-26

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

outside the most developed economies, climate change has always ranked low on the list of voter priorities.

 

The amazing thing about science is that it works regardless of whether you believe in it. No matter where climate change is "on the list of voter priorities", it's still happening.

Yes, attagonists for massive wars or threats thereof do not support climate change. Think of what Russia and North Korea could do to divert their murder against humanity to protecting the future of Earth for humanity.

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

Nevertheless, in Europe and North America, advocates from a period of relative calm in the 1990s continue to push for deindustrialization and economic hardship in the name of combating climate change, even in emerging economies.

Promoted by wealthy people that will never suffer from the policies they heap on the peasants. That they have been able to fool so many of the turkeys to vote for Christmas only goes to the skill of their propagandists.

 

As of now, IMO the policies they pursue are more about transferring wealth from the sheeple to themselves and their cronies, and little to actually mitigating climate change, as if it were even possible to do so.

 

If they were more honest ( IMO they are not honest  ) they would be spending on protection from a changing climate instead of pretending they can actually change weather to something else.

7 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Yes, attagonists for massive wars or threats thereof do not support climate change. Think of what Russia and North Korea could do to divert their murder against humanity to protecting the future of Earth for humanity.

Just them .

 

How about the country that spends more on war than most other countries put together.

18 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

 

The amazing thing about science is that it works regardless of whether you believe in it. No matter where climate change is "on the list of voter priorities", it's still happening.

LOL. If the politicians actually believed the science would they not be doing more than they are, as what they are doing is insignificant, IMO?

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

Such policies increase the likelihood of voters turning to populist, nationalist leaders who will abandon expensive net-zero targets altogether, leaving climate policy in disarray.

If they do so it will IMO be because the politicians are a bunch of hypocritical numpties that prioritize retaining their seats at the taxpayer trough over doing anything effective, affordable and acceptable.

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they do so it will IMO be because the politicians are a bunch of hypocritical numpties that prioritize retaining their seats at the taxpayer trough over doing anything effective, affordable and acceptable.

How did that work out in the latest election on which you were commenting on?

10 hours ago, Social Media said:

Despite significant progress, some countries still grapple with poverty, hunger, and disease. In nations like India, the primary concerns are job creation and economic development.

And also in Thailand.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the politicians actually believed the science would they not be doing more than they are

 

Absolutely, not!

 

There is some logic to some of what is stated here and then there is an awful lot of nonsense and an awful lot of shirking of responsibility. 

 

The sceptic will argue that anything we do could not possibly influence the climate, or effect the atmosphere. The planet is simply too large, and the population is too small to have any effect. Let the ships dump whatever they want into the ocean. The ocean is simply too large for anything we do to damage it. This frees them to buy as many plastic bottles as they please, consume plastic like mad, drive filthy diesel vehicles, and behave as if nothing effects anything. 

 

It's not us. It is just a cycle. We are not responsible! Leave us alone with our madness. 

 

It is all about the issues for me. Biden represented  concern for the environment. So does Harris and the Dems. The GOP does not. His administration immediately stopped drilling, fracking and rlthe raping of national lands. All old growth lumber clearing on many of those lands ceased. That is a very big deal for me. Also, oil exploration in the Arctic, an area infinitely more difficult to protect in the event of the eventual massive spill, that will certainly happen, ceased. The recent spills have proven how unregulated and unprepared many aspects of this industry are, with regard to quality control of rigs, and spills, and the consequences of such cavalier and arrogant behavior toward the environment. 

 

The public lands are sacred to me, and the dems do a far better job of safeguarding them. Trump almost got away with selling off timber, mining, and oil rights, on tens of millions of acres of pristine wilderness. Thankfully he was blocked by the dems, and one of the first things Biden did, was to reverse the heinous and nearly catastrophic "orange stain land rape and abuse plan". Harris will likely continue to make an attempt to protect the environment, the national forests and the wilderness areas, things that Trump is against. He wants to plunder and pillage, just like in his last term.

 

53 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

There is some logic to some of what is stated here and then there is an awful lot of nonsense and an awful lot of shirking of responsibility. 

 

The sceptic will argue that anything we do could not possibly influence the climate, or effect the atmosphere. The planet is simply too large, and the population is too small to have any effect. Let the ships dump whatever they want into the ocean. The ocean is simply too large for anything we do to damage it. This frees them to buy as many plastic bottles as they please, consume plastic like mad, drive filthy diesel vehicles, and behave as if nothing effects anything. 

 

It's not us. It is just a cycle. We are not responsible! Leave us alone with our madness. 

 

It is all about the issues for me. Biden represented  concern for the environment. So does Harris and the Dems. The GOP does not. His administration immediately stopped drilling, fracking and rlthe raping of national lands. All old growth lumber clearing on many of those lands ceased. That is a very big deal for me. Also, oil exploration in the Arctic, an area infinitely more difficult to protect in the event of the eventual massive spill, that will certainly happen, ceased. The recent spills have proven how unregulated and unprepared many aspects of this industry are, with regard to quality control of rigs, and spills, and the consequences of such cavalier and arrogant behavior toward the environment. 

 

The public lands are sacred to me, and the dems do a far better job of safeguarding them. Trump almost got away with selling off timber, mining, and oil rights, on tens of millions of acres of pristine wilderness. Thankfully he was blocked by the dems, and one of the first things Biden did, was to reverse the heinous and nearly catastrophic "orange stain land rape and abuse plan". Harris will likely continue to make an attempt to protect the environment, the national forests and the wilderness areas, things that Trump is against. He wants to plunder and pillage, just like in his last term.

 

I totally agree with you.  Clean up our environment, get useable methods for cleaning up all the plastics thrown out.  Clean up industrial spills into waterways.  Clean up municipal water from antibiotics and other drugs that we are now consuming by drinking tap water.  Industries must be responsible for what they belch out one way or another into the environment.  
Humans (and animals) are consuming plastics from everywhere, drugs peed out from people into the sewage systems are not cleaned up, no new method has been developed for doing so.  We have tons more toxins in the recent 20 years, without any plan how to keep this from recycling into our bodies.  This makes us unhealthy and sick.  
 

If we could do this first, it would be a good start.  Man is a very arrogant creature believing he can change the climate and not our environment.  From a 💰 point of view, I believe there could be lucrative investments into this area rather than having useless machines sucking up CO2 which actually greens our planet and makes happy plants. However getting industry to sort out their disposals, overlooked or ignored by agencies will not be easy.  Corruption is endless.  

Well Thailand does not have a carbon tax like Canada, where every litre of Gasoline, or petrol sosts

more. I think that all countries sould do a better effort of desposing plastic waste better.  The top 5 countries that

spew CO2 into the atmosphere should be paying more for doing that. Russia, China, India ME, even USA, should be on this list.

 

China is the largest air polluter but it also has the fastest rate of registration. That is it is growing back forests that will help absorb CO2. This is not in itself going to solve climate change but as others have mentioned, we may not be able to afford to clean the environment the way things are going.

Expect a blank look when you ask any climate warrior about Milankovitch cycles, solar wind, solar flares, Solar maximums, and Solar minimums. And I've yet to meet anybody (especially climate nutjobs) who can actually tell me that Co2 constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere.

 

Biggest scam and money grab since the Praetorian Guard. 

Edited July 27, 20241 yr by Gsxrnz

climate change excuse to TAX people, but does it do anything?

On 7/26/2024 at 8:17 PM, spidermike007 said:

Harris will likely continue to make an attempt to protect the environment, the national forests and the wilderness areas, things that Trump is against. He wants to plunder and pillage, just like in his last term.

Harris, IMO, will do whatever makes her likely to win a second term. If she has any environmental credentials they have not been referenced yet, so likely not.

 

Trump has never pretended to care about the environment, unlike many politicians that spout the mantra and do the opposite- cue Obama and his beachside property, and Gore with his private jet.

 

I'm one that says nothing we humans do will make any difference whatsoever re climate, but I'm all for not polluting and behaving like responsible guests on Planet Earth, rather than stealing everything we can.

If we end up exterminating the human race, it'll be  all our own fault.

Edited July 27, 20241 yr by thaibeachlovers

18 hours ago, john donson said:

climate change excuse to TAX people, but does it do anything?

No.

On 7/26/2024 at 1:08 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Just them .

 

How about the country that spends more on war than most other countries put together.

And in the process generates exorbitant co/2 output unaccounted for in measurement of national comparisons.

This article is from the Telegraph known in the UK as the Torygraph as it is an ultra right wing publication that has endorsed the right wing Conservative party at every UK election since 1945.

 

“Climate change

The Telegraph has published multiple columns and news articles which promote pseudoscientific views on climate change, and misleadingly cast the subject of climate change as a subject of active scientific debate when there is a scientific consensus on climate change”

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Saturday that the global transition to a low-carbon economy requires $3 trillion in new capital each year through 2050, far above current annual financing, but that filling the gap is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century.

 

Yellen said in Belem, Brazil's Amazon gateway city, that reaching net-zero emissions goals remained a top priority for the Biden-Harris administration and this would require leadership far beyond U.S. borders.

 

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/yellen-says-3-trillion-needed-annually-climate-financing-far-more-than-current-2024-07-27/

 

That's $78,000,000,000,000 by 2050.  Then, adjust for inflation...

 

No comment...

 

Edit:  Someone please check to see if I got the zeros right.  Hard to count that high.

 

3 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

This article is from the Telegraph known in the UK as the Torygraph as it is an ultra right wing publication that has endorsed the right wing Conservative party at every UK election since 1945.

 

“Climate change

The Telegraph has published multiple columns and news articles which promote pseudoscientific views on climate change, and misleadingly cast the subject of climate change as a subject of active scientific debate when there is a scientific consensus on climate change”

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph

 

Attacking the messenger is a common tactic among those who are unable to make a cohesive argument against the content of the message.  

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Attacking the messenger is a common tactic among those who are unable to make a cohesive argument against the content of the message.  

 

I was pointing out that the Telegraph has a reputation for bias on this topic and it’s not just me saying it.

 

You want a “cohesive argument against the content of the message”?

 

 

On 7/26/2024 at 3:34 AM, Social Media said:

Advocates for climate action passionately supported the goal of ending reliance on fossil fuels, which had driven two centuries of remarkable growth. While acknowledging that this transition would cost trillions, they believed continuous growth would offset the expenses.

 

“Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022 or 7.1 percent of GDP”

 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281#:~:text=Globally%2C fossil fuel subsidies were,warming and local air pollution.

 

Cut subsidies to fossil fuels, to fund the transition.

 

Implement carbon pricing to reflect the true cost of the damage that energy does.

 

 

Even without carbon pricing Renewables are the cheapest form of energy.

 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Harris, IMO, will do whatever makes her likely to win a second term. If she has any environmental credentials they have not been referenced yet, so likely not.

 

Trump has never pretended to care about the environment, unlike many politicians that spout the mantra and do the opposite- cue Obama and his beachside property, and Gore with his private jet.

 

I'm one that says nothing we humans do will make any difference whatsoever re climate, but I'm all for not polluting and behaving like responsible guests on Planet Earth, rather than stealing everything we can.

If we end up exterminating the human race, it'll be  all our own fault.

After all it's not as if we have nine alternative planets that we can move to, once we foul this one to an irreversible extent. 

39 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

 

I was pointing out that the Telegraph has a reputation for bias on this topic and it’s not just me saying it.

 

You want a “cohesive argument against the content of the message”?

 

 

 

“Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022 or 7.1 percent of GDP”

 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281#:~:text=Globally%2C fossil fuel subsidies were,warming and local air pollution.

 

Cut subsidies to fossil fuels, to fund the transition.

 

Implement carbon pricing to reflect the true cost of the damage that energy does.

 

 

Even without carbon pricing Renewables are the cheapest form of energy.

 

 

Cutting fossil fuel subsidies would put the price fluctuations back on the consumer as that is what they are there for.   Many old people who could not afford to heat their homes in winter would die.  So then you say "lets give the people some money to heat their homes in winter then" and you are back to square 1 as you would be subsidising the fossil fuels again.   

The West is tying one arm behind its back and the citizens will be the ones suffering. 

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

Cutting fossil fuel subsidies would put the price fluctuations back on the consumer as that is what they are there for.   Many old people who could not afford to heat their homes in winter would die.  So then you say "lets give the people some money to heat their homes in winter then" and you are back to square 1 as you would be subsidising the fossil fuels again.   

 

In Thailand Gasohol and diesel have been heavily subsidized as well as electricity which is mainly produced by burning gas. Prices of fossil fuels have fluctuated widely due to volatility on world markets. The Government cannot afford to continue the subsidies.

 

Electricity in Thailand should be produced locally using solar and wind rather than importing fossil fuels.

 

Last month over 13% of new vehicles purchased here were fully electric this trend should be encouraged and supported using fossil fuel subsidies then Thailand would be energy independent and the air here might be breathable 

 

On 7/27/2024 at 7:51 AM, Purdey said:

China is the largest air polluter but it also has the fastest rate of registration. That is it is growing back forests that will help absorb CO2. This is not in itself going to solve climate change but as others have mentioned, we may not be able to afford to clean the environment the way things are going.

Link?

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Link?

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092915/5-countries-produce-most-carbon-dioxide-co2.asp#:~:text=China tops the list of,its gasoline-fueled transportation industry.

 

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

 

https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/remotesensing.0006#:~:text=After a long history of,the early 2000s [6].

 

https://brushclub.us/blogs/green-living-blog/top-5-countries-with-the-highest-level-of-reforestation

Lots more....

54 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

n Thailand Gasohol and diesel have been heavily subsidized as well as electricity which is mainly produced by burning gas. Prices of fossil fuels have fluctuated widely due to volatility on world markets. The Government cannot afford to continue the subsidies.

 

Electricity in Thailand should be produced locally using solar and wind rather than importing fossil fuels.

 

Last month over 13% of new vehicles purchased here were fully electric this trend should be encouraged and supported using fossil fuel subsidies then Thailand would be energy independent and the air here might be breathable 

 

This article is about the west and its self destructive path to impoverish itself with its hare brained net zero policies, which will only serve to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, whilst making not one iota of difference to the climate.  Thailand is not on this path.