Long before global warming, um, I mean climate change became a thing, the environmental movement was of the mindset that the world was at its most perfect state around 1820. Any deviation from that snapshot in time was an aberration. What most of these people today never appreciated was that around 1820, very few people had the wherewithal to contemplate things like their impact upon the environment. 99% of the world's population was striving just to exist.
The luxury of navel-gazing for the masses didn't occur until after WWII when mass middle class affluence became a thing. Environmentalism was, in fact, a luxury good.
And it's quite good that it was, because after moving far enough up the Maslow curve, the public was able and willing to divert resources to cleaning up the real messes that we had made.
But by the last decade of the 20th century, most of the big messes and the causes behind them had been addressed and those who lived for those causes needed something new. Also, the collapse of the Soviet Union and impending economic freedom in China had dealt a blow to collectivism. Progressivism needed a new boogieman to rally around. And CO2 was perfect for the cause. It's everywhere but you can't see it. But just by existing you're responsible for emitting it one way or another, which was bad and for which you should feel guilty, if not punished. Only self-appointed experts could tell you how bad it was and the bad things that would happen if you didn't heed their admonitions. If you didn't heed their advice, you were selfish and evil for wanting to destroy the planet. Women, children and minorities hurt the most. So for the last 30+ years, we've been going down the CO2 rabbit hole.
Some argued that "renewables" would be our savior. Others argued that rolling back the last 200 years of economic development would be better. The political establishment hovered somewhere in between. Never mind that the laws of physics and relatively simple economics limit what renewables can be capable of, and that most people today wouldn't last a week living the lives of our great-great grandparents.
Then a funny thing happened: The tech bro billionaires who have been for various reasons funding much of the warm-mongering agenda for the last 25 years discovered that AI was their future and that they would need lots and lots of cheap and reliable 24/7 power that windmills and solar panels would never be able to provide. The first brick in the wall to come down was last year when Bill Gates came out and said, "Never mind, forget everything I've been saying for the last 18 years. Climate change is not going to kill us". Now, the guys who funded the climate crisis are doing things unimaginable only a few years ago. (They're even going to restart 3 Mile Island, formerly the American symbol of the awfulness of nuclear power)
As funding for the agenda disappears practically overnight and subsequently the subsidized propaganda, only the comfortably affluent will continue to hang on for faith. Will they too move into an old Airstream trailer out in the middle of Wyoming’s Red Desert? I doubt it.
The refusal of the Greens to embrace carbon-free nuclear power reveals that they're interested in the process, not the result.
The comparison of climate activists to religion has been made many times, because it is a very valid comparison. It's all about faith, companionship and preaching the fallibility of man. But unlike religion, there's no real upside to the endeavor.
This fable reminds me of information that I obtained from a very astute professor at the University of Wyoming way back in the dark ages of the early 1970's, "A weather forecast is not a description of what will happen, its only an educated guess about what MAY happen."
It occurs to me that a symposium on witty snark is called for. I nominate Glenn Beaton, The Cowboy Professor and Andrew Klavan as featured provocateurs. The location will be Substack and a basement room behind the furnace and smelling of weed.
Meanwhile, at my house on the ridge behind Boulder, there is still snow to be found in patches, my furnace is running during the day, and sitting at my desk less than an hour ago, I heard a noise and looked up to see two Brown Bears peering into my window. On all fours. Otherwise known as Grizzly Bears (up North), these bears were massive, like 500lb massive, and seemed wholly unimpressed when I ran outside waving my arms and yelling.
The poor things were obviously displaced victims of climate change, scrounging for a new food source: me.
Hey Glenn! Seems you enjoy a bit of satire. Here's a short story about who has a stronger ancestral claim to a piece of land. It's called Who Owns It? (Reductive Regression). https://x.com/MarkSowersBooks/status/1823592469621280900
Long before global warming, um, I mean climate change became a thing, the environmental movement was of the mindset that the world was at its most perfect state around 1820. Any deviation from that snapshot in time was an aberration. What most of these people today never appreciated was that around 1820, very few people had the wherewithal to contemplate things like their impact upon the environment. 99% of the world's population was striving just to exist.
The luxury of navel-gazing for the masses didn't occur until after WWII when mass middle class affluence became a thing. Environmentalism was, in fact, a luxury good.
And it's quite good that it was, because after moving far enough up the Maslow curve, the public was able and willing to divert resources to cleaning up the real messes that we had made.
But by the last decade of the 20th century, most of the big messes and the causes behind them had been addressed and those who lived for those causes needed something new. Also, the collapse of the Soviet Union and impending economic freedom in China had dealt a blow to collectivism. Progressivism needed a new boogieman to rally around. And CO2 was perfect for the cause. It's everywhere but you can't see it. But just by existing you're responsible for emitting it one way or another, which was bad and for which you should feel guilty, if not punished. Only self-appointed experts could tell you how bad it was and the bad things that would happen if you didn't heed their admonitions. If you didn't heed their advice, you were selfish and evil for wanting to destroy the planet. Women, children and minorities hurt the most. So for the last 30+ years, we've been going down the CO2 rabbit hole.
Some argued that "renewables" would be our savior. Others argued that rolling back the last 200 years of economic development would be better. The political establishment hovered somewhere in between. Never mind that the laws of physics and relatively simple economics limit what renewables can be capable of, and that most people today wouldn't last a week living the lives of our great-great grandparents.
Then a funny thing happened: The tech bro billionaires who have been for various reasons funding much of the warm-mongering agenda for the last 25 years discovered that AI was their future and that they would need lots and lots of cheap and reliable 24/7 power that windmills and solar panels would never be able to provide. The first brick in the wall to come down was last year when Bill Gates came out and said, "Never mind, forget everything I've been saying for the last 18 years. Climate change is not going to kill us". Now, the guys who funded the climate crisis are doing things unimaginable only a few years ago. (They're even going to restart 3 Mile Island, formerly the American symbol of the awfulness of nuclear power)
As funding for the agenda disappears practically overnight and subsequently the subsidized propaganda, only the comfortably affluent will continue to hang on for faith. Will they too move into an old Airstream trailer out in the middle of Wyoming’s Red Desert? I doubt it.
The refusal of the Greens to embrace carbon-free nuclear power reveals that they're interested in the process, not the result.
The comparison of climate activists to religion has been made many times, because it is a very valid comparison. It's all about faith, companionship and preaching the fallibility of man. But unlike religion, there's no real upside to the endeavor.
This fable reminds me of information that I obtained from a very astute professor at the University of Wyoming way back in the dark ages of the early 1970's, "A weather forecast is not a description of what will happen, its only an educated guess about what MAY happen."
Clever writing and I especially loved the "Sandy Occasional Cortex" moniker!
This is a keeper for sure.
So glad you did not hold it back!
It occurs to me that a symposium on witty snark is called for. I nominate Glenn Beaton, The Cowboy Professor and Andrew Klavan as featured provocateurs. The location will be Substack and a basement room behind the furnace and smelling of weed.
There were moments during which I thought I was reading Ayn Rand. Best call-out: "Science by consensus".
Meanwhile, at my house on the ridge behind Boulder, there is still snow to be found in patches, my furnace is running during the day, and sitting at my desk less than an hour ago, I heard a noise and looked up to see two Brown Bears peering into my window. On all fours. Otherwise known as Grizzly Bears (up North), these bears were massive, like 500lb massive, and seemed wholly unimpressed when I ran outside waving my arms and yelling.
The poor things were obviously displaced victims of climate change, scrounging for a new food source: me.
Hey Glenn! Seems you enjoy a bit of satire. Here's a short story about who has a stronger ancestral claim to a piece of land. It's called Who Owns It? (Reductive Regression). https://x.com/MarkSowersBooks/status/1823592469621280900