Existing Existentially
Today’s newspaper headline: “What can you do to fight climate change?”
A “fight” implies a competition or battle. This is presumably a fight, in which the referenced “you” could conceivably emerge victorious. However, a metaphorical “war” against “Climate Change” is a losing proposition from the outset. Change is inevitable in life particularly with something as complex as climate. Waging war against such a nebulous and indomitable foe is an exercise in futility if not a recipe for disaster.
What is our end game? What would be the criteria for “victory”? No climate change? What is our exit strategy? Or, do we prefer a perpetual state of “war”?
The more appropriate question is, “What can you do to ADAPT to climate change?”
No matter how dire the predictions or how threatening the tone, the wishful thinking of the Paris Climate Accords is never going to come to fruition. Human beings are not going to “stop” industrial development, as if stopping industrialization would stop Climate Change. Industrialized nations are not going to voluntarily handicap themselves and simply surrender comforts and wealth to others. Developing nations are unlikely to be content with the status quo, and they will seek the comforts and benefits, which can be derived from industrialization.
So-called “Green Energy” may be among the many forms of adaptation, but it is not a panacea. Many of those, who promote such “new ideas,” are merely trying to cash in on a forced migration to alternate forms of energy.
They define existing energy sources as inherently “dirty” and “bad.” The same mindset applies to anything that does not directly benefit them and everything that they deem excessively beneficial to someone else. They present their preferred alternatives, in which they have a vested personal if not financial interest, as fundamentally “clean” and “good.” Their arguments are couched in terms of “morality;” however, many persons not coincidentally deem most moral that which is most beneficial to themselves.
Yes, there may be a fight. In fact, there may be war, and many, who promote “change” and even “revolution” are little different from warmongers and profiteers. This is but another “crisis” to be exploited. In the words of Obama’s former Chief of State, Rahm Emanuel:
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
What do they want to “do”? Well, they tell us. AOC’s former Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, told the Washington Post in 2019:
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. … Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? … Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
The desire to “change the entire economy” can be summarized as taking (by force) from disfavored classes, who are deemed unworthy, undeserving, and excessively privileged, and redistributing wealth, resources, and privilege to those more favored among self-serving classes of self-declared “victims.” Those “less privileged” comprise a numerical majority of earth’s inhabitants and an electoral majority domestically. To much of the rest of the world, America is the “One Percent.”
To the question, “What can YOU do to fight climate change?,” those, who seek socio-economic change, likely would answer: “YOU can sit down, shut up, and do exactly as you are told.”
At that point, it may to late do decide what side of the “fight” you are on. It may be too late to defend yourself much less fight to advance your interests. It may be too late to discover the true objectives of the war to be waged, and the revolution almost certainly will be raging all around you.
Climate Change is presented as an existential threat, but fighting for your own survival (literal or metaphorical) may be an issue long before the climate is likely to destroy you.
