You know who funds the fossil fuel industry ?
Empires do, and wanna-be empires.
The means are in camo - empires and the pursuit of hegemony - behind the camo.
Churchill switched from coal to oil in 1913/14 for the British Empire’s NAVY - then Persia disappeared because they had the misfortune to sit on top of oil. The British Empire effectively nationalized the initial Anglo-Persian Oil Company by taking a controlling interest in it. The rest is just repeat repeat repeat.
Nothing much has changed except the starring actors.
We have a political economy where the cream rises to the top and is skimmed off.
With a cream economy, there’s usually but not always enough food left behind by the corrupt to go around. If there’s too much food, the rich skim more off.
Sometimes for a country, there isn’t enough food to go around. Assuming that rich people are near at hand, ordinary people riot until the rich give up enough (mostly) for the poor to live.
Every once in a great while the riots don’t settle things properly. In Soviet Russia 100% of the rich and noble were murdered. Much the same thing happened under the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. All intellectuals had a tough time after the Chinese Communist revolution. These can be remarkably good reasons why the corrupt people often take riots with complete seriousness.
Oh, climate! We need resources now. We need some of that cream on top (and there’s an enormous amount of cream these days in our technologically advanced society). They have all of the cream and they can dish some of it out. So ask them. Loudly.
They won’t do anything until it hits them in the bank account. By then, it will be too late.
Th picture accompanying this article is very revealing. What it reveals is that, just like warming temps, floods, horrific storms, and a growing refugee subculture, we have already accepted wild fires as a fact of life.
I has a feeling it would go like this. Humans ability to accept the horrible things going on around them as normal is incredible. Yes, we have now normalized global warming, and thus we are rationalizing out extinction.
Technology is not going to save us. Do you mean like …solar panels and wind turbines?? ? I hate fossil fuels…and do not want them to co tune at all… But…it takes 53 desiel trucks worth of cement to make the foundation for ONE turbine… and cement is the most CO2 intensive activity that humans do… …
The most CO2 intensive activities are corporate farming and the food distribution system, as well as the oil and gas industries, not making “cement”
The biggest single polluting entity in the world is the US military.
Do us a favor and check your “facts” first before spouting hyperbolic nonsense.
Besides, once you build a wind turbine it’s going to produce carbon neutral energy for decades. Would you rather have a coal plant pumping out carbon every day of its existence?
Winds of change are starting to blow.
World’s First Carbon-Free Ammonia-Fueled Vessel Planned for 2024
Yes…they are …but look up the stats on cement making. Do u think I made that up?? Please…check it …and…we are actually running out if sand…yes. do not laugh …that is a real issue. China…is not going to Australia for sand. Because it has destroyed too much of it’s own environment for that resource.
Look up this Gaurdian article… " Concrete…the Most Destructive Substance on Esrth.
Not fast enough .
More like a hurricane Roberto. I looked up your article - link below:
~https://gcaptain.com/worlds-first-carbon-free-ammonia-fueled-vessel-planned-for-2024/ (Just remove the tilda after pasting into your browser)
@theinitiate Ilooked up your article, link below:
@BigB A link below to the master list of carbon dioxide emissions, compiled by Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
~https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2011.ems (concrete is listed)
A more user friendly interface:
Fossil fuels are being recognized as toxic, but we have not really reckoned with the total impact of seven plus billion people going to ten on all natural resources, including water and sand, as the Guardian’s concrete article lays out.
Soon the new strategic resources will become more and more visible, say lithium and the rare earth metals - and they will become the bad guys.
But our divorce from the natural world is the real problem here - the IDEA that we can just switch gears and all will be well.
Closer to the truth is a poor analogy, I admit, but it is a spur of the moment thought, which I am very fond of (writing without thinking), having learned that being spontaneous is worth its weight in gold:
Not switch gears - park the car and get on a horse.
I read (in “Nature”, I think) about a new “living” concrete, involving microorganisms and gelatin. Would be a good thing in a GND.
What I find most interesting in all this, is that the genuine work toward a cleaner environment is usually in Europe. Seems they have no skin in the petrodollar game.
The European Union was the hope of Ronald Wright, who wrote “A Short History of Progress” and “What is America”, both searching explorations of why our world is the way it is.
I do my best to understand it all, and it seems to me that the answers so far are complex in the extreme, which is another way of saying I don’t understand it yet.
For the most part, Europe buys their oil, and they have been ravaged on their soil by two world wars this past century, and so have a different perspective on things. Also, up until recently, NATO freed them in large measure from the financial and moral worry of protection, the U.S. having been the lead in all that - same for Japan.
But the European Union appears to have fallen on hard times now.
One wonders if, like Australia, it is not the bigger factors which are now in the process of overwhelming everyone - ever increasing population and the scrabble for ever diminishing resources, set in a climate which is now unstable and likely to become unhinged, in a world of crashing biodiversity, to use a poor technical term - more appropriate, we are killing everything beautiful in a world which was always dog eat dog, but at least natural beauty surrounded all and a type of rough balance was possible in the altogether anomalous steadiness of the Holocene, the last ten thousand years.
Then there is the new - technocracy and its dazzling and in a way truly blinding novelty and capability. All of a sudden nuclear is here - we can visit the planets and the Moon. How can this be and yet the world we know, and its natural beauty, be being destroyed at one and the same time.
At least I wonder about these things ?
How can Trump and the religious right exist alongside NOAA and NASA & The National Academy of the Sciences ?
Is it possible that the answer is that they CANNNOT live together -and we have Abe’s ‘house divided’ ??
And that we are entering Chomsky’s dark age, if the religious right wins ?
For me the religious right went out with the Neanderthals. Lets face it, questions about why we exist are genuine, but they cannot be answered by stone age dogmatism and war manipulation propaganda as one sees with today’s Evangelical, for example.
The Devil quotes the Bible. (And in his interpretation, a careful contemplation, can reveal the hidden lie within.)
Yes…mokay… but…concrete has to ha e the ability to be used for many different things…sssooo this…new concrete…might be good for some thi gs…and not fkr others…AND so ethi g people tend to firget… when their is a "new " product like this…how soon and how many will be jumping on the band wagon right away…I doubt you are going to get many takers in this …IN TIME TO SAVE US from …climate apocalypse… you know? …and from my experience nk iij n research g many of these issues …new fangled green technologies. They usually end nk up being green wash…not truly what they say they are. We are out of time…for any real transitions…