Explaining the Climate Change Myths Liberals Employ

There is another way.

Yesteday was another Ah-Ha day. A friend sent a link to Erik Lindberg's '6 Myths About Climate Change that Liberals Rarely Question'. It's an excellent assessment of our intertwined environmental and economic predicament from the science/engineering to the psychological. Throughout Lindberg's article he uses the true cost of meaningful change to anchor his argument very well.

Lindberg understands that it is high-consumption lifestyles are responsible for situation saying, " The comforts, luxuries, privileges, and pleasures that we tell ourselves are necessary for a happy or satisfying life are the most significant cause of global warming and that unless we quickly learn to organize our lives around another set of pleasures and satisfactions, it is extremely unlikely that our children or grandchildren will inherit a livable planet.  Because we are falsely reassured by liberal leaders that we can fight climate change without any inconvenience, it bears repeating this seldom spoken truth.  In order to adequately address climate change, people in rich industrial nations will have to reduce current levels of consumption to levels few are prepared to consider.  This truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it."

Sweet music to these old ears.

Lindberg goes on to say,  "...fossil fuels are burned in the greatest quantity by wealthy people and nations and for the products they buy and use.  The larger the reach of a middle-class global society, the more carbon emissions there have been.  While conservatives deny the science of global warming, liberals deny the only real solution to preventing its most horrific consequences—using less and powering down"

Erik's assessment is great, but as Albert Bates said yesterday in 'RevolucĂ­on' about Klein and Brand's recent efforts, it's "long on dirty laundry and short on detergent" exactly what The Mud Report has called the 'how to' section recently, but so much better poetically. [sorry Alan, i'm stealing it immediately].

Victor Hugo said, "An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." The idea whose time has come is the detergent. The chasm all of these distinguished yet detergent challenged authors can't cross is the fact that almost no-one is willing to voluntarily downgrade their lifestyle.

When you consider that the only yearly decreases in GHG emissions ever recorded have come during massive recessions and that the banksters everywhere are spinning fear, it seems to me mild-deflation leading to mild degrowth which doesn't need voluntary choosers could, like Tinkers to Evers to Chance, see our current consumer demand reduction situation move on to mild deflation, degrowth, demand re-direction from crap to crops, wants to needs, to a re-localized economy, to a hands on, organic, GHG sequestering agriculture.

There is another way, a bottom up permaculture way and a new form of government, dromocracy - from the Greek word "dromos," meaning the street.