Jump to content

Rippounet

Members
  • Content count

    2,756
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rippounet

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,026 profile views
  1. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    I beg to differ. To be completely honest, until recently I only had vague notions about just how bad things were. I thought of myself as well-informed... but something just hadn't clicked. I think that's why talking about it -even on an internet forum- does matter: it makes everyone feel directly concerned. Sharing information and concerns helps, if only a little ; if everyone does that on a regular basis it all becomes far less abstract. I believe in time this will lead to a form of peer pressure. I'm not talking about sanctimonious lectures... Just being aware that people around you are also concerned can lead to changes in behavior. In the long-run, I think Kalbear is right and that this will become a sort of religion. BTW I watched an expert today explain that as things stand we are heading for +5°C at least, which means vast areas of the planet will become uninhabitable in the next decades. This is something that most of us will probably see in our lifetimes and the geopolitical consequences are truly terrifying to consider. TBH on some level it's remarkable that we can carry on as if all this was not going to happen. We treat environmentalism as one issue among many, even though it is obviously the number one issue of our time. I dunno, it's weird and I feel dumb for taking so long to realize all that. I'd slightly rephrase that. I think we know what kind of society needs to be built, we're just not sure how to get there. Also, we tend to be overly focused on the obstacles and kinda forget that this is an obstacle in itself. Again, that's why discussions do matter. Instead of waiting for a top-to-bottom approach to be implemented (which, quite frankly, I don't really believe in at this point) one can find out about what's done on the grassroots level. It's small things today... But it's also a good idea to be aware that this is just a beginning.
  2. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    That's what I've been trying to say: best to have the discussion before everyone is in panic mode. Ideally politicians should each be running on a different plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and those without a plan have no chance of being elected at all. We're not there yet but it's still the time to draft these plans nonetheless. That's why I asked in the OP whether there was a "guide" to the transition, i.e. at least one detailed plan to implement it. Something like that. Thanks to the IPCC (GIEC is the French acronym, sorry about that) we know how much CO2 is emitted anually and we can determine some objectives. If I get this right, page 108 of the 2018 report tells us that we can only emit 420 billion tons of CO2 before +1,5°C becomes 67% certain... Since we cannot bring emissions to 0 we need to remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as we emit to at least have a neutral impact. Planting trees works, but carbon capture technology needs to be developed on a massive scale. And this is something my naive self cannot begin to understand. If we can dedicate billions to cutting taxes for the rich... Why not pour that money into carbon capture instead? France alone would have thrown more than 3 billion euros to make the nation carbon-neutral, the US 1,5 trillion dollars... I undersand that the technology exists but that it isn't profitable. This is insane. Profit doesn't matter here, each country should be dedicating a percentage of its GDP to building whatever is necessary to capture CO2 from the atmosphere. Once we have the means to reduce our carbon footprint... There are many carbon footprint calculators online, so basically each individual can know how much they may emit and decide by themselves how they want to use that "budget." But unless we find a way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere our starting point is an individual budget of... 0. And if the budget is 0 well, human activity should be limited to providing the most essential needs: food and water, housing, and some energy (but very little). Or am I missing something? You mean, apart from the fact that international trade is a major contributor of greenhouse emissions and yet keeps being encouraged by the governments of the most developed nations? I'm honestly not sure I understand your question. What could be done... Repeal free trade agreements, subsidize national industries to develop local production and short distribution circuits before slapping massive tariffs on foreign goods, shut down factories and power plants burning fossil fuels, kill petroleum industries, regulate agriculture (less fertilizers based on nitrous oxyde) and limit meat production, massively subsidize production based on recycling waste and progressively get rid of landfills, keep improving refrigeration technology (by financing research)... etc. Well yes, it's what I called earlier the "conundrum" of nationalism I believe. You want economies to revert to a national scale but you don't want the world to revert back to nationalistic ideologies...
  3. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    People have written that the problem with this crisis is that it's incremental which prevents people from doing anything about it, because the human brain is built to react to emergencies (as in, visible, immediate dangers). I'd say this is more or less the position you're taking on some level. So yes, people are likely to seek reassurance and be susceptible to "irrational optimism" as you put it. However I also believe that this very same fact also means that people have a kind of "threshold" after which they react very strongly in the face of danger. By that I mean they can react with radical ideas or violence, or a bit of both. In other words, I think what you say will be true until our brains start viewing global warming as a visible, immediate danger. At that point I think anything will be possible, including nuclear war between nations. Therefore I'd rather operate from the assumption that all options are already on the table, even if they are not as of right now. Because I also believe that if we look at this rationally, there is indeed a very specific socio-economic structure that emerges and that it will eventually be implemented anyway. What is not certain in my eyes is what the political framework surrounding it will be: a given socio-economic structure can be more or less fair on the individual level and more or less democratic generally speaking. Yes. Part of that propaganda will be explaining to people that there is no alternative to the disappearance of global free trade and mass long-distance transportation, among other things. Consequently the consumer society and tourism will almost disappear ... etc. The faster these unconvenient truths are part of the discussion and the easier it will be for the people to choose themselves what they may keep. For instance it's possible to start from a quota of CO2 emission per capita or per square km as was evoked earlier... Each individual or community would then be able to regulate itself. The alternative (dangerous in my eyes) is that said regulation is controled by a central authority deriving its legitimacy from the crisis. You make a decent case here. The question then becomes not whether the current socio-economic system is the cause for the environmental problem but whether it prevents its resolution. One caveat though: I'm not that hard to convince on this specific point because I benefit from the current system and feel guilty about it. The poorer one is and the less receptive they'll be to your arguments. There is a big difference between globalism (which can be synanymous with universalism in some contexts) and globalization. I hope I didn't erroneously use one term instead of the other at some point in the conversation. Globalism and global ideals are both desirable and necessary. Globalization, as in a global economic structure based on the market economy, is what we must endeavor to deconstruct. And yes, I'm aware this is something I have not bothered demonstrating, and probably something you actually take issue with. Quite honestly I need to do a bit of research there, but it's a rather uncontroversial point for people on the far-left.
  4. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    Yes. But ironically the less we talk about it and the greater the chances that the reconfiguration, when it happens (because it'd be surprising if it didn't happen at this point), will indeed be un-democratic and devolve into some kind of fascism/totalitarianism. Again, the idea here is that having the discussion now will prevent the power-hungry from using the environmental crisis as an opportunity. Then call me out on it. I'd rather be proven wrong. This is another point of disagreement. Given the fact that everyone (at least in the West) has access to the relevant information it's quite clear that radical solutions will be considered before it's too late. It's quite obvious that if I can predict that radical solutions will be considered others are actually considering them already. In fact I've read some interesting things about some minor eco-radicalist crimes just yesterday... Anecdotal at this point to be sure, but it's certain that these will become common very soon. Well, yes, technically I'm not disputing this. However the window is closing remarkably fast, way faster than I was expecting only last year. Which is why I'm interested in having a discussion about what comes next. All in all this is an interesting exchange and it helps me organize my thoughts but -no offense- I'm personally not that interested in having a discussion about whether the discussion is necessary. I'm starting from the assumption that the discussion is indeed necessary based on the latest GIEC report - and a number of other studies I've heard of. I understand you're not convinced about that and it's cool because I think anyone adopting this stance will automatically change their stance when we get +1,5°C anyway, if not before that. Call it a thought exercize if you wish, or a worst-case scenario analysis... We're talking at cross-purposes here because it seems to me you're the one making my point: you're very much demonstrating that the current global economic system IS the problem here. For instance if "national" cooperatives can't compete with Chinese products then Chinese products must be banned from the national market. The ecological imperative now trumps (ha ha) the dogma of the international "free market." Or, if the profit-making is impossible in the face of international competition then massive subsidies to national industries are necessary to ensure people consume locally-made products, even if it kills the idea of a "free market." The means are not that important (you can combine subsidies, regulations, tariffs, bans... etc), what's important is that "free trade," or anything in that direction thereof, is no longer compatible with the survival of our species. Those with the wealth are the ones with the most power. If their actions are not deliberate it's a form of criminal negligence then. But I think we have many reasons to believe their actions are deliberate. When someone like Trump speaks of global warming as a hoax while at the same time taking precautions against it to protect his property you know that it is not simply negligence or irresponsibility. And Trump isn't the smartest one out there. Very interesting, thank you. Price elasticity has been much on my mind of course. The problem being here -in economic terms- that -as you say yourself- some products have very low elasticity. And just today I was introduced to the rebound theory that says by forcing people to change their behavior you may inadvertly increase demand in quantitative terms, something which is a problem since we're talking of a global crisis. I'm very skeptical about the possibility of finding an algorithm for eco-taxes that could not only decrease demand in developed countries but also prevent demand from rising in developing ones... Which is why I've started thinking in terms of outright bans for some goods and services... Of course, that's not incompatible with the use of "eco-taxes" and price elasticity for products with high price elasticity... Your example of plastic bags is excellent in that respect. I'm tempted to say the very opposite. At this point we don't need to worry about the political viability of unpalatable measures, they will become viable eventually. Best to have such measures be chosen through elections than eventually be imposed on us... The electoral process at least guarantees that individual liberty and democracy survive the ecological transition - at least in part. Conversely if the measures have to be imposed by force there will be no such guarantee.
  5. Rippounet

    u.s. politics: sundowning on the american empire

    Says the guy who blames mass shootings on the decadence of modern society... As if Trump wasn't considered an ethno-nationalist and the Republican Party a far-right movement... I'm starting to like you.
  6. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    It didn't. Again, this is my main problem with your entire line of argumentation: it assumes we have time, when we really don't. The reality is that we have 8 years to prevent +1,5°C. Since nothing significant is being implemented right now, can we launch initiatives that will start bearing fruit ten years from now to prevent +3°C? According to this thread, so far we are counting on a visionary entrepreneur working on cars (Musk) and an activist schoolchild (Thunberg). So perhaps we could shift the burden of proof a little? What makes you think that the current socio-economic structure can deal with the problem exactly? What major global initiatives are supposed to give solid results in the next decade? What countries are massively subsidizing efforts to perform the ecological transition? Because no offense but thoughts and opinions are cheap. My main argument is, after all, that we're pretty much doing nothing at the moment, and that in some respects we're even making things worse. Trump, Macron, Bolsonaro... are real. So I respect optimism as a rule, but within the context of this discussion could you perhaps start justifying this optimism? Absolutely not. First because a global corporation will outsource that factory to China or any developing country where labor is cheapest, so you're polluting extra to bring the products to the place where they are bought and consumed. That's the huge problem of our current global commercial system. Next, national regulations vary so obviously factories will pollute more in some places than others. And finally, depending on who owns the means of production the quest for profit might affect the production itself: planned obsolescence is a reality and an environmental disaster. And then, of course, on top of all that, one can question whether the product in question corresponds to a human need or to a mere desire created by marketing in the first place... Or even whether the product was made using natural resources that should be spared, or whether the resources couldn't be put to better used... etc, etc, etc. I'm saying the wealthy and powerful are already flexing quite a bit of muscle to prevent us from solving this problem. As a matter of fact, I doubt they can do much worse than they already are. Re-read your own argumentation and ask yourself where it's coming from! And yes, just as there are inequalities within developed countries that lead to moral complications, the inequalities between countries are an even bigger problem, this is part of the point I'm trying to make. The world can't afford the 1,3 billion humans living in India to adopt a Western lifestyle, so if we want to convince India to do as much as possible to fight global warming the West must lead. From a certain perspective... Bolsonaro in Brazil is a PoS and his decision to wreck the rainforest is more than depicable, but on some level such a decision becomes more understandable if you take into account the fact that developed countries aren't doing anything significant to fight global warming... Again, this is an insidious attempt to shift the burden of proof. Eco-taxes have been tried and failed, therefore I don't have to prove that they cannot work, you're the one who has to prove that they can work. My entire point is that we're already at the point where we have to ban things outright. What we need is political parties with a popular mandate to vote laws that will immediately shut down all the activities that cause global warming. If said activities are linked to essential human needs alternatives need to be developed yesterday with massive subsidies. Speed is of the essence. There's zero reason to keep delaying at this point. The discussion right now should be about how to reconfigure the socio-economic structure within a decade. The fact that so many people talk of "the market," "eco-taxes," or whatever is now part of the problem. And to be clear... Thunberg was a nice, harmless face for eco-radicalism. I just don't see how the next face can be as harmless. Radicalism is not something I want to advocate at this point because there's still a chance to use the current political institutions to reform the socio-economic structure. But that window is closing fast and the political debate does not make me hopeful. So I think it's safe to predict that the next Thunberg is not going to be a cute schoolgirl with only her voice as a weapon.
  7. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    That's funny I very nearly wrote the very opposite: that pretty much all social movements start with something trifling, but what matters is what that little something symbolizes within the historical context, the vision of society that the movement thus defends and how much support that vision gets in the society at large. If you focus on the obvious accomplishments alone you will end up completely misreading history... Oh, wait... They already are accomplishing more than you believe. They forced the government to tread more carefully than it wanted, and they spawned several popular intellectuals (or thinkers) like Branco or Boulo who are theorizing opposition to it. I'm not sure how important this will prove. In my view this was the first French social movement that was explicitly against neo-liberalism as a whole (you had political movements before of course but nothing as spontaneous as the Yellow Vests). It could take some time for this to have any consequence, if any. The social movement could simply end up fueling political movements, thus translating in slight variations in electoral results... Or there could be other spontaneous and relatively apolitical social movements in the future (my bet at the moment)... Or a slight re-alignement of political parties could be attributed to them. It's a bit early - to say the least. But to reduce this movement to its few achievements would not do it justice. Oh, also, remember: it's not a minimum wage increase. If you want to simplify things it would be more accurate to call it a tax cut, since it's close to the US Earned Income Tax Credit. Possibly, not certainly. There are at least two scenarios that end humanity: - Global warming triggers a chain reaction that cannot be stopped. - Global warming happens so fast that we don't develop large-scale technological solutions to counter it and only small communities survive it. These small communities, in turn, slowly die out with time until nothing is left of of us but ruins for alien xeno-archeologists to explore. If this sounds familiar, it's the script of an episode of the Twilight Zone by George R.R. Martin.
  8. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    I think this is what we really disagree on. On some level I wish it were possible to leave the social justice side of things for another day, but I just don't see how to disentangle it from the environmental crisis. First because the dominant socio-economic structure was what brought us into this mess in the first place so it's only logical to call it into question, if only to ensure we don't keep making the same mistakes. Then there's the moral angle: it may even be immoral not to call it into question. This is a problem not just in itself, but also because it becomes harder to convince anyone not benefiting from the current system to make any kind of sacrifice for the environment. And finally, is it even possible anyway? As I said I don't trust the market. IIRC "cap'n'trade" policies weren't that much of a success were they? Generally speaking, "eco-taxes" of various sorts have mixed results, right? And aside from electric cars, what kind of "cool" high-tech solution will be sold to the masses to solve the problem exactly? I think it's useless to sell electric cars if you don't make "clean" electricity in the first place... Useless to recycle your waste if you still buy products that are made in China... etc. The whole consumer-based approach to the problem is, imho, just a clever marketing ploy to prevent everyone from actually solving the problem... Because solving the problem requires taking away the sources of wealth and power of the people currently profiting from the current socio-economic organization. Oh, absolutely. And as I wrote on another thread, it's part of the solution. Fighting global warming requires going back to localism, establishing shorter production and distribution circuits... etc. There's no way this isn't happening at the national level, quite simply because it's the one most of us are the most familiar with. We're ending up with this terrible conundrum that nationalism can definitely be positive if it breaks the back of international trade... But incredibly dangerous at the same time in a world wrecked by climate change. It's why I was talking of universalism... I was thinking of universalist ideals, as in, being aware that this is a problem that requires international cooperation, despite the fact that most problems will have tobe dealt with at the national level. Unfortunately I'm not exaggerating. I'm tempted to say I'm well-informed. There's a couple of French sociologists (Pinçon-Charlot) who spent a few decades studying France's super-rich. Their most important conclusion: the super-rich's best advantage is that they have class consciousness. They are constantly doing everything in their power to protect their interests, unlike... everyone else. Mentioning them is a bit pedantic of me though, because this is bloody obvious. The world is burning and neo-libeal leaders like Trump and Macron are focused on cutting taxes and destroying "big government." And we're being told that this is what matters... ? Dude, the rich are conniving, manipulative villains. If you have any doubts, now is the time to get rid of them. And all of this... I'm feeling a bit philosophical tonight (not even high), but isn't it weird that humanity finds itself having to solve pretty much all of its major problems or disappear? I'm glad Kalbear is the one who brought up religion, I would have merely talked of ideology, but there is no doubt that we're ending up talking about individual sacrifices in order to prevent the end of the world... And we need to build a fairer system (at least a bit fairer), think about our planet/home/vessel and the eco-system... Nations need to collaborate, set aside their differences... etc. It's almost as if the parameters of our simulation forced us to grow as a species. And I don't know if we'll make it, but for a while now I've been thinking that if we don't, well... that'll be fair. And weirdly enough, it seems that's the one thing people generally agree on...
  9. Rippounet

    u.s. politics: sundowning on the american empire

    Think harder about this one.
  10. Rippounet

    u.s. politics: sundowning on the american empire

    It's gun culture. You have lots of guns in Switzerland but no gun culture. You have always had lotsa guns in the US but gun culture, i.e. the adoration of guns, is a relatively new development. Think of it as a kind of death cult and it should start making sense. You can draw links with the importance of the military as well.
  11. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    That's what you'd like to think but the facts simply don't support that assertion. In fact, by your own admission, this view requires dismissing most of the demands that were eventually made by the movement which is... curious. It's like your perspective on this should be taken more seriously than... the protesters themselves? As regard numbers, they declined sharply before the government made any announcement (early December) and rose sharply again in January after all the announcements were made. The protests pettered out but the movement continues under various forms. You can simply, uh... read what people from the movement have said or written. Mind you I can't blame you for thinking this since it's true that the mainstream media also tried to characterize the movement this way. And sure, many yellow vests were probably as selfish as you want to say they were. But if it had just been about a fuel tax I doubt you'd even have heard of the protests...
  12. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    Oh my, wow, no. Just a combination of green parties (or parties with green agendas) winning elections with public awareness of the sacrifices green policies entail would be enough in my eyes. But even that may be too much to hope for at present. That's actually a complicated point to address. All in all I would tend to agree: democracies can work. Problem is we don't live in democracies. We live in semi-democratic regimes where the power is really controled by corporations and the super-rich that own them. Which means it takes -way too much- time for public sentiments to translate into political action. Many countries are moving away from redistributive/socialistic policies these days, which means it's more difficult to get people to agree to sacrifice elements of their lifestyle. A different way to put it is that a society built on individualism is unlikely to go along with "eco-taxes." Conversely, I'm tempted to think that dealing with global warming will entail building fairer societies. Altherion, Altherion... I appreciate our exchanges, but sometimes you make it difficult not to be snarky, y'know? The above is only partially correct. This was the narrative to be found in the right-wing American media (I also read Breitbart, remember?) which was eager to coopt the Yellow Vest movement. In doing so, they ommitted part of the story - on purpose, obviously. As I wrote here before, what started the movement wasn't just the eco-tax but the combination of the eco-tax (mainly imposed on the poor) and the abolition of the wealth tax (on the super-rich). When the Yellow Vest movement published its demands those included alternative proposals for the environment: - Taxes on maritime fuels and kerosene. - A national plan for house insulation. - Favoring shipping goods by rail whenever possible. - Subsidizing hydrogen cars (believed to be more eco-friendly than electric ones). - Favoring small business in city centers and villages to make it easier to shop by foot. - Stop outsourcing and develop/subsidize national production instead. Now of course there's a nationalistic vibe to some of these proposals, which is why Breitbart liked the movement so much (immigration was addressed as well). Breitbart of course didn't dwell on the proposals focusing on socio-economic justice: ending austerity programs (i.e. a love for the welfare state), properly funding public education, ending tax cuts (/subsidies) for the super-rich and corporations, capping salaries at 15,000€/month, progressive taxation for both individuals and corporations... etc. The gist of it was that the movement was very much eco-friendly, but demanded that environmentalism not be imposed on the poor/masses but on everybody. Which I think is quite reasonable. So it's funny that you brought up this movement because, well, if one wants to derive any sweeping generalizations from it, I'd say it is that many people will not accept market-based solutions. The market is what brought us this mess after all... Of course, on the other side you'll have people like Free Northman Reborn who'll defend individualism against collectivist movements to their dying breath. Don't wanna sound scary but individualism versus collectivism, nationalism versus universalism... you have the receipe here for a complete reorganization of the political paradigm... while still grounded in the age-old one. And we know how such conflicts have gone in the past: massive social conflicts and upheavals, apocalyptic wars (or threat thereof)... etc. Strap in folks, we're in for a rough ride.
  13. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    This is what I was alluding to. You're already behind and you don't even realize it. A few days ago Greta Thunberg made a speech in front of the French National Assembly explaining that we only had 8 years to act in order to prevent +1,5°C. That afternoon, that very same afternoon, the Assembly ratified the CETA, a free-trade agreement between Canada and the EU that everyone knows will make things worse. We're not just not making things better, we're actually making things worse. I think the best case scenario now is somewhere around +3°C and that's extremely optimistic. In actuality I'd say we're going to anywhere between +4°C and +10°C (+10°C of course being a way of saying "killing everything and everyone on the planet"). Now some representatives did wake up and refuse to ratify the treaty, even among the presidential majority. That's something. But it's too little, too late, and the treaty was ratified anyway. What this means is that our current institutions have already failed us. Look at the US: even if Trumpism magically disappeared and someone as radical as AOC became president in 2020 she'd have her hands tied behind her back by a Republican Senate. China? They're trying, but it's healf-hearted at the moment. I guess they do seem smarter about it than Trump but that's a low standard. And then you have Bolsonaro in Brazil. We're already talking about survival. This is not hyperbolic or hysterical, at this point this is cold hard fact. Thunberg has already failed. Musk won't be fast enough. The question each and every one of us should be asking themselves right now is: do we act or not? What is needed is a massive political transformation and we have less than a decade to achieve it. The Western lifestyle is already dead. What "trusting the market" means is making almost everything so expensive that only the wealthiest 10% (maybe 20% if we're extremely optimistic) can afford what you think of as the "Western lifestyle." Combine this with neo-liberal policies and with social mobility essentially gone you have a highly unequal stratified society in which power is held by the very corporations that are responsible for the mess in the first place and at least 80% of the population have to deal with its consequences on their own. It won't matter much that we still have supermarkets when we start suffocating because our massively polluted megalopolises become unlivable... Again, you should realize this has become the realistic outcome. We're already seeing it! I experienced it just last month! Well that depends what you mean by "worked." Of course totalitarian states are disasters from a humanist perspective, and there's doubt as to whether they can really endure in the long-run (though NK may be a counter-example... ). I'd posit that totalitarianism tends to work just fine if i) its ideology has the support of a significant proportion of the population from the start and ii) it delivers on its most important promises. Thing is, the way things are going, humanism is already dead. So why be so intent on protecting structures that have already failed? It makes no sense. People who'd rather be free than alive probably have no children. Not that I'm advocating for totalitarianism mind you, what I'm saying is that unless we have a political awakening, that will become the last resort. Pretty much, yes. Of course, spite apparently won't be the main reason for it. As you say, nations will attempt to buy food, or water, or oil... The prices will be too high for the buyers, trade negotiations will go south, and wars will begin. At some point, someone on the losing side will choose mutual assured destruction rather than slow painful death and/or foreign occupation. Today it may be, because we're only starting to feel the first effects of global warming. In a few more heat waves I'm pretty sure everyone will see this as perfectly realistic. When the heat rises and resources dwindle it will come down to a political fight between universalism and nationalism. And if nationalism prevails we'll all end with a mushroom cloud. That's why I opened this thread: if Kalbear's religion doesn't exist yet it's high time we created it.
  14. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    Yeah, on top of a pile of frozen ashes... I'm ok with giving power to an AI though, humans are fools. There's an Asimov story along those lines. Or was it K.Dick?
  15. Rippounet

    What should be done... about climate change

    No one is, it hasn't been theorized yet. So far it's mainly an insult thrown around by climate change deniers. The occasional etho-nationalist might claim to be an eco-fascist but that's only because they're too dumb to understand that "eco-fascism" by definition can only be inherently universalist - and globalist. Or perhaps they're smart enough to know that it's about to emerge and want to preemptively coopt and taint it. Or a bit of both (cognitive dissonance is common in ethno-nationalists). The term is scary and I'm only using it so that it's clear that dealing with global warming means rethinking our conception of individual liberty. Of course it doesn't have to be an ideology to be feared... it will only be if we don't act soon. It's the prime irony : the sooner we act and the less oppressive environmentalism will be. Otoh the longer we trust "the market" and the darker our future will be. It's up to us, really.
×