Politicians are not interested in temperature of the planet, they are taking the temperature of the electorate.

Politicians are not interested in temperature of the planet, they are taking the temperature of the electorate.
And before you jump to any conclusions, this is not one of those anti-political class rants. It is merely saying that all these folks gathering in Paris are only interested in what you and I think about what they are doing, not about what the consequences of their decisions may be for global temperatures or anything else.
When I get a survey which asks me whether I think that a commitment by Canada to some more aggressive climate change goals by 2020 will "bolster Canada's reputation in the World; lower it, or not make any difference" that tells me that things have become politicized beyond any common sense. The right question to ask was whether I think that actions by Canadian government will make any difference to global climate but that is clearly not what Canadian leadership is interested in - they are interested in their status. And they do so because they have correctly taken the temperature of you, the electorate.
The misplaced white guilt of developed nations has caused us to not understand that self-flagellation is still self-centeredness. We are still thinking first and foremost about ourselves and how others see us. The right actions are those that you do when nobody is looking. Not those that follow public opinion polls.
The nutty spectacle of all these people protesting and supporting everything that is possible to support and protest against around the world is just a symbol of how irrational all of it has become. Holding signs "No Plastic Bags" in Chile. Really? A good test of whether something is an important issue is to conduct a thought experiment of "what if that problem is fixed tomorrow"? If we had no plastic bags anywhere in the world as of Wednesday, would the World be much better off? Somewhat better off in a meaningful way? Anything at all noticeable if it came to pass? No, nothing, nada. We just wouldn't have plastic bags but the oceans would still be 99.9999999 & the same, global climate would be the same and all of the world's landfills would be 0.2 % smaller in 10 years. And that is worth going out to the streets carrying a sign for?
If they really focused on the most important issue of the day in Paris, and I risk this being totally not noticed by those who have short attention span or simply do not like what I have to say so they stop reading after the first paragraph, they would be talking in Paris about how to stop ISIS.
Because let me give you a prediction - once ISIS figures out that people seem to pay more attention to environmental damage than they do to beheadings, they will do just what they did with destroying historical sites and art in the areas that they control. They will give an entirely new meaning to the term "environmental terrorism". What they want is your attention and they will do anything to get it. And if you did not react sufficiently to beheadings and them taking a pick axe to statues, maybe you will react to some horrific environmental damage.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Do we really "deserve to be happy"?

Happiness is not an evolutionary prerequisite. Nothing in the process of evolution selects for happiness (or lack thereof). Evolution cares about survival of the species and no advantages are conferred upon happy as opposed to less so individuals. The "happiness industry" which convinces people that they "deserve to be happy" and in fact makes them miserable because they are not as happy as they "deserve to be", is a recent phenomenon. When cave men brought home the antelope and everybody ate it around the fire, there was no cave man equivalent of Dr. Phil walking around trying to asses the degree of happiness of the group. In the Middle Ages, happiness was defined as not having the plague. It is only in recent times that the "entitlement of happiness" came about and as more of the basic needs were no longer an acute issue, mankind went searching for the next thing that will make them miserable. Total bliss or complete happiness is not a default
Read more

"Sex Addiction" - give me a break ...

I am getting a little bit tired of the whole "sex addiction" racket out there. Sex is not an addiction any more than skating backwards is. It may feel good to have air blowing up your behind (or to have sex) but that does not an addiction make. And if you feel you are addicted, just stop skating backwards! The problem is that calling it an "addiction" trivializes addictions which are real and substantive. The operative word being "substantive" meaning there is a substance involved (although this may not be the correct usage of the term substantive). With real addictions be it alcohol, drugs, nicotine or prescription drugs, there is always a substance at work which makes us feel a certain way ("good" or at least "better" than without it). From that emerges an addiction to that "feel good effect" and in that sense, yes, food can be an addiction also but sex cannot. Of course sex feels good, it is supposed to and without it feeli
Read more

Things we can do by ourselves, and things that we can't

Making a list (and not checking it twice) of things one can do by oneself and those which one can only do with somebody else. Please feel to contribute. Things one can do by oneself - read, run, swim, meditate, eat, hike, chop wood, ski, drink, dance, sleep, play chess, cook, sing, practice any number of sports, feel guilt (as opposed to shame). Things that can be done only with participation of at least one other person - hug, kiss, have a conversation, get or give a massage, shake hands, play any number of sports, entertain somebody else with one's dance, singingor writing, feel shame (as opposed to guilt).
Read more