Another assertion that crops up time and again is that climate change sceptics somehow believe CO2 pollution does not affect them but only affects poor people. Firstly, CO2 is not a polutant. Secondly, while pollution is a serious problem in some places it doesn’t affect sceptics as badly as it affects poorer people who vote Labour in Britain, Democrat in the USA, and socialist or leftist parties around the world – and if the left understood more clearly why this is so, they could be many times more effective at implementing the right environmental policies to deal with the problems.
Let me show you what I mean with the help of an American AGW sceptic site . Here’s a photo of Los Angeles on a clear day from 1990.
Smog like that used to be a huge problem, and that smog is not carbon dioxide (which is a colourless gas,) but probably a high concentration of nitrous oxide along with sulphates and other noxious gases. But today, Los Angeles looks like this:
The difference between those two photos is obvious. A lot of environmental policy changes were needed to get from point A to point B, and they worked. Mission accomplished.
Now, lets compare that to a photo of Chattanooga, Tennessee, from 1990:
And here’s Chattanooga today:
Other than 28 years worth of advances in camera technology, Chattanooga hasn’t changed much. In fact Chattanooga was considered one of the cleanest cities in America in 1990, and still is today. The environmental policies that were absolutely necessary in Los Angeles weren’t needed at all in Chattanooga.
One of the problems the left have is that their collectivist mindset demands one-size-fits-all solutions because they want everybody to be the same. However if you ask any fashion conscious woman how well do one size fits all solutions work in clothing, the answer will probably be too profane for a public forum.
One of the reasons socialism always fails is that for all their screeching to the contrary, socialists cannot abide diversity either at local or national national level. Thus we are seeing theEuropean Union falling apart as a result of its attempts to politically and financially integrate all its diverse member states (from industrial power house Germany, population 85 million,) to the island nation of Malta (population 350,000) with its fishing and tourism based economy.And we are seeing Britain (now out of the EU,) and other member states torn apart as divisions, between north and south, east and west, city and rural communities go unaddressed because the broad left, the neo – liberal, globalist consensus imposes national and global policies to problems that require local solutions.
The result of trying to pass national legislation to solve local problems is that you’re going to get a lot of push back from people who don’t have the problem you have. Moreover, they don’t want to spend money solving a problem they don’t have.
If I had, now how does the song go?, “A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound,” for every time I’ve read ridiculous statements like “Conservatives hate clean air and water” in response to their opposition to proposed environmental legislation that would shut down entire industries, I would perhaps have accumulated enough to take a holiday in some unspoiled island paradise in The Caribbean – maybe. But what for.There’s plenty of unspoiled countryside around where I live in north Lancashire and the air is clean. Yet less than 50 miles away away in Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds the usual big city pollution problems apply
How can the left reasonably expect someone who can look outside and sees a lot of green, clean air, clean water, and a sustainably-developed/ undeveloped/unspoiled/unpolluted woodland, hillsides and valleys, fast flowing streams in all directions that they should pay more in taxes to fix problems that in most places don’t need fixing?And how incompetent would a government have to be to spend shitloads of taxpayers money in order to provide a nationwide solution to a problem that only exists in a few localities.
How can you reasonably expect someone who has zero need for more regulations, more constraints on their freedom, which would be completely unnecessary where they live, to be happy to pay the extra taxes and accept the curtailment of personal liberty?
Think it through. If a footballer breaks a leg during a game you don’t sent the whole team to hospital to have the broken bone set in a cast. If a kid eats something rotten and gets a gut infection you don’t give the whole school antibiotics.
The way left wing thinking works is like the guy with the shittiest yard in the street telling everyone else they should be doing more to keep the neighborhood nice.
In reality, most of the country, my country, your country, any country, is perfectly fine from an environmental impact standpoint. You wouldn’t pay someone to mow your lawn if your lawn didn’t need to be mowed. You wouldn’t pay a mechanic to fix your car if it wasn’t broken. And you wouldn’t be happy if government regulators came and said “Listen, we’re going to raise your taxes because people with overgrown lawns and inoperable cars can’t be arsed sorting their problems out.”
So, on the same token, why should communities who already do a good job taking care of the environment where they live be taxed and burdened with regulations to solve a problem they don’t have?
If the left understood this and focused environmental policy at the state and local levels, instead of the national and global, they would not be facing collapse here, in the USA, Europe etc. Why am I writing advice for the left when I am a libertarian you might well ask. It’s because I know I’m safe, the left never learn because they can never accept they are wrong. They can never admit those who oppose them might have a better understanding of a problem. Even now, after suffering a crushing defeat in the General Election two months ago, the UK Labour Party cannot acknowledge that working class voters abandoned then because they are perceived as out of touch with ordinary people, obsessed with minority issues like gay and trans rights, with pandering to Islamic extremists and with exporting more British jobs to China, India and other emerging economies in pursuit of unrealistic and self destructive targets for reducing CO2 emissions.