He once worked as an advisor to a politician/businessman who commented in a climate science report for the UN, So he's an expert (self-titled) on the subject. The actual report does disagree with his bullshit, but knowing that requires you to be the sort of person who looks things up and not blindly trust Jordan Peterson, so no one in his target audience.
This very short video takes a look at some of Peterson's claims and actually starts off with the climate nonsense.
It’s all the same tribalist grift. See Dan Olsen’s “Building A Flat Earth” and Innuendo Studios’s’s’ “Endnote: the Origins of Conservatism.” We’re dealing with people who figure someone’s got to be king, and don’t mean things when they say words. They only understand the world in terms of interpersonal trust. Like there’s some innate total hierarchy, for everything, where being higher up means you get the power to decide what’s real.
And they think that’s all you’re doing, because they think that’s all there is.
I imagine it would be like owning all the watermelons in the world. Life would be grand until one day you find out there’s a cheaper and more delicious fruit that would grow anywhere there’s is land for it. Sure you could use your watermelon money to convert the entire business over to this new marvel but wouldn’t it just be easier to use your massive funds to suppress and destroy this new dangerous fruit until the world forgets about it? Besides you’ve already invested heavily in watermelons, it would just be bad business sense to let them go to waste. You might as well cash all your stock out before the inevitable collapse in the market for them. One could never keep the truth suppressed for long but might as well make as money as you can before the cat’s out of the bag.
it’s like that but you also knew that watermelons were destroying the world so that your children’s or grandchildren’s lives would be hell, and you went ahead anyway.
DeSmog revealed in March that the Conservative Party received £3.5 million from fossil fuel interests, high-polluters and climate science deniers last year alone.
For the confused, the article is talking about the Institute for Economic Affairs IEA, a neoconservative think thank focusing on free market economics, and not the more well known International Energy Agency.
I was actually confused why IKEA was contributing somehow forming a connection between them and large scale logging… until I read your comment and re-read the title.
Ya, I read a lot about disasters so when I first read it added an A and thought it was referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA) which studies and helps clean up after radiation incidents like broken or stolen radioactive medical equipment, reactor excursions, and other such incidents.
After I reread the acronym I was like I could swear the IEA was an energy agency that published a lot of stats on green energy and yet their talking about neoconservative economics?
At least think tanks like The (White) Heritage Foundation have somewhat memorable names and don’t use a legitimate organization’s name.
I’ve heard that before, too. I’m in the US, so I’ve got reason to be pessimistic about the reliability of the courts when it comes to holding wealthy people and corporations accountable.
I’m not going to get my hopes up for a reckoning until they are actually paying. Poor public opinion and isolated lawsuits are not meaningful until it’s costing the companies more than they earned via their decades of horribly irresponsible practices and outright lies. Anything less and it’s just a reduction in net profits, not an actual punishment.
Taking Exxon Mobil as an example: they apparently made $55.74B net income in 2022, a 141.93% increase from 2021. Even if these lawsuits were WILDLY successful and Exxon had to pay 20B in one-time settlements, that’s not even half a year’s net income and no deterrent.
Agreed. First the US should stop any form of financial support for the fossil fuel industry, then no longer issue drilling permits. In the same time more lawsuits and fines. Yeah the companies will raise their profits to remain flush with profit, but that will incentivize the transition to other energy storage systems for transportation, heating, etc.
Actual damage is many times larger than aggregate profits of all the oil companies. They’re in business due to control over government, rather than because of fair payment for the damage they do.
Lmao this garbage is vegan extremist propaganda, I have been to dairy farms, I know people that own and work in dairy farms, this video just shows the worst cases of abuse and portrays it as normal. It doesn’t even follow basic reason, like why artificially inseminate all these cows when a bull works just fine? All these clips of people assaulting and dragging cows around portrayed as normal? Seriously? Even abatoirs have animal wellbeing officers these days
It’s specifically the beef industry, which is simultaneously a huge source of methane emissions, a huge land user for cattle ranching, worse for human health, and, coincidentally, a significant US agricultural output.
While beef is a big aspect of the overall agricultural industry, cattle feed requires roughly 3/4 of all US grown crops. Meaning with less beef consumption, the total US agricultural output would increase. But veggies aren’t subsidized to the same extent as beef and corporations value profit over everything.
“The seven regions’ combined beef cattle production accounted for 3.3 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions (By comparison, transportation and electricity generation together made up 56 percent of the total in 2016 and agriculture in general 9 percent)”
3.3% of total USA emissions? In what planet is less 3.3% huge? I would say that we need food over lots of others industries. Also, apparently if you feed cattle seaweed, it reduces emissions. At about 1/4 I have read between 1/5 to 1/3. Look it up, this article says 80%+ which seems too high.
Anyway, wht about rich people, Bill Gates, Bezos, movie stars and politicians using private jets everywhere? How come that never really gets touched on or heaviy pushed in the news media? Which clearly use at least about the same.or more per capita. What about something as wasteful as the cruise ship industry?
Traditional diesel-powered cruise ships pump out massive quantities of toxic emissions, experts say. While the entire shipping industry emits “2.9% of globalcarbon dioxide emissions,” cruise ships “produce more carbon dioxide annually on average than any other kind of ship due to their air conditioning, heated pools and other hotel amenities,” The Associated Press reported, citing a study from the European Federation for Transport and Environment.
It seems weird that people do not focus on this but on an actuap food source. We do not need cruise ships and crazy private jets more. Not to say that Big corps are not assholes, big pharma, big oil, big sugar, all are, among others.
desmog.com
Hot