Climate change denial: How the agents of denial will cause de-industrialisation

I’ll most likely avoid blogging over this coming weekend (weekend is family time), however, I feel compelled to end this week by repeating myself ever more bluntly.

As demonstrated above, you give some mice a huge supply of a resource, they don’t just eat until their little bellies are full; they breed and their numbers explode until you have a huge population. Now the resource doesn’t look so big in comparison and soon depletes. What isn’t shown in the video above is the smelly aftermath; the starving death of the masses of mice.

What morons like Minchin, Monckton and others like them fail to see is that discussions regarding changes to our practices that shift us away from fossil fuels are not an attempt to de-industrialise the western world; in fact, it is the very opposite.

I tried to make it very clear in my last post that currently, the process from our primary food production to our plates is one that is heavily dependent black gold. Without fossils fuels, we fail to produce enough fertilizers, fail to power machines to move the produce and work the land, fail to process this raw material, fail to bring it to your local shop and fail to keep it long enough to be used efficiently. Currently we waste a hell of a lot of food, but that’s another topic. Without fossil fuels, we would be forced back to a state before the industrial revolution – and following all the destruction of natural resources and the degradation of landscapes we’ve caused to date, we certainly wouldn’t have the ability to meet the needs of the population. Throw in the effects of climate change, endless population growth and peak oil projections, 2100 is looking a lot like a farm at the tail end of a mouse plague.

It isn’t green so much, that we talk about finding more efficient means to do what we already do, nor is it green to urge that we give more appreciation to biodiversity and the copious services other species provide. No, it is practical.

If the concern is over the required economic shifts, doesn’t it make sense that we start the shift earlier rather than later so that the bend isn’t so sharp and the inertia jar doesn’t cause whiplash? Fossil fuels are a finite supply and we’ve lived too long on easy energy. Yet these days will come to an end over the next century and if our growth in numbers and in personal usage continues, it’ll happen sooner rather than later.

What is required is educated dialogue and practical measures to ensure that we can continue to live and prosper. Our future will not continue to ride on the back of this oily beast; it must be by other methods and will certainly employ more natural services. For instance, it is very energetic to produce fixed nitrogen that is usable for plants, yet legumes do this for us. Compost is also a wonderful source. Together, they cannot meet our current nitrogen needs, but the problem won’t go away by ignoring it and it certainly won’t be addressed while we give paranoid conspiracies the time of day. This is what I mean by open, educated dialogue – not this absurd “balanced argument” the media encourages (putting Monckton in a debate against a climate expert is as balanced as putting a Tono-Bungay salesman up against a medical doctor – who do you believer? A “travelling wonder elixir show” or someone who has earned their title through years of research and study?).

The future can be wonderful and we can continue to be successful as a species, but not on business-as-usual methods. We have been sloppy, but we can change. It is people like those mentioned above and others I’ve previously mentioned in other posts who will lead us to de-industrialisation, not practical measures to improve our actions.

Have a good weekend all!

Related posts;

Jelly Bean Junkies: Monckton screams Biofuel Propaganda

Republican John Shimkus and his bi-polar God.

Confusing the public: “Science” should avoid the denial gravy train.

Ignorance is… A quick review of pointless opposition climate change science

Is Monckton working for an Amish conspiracy? How the future is more than debate over climate change.

The distance in consumption; where should we put our plate?

The ways we choose our fate – the real tragedy of environmental ignorance

Bad journalism and The Agents of Doubt

Ecolomics – a potential love-child between Economy and Ecology?

An unfortunate rebuttal to those who should be ignored

Mr. Minchin and the Enviro-Communist?

This is NO debate – rather science against the smooth talk


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s