Climate Change = Remake Society
“Words Mean Things” is an expression whereby a specific unit of language has a typical rendering when used in a certain manner, context, account, or narrative. Words, however, are often twisted or distorted for political purposes or to give them an ideological slant. Take as an example, the second sentence in the linked Atlantic article, “To curb pollution, activists have worked to thwart new oil drilling, coal-fired power plants, fracking for natural gas, and fuel pipelines.”
In no manner whatsoever, in this milieu or any other, can the word pollution be used in place of “carbon dioxide”. Carbon dioxide has an elemental symbol or chemical formula CO2. Carbon dioxide, next to water (H2O) is likely the most well-known of all elements.
As every elementary school child is taught carbon dioxide is essential for life. Plants necessitate carbon dioxide to grow. If the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drops below 150 PPM (parts per million) there would be a mass extinction of all plant life; and, thus all remaining life on earth. The problem is some students are more apt to be taught carbon dioxide is a pollutant as incorrectly annunciated in the second sentence of that linked article.
In the Atlantic article uneducated reporters continue to subscribe to the fallacy that renewable energies can somehow supplant those produced by fossil fuels, but, furthermore, talk about the duplicitous deeds of the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) crowd. These are the same people with political clout that do not desire wind turbines, solar panels, or a plane load of Venezuelans blocking their self-righteous, duplicitous views.
In a full left turn, the story then quotes an environmental activist who told Rolling Stone Magazine, “Look, I want to get carbon out of the atmosphere, but this is such an opportunity to remake our society. In other words, as I and many others have written about constantly and consistently, the most prevalent aim of climate change is globalization and socialism - it is not physical science, but rather political science.
It is as if we should all be paying strict attention and adherence to an archaic, hippy-cultured music magazine based in San Francisco for our climate change, political and economic policies. The Atlantic then asks the question, “What is the real goal here—stopping climate change or abolishing capitalism?”
I can only give credit to this article in its endorsement of nuclear energies, the only current source of power that can supply sufficient energy while emitting no carbon dioxide, yet the main emphasis of the article is in the final sentence where it states, in part, “it’s the belief that we can decarbonize the economy only by upending our economic system.”
Words mean things, but not necessarily in a literal sense. Letting the “cat out of the bag” does not mean opening a sack and actually letting a feline out of it. In the case of this article, climate change is openly heralded as a conduit and mechanism for collectivism. The only difference between this author and most politicians is that relative to the latter, and their primary objective, the cat remains in the bag.