Command, Control, and Collectivism.
The Conversation is a Massachusetts news organization that says they are committed to “unlocking the knowledge of experts for the public good.” If one is so candidly trumpeting that they are for the “public good”, you can immediately recognize that it produces a partisan message, marketing their one-sided ideology and politics for “their own good.”
I link The Conversation’s article with the lengthy title, “To address climate change, lifestyles must change – but the government’s reluctance to help is holding us back.” It is written by an Environmental Psychologist from the University of Bath in England. You may read Wikipedia’s description of an Environmental Psychologist here.
As with all politically progressive climate activists, this writer proclaims that anthropogenic climate change is a result of unacceptable and detrimental human behavior. Naturally, no evidence is ever provided that climate change is actually a problem – their feelings and inner nature persistently suffice.
The dilemma of course, especially in England and the European Union, but coming to an authority near you, is that governments at every level while excoriating gas, oil, and coal creating detrimental policy for their curtailment, have never arrived at a sufficient compromise. So is that the fault of “human behavior?” Of course not, this article is all about selling authoritarianism.
This is instantly evident in the first paragraph of the story where the author writes negatively of the current British government by declaring, “going with the grain of consumer choice” which in other words means the writer is railing against the free market or capitalist economy. A progressively motivated writer would be much more prone to criticize and castigate that government now that Conservative Leader Liz Truss assumed the Prime Ministerial chair and selected Jacob Rees-Mogg as Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy - this cabinet office is responsible for climate change and Rees-Mogg’s refutation viewpoint is not at all beloved by the nation’s activist climate community.
Once again, this is indisputable testimony that clearly exhibits anthropogenic climate change as political theater and not physical science.
The story gets its roots from a report by the British House of Lords. This report uses, “evidence from leading experts on behavioral science and social change” – note, not environmental or climate scientists. Further submissions to the report arrived from Tesco (a grocery and general merchandise retailer), Natural England (a conservancy, parks, and wildlife group), and Cycling UK (bicycling in the United Kingdom). The House of Lords is the upper chamber of the British Parliament undemocratically appointed. The advisors and council for this report seem completely farcical.
Wind, solar, and the deceptive use of biomass cannot replace fossil fuels and I am quite confident an environmental psychologist has no capacity in the engineering prowess which concludes, over and over again, the case against the viability and feasibility of renewable energies. Long ago, the nations of the world should have switched the production of energy to non-CO2 emitting nuclear power, and as I have talked about consistently, using thorium, an alternative to uranium. Thorium is a radioactive mineral that cannot be weaponized and does not have the same core meltdown potential as uranium.
The problem with this is that while it is a sensible compromise, for the eco-politicians and activist scientists, it effectively ends their political quest for command, control, and collectivism.
Self-righteous and sanctimonious climate change peddlers such as this Conversation writer merely expect humans and humanity to acquiesce and accept a step backward in their lives and lifestyles and forego everything they have become accustomed to. Furthermore, as we have seen todate in the climate battles, elitists who push draconian policies seldom adhere to their own rules, regulations, and restrictions.