Climate Activist Quotes

I don't want you to be hopeful, I want you to panic

You say that you love your children above everything else. And yet you are stealing their future.

Climate fatalism is for those on top; its sole contribution is spoilage. The most religiously Gandhian climate activist, the most starry-eyed renewable energy entrepreneur, the most self-righteous believer in veganism as panacea, the most compromise-prone parliamentarian is infinitely preferable to the white man of the North who says, ‘We’re doomed – fall in peace.’ Within the range of positions this side of climate denial, none is more despicable.

It has become commonplace among climate activists to say that we have, today, all the tools we need to avoid catastrophic climate change—even major climate change. It is also true. But political will is not some trivial ingredient, always at hand. We have the tools we need to solve global poverty, epidemic disease, and abuse of women, as well.

...But it is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of a few.

The real power belongs to the people.

You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard. Is my microphone on? Can you hear me?

They opt in to being tagged by their friends. That’s a different thing to the police watching you at all times because you’re a climate activist or a guy who goes to a mosque.

Do an overwhelming number of respected scientists believe that human actions are changing the Earth's climate? Yes. OK, that being the case, let's undermine that by finding and funding those few contrarians who believe otherwise. Promote their message widely and it will accumulate in the mental environment, just as toxic mercury accumulates in a biological ecosystem. Once enough of the toxin has been dispersed, the balance of public understanding will shift. Fund a low level campaign to suggest any threat to the car is an attack on personal freedoms. Create a "grassroots" group to defend the right to drive. Portray anticar activists as prudes who long for the days of the horse and buggy. Then sit back, watch the infotoxins spread - and get ready to sell bigger, better cars for years to come.

We like to see a man calling himself a feminist, but we’re kinda scared when women do. We like to hear white people talk about racism, but we find black activists a bit too aggressive. Or we like to hear business leaders telling us that climate change is crucial and that we need to give up fossil fuels when environmental activists have been saying the exact same thing for years and years. Well, AOC is trying to do the same thing here. She wants billionaires to say TTR because when working-class people do, nobody cares. AOC wanted to use that system to her advantage. She wanted to gain power within that system and the dichotomy between fighting against the system, but using the means of that very system is at the origin of all the criticism she got.

So we can’t save the world by playing by the rules. Because the rules have to be changed. Everything needs to change. And it has to start today. So everyone out there: it is now time for civil disobedience. It is time to rebel.

We live in a strange world, where we think we can buy or build our way out of a crisis that has been created by buying and building things. Where a football game or a film gala gets more media attention than the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced. Where celebrities, film and pop stars who have stood up against all injustices will not stand up for our environment and for climate justice because that would inflict on their right to fly around the world visiting their favourite restaurants, beaches and yoga retreats.

We have not taken to the streets for you to take selfies with us, and tell us that you really admire what we do. We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

Those of us who are still children can’t change what you do now once we’re old enough to do something about it.

We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

So we can’t save the world by playing by the rules. Because the rules have to be changed. Everything needs to change. And it has to start today. So everyone out there: it is now time for civil disobedience. It is time to rebel.

The world of justice looks very different depending on which side of disparity you belong to. For the everyday commoner, struggle for human rights is the natural way of life, whereas for privileged egomaniacs, activism is a publicity stunt.

By now you are probably getting the idea that the whole Green New Deal is a scam, a massive exercise in globaloney, a transparent excuse to replace capitalism with socialism. The rhetoric of the activists certainly supports this. “The climate crisis,” Natasha Fernández-Silber writes in Jacobin, “is quite simply a crisis of capitalism.… We must either replace capitalism with a more sustainable economic system—or face barbarism and extinction.”30 Extinction or socialism: you get to choose!

people learning about climate change for the first time might understandably believe, upon listening to Lunnon and Thunberg, that climate change is the result of deliberate, malevolent actions. In reality, it is the opposite. Emissions are a by-product of energy consumption, which has been necessary for people to lift themselves, their families, and their societies out of poverty, and achieve human dignity. Given that’s what climate activists have been taught to believe, it’s understandable that so many of them would be so angry.

It’s clear that media, politicians, and often the assessment reports themselves blatantly misrepresent what the science says about climate and catastrophes. Those failures indict the scientists who write and too-casually review the reports, the reporters who uncritically repeat them, the editors who allow that to happen, the activists and their organizations who fan the fires of alarm, and the experts whose public silence endorses the deception. The constant repetition of these and many other climate fallacies turns them into accepted “truths.

I spoke at a few big political events and traveled with activists and comrades, happy to contribute to the dream of Europe and countries around the world existing beyond capitalism. Our message warned that the poor should not be paying for climate change, yet it is the poor who are, once again, paying the highest price.

The UN failed to accomplish much of anything. National governments failed to accomplish much of anything. The private sector failed to accomplish much of anything. The scientific community failed to accomplish much of anything. Environmental activists failed to accomplish much of anything. Those failures mean business-as-usual continues and business-as-usual means condemning future generations to climate hell.

It is relevant to note at this point that there is an important distinction between science and scientists. I have the greatest respect for science, whose development has transformed the world for the better. But scientists are no better and no worse than anyone else. There are good scientists and there are bad scientists. Many scientists are outstanding people working long hours to produce important results. They must be frustrated that political activists then turn those results into propaganda. Yet they dare not speak out for fear of losing their funding.

I’ll feel, therefore I’ll be. Let poverty go begging and climate change braise in hell. Social justice can drown in ink. I’ll be an activist of the emotions, a loud, campaigning spirit fighting with tears and sighs to shape institutions around my vulnerable self. My identity will be my precious, my only true possession, my access to the only truth. The world must love, nourish and protect it as I do. If my college does not bless me, validate me and give me what I clearly need, I’ll press my face into the vice chancellor’s lapels and weep. Then demand his resignation.

As an instrument of empowerment oil has been spectacularly effective in removing the levers of power from the reach of the populace. "No matter how many people take to the streets in massive marches," writes Roy Scranton, "they cannot put their hands on the real flow of power because they do not help to produce it. They only consume." Under these circumstances, a march or a demonstration of popular feeling amounts to "little more than an orgy of democratic emotion, an activist-themed street fair, a real-world analogue to Twitter hashtag campaigns: something that gives you a nice feeling, says you belong in a certain group, and is completely divorced from actual legislation and governance." In other words, the public sphere, where politics is performed, has been largely emptied of content in terms of the exercise of power: as with fiction, it has become a forum for secular testimony, a baring-of-the-soul in the world-as-church. Politics as thus practices is primarily an exercise in personal expressiveness.

Equity financing, on the other hand, is unappealing to cooperators because it may mean relinquishing control to outside investors, which is a distinctly capitalist practice. Investors are not likely to buy non-voting shares; they will probably require representation on the board of directors because otherwise their money could potentially be expropriated. “For example, if the directors of the firm were workers, they might embezzle equity funds, refrain from paying dividends in order to raise wages, or dissipate resources on projects of dubious value.”105 In any case, the very idea of even partial outside ownership is contrary to the cooperative ethos. A general reason for traditional institutions’ reluctance to lend to cooperatives, and indeed for the rarity of cooperatives whether related to the difficulty of securing capital or not, is simply that a society’s history, culture, and ideologies might be hostile to the “co-op” idea. Needless to say, this is the case in most industrialized countries, especially the United States. The very notion of a workers’ cooperative might be viscerally unappealing and mysterious to bank officials, as it is to people of many walks of life. Stereotypes about inefficiency, unprofitability, inexperience, incompetence, and anti-capitalism might dispose officials to reject out of hand appeals for financial assistance from co-ops. Similarly, such cultural preconceptions may be an element in the widespread reluctance on the part of working people to try to start a cooperative. They simply have a “visceral aversion” to, and unfamiliarity with, the idea—which is also surely a function of the rarity of co-ops itself. Their rarity reinforces itself, in that it fosters a general ignorance of co-ops and the perception that they’re risky endeavors. Additionally, insofar as an anti-democratic passivity, a civic fragmentedness, a half-conscious sense of collective disempowerment, and a diffuse interpersonal alienation saturate society, this militates against initiating cooperative projects. It is simply taken for granted among many people that such things cannot be done. And they are assumed to require sophisticated entrepreneurial instincts. In most places, the cooperative idea is not even in the public consciousness; it has barely been heard of. Business propaganda has done its job well.106 But propaganda can be fought with propaganda. In fact, this is one of the most important things that activists can do, this elevation of cooperativism into the public consciousness. The more that people hear about it, know about it, learn of its successes and potentials, the more they’ll be open to it rather than instinctively thinking it’s “foreign,” “socialist,” “idealistic,” or “hippyish.” If successful cooperatives advertise their business form, that in itself performs a useful service for the movement. It cannot be overemphasized that the most important thing is to create a climate in which it is considered normal to try to form a co-op, in which that is seen as a perfectly legitimate and predictable option for a group of intelligent and capable unemployed workers. Lenders themselves will become less skeptical of the business form as it seeps into the culture’s consciousness.

set aside more preserves, extinguished fewer species, saved the ozone layer, and peaked in their consumption of oil, farmland, timber, paper, cars, coal, and perhaps even carbon. For all their differences, the world’s nations came to a historic agreement on climate change, as they did in previous years on nuclear testing, proliferation, security, and disarmament. Nuclear weapons, since the extraordinary circumstances of the closing days of World War II, have not been used in the seventy-two years they have existed. Nuclear terrorism, in defiance of forty years of expert predictions, has never happened. The world’s nuclear stockpiles have been reduced by 85 percent, with more reductions to come, and testing has ceased (except by the tiny rogue regime in Pyongyang) and proliferation has frozen. The world’s two most pressing problems, then, though not yet solved, are solvable: practicable long-term agendas have been laid out for eliminating nuclear weapons and for mitigating climate change. For all the bleeding headlines, for all the crises, collapses, scandals, plagues, epidemics, and existential threats, these are accomplishments to savor. The Enlightenment is working: for two and a half centuries, people have used knowledge to enhance human flourishing. Scientists have exposed the workings of matter, life, and mind. Inventors have harnessed the laws of nature to defy entropy, and entrepreneurs have made their innovations affordable. Lawmakers have made people better off by discouraging acts that are individually beneficial but collectively harmful. Diplomats have done the same with nations. Scholars have perpetuated the treasury of knowledge and augmented the power of reason. Artists have expanded the circle of sympathy. Activists have pressured the powerful to overturn repressive measures, and their fellow citizens to change repressive norms. All these efforts have been channeled into institutions that have allowed us to circumvent the flaws of human nature and empower our better angels. At the same time . . . Seven hundred million people in the world today live in extreme poverty. In the regions where they are concentrated, life expectancy is less than 60, and almost a quarter of the people are undernourished.

Still, the volume on climate change keeps getting turned up. Many activists, convinced it is the only important global issue, have made it a practice to blame everything on the climate, to make it the single cause of all other global problems. They grab at the immediate shocking concerns of the day—the war in Syria, ISIS, Ebola, HIV, shark attacks, almost anything you can imagine—to increase the feeling of urgency about the long-term problem. Sometimes the claims are based on strong scientific evidence, but in many cases they are far-fetched, unproven hypotheses.

Reflecting a long-standing schism within the profession, which persists into the twenty-first century, RASSW argued that “a dichotomy exists within NASW between” social activists and clinical practitioners, which is exacerbated by the promotion of licensing. When all social services are threatened by the conservative political and ideological climate, a focus on licensing undermines the profession’s efforts to fight for “the survival and well-being of millions” (RASSW, February 1,1976, p. 3). Citing the opposition to licensing by such groups as the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW), RASSW asserted that efforts by NASW to promote licensing contradict its stated intent to fight racism within the social service field and were destructive of professional unity. Promoting licensing, in lieu of uniting around this struggle “is to fiddle while Rome burns” (p. 3). The paper also disputed the linkage between licensing and service quality. It added an interesting twist to the growing debate over professionalization by arguing that “under current political conditions licensure may actually decrease the accountability of social workers to their clients” (RASSW, February 1,1976, p. 5). The paper concluded that licensure neither protected nor improved service quality; rather, it divided workers and undermined their job security, as the recent attack on public education in New York City had demonstrated. Instead of fighting for licensure, RASSW proposed an alternative strategy that focused on building worker-client-labor-community coalitions and combating racism in social service agencies and other institutions.

One way of ensuring against such a challenge is to surround yourself with people who agree with you. In our dispersed and media-driven society, people are able to immerse themselves in a self-constructed social network where the norm is entirely consistent with their own views. They restrict their information sources to carefully selected news media, websites, blogs, and publications—the so-called echo chamber—that reinforce their views. Tea Party members and environmental activists alike share a distrust of the mainstream media and depend on information sources that speak specifically to their interests and values.

Imagine that someone came up with a brilliant new campaign against smoking. It would show graphic images of people dying of lung cancer followed by the punch line: ‘It’s easy to be healthy—smoke one less cigarette a month.’ We know without a moment’s reflection that this campaign would fail,” wrote British climate activist and author George Marshall. “The target is so ludicrous, and the disconnection between the images and the message is so great, that most smokers would just laugh it off.

The Obama Administration has been trying to indoctrinate the public with its climate ideology in many ways and through a variety of agencies. This includes material on agency websites, advocacy of climate “education,”470 exhibits in National Parks,471 and grants by the National Science Foundation. One example is the $700,000 NSF grant to The Civilians, a New York theatre company, to finance the production of a show entitled “The Great Immensity,”472 “a play and media project about our environmental challenges.”473 A second example is a $5.7 million grant to Columbia University to record “voicemails from the future” that paint a picture of an Earth destroyed due to climate change.474 A third example is a $4.9 million grant to the University of Wisconsin-Madison to create scenarios based on America’s climate actions on climate change including a utopian future where everyone rides bicycles and courts forcibly take property from the wealthy.475 The general approach pursued by the Administration for arts and education-related climate propaganda appears to be very similar to the similar propaganda campaigns by Soviet and Eastern European governments to promote their political ends.

the UN IPCC AR3 actually made the following admission:206   In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.   So the IPCC agrees that climate is a “coupled, non-linear chaotic system” and “therefore that long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” I regard this official statement by the IPCC as devastating but entirely appropriate. The climate system is chaotic and multivariate. So although climate is deterministic it is not determinable.

World leader, my eye! Hypocrites, every single one of them! They attend climate conference emitting more carbon than all their citizens combined. They attend peace conference with nuclear codes handy in a briefcase. And you want these two-timing morons to bring peace, health and harmony in the world! Keep dreaming - keep deluding yourself! I for one choose not to delegate the responsibility of my world to a bunch of windbags. The world is mine, its problems are mine.

Vandalism isn't activism, you morons! If you want to help the climate, help the green energy industry become mainstream.

Climate Activists have turned into Climate Karens.

Climate Activists (not all) have turned into Climate Karens, which has done nothing for the climate crisis, but has only added one more crisis to the list. BLM activists don't go about abusing white people, Pride activists don't go about harassing straight people, and yet, that's precisely what has become the norm in climate protests. Vandalism isn't activism, you morons! If you want to help the climate, help the green energy industry become mainstream.

Climate Activists have turned into Climate Karens, which has done nothing for the climate crisis, but has only added one more crisis to the list.

There is no difference between a barking dog with golden platter and barking activist with a silver spoon.

Nietzsche’s notion that morality is really about taste is very helpful in thinking about our current moral climate. So often the language we use confirms that Nietzsche’s perspective is now a cultural intuition. So often we will speak of morality in terms of taste or aesthetics: “That remark was hurtful;” “That idea is offensive;” “That viewpoint makes me feel unsafe.” Notice that such expressions do not make a statement about whether the matters in hand are right or wrong. In fact, the underlying assumption is that the offensiveness or hurtfulness of them is identical with the moral content. The subjective response has become the ethical criterion for judgment.

Vandalism ain't activism.

Systemic change is a slow and tedious process, It doesn't happen overnight by vandalizing society. If vandalism and activism were one and the same, Our jungly ancestors would've been the ideal humanity.

Jason turned on public radio and heard an interview with the Swedish author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline. He was talking quietly about the need for climate activists to consider going beyond pacifism and even considering targeted violence. “No!” Jason yelled at his radio. “Don’t blow up a pipeline! Stay on the moral high ground!” It was baffling how people responded so differently to the climate crisis. Some people wanted to blow up pipelines to stop the carbon economy at all costs. Others reacted with defensive disdain to any suggestion on how they could do their small part. They hoarded old lightbulbs and worried about people coming for their burgers and the gas grills they cooked them on. The world of their childhood was the last word. But nostalgia was not a strategy any more than violence. What the planet needed was a plan.

In short, we have reached what some activists have started calling “Decade Zero” of the climate crisis: we either change now or we lose our chance.29

Second, from local green activist groups up to behemoth NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF, over the last twenty years the environmental movement has espoused saving the planet from global warming as its leitmotif. This has had two devastating results. One is that radical environmentalists have worked relentlessly to sow misinformation about global warming in both the public domain and the education system. And the other is that, faced with this widespread propagandisation of public opinion and young persons—and also by strong lobbying from powerful self-interested groups like government research scientists, alternative energy providers and financial marketeers—politicians have had no choice but to fall into line.

The fear of bad outcomes motivates both climate activists and their foes, but the precise details don’t matter. Both sides see themselves as averting a future that they don’t like more than creating one that they do.

The fossil fuel companies, in short, are no longer dealing with those Big Green groups that can be silenced with a generous donation or a conscience-clearing carbon offset program. The communities they are facing are, for the most part, not looking to negotiate a better deal—whether in the form of local jobs, higher royalties, or better safety standards. More and more, these communities are simply saying “No.” No to the pipeline. No to Arctic drilling. No to the coal and oil trains. No to the heavy hauls. No to the export terminal. No to fracking. And not just “Not in My Backyard” but, as the French anti-fracking activists say: Ni ici, ni ailleurs—neither here, nor elsewhere. In other words: no new carbon frontiers.

But the bottom line was clear enough: global capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient, and barrier-free that “earth-human systems” are becoming dangerously unstable in response. When a journalist pressed Werner for a clear answer on the “Is Earth f**ked” question, he set the jargon aside and replied, “More or less.”4 There was one dynamic in the model, however, that offered some hope. Werner described it as “resistance”—movements of “people or groups of people” who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist culture.” According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by Indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groups.” Such mass uprisings of people—along the lines of the abolition movement and the civil rights movement—represent the likeliest source of “friction” to slow down an economic machine that is careening out of control.5

because people have been led to believe that CO2 somehow causes climate change in addition to, not as a consequence of, global warming, it seems plausible to blame individual hurricanes on CO2, even though the temperatures haven’t increased. It is disingenuous for climate activists to blame every storm on climate change when there has been so little warming so far and when storm trends are so unremarkable.

When a journalist pressed Werner for a clear answer on the “Is Earth f**ked” question, he set the jargon aside and replied, “More or less.”4 There was one dynamic in the model, however, that offered some hope. Werner described it as “resistance”—movements of “people or groups of people” who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist culture.” According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by Indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groups.” Such mass uprisings of people—along the lines of the abolition movement and the civil rights movement—represent the likeliest source of “friction” to slow down an economic machine that is careening out of control.

During extraordinary historical moments—both world wars, the aftermath of the Great Depression, or the peak of the civil rights era—the usual categories dividing “activists” and “regular people” became meaningless because the project of changing society was so deeply woven into the project of life. Activists were, quite simply, everyone.

AI will become more potent and be able to regulate both the climate and the surroundings.

Climate Change is going to affect us all in gargantuan proportions. Hope the youth all around the world join the movement to make the politicians and rich business people realise their role to play.

There is something about activism itself that is beneficial for well-being,” said Tim Kasser, coauthor of a 2009 study on college students, activism, and flourishing.[43] Yet more recent studies of young activists, including climate activists, find the opposite: Those who are politically active nowadays usually have worse mental health.[44] Threats and risks have always haunted the future, but the ways that young people are responding, with activism carried out mostly in the virtual world, seem to be affecting them very differently

It has been said that what we face with this climate crisis is harder than winning World War II, achieving civil rights, defeating bacterial infection and sending a man to the moon . . . combined. So let’s get super duper clear, my dear friends: this is a human despair crisis. Rebecca Solnit: “The scale is not like anything human beings have faced and journalists have reported on, except perhaps the threat of all-out nuclear war.” She then added the whopper caveat that nuclear war was something that “might happen, not something that is happening.” I add this: with nuclear war, we all agreed the threat was real and we talked about it openly. We weren’t fighting the science on it. Sure, we’ve had climate change before. And, yep, the planet survived. But this is not the point. No doubt the planet will survive again. There’s just one small problem that we get distracted from. This time, we probably won’t. Or at least, our lives as we know and love them won’t….Scientists and activists have no vested interest in making this shit up. There is no money to be made and no power to be gained from spreading information about the worth of sustainable energy, or consuming less. I said this to someone who challenged me at a dinner party as to my motives behind engaging in climate activism: “We would much rather be at the beach.” Fair point, they replied.

Corporate social responsibility alone seemed too passive, too insular, and too self-serving. In a world that seemed to be literally on fire from climate change and social unrest, corporate social responsibility appeared to many as a privileged exercise in self-improvement, however sincere or not. Corporate self-improvement was not enough for many engaged consumers and citizens; active corporate social improvement through activism was desired and called for.

Contentious social issues like racial justice, income inequality, gun violence, immigration reform, gender equality, and climate change have all become part of many corporate agendas. Silence and indifference are becoming less the norm. The days of simply ignoring social issues or writing a check are gone. Corporations are now frequently expected to engage in social issues through public statements, sponsorships, partnerships, and policies supporting a position or a cause. Being a socially responsible corporation now also means being a socially active corporation.

World would be a far better place if climate change activists were as effective as the Radical Religious Extremists in convincing people about their ideological beliefs.

If you actually want to tackle climate crisis, then instead of yelling at the politicians like a hysterical Karen and obstructing traffic, educate the masses on clean energy and get involved in startups working on affordable clean energy solutions.

Vandalism Ain't Activism (The Sonnet) Systemic change is a slow and tedious process, It doesn't happen overnight by vandalizing society. If vandalism and activism were one and the same, Our jungly ancestors would've been the ideal humanity. Change habits, change yourself, submit to no primitivity, The change that you dream of, be the epitome of that change. Obstructing traffic and refusing to let an ambulance pass, You're not fighting any crisis, but being a crisis yourself. Go fly a kite, it is good for the mind as well as body, Get lessons on common sense before appointing yourself king. The line between activism and terrorism is so thin that, Often many go astray without having the slightest inkling. I repeat, systemic change is a slow and tedious process. The more you rush with recklessness, the more you digress.

If vandalism were activism, Insurrection was patriotism. If Jan 6 is deemed patriotism, 9/11 was divine intervention. If 9/11 is deemed a divine act, Hate is but an act of holiness. If hate is ever deemed holiness, That is the end of all common sense.

Plimer condemns the entire movement: “Climate change catastrophism is the biggest scientific fraud that has ever occurred. Much climate ‘science’ is political ideology dressed up as science. There are times in history when the popular consensus is demonstrably wrong and we live in such a time. Cheap energy is fundamental for employment, living in the modern world, and for bringing the Third World out of poverty…. Furthermore, the education system has been captured by activists, and the young are inculcated with environmental, political, and economic ideology. During their education,

Even in its first year, our “clean energy moonshot” had begun to invigorate the economy, generate jobs, trigger a surge in solar- and wind-power generation, as well as a leap in energy efficiency, and mobilize an arsenal of new technologies to help combat climate change. I delivered speeches across the country, explaining the significance of all this. “It’s working!” I wanted to shout. But environmental activists and clean energy companies aside, no one seemed to care.

That afternoon, Gerry Petrella scheduled a Zoom with dozens of staffers who had worked on Senate committees. Over the months, he had asked them for help cobbling together the details of policies, even though Petrella was coy about the purpose of his requests. But now, he was informing them that all their hard work had been in vain. He watched as the news washed over the faces on his screen. In boxes across his computer, staffers began tearing up. When the press reported the death of the climate negotiations, Manchin’s Senate colleagues allowed their pent-up frustrations to come rushing out. They wanted to hold him personally responsible for the government’s failure to avert climate catastrophe. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico tweeted that Democrats should consider stripping Manchin of his committee chairmanship. That seemed restrained compared with what activists said about Manchin on Twitter. It felt especially painful to learn that they had been so close to a climate bill—as if a generational opportunity had drifted away.

of climate change. What was needed was a massive nudge in the right direction. In the past, the stick of regulation and the rod of taxation were the methods that environmentalists believed could break the fossil fuel economy. But the Inflation Reduction Act doesn’t rely on such punitive tactics, because Manchin culled them from the bill. Instead, it imagined that the United States could become the global leader of a booming climate economy, if the government provided tax credits and subsidies, a lucrative set of incentives. There was a cost associated with the bill. By the Congressional Budget Office’s score, it offered $386 billion in tax credits to encourage the production of wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal plants, and battery storage. Tax credits would reduce the cost of electric vehicles so that they would become the car of choice for Middle America. But $386 billion was an estimate, not a price tag, since the legislation didn’t cap the amount of money available in tax credits. If utilities wanted to build more wind turbines or if demand for electric vehicles surged, the government would keep spending. When Credit Suisse studied the program, it estimated that so many businesses and consumers will avail themselves of the tax credits that the government could spend nearly $800 billion. If Credit Suisse is correct, then the tax credits will unleash $1.7 trillion in private sector spending on green technologies. Within six years, solar and wind energy produced by the US will be the cheapest in the world. Alternative energies will cross a threshold: it will become financially irresponsible not to use them. Even though Joe Biden played a negligible role in the final negotiations, the Inflation Reduction Act exudes his preferences. He romanticizes the idea of factories building stuff. It is a vision of the Goliath of American manufacturing, seemingly moribund, sprung back to life. At the same time that the legislation helps to stall climate change, it allows the United States to dominate the industries of the future. This was a bill that, in the end, climate activists and a broad swath of industry could love. Indeed, strikingly few business lobbies, other than finance and pharma, tried to stymie the bill in its final stages. It was a far cry from the death struggles over energy legislation in the Clinton and Obama administrations, when industry scuppered transformational legislation. The Inflation Reduction Act will allow the United States to prevent its own decline. And not just economic decline. Without such a meaningful program, the United States would have had no standing to prod other countries to respond more aggressively to climate change. It would have been a marginal player in shaping the response to the planet’s greatest challenge. The bill was an investment in moral authority.

Janet Redman is a climate activist and works with the Chesapeake Bay Climate Action network in a senior position. Janet Redman resides in Rehoboth Beach in Delaware where she is a loved member of the community. She's a cyclist, a scuba diver, and a former financial advisor.

This amounts to nothing more than misleading propaganda. The purpose is to create a climate of acceptance for the passage of legislation which will turn the majority of parents into criminals of the most heinous kind-those whose victims are defenseless children. The resulting body of law will play directly into the hands of ultraliberal social engineers as well as social activists within the professional community. The outward motive-the protection of children-conceals several more insidious ones: • The desire to expand and consolidate the power of the helping professions. At the present time, there is no law that says an individual must, under certain circumstances, submit to psychological evaluation and counseling. If they are written as is being suggested, however, antispanking laws will require exactly that. They will give helping professionals the power to define when the law has been broken, who is in need of "help" and how much, and when a certain parent's "rehabilitation" is complete. It is significant to note that in all of history the only other state to confer this much power on psychologists and their ilk was the former Soviet Union. • The desire to manipulate the inner workings of the American family; specifically, the desire to exercise significant control over the child-rearing process. Take it from someone who was, at one time, similarly guilty, a significant number of helping professionals possess a "save the world" mentality. They believe they know what's best for individuals, families, and children. The only problem, as they see it, is that most people are "in denial"-unwilling to recognize their need for help. This self-righteousness fuels a zealous, missionary attitude. And like the first missionaries to the New World, many helping professionals seem to believe that their vision of a perfect world justifies whatever means they deem necessary, including licensing parents, taking children away from parents they define as unfit, and the like. (For a close look at the social engineering being proposed by some professionals, see Debating Children's Lives, Mason and Gambrill, eds., Sage Publications, 1994).

Proslavery southerners were highly suspicious of Douai’s plan to establish a forum for public debate in their own backyard, presuming that this was simply a strategy for camouflaging abolitionist intentions. The climate of fear and self-censorship created by antebellum southerners around the slavery issue ran counter to Douai’s notion of free enlightened discourse. Moreover, it reminded him of the repressive Old World structures that he and his fellow emigrants had left behind. The harsh, occasionally even violent attacks of the proslavery majority smacked very much of the police states they had vehemently opposed in Germany. “You had rather be off or we shall make [you] go,” infuriated southerners told the foreign-born agitators. In this situation, slavery had ceased to be an abstract ideological problem. Invoking the right to free speech and using slavery as a metaphor to illustrate his own condition...Though the Texas free-soil activists wrote extensively about the economic dimensions of slavery, it was their own intellectual enslavement they feared most. For them, slavery was morally and politically wrong, but it was also useful as a yardstick for measuring their own degree of freedom.

You need to listen to us, we who cannot vote. You need to vote for us, for your children and grandchildren. What we are doing now can soon no longer be undone. In this election, you vote for the future living conditions of humankind.

the angriest and most passionate voices, start to be rewarded by public opinion. This phenomenon is clearly observed in mainstream and social media. Consider the following comparison, for instance. After sixteen-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg made her landmark UN speech in 2019, media attention soared. While her efforts and sense of initiative were undeniably impressive, especially for a teenager, the fact remains that her credentials on the subject were nonexistent, and her scowling message offered no practical solutions whatsoever. Compare her accomplishments to another young environmentalist named Boyan Slat, who doesn’t make passionate speeches or hurl angry slogans, but did design a revolutionary ocean cleanup system that captures debris ranging from one-ton ghost nets to tiny microplastics. At the time of this writing, a quick Google search shows 69 million search results for Greta, and just over 500,000 for Boyan. Greta was named ‘Person of the Year’ by Time magazine. Boyan was not.

Declare an end to the war to save the planet. Then collaborate to save it. We’re not talking surrender. The job we started hasn’t been finished. Conflicts will continue. Much legitimately divides us. But the time for outright war is over. There’s work to do.

What about the polar bears? Climate activists warn that as sea ice shrinks, the polar bear population will thin out to extinction, because polar bears need sea ice to hunt seals. Once again, we can test this hypothesis by counting polar bears. This isn’t easy to do—they live on barren, windswept terrain relatively inhospitable to human counters. But a recent survey by Susan Crockford, an expert on polar bears, puts the current polar bear population in the range of 22,000–31,000. That means there are four times as many of them as there were in 1960, and the polar bear population is now at a 50-year high.22 The bears are doing fine.

meet their goal of 80 percent renewable energy by 2050.12 While not having children is definitively the best choice for the environment, it is not the choice that many environmentalists make, however. Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, has one child, as does Bill McKibben, who has energized a generation of young climate activists, and Michael Mann, the climate scientist behind the famous “hockey stick” figure showing rapid global warming. As my husband and I were trying to decide whether to have a child or not, I could not help but look at the choices that those around me had made.

2009/2010, the ‘consensus’ suffered its three most damaging blows yet: the release of the Climategate emails between the little group of scientists at the heart of the IPCC establishment; the collapse in Copenhagen of the long-planned bid to agree a new global climate treaty, again essentially because of a division between developing nations and the West; a series of scandals that revealed that the most widely-quoted and alarming claims in the 2007 IPCC report had not been based on science at all, but on claims made in press releases and false reports put out by climate activists.

Sonnet of Climate Change No matter whether you are loaded, All the world's money won't save your child. As our climate gets further compromised, The rich and poor will suffer and die alike. Industry gave us affluence and advancement, But at the expense of our planet's wellbeing. Our ancestors couldn't fathom it back then, We don't have their luxury to be greedy fiend. We barely have a decade to reduce emission, After that all the prayers won't rescue humanity. You think things have been hard in your life, Wait till you hear in grave your children's agony. Enough with this bickering over phony regulation. Discard all luxury and reduce individual emission.

Francisco was an underdog city struggling to absorb an influx of aspiring alphas. It had long been a haven for hippies and queers, artists and activists, Burners and leather daddies, the disenfranchised and the weird. It also had a historically corrupt government, and a housing market built atop racist urban-renewal policies—real estate values had benefited as much from redlining as from discriminatory zoning practices and midcentury internment camps—but these narratives, along with the reality that an entire generation had been prematurely lost to AIDS, undercut its reputation as a mecca for the free and freakish, people on the fringe. The city, trapped in nostalgia for its own mythology, stuck in a hallucination of a halcyon past, had not quite caught up to the newfound momentum of tech’s dark triad: capital, power, and a bland, overcorrected, heterosexual masculinity. It was a strange place for young and moneyed futurists. In the absence of vibrant cultural institutions, the pleasure center of the industry might have just been exercise: people courted the sublime on trail runs and day hikes, glamped in Marin and rented chalets in Tahoe. They dressed for work as if embarking on an alpine expedition: high-performance down jackets and foul-weather shells, backpacks with decorative carabiners. They looked ready to gather kindling and build a lean-to, not make sales calls and open pull-requests from climate-controlled open-plan offices. They looked in costume to LARP their weekend selves.

My happy talk about a painless shift to a carbon-free future prompted grumbling from some climate change activists. They hoped to hear me issue a call for bigger sacrifice and harder choices—including a moratorium or outright ban on oil and gas drilling—in order to confront an existential threat. In a perfectly rational world, that might have made sense. In the actual and highly irrational world of American politics, my staff and I were pretty sure that having me paint doomsday scenarios was a bad electoral strategy.

The concept of climate refugees is mostly a deliberate exaggeration, designed to turn fear of refugees into fear of climate change, and so build a much wider base of public support for lowering CO2 emissions.

One thing I hate most in this world, next to arrogance, is hypocrisy. Privileged teenagers hysterically yelling about climate action with no tangible contribution on their part - privileged celebrities flying in private jets, sipping fine wine, while barking about equal pay in a room full of other privileged celebrities - all these ain't activism, it's entitled lunacy. When you're struggling with your last ounce of strength to put food on the table, to keep a roof over your family, and still have some generosity left for your neighbors, that's the highest form of human rights struggle there is. The world of justice looks very different depending on which side of disparity you belong to. For the everyday commoner, struggle for human rights is the natural way of life, whereas for privileged egomaniacs, activism is a publicity stunt. Send these entitled bunch of buffoons to labor in the streets of the developing parts of the world, and all their activism will fly out the window. It's this simple. Before you start shouting about rights, equality and justice, have the decency and common sense to step out of the lap of privilege and luxury. Remember, there is no difference between a barking dog with golden platter and barking activist with a silver spoon. Struggle in the streets, struggle in the beaches, only then you shall know, what suits the humans, what suits the leeches.

For me, radicalism was not the best route to political success. Within the framework of the constitutional freedom guaranteed by democracy, NGOs and activists like these women fought for their aims. I, in the other hand, had to find a majority with whom I could implement my goals - and also accept compromises. Often faced with multiple simultaneous crises and initiatives, I had to weigh up the solution to whatever problem I was tackling on a given day. Had I given enough priority to the issue of climate protection in the process?

In a 1980 study Latin Americanist Larz Shultz found that US aid has "tended to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments which torture their citizens. To the hemispheres relatively egregious violators of fundamental human rights." That trend included military aid was independent of need and ran through the Carter years. Broader studies by Edward Herman found the same correlation and also suggested an explanation. Not surprisingly US aid tends to correlate with a favorable climate for business operations, commonly improved by the murder of labor and peasant organizer and human rights activists and other such actions. Yielding a secondary correlation between aid and egregious violations of human rights.

Unfortunately, given the stigma of addiction, it is frequently used as a smear tactic. Climate activists say we’re addicted to fossil fuels, urban planners say we’re addicted to cars, and health counselors say we’re addicted to fast food. Exaggeration is fine, except when it is used to justify limiting others’ freedom because they supposedly can’t help themselves.

A network has also been formed to coordinate efforts across the two largest education unions: the National Education Association (NEA) and the AFT. The Educators Climate Action Network (ECAN) emerged after conversations by education union activists at the Labor Notes conference as well as at the national AFT conference in the summer of 2022. The network of over one hundred union educators from across the country is convened monthly by the Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS) and is open to all education union members interested in tackling climate change and promoting climate justice.

And so they stick to traps and tricks. And if one takes any of these informal fallacies home in hopes of making pets of them, giving them tidy roosts and appropriate newspaper potty spots in your brain, the mayhem will soon commence. You will soon find your mental furniture shredded, dead birds in your frontal lobe, wriggling worms in your moral outrage, and what can only be excrement in your aesthetic sense. And worst of all, you—like a hoarding cat lady—might be too far gone to even notice, because the culprits will be busily holding your loving gaze with wide glistening eyes. You might even find yourself voting for politicians because they promise to build us all a bridge to the future. As though someone was going to build one to somewhere else? The danger these creatures represent is considerable. The economic devastation they have caused has run up into the trillions, and that is just under the current administration.1 Families are under strain because Mom persists in saying “just because.” Climate change activists

I lost $375,000 worth of Bitcoin to a phishing scam disguised as a climate research grant. I'm someone deeply committed to sustainability, and I was eager to invest in what I believed was life-altering research to assist us in reducing our carbon footprint. The email itself seemed flawlessly professional, with sophisticated branding and plausible promises of scientific advancement. Inadvisably, I clicked on the link and inputted my wallet details, only to discover afterward that the entire project was a scam. My Bitcoin was siphoned into the digital ether, and I was left feeling cheated, both as an investor and as a person who had backed environmental progress. I later, in despair and anger, turned to social media for help. My enraged outburst was seen on Mastodon by a very well-respected sustainability advocate who advised me to reach out to SPARTAN TECH GROUP RETRIEVAL. They had seen the worst of cryptocurrency scams in our community and could vouch for their ability to track even the faintest blockchain trails. Desperate, I reached out to them on WhatsApp: + 1 ( 9 7 1 ) 4 8 7 - 3 5 3 8 OR Telegram: + 1 ( 5 8 1 ) 2 8 6 - 8 0 9 2 . Their forensic blockchain unit treated my case with the priority of a high-level environmental investigation. They carefully sifted through transaction records, untangling the complex web of addresses the scammers had used to launder my funds. They followed up on every lead with relentless attention to detail, all while speaking in clear, jargon-free language that even an environmental activist could understand. It was 13 nail-biting days of round-the-clock work, but I eventually received the life-changing news: my funds had been recovered. My $375,000 was restored, bit by bit, as though the digital trail itself had come to return what once belonged to me. The relief was immeasurable. SPARTAN TECH GROUP RETRIEVAL had not only retrieved my stolen Bitcoin, but they had also restored my faith in the resilience of the crypto community. I restart my environmental activism today with renewed passion and a safe crypto wallet. I make every effort to spread my warning tale far and wide, begging fellow activists to scrutinize each email closely and be wary of offers that sound too good to be true. SPARTAN TECH GROUP RETRIEVAL not only recovered my Bitcoin, they saved my mission. And in a world where online trust can be so fragile, that is a victory worth celebrating. More info about the company : Email: spartan tech (@) cyber services . c o m OR support(@) spartan tech group retrieval. o r g Website: h t t p s : / / spartan tech group retrieval . o r g

Religious mania was different from cause-oriented fanatics, like animal-rights or climate-change activists, nothing wrong with causes so long as they didn’t take over your life. But religious literalism was untethered to any reality except the word of God.

Actually, while there is little doubt the earth is warming, there’s a great deal of reason for environmental optimism; many environmental trends are going in the right direction. “Deaths from natural disaster have declined over 95 percent over the last century. Actual disasters themselves have gone down over the last twenty years. Disasters are measured strictly as deaths and damages from extreme weather events,” said Michael Shellenberger, a longtime environmental activist and author of several books on the environment. “We’re more resilient than ever.” The number of people who died from weather-related or climate-related disasters last year was 6,000 globally, he pointed out to me. To place that in perspective, 106,000 people will die this year (2023) from drug overdose and poisoning in the United States alone. As for carbon emissions, they slightly declined globally over the last decade.[53]