See, this is the rub here. . . ENERGY. Energy is used, to control, track, trace, calculate, and fine tune the entire economy.
Energy being used to control the economy? Control the economy in what way? Choose which industries succeed and which fail? Make them all succeed and make them all fail? And how is this done? Are the utiliteis throttling power to some industries and not to others? And who is in charge of this? Who is making these decisions what to do with the economy? Is the economy always under control? Is every recession and slowdown a planned event?
Energy being used to track the economy? Track what? The use of energy? I think that is secondary to the use of MONEY.
Energy being used to trace the economy? How does that differ from track the economy?
Energy being used to calculate the economy? I do't even know what that;s supposed to mean.
Energy being used to fine tune the economy? More control.
If you wanted to make a point here you could have provided some examples - some instances pulled from real life showing energy being used in this way and showing that this is a process used all the time. But you didn't.
When we include industry and transport, that is everything.
Agriculture and Commercial and Residential use a total of 23%. That's still quite a bit.
Get rid of transporting goods all over the place, and get rid of huge amounts of production of unnecessary energy
Transportation currently uses fuel, not energy
and this wouldn't be so much of a problem.
But as a global society, we are using more and more energy.
Because our population and our standard of living is increasing.
And it is the global oligarchs, and the rulers, thirst for more and more power, the corporations and the governments, not so much just the populations, that need more and more energy.
Here I disagree. Almost every human on the planet would like to increase their standard of living. Doing so will increase their consumption of energy. Here is some pertinent info from the IEA:
Globally, the top 10% of emitters [nations] were responsible for almost half of global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2021, compared with a mere 0.2% for the bottom 10%. The top 10% averaged 22 tonnes of CO2 per capita in 2021, over 200 times more than the average for the bottom 10%. There are 782 million people in the top 10% of emitters, extending well beyond traditional ideas of the super rich. By comparison, around 0.6% of the world –
an estimated 46.8 million individuals – are considered millionaires or billionaires.
The top 10% of emitters span all continents. Around 85% of them live in advanced economies – including Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, United States, and United Kingdom – and also in China. The rest are from the Middle East, Russia, and South Africa, in countries with relatively high income and wealth inequality and emissions-intensive fuel mixes. The bottom 10% of emitters globally live in developing economies in Africa and Asia, where they consume relatively small amounts of goods and services, and in many cases
lack access to electricity and clean cooking.
The growth in consumption is not due to those 46.8 million wealthy people but to the increasing demands of the 7.841 billion that make up the rest of our population.
If they were serious in their propaganda? These global governments and global corporations, would be the FIRST to cut back. But they aren't.
That's not true. Why do you think US consumption fell even after Trump pulled out of the Paris accords and stopped all government efforts? It was the work of corporations and privately owned businesses and increases in personal conservation: LED lighting, EVs, hybrids, bicycling, walking, eating less meat, turning out the lights, etc, etc, etc. Many - not all - but many of the wealthy recognize their responsibility and behave accordingly. Of course, they can afford to do so.
They want to create an atmosphere of draconian energy austerity and the world's populations FIRST, while they continue to gorge on global energy reserves. Not only using, but continuing their growth of energy use.
I'm sorry but an examination of the facts will not support this. Certainly the rich still have larger carbon footprints than the poor, but your generalization, like almot all generalizations, are based on bias, not facts and just do not hold up.
Central governments, and corporations like FB, Google, Am@zon, they just keep on building more, and more data centers.
Google has been carbon neutral for 16 years now. As of two years ago, Facebook is using 100% renewable energy to power its data centers and has reached carbon neutrality. Amazon has not done so well.
They just keep on building, more and more energy hogging infrastructure. SO? They need ignorant ass folks like you to swallow their global propaganda and gaslight themselves and others for them.
Aside from this conversation with you, do you think I have been supporting the wealthy with my arguments here? I support the science. I am trying to convince people that AGW is real, not a hoax and that it is a threat, not something that can be ignored.
They are the ones that control the politicians and funding in, "public-private," partnerships, and benefits from austerity and resource cutback in the populations. While pushing, "energy saving," products, devices, tech, which also are connected into the smart grid which will help track, trace and control the entire population, while sending ever more data to energy hogging data centers. And THAT, will end up using even more energy.
They, they, they, they... . Your universe has real villains in it and apparently almost none of them have names.
Nope, I didn't lose a single person to COVID. Nor did anyone I know.
Then you were lucky. Please don't try to tell me the pandemic wasn't real.
And there is the whole point. We, as a global society, need to change our attitudes toward consumption. If your locality, with in say five hundred to a thousand miles of you, do not produce it? You don't consume it, it is as simple as that.
That's a large chunk of land. That will certainly require transport. And how realistic is such a desire? The people of the world are not going to stop wanting things made on the other side of the planet or, as is most often now the case, not caring where they are made but that they're of satisfactory quality and cheap.
What matters very little?
The folks that are in control of all the media, and all the governments, don't care.
Don't care about what? I think the majority of the people in charge (not control) of media and government care about global warming. Perhaps not enough, but they care.
They are the ones in control of all the financial systems, and are the ones in control of the IPCC
Mister Beale, you're going too far. This is paranoia. The world is not controlled by a secret cabal of wealthy villains.
which I have posted threads on how that is primarily a political organization, not a scientific one.
The IPCC was formed by the UN, a political body, with a clear charter to assess climate science. It is staffed by large numbers of very senior, respected, well-published scientists from all over the world. It is conducting its chartered mission, not helping the rich take over the world. Besides, from what you say, they already control the world. If they can do what you claim they can do, what do they need more power for?
Reduction of emisions is not the primary concern of the folks in control. Creating a technocracy is.
The IPCC exists to assess the science and make suggestions for mitigation measures. It does not set policy and has NO power to do so.
Many of the ESG investing metrics don't have a damn thing to do with CO2.
Because ESG is much broader than CO2. ESG stands for Environmental, Social, Governance
See? There you go again, shooting off at the mouth, and not getting it.
Well... one of us isn't getting it.
If this really were a problem, you should be hitting THIS as the problem.
Not when I disagree with just about every single thing you've contended here.
We need to change global attitudes. Folks should only be "buying," things out of need, not to fill some hole in their personality or as a substitute for self-esteem.
That's true, but the odds of that happening - ever - are as slim as slim can be.
BINGO! And they are the ones that originally hit upon the idea of technocracy, as a replacement economic paradigm to both Marxism and free market capitalism during the great depression. The only problem? How to trick the masses into accepting it. For this type of economic system will effectively give them complete control over all the global resources in perpetuity.
The development of technology, particularly the meteoric rise of the speed and capacity of computing devices, has moved us towards a technocracy. No one during the Great Depression thought that technology would give them control of the masses. Bleedin edge technology at that point was an AM radio that would fit in a car.
The only problem? The masses need to believe, that there is some compelling reason to give them that control. IN ancient days, "divine right, or the right of kings," was sufficient. But today?
Why do people obey laws, pay their taxes and donate to charities? It's not to save the planet from global warming.
There needed to be a new justification for Neo-feudalism. But what? What justification can there be, to have an elite ruling class of technocrats that live better than the masses?
Neo-feudalism? Do note that the attainment of all the knowledge to make use of technology can be accomplished by attending the public school system. The world is rife with technology being used as a tool and a weapon by groups at all levels of socieity. Anonymous, Wikileaks and most recently, Discord. These are technologically elite people but politically opposed to those you think are taking over the world.
Technocracy.
The mistake? Is believing the global rulers propaganda, and the global corporations propaganda, leading us into a global dystopian, technocratic police state will solve all the world's problems. Leaders lead by example, NOT by propaganda.
Do you believe the Constitution will be made void at some point?
The majority of new CO2 is being produced by economic globalization, IOW? By the same folks that are gas-lighting us about this so-called same problem. They are selfish and misguided, like they have always been.
That is simply not true. The majority of new CO2 is being produced by energy generation.
Smart grids continue to be built a pace.
What is your bugaboo about Smart Grids? Do you even understand what they are?
Rare earth minerals continue to be dug out of the ground
Some. Many are extracted by other means. And battery technology is moving away from them as fast as it can. There are already multiple candidate new battery technolgoies that use NO rare earths and have superior performance to Li-Ion.
and new data centers continue to be built. These? Suck energy from society, and put out as much CO2 as a small nation.
Or are built from the ground up to operate on renewable energy.
.and it is done by the same folks that claim to want to stop climate change.
Since it is not being done - by the people who own such businesses, your concern is misplaced.
The whole thing is a scam.
Your whole lengthy, abysmally-sourced, vague and ill-defined paranoid fantasy would be a scam if anyone believed you. But I'm sorry, this is all just a paranoid delusion of evil conspiracies ruling the world.
But you won't listen, because to you? This whole thing is a religion. I have given you example after example, but you just ignore them.
You have given me NO examples. Believing in mainstream science is the OPPOSITE of a religion. YOU are the one here believing a fantasy that empirical evidence refutes.
I agree with Corey Morningstar on this issue.
I've never heard of him.
We are all part of the problem.
That was Pogo.
Smart devices and their attendant technologies, are a bigger contributor to energy use and so called, "green house gases," than even internal combustion engines.
That is false. Data centers are large energy users but they are not as large as energy or transportation
I limit my purchase of smart deivices to less than one every decade, and a try to protect my data, so they don't have anything for their data centers.
Can I ask what you are typing this on? What sort of device and operating system?
Now, naturally the global ruling elites don't want you to know this, because this tech is used to track, trace, and profile every bit of information about you.
Leaders lead by example, not by what they say. The folks most vocal on this issue, tend to be the most invested in companies that have the most to profit from this. . . I can't help you if you don't get it at this point.
The warning that CO2 emissions were causing global warming and that warming would reach threatening levels ORIGINATED WITH SCIENTISTS. The evidence and data and conclusions that I bring here ARE THE WORK OF SCIENTISTS. You have a few nice ideas: buy only what you actually need and do so locally. But your idea that global elites are pushing AGW to gain power is absolute paranoid nonsense. Sorry, but that's the truth.
www.wrongkindofgreen.org
