Posts Tagged ‘Disinformation’

Denying consensus

May 27, 2019

There was comment on the Guardian site recently which shows at least some of the problems with the Left.

It ran something like:

Three really good reasons to deny the science of climate change:

  • 1. Ignorance
  • 2. Stupidity
  • 3. Insanity
  • This formulation tells us nothing. It offers no strategy for persuasion or action. Perhaps, it makes the writer feel better, and heavens we all need to feel better, but it succeeds in making the likelihood of communication and problem solving even less, by name-calling and making barriers and reactions. It puts people who disagree with the speaker(and even some others who might be friendly to those speakers) into dismissible social categories and prevents people from hearing each other.

    It creates problems, it does not diminish them.

    Let’s look at some other reasons people might have for not being active, which are slightly less closed.

  • Fear. People don’t want to think about climate change, because there are no obvious things they can do. It threatens their children and grandchildren, and that is not easy to face. If correct it could be terrifying. Yet we have lived with the threat of nuclear war, population increases and so on, and so far everything is all ok. I spent my youth terrified and nothing happened. Maybe this will be ok, as well?
  • Lack of fear. Everything is in the hands of God. The world is too big to hurt. How is this tiny amount of a perfectly normal gas I breathe out every day going to massively disrupt the whole Earth? It doesn’t make sense. Humans are insignificant in the scheme of things. I cannot change what will be.
  • Sense of probable loss. Loss is painful, and over the last 40 years we have lost out over and over. The promises we were given have not eventuated. You guys trying to stop climate change could take even more away from me and my family. This is another loss. Let’s hope it is as unreal as the promises we were given.
  • Uncertainty as to whether remedies will work. Do we have any guarantees these remedies will work? No? In reality we don’t. It may even now be too late, and plenty of people assure us the costs are way to great to take action without certainty. What are you asking that we should give up again? Why is it always us that are giving up our prospects?
  • Uncertainty about change. Futures are not predictable any more. Who could have guessed this would be happening? Who would guess contemporary technology? Polls are always wrong. Guesses at the future are just guesses, and you are probably using your guesses to gain power over me, and persuade me to act against my interests, like everyone else. Why should I trust you?
  • Experts are often wrong. This is obvious. All of you promised that “free markets” would deliver liberty and prosperity but they haven’t. Even vaguely. They said war in the Middle East would be easy and successful, but its been a total mess, hurt lots of people, and made things worse. Even doctors change their minds every five minutes about what is good or bad for us. They promise cures that never come. These experts are just con-artists without common sense. Everyone makes mistakes you know.
  • Life is overwhelming. I have to make too many decisions. I have pressures from work all the time. My wages and conditions are being cut. I never get any holidays. My boss is a total dickhead. My company is corrupt. I’m not feeling well. My spouse is unhappy. I’m one or two pay days away from family disaster. My kids are acting weird, and I don’t know what to do to help. I’ve too much on my mind. Go away… I don’t need this climate bullshit.
  • Immediate pressures. [Pointed out by Alice Suttie] I have to provide for people around me today. I have to deal with real problems now, not decades, or even just years, in the future. My mother is really sick, I have debt collectors at the door, the electricity may be going to be cut off. I’m busy. I don’t have time to worry about irrelevancies. If you can’t help me now, or propose policies that help me now, then trouble someone else will you?
  • You people are just rude. You obviously don’t understand me. You are obviously not going to listen to me. Why should I listen to you? You are up yourselves, you f+@in alarmist morons
  • There is almost certainly more that could be said here. The advantage of some of these formulations is that the speakers are seen as relatively rational (as people are). We are not dealing with stupidity or insanity which cannot be altered. The statements are largely based on real remarks I have read from people. They are specific, not catastrophizing, not foreclosing of all solutions, like ‘madness’ is. They suggest that some of the problems might be generated by the activist approach, so the approach may need to change. They also suggest that there are specific questions and dialogues which need to be opened and pursued, and that people might be persuadable.

    Now these dialogues may not be easy. They may involved being abused. But the possibility of dialogue and failure also suggests the possibility of learning something new together.

    And that might get somewhere. At least further than thinking the opposition is ignorant, stupid or mad.

    Conservatives and the Left vs the Right

    May 26, 2019

    This post makes use of the political triad (Right, Conservative, Left) proposed in a previous post.

    What seems clear is, that over the last 40 years of the Pro-Corporate Right (and its talk of ‘markets’) being dominant, ‘ordinary people’ have been marginalised from political and economic processes. Median wages have stagnated, share of wealth has declined, housing has become largely unaffordable, social services have become persecutory, developers can over-ride locals with impunity, people’s objections are largely ignored, and so on. Yet we are all are surrounded by displays of great wealth and squander. Over these last 40 years, the Right has engineered massive change to benefit the wealthy, to break any ties of obligation the wealthy have to any other portion of society, and to break any checks and balances the system had developed. They have succeeded in that aim, to a greater degree than they probably thought possible, yet they appear to want to continue that path until the end of the world.

    Both Conservatives and the Left are unhappy with this result. However, rather than blame their own attempts at allying with the power of the Right, they both blame the other.

    Conservatives wonder why minorities are supposed to get priority when white workers are loosing out, and the Left saying “white privilege”, while true, is not an answer; everyone should feel they are advancing together. They will never feel that under the Right, because, to the Right, wages are a cost and ordinary people are a potential obstruction; both should be eliminated no matter what hardships that brings. Today, hard working people can hold two jobs and still only just support their families. The current system is failing everyone.

    Conservatives are suspicious about climate change as, so far, all the big changes put forward by the Right have not benefitted any ordinary people. It is reasonable to suspect that if climate change is dealt with in the normal way, it will hurt people yet again – that is how things work nowadays. If the left makes dealing with climate, a matter of capitalism as usual, then this is probably going to be true. If they make it a matter of challenging capitalism, then they also face problems of gaining support as it is unclear how change will be carried out.

    Conservatives generally fear that if they break with their support of the Right, then they will completely loose influence, or they try and convince themselves that they will eventually win over the Right, but all that happens is that they become corrupt and throw conservation aside. They may need to remember that there is no compromise between God and Mammon. Wealth is not ‘the good’.

    The Left tends to blame the supposed stupidity, racism and small mindedness of Conservatives for their failure. The apparent inability of Labor to analyse its failings in the last election, and the number of Labor supporters apparently blaming the Greens is extraordinary. The Greens did not lose Labor’s election, Labor did.

    But again, this ‘stupid’ attack on Conservatives misses the reality, that ordinary people are resentful of their decline in power, income and position, and are suspicious of grand plans and experts who have harmed them (remember all those experts who said free markets would benefit everyone?). That the Left also attempted to ally with the Right, does not help here. As is the case with conservatives, the alliance only ends in corruption, and support for plutocracy not democracy. The whole point of Left existence is lost.

    I’m not denying that Conservatives and the Left have real disagreements, what I am suggesting is that those disagreements are not more severe than the disagreements they both have with the Right. The Right is good at lying, making false promises, and running the other two sides against each other, so distrust is easily stirred. However, if either Conservatives or the Left wish to survive, then they have to ally with each other. There is no future for either of them if they don’t – at best we will get more of the same. However, 40 years of Right dominance, show that it is much more likely that things will get far worse for the rest of us if we allow things to continue as they are. There is no chance anything will spontaneously recover.

    Green Paradox

    May 21, 2019

    German Economist Hans-Werner Sinn identifies a ‘green paradox‘.

    This is that the more we discuss lowering, and act to lower, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to reduce climate turmoil, the more temptation there is for fossil fuel companies to excavate fossil fuels to sell them and make money out of them, before the assets become unsellable and worthless. I suspect that this is one of the reasons the Right in Australia is so keen on new coal mines, to protect mining giants and get support from them in turn.

    We can add, that acting to reduce CO2 also increases the temptation the companies have to broadcast false information to delay action and keep the sales going as long as possible. Both selling to damage the market, and emitting misinformation to influence the market, are part of normal capitalist functioning.

    Furthermore, if plenty of green power is available, then the price of fossil fuels may come down (especially given the pressure to sell them) so even more fossil fuels get burnt. If Countries have not committed to green energy, then they can freeload on the cheap fuel created by those who have rejected fossil fuel. This can then lead to further lock-in of fossil fuel technology in those countries.

    Another way of phrasing this is “The more we need to go green, the harder it will become”.

    Solutions are difficult, but apart from overthrowing capitalism which is not going to happen, we could have a worldwide carbon tax, which is also going to be hard (misinformation problems), we could reduce the massive subsidies that go to fossil fuels for historical reasons (we tried to make supply safe for social good), or we could simply buy, or nationalize the reserves (which is also going to be difficult).

    What the green paradox tells us, is that we cannot solve the problem of greenhouse gases and energy without legislating, or finding some other ways, to keep coal in the ground. That has to be the aim

    The Australian Election

    May 20, 2019

    I was uncertain for the whole last week that Labor would win. Partly because the movement of the polls was in the wrong direction, partly because of the relentless misinformation, and partly because Bill Shorten’s speeches were not precise, and did not say what Labor would not do – which was vital. Labor should also have broken with the misinformation that coal mines bring jobs…. but for whatever reason that seemed impossible.

    However the main reason for my despair was reading right wing internet groups. Some of this reading was deliberate and some of this was because I was getting quite a lot of promotional material on Facebook without asking for it. Please note, any remarks here are impressionistic and not a mark of extended research…

    The appearance of these groups is of seething hatred and dedication, together with apparent loathing of general uncertainty and uncertain boundaries in particular.

    Groups tend to argue by abuse and by flat statement as a way of reinforcing boundaries (if you can’t take it then you are not one of ‘us’), but expressions of disgust and certainty are not uncommon online. The point is that ‘we’ are the righteous, and need to expel the different to keep the boundaries going.

    According to participants, nearly everything bad that happens to normal people happens as a result of some left wing policy. Low wages and unemployment, because of restrictions on the economy, migrants, refugees, positive discrimination, green tape and so on. Corporate power is a problem, because the left is all on board and wealthy (a point Tony Abbott made in his retirement speech – it is wealthy electorates who are concerned about climate change, while real people understand the Coalition and know the Coalition is best). Cultural crisis occurs because of cultural marxists, radical homosexuals and transsexuals destroying ‘our culture,’ and weakening its self-preserving boundaries by insisting that foreign Islam, other races and gender constructions are acceptable. It is also felt that Leftists are snobs, hate ‘us’ and make no attempt to understand ‘us’ (or that such attempts are aimed at undermining ‘us’) – and indeed the common left lament that the people have failed has more than a hint of this. Green policies are further attempts to sacrifice working people to rich people’s needs, radical lies and snobbery. Taxation is theft, and its always the working people who get taxed by high taxing parties, which is pretty true; only its the Coalition that does this.

    It is common to see people in these groups blame corruption in the Church, the police or politics on leftist values, or the sixties. There is a single handy explanation for everything, despite 40 years of largely right wing dominance.

    This blaming merges with scapegoating of particular groups, as a form of avoidance of responsibility. And indeed, one of the problems of the modern world is that we are all responsible. Some more than others perhaps, but not ourselves ever – and we all often fight to avoid recognising that part-responsibility.

    The Israel Folau issue (the sacking of a very expensive footballer for claiming gays would go to hell) was surprisingly important because it clearly ‘showed’ oppression of religion, or at the least suppression of authenticity, while demonstrating that the left had joined with the corporate sector in attacking working people who expressed righteous anger with people who attacked gender roles, boundaries and certainties. Again the scare campaign that Labor was going to force our kids to be gender fluid only makes sense in this kind of environment, of existential boundary fear. However, it is a mistake to think that traditional gender roles have much support either, even if people claim they do. Its more complex and flexible than that.

    In a few academic articles I have got into trouble with reviewers for arguing that trust in authority has little to do with belief. While these groups fiercely distrust the left they don’t trust the political right either. If their own side is irrefutably shown to have lied or schemed against them, the response is not to consider the possibility of being wrong, but to state “all media lie,” “all politicians lie,” “both sides are the same” or something similar. This allows people to keep their opinion while dismissing evidence that it may be false. This is what contemporary skepticism (or ‘independent thinking’) means, being skeptical of counter-evidence to your own, or group’s, position.

    People seek to defeat the uncertainty of a complex crumbling society by being stable, righteous, and avoiding responsibilty by finding scapegoats, who, if removed would solve all the problems people face. For the left it might be capitalists or neoliberals, for the right it is leftists, feminists, gays, transsexuals and sometimes abortioneers. Obviously I think the first position is more likely to be correct

    The Coalition campaign made fertile use of these trends – they are much better than Labor at it, perhaps because it avoids criticising real power. More and more, Labor depends on the powers that undermine them, for funding, publicity and respectability.

    The basic assumptions of these groups were supported by the Murdoch press and other media promoting the general social fantasies they depend on such as ideas that the coalition manage the economy better, the economy is primary, virtue involves identifying or punishing out-groups. The Labor party ignored this part of life, or perhaps they did not see it or dismissed it as the work of a few fanatics, rather than of a relatively large group of people, who would support anyone who promised to get rid of what they perceived as the leftist challenge to their existence.

    Due to communication having to involve interpretation rather than transmission of meaning, it is more or less impossible for such groups to actually hear what people on the other side are saying. Once identified as from that other side, then the boundaries are to be reinforced: that person’s comments are to be attacked, and the person ideally driven away if they cannot be converted. This then leads to a shouting war which tends to reinforce the separation and the further rejection of ‘good communication’.

    What to do? The first thing is to admit these groups exist, and that they are powerful and real expressions of ordinary people’s lives. Even intellectuals can often be quick to blame the left for problems or for hostile fanaticisms… Rather than convert them intellectually, they need to be listened to and understood, and then argued with, with some understanding rather than just a condemnation which reinforces their boundaries and life worlds. This requires patience.

    It is another example of the paradox that if we are to do anything democratically it will be slow (perhaps too slow), but if we don’t do it democratically and bring people along, then we will fail.

    Coal Mines and jobs

    April 29, 2019

    In Australia we have a large dispute over coal mines. In particular, people dispute over the proposed Carmichael coal mine in Queensland, run by the Indian company Adani which would be one of the largest coal mines in the world. Some say that if it opens then we may as well give up trying to stop climate disruption.

    Politicians frequently defend the mine by saying it will result in at least 10,000 jobs in a fairly depressed area. This is also the figure that Adani chuck around when they are not in court.

    In court where they can charged with perjury, the story is different.
    Adani’s expert witness in the Land Court, Jerome Fahrer from ACIL Allen consulting, claimed (and please read this carefully)

    “Over the life of the Project it is projected that on average around 1,464 employee years of full time equivalent direct and indirect jobs will be created.”

  • 1) This is over the *life time* of the project.
  • 2) “1464 employee years” (so if everyone works two years that is 732 jobs for two years, if every job lasts for 4 years that is 366 jobs. If the life time of the mine is a mere 20 years, and all jobs last 20 years, then that is 70 or less jobs. The mine is forecast to be operating much longer than that (I have seen predictions of 50 to 60 years). It is likely the opening years of the mine will consume most of these “employee years” while it requires construction.
  • 3) “Direct and indirect” – this figure includes all the jobs that will be created in response to employment at the mine – bar tenders, contractors, motel staff and so on.
  • 4) Be created – this means on top of the jobs lost elsewhere, as other mines are forced to shut down, because of competition.
  • So we would be in high risk of destroying the Great Artesian Basin, Queensland’s agriculture and world climate stability, for less than 70 extra jobs over 20 years. Adani are notorious for not paying tax and royalties, so we might as well stop pretending that Australia will get anything for all this destruction.

    That was for the big mine. Adani will no longer open the big mine as it is too costly at the moment, so the jobs figure will be smaller. So we should not keep telling everyone this will come anywhere near solving Northern Queensland’s unemployment problem. This seems false rhetoric designed to persuade people that the mine should go ahead, and profits should be made and taken elsewhere.

    Mining jobs make up less of the workforce than retail jobs, accommodation and food, and far less than the arts. But of course people in the arts don’t count.

    Mining jobs have traditionally been well paid so miners are naturally attached to them, but this small number of jobs in Queensland is probably not going to maintain a field of high paying jobs, and it is a trivial number of well paid jobs given the risks….

    Mining jobs are also becoming increasingly automated, so it may be that even fewer extra jobs will be created – although this will probably be blamed on Green politicians, rather than on mining company automation.

    All of this suggests that coal mines do not benefit the country in any significant way, but they do endanger it for profit.

    Clive Palmer and the Australian Election

    April 23, 2019

    In Australia, we are in the middle of a Federal Election at the moment. It should be the case that the current Coalition government gets voted out, but they have the support of the Murdoch Empire and most of the media, despite their amazing incompetence, forceful suggestions of corruption and total disinterest in facing the problems of climate change.

    We also have a variety of odd politicians competing. One of whom, is Clive Palmer a mining magnate, who has spent a lot of time in court…. It has been alleged that Mr. Palmer has budgeted $80 million for his parliamentary campaign, based on being Australia’s Donald Trump. This budget is plausible given that it is more or less impossible to avoid his adverts on the road, in the paper and on youtube, and has been for months.

    The big questions we should be asking are: “Why is Clive Palmer spending all this money to get elected?” and “What’s in it for him?”

    A plausible answer is that he is probably trying to get the huge Alpha North coalmine going in the Galilee basin near the proposed Adani Carmichael mine. Alpha North is as big as the Carmichael mine, and the Carmichael mine will probably destroy the Great Artesian Basin which inland Australia depends upon for its water. Two such mines make this almost a certainty. Adani has already been promised unlimited water access.

    If Adani can get up, then his mine should be approved (after all he has the advantage of being ‘Australian!’), and he gets the rail line he needs which will have been built for the Adani mine to work.

    If Adani is rejected, then he can still agitate for the money and infrastructure to get his mine going.

    He apparently wants the coal mine to support a massive coal fired power station which he also wants to build in Queensland. This is despite Queensland already having more energy than it knows what to do with, but it would lock Australia into coal.

    He can also probably challenge any attempts to get decent royalties out of mining companies, or to tax mining companies at a reasonable (non-zero) rate.

    This is especially the case if his party holds balance of power in the Senate which is quite likely.

    If any of this is true, the massive investment in his party has been worthwhile for him.

    Sea level rise and Climate change

    March 31, 2019

    We all know the threat that coastal cities will likely be inundated by rising seas. Indeed in some parts of Australia, Local Councils are apparently declaring that some low lying residential areas are to be abandoned. Residents are, I’m told, even being forbidden from raising their houses higher or otherwise attempting to protect them. This is, in my opinion, crazy. It seems to be a way of trying to pretend that we should not act, or that everything will be ok.

    Other people point out that certain cities, such as New Orleans, or even countries such as Holland, are already beneath sea level, and its all ok. Of course in New Orleans this was one reason why Katrina was so disastrous. However, when things, like being beneath sea level are normal, and have been normal for a long time, they can be generally be dealt with, no question. Levee and dyke walls already exist and perhaps it will be feasible to expand them to cope with the extra pressure of more water.

    Some problems here stem from the nature of the cities themselves. Some cities are built on relatively porous rock, or even on sand (think of the Queensland Gold Coast) and, in that case, waters may flow under levy walls, and rise up to sea level. New sea walls are also likely to have to extend either for large distances inland or along the coast and change the coastal ecology and erosion patterns – although those will also be changed by climate change. Relatively close to the surface water tables could also be contaminated. It is complicated.

    Other people can argue that the current rate of sea level rise is so slow that we have nothing to worry about at all. For example we can quote the Royal society, the “best estimates of the global-average rise over the last two decades centred on 3.2 mm per year (0.12 inches per year).” At this rate it would take over 600 years to get a rise of 2 metres. We could probably deal with this quite easily.

    However, there are lots of problems with accurate prediction of such things as sea level rise.

    The first is that the rate of rise is not going to be linear. The more land ice melts, the less radiation reflected into space and the more land ice will melt. The more greenhouse gases we keep emitting then the faster the melting will happen, and if we reach the tipping points at which methane starts rising from the deep ocean and the tundras, then it could start happening very rapidly.

    People keep talking as if climate change and its problems expressed a nice gentle and smooth process, but it is not going to be that way. It is turbulent and chaotic. The climate system is what is known as “complex”, and turbulent change, once it is thrown out of equilibrium, is its nature. It will be hard to deal with, once things really start shifting, and they could shift rapidly.

    That is why we need to act now while the situation is not too bad. That is why we keep being told that we have to reach greenhouse gas targets by 2030, and that it is better to come in even lower. If we don’t reach those targets then the probability of great turbulence is very high.

    Anyone who tells you there is nothing to worry about, is assuming that they can predict a nice transition or control that transition. This position is extremely unlikely.

    It is best to agitate for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the possibility of chaos, now.

    The Mueller Report is presented

    March 29, 2019

    I find the media response to the summary of the Mueller report extraordinary.

    They largely seem to be falling over themselves to say President Trump is in the clear. That is, they are gladly supposing that an appointee of Trump, who has already implied the President cannot obstruct justice, is going to give an honest unbiased account of the Mueller report.

    I’m simply asking people what they would think if Hillary Clinton had:

    1) publicly asked the Russians to hack Republican emails and the Russians did,

    2) secret business dealings with Russians during the campaign and lied about it,

    3) invited those Russians to her inauguration party,

    4) members of her campaign committee with secret dealings with Russians who paid them,

    5) members of her campaign who knew in advance of leaking of Republican emails,

    6) her daughter, son-in-law and campaign chair attend a secret meeting with Russians to get dirt on the Republican candidate and lie about it,

    7) her designated national security advisor engages in secret talks with the Russian ambassador about removing sanctions and lies about it to the FBI,

    8) large numbers of her campaign team had been accused of, and in some cases convicted of, criminal offenses,

    9) repeatedly tried to stop the inquiry,

    10) as president reveals classified information to Russian government representatives including the foreign minister,

    11) has secret meetings with Putin as President, and

    12) there was evidence that Russians had supported her in the election along with other shady elites who had exploited loopholes in Facebook, and other forms of social media, to manipulate discussion and promote their interests.

    If so, would you think there was a problem?

    President Trump on Energy

    March 29, 2019

    This is a commentary on Donald Trump speaking about Energy Policy from a speech to raise funds for Republicans in New York August 13, 2018.

    While this speech is not about Energy Policy, it contains points he repeats elsewhere and is as complete a presentation of his views as I have seen.

    You know, uh considering the fact that we have the highest taxes in the nation in New York, and we should have no taxes if Andrew Cuomo, if he took over and if he — think of it — if they would have allowed a little bit of fracking and taken some of the richness out of the land, which by the way is being sucked away by other states. You know, they don’t have state lines underground. You know what that means? That means it just goes down, down, down.

    Gas does not always flow everywhere in fracking fields. This is why you have so many short lived drilling points.

    However by fracking and blowing up the geological barriers you can get gas leaking into the water table and making water poisonous. You can also get gas leaking into the air. With Gas you also get large leaks through ancient pipes, particularly in big cities. Gas is heavily polluting, breathing methane is not pleasant and it adds to global warming.

    We don’t get it. You look at what’s happened in Pennsylvania with the money they’ve taken in, you look at what happened in Ohio with the money they’ve taken in. They’re fracking, they’re drilling a little bit, they’re creating jobs, and this place, it’s just so sad to see it.

    Would fracking in New York really create a significant number of jobs in New York, given New York’s population? I’d doubt it. But he never gives any figures, so who knows.

    You look at what’s happened in Pennsylvania with the money they’ve taken in, you look at what happened in Ohio with the money they’ve taken in….. Because stuff flows — do you understand that? It flows, and they probably have those little turns, you know, they make the turns at the border. It goes like this, right? And all of a sudden someday you’re not going to have that underground maybe so much

    If gas under New York Flowed to Pennsylvania and Ohio, then taking the gas out in New York would diminish the benefits and jobs produced by the gas in Pennsylvania and Ohio. So he is effectively suggesting that New York get rich at their expense.

    This could have been Boom Town USA.

    Ok New York has no business, and never booms? An odd view perhaps.

    We got ANWR, one of the largest fields in the history in anywhere in the world. One of the great, one of the great energy fields anywhere in the world. That’s in Alaska. They’ve been trying to get that long before Ronald Reagan.
    Nobody could get it approved. We got it approved. That’s going to be one of the great energy [Inaudible].

    Yes you do have access to the Artic National Wildlife Refuge – largely because of climate change (which is good for you), but with oil drilling, spills and flares, construction and transport, you will not keep it as a wildlife refuge. This may not be a problem to neoliberals. So lets not push it. Trump has been trying to overturn National Monument protection to allowing mining and drilling. This is more of the same. Profit not wildlife.

    We approved the Keystone and the Dakota-access pipelines in just about Week 1. They were dead. They were dead. I had dinner the other night with one of the gentleman involved in the Dakota access. He said, “Sir, we were dead.” — I never met him — “We were dead. It was not going to happen.”

    Now it’s open. Tremendous numbers of jobs were produced in building it and everything else. We got it started. Likewise Keystone. I think it’s gonna be a total of 48, 000 jobs during construction and also environmentally better than the alternatives.

    Stages 1-3 of the pipeline were completed before Trump became President. Stage 4 (the Keystone), which he gave the go-ahead to, is not yet completed or open. Yes people were protesting against the pipes, because they risked despoliation of water supplies and land, and they are now going ahead. Profit before people and land. The job figures appear to be fantasy, but I’m open to correction. And what is better about oil covered land?

    We have clean coal — exports have increased, 60% last year — clean coal, which is one of our big assets that we weren’t allowed to use for our miners. You remember Hillary with the coal, right, sitting with the miners at the table? Remember? That wasn’t so good for her. So the people of West Virginia and all over, you look at Wyoming, you look at so many different places where they just, Pennsylvania, where they loved what we did, and it’s clean coal and we have the most modern procedures.

    We don’t have clean coal. Clean coal is largely an expensive fantasy. Burning coal can be more, or less, polluting but it is not clean. Let’s be clear; coal is poisonous. Mining it damages water tables and can give people lung diseases. Burning it produces greenhouse gases and poisons. The ash which remains holds heavy metals and is poisonous; Trump’s EPA now allows the ash to be dumped in streams.

    Four months after this statement, Trump’s EPA would abolish or modify Obama’s requirement for low emissions and Carbon Capture, so his point about coal being clean is largely irrelevant due to his own policies.

    But it’s a tremendous form of energy in the sense that in a military way — think of it — coal is indestructible.

    You can blow up a pipeline, you can blow up the windmills. You know, the windmills, [mimics windmill noise, mimes shooting gun] Bing! That’s the end of that one.

    Coal actually works as an energy source because it is easily destructible. Burning coal destroys that coal. Sun and Wind are not destroyed by using them for energy – this is what is usually meant by “renewable”.

    However, even if Trump really means coal infrastructure is more resistant than wind to attack or disaster, you still have a problem. Coal mines and power stations can be bombed or set alight. It is hard to put out fires in coal mines. Cables and grids can be cut or hacked. Coal power can collapse with high temperatures as we learn in Australia regularly. Because wind and solar are more widely distributed, and less concentrated in a small place, they are probably more resistant to attack.

    If the birds don’t kill it [the wind farm] first. The birds could kill it first.

    It is nice to see the President concerned about birds, but does anyone know of him ever expressing any concern about wildlife in any other situation? See the point about the Artic National Wildlife Refuge above. As far as I know, birds have never taken down a modern windmill.

    And you know, don’t worry about wind, when the wind doesn’t blow, I said, “What happens when the wind doesn’t blow?” Well, then we have a problem. OK good. They were putting them in areas where they didn’t have much wind, too.

    Strangely energy companies seemed not to be too worried about this problem. But if people were putting windmills in areas without much wind, it was probably because of a bad subsidy – say one that rewarded them for numbers installed rather than power generated.

    And it’s a subsidiary [sic] — you need subsidy for windmills. You need subsidy. Who wants to have energy where you need subsidy? So, uh, the coal is doing great.

    There are indeed subsidies for Wind power. However Trump is forcing people to buy coal power to keep coal power running, because of supposed security concerns. This is effectively a subsidy reflected in higher prices for consumers. Coal usually receives tax concessions, and exemption from its pollution costs, so coal is subsidised already.

    American oil production recently reached an all-time high in our history and it’s going higher. We’re now the No. 1 in the world in that category. We’re No. 1 and there are, nobody ever thought they’d see that, but we opened it up in a very environmentally friendly way.

    People who live in fracking fields may dispute how environmentally friendly this gas is: that is, if they did not have to sign confidentiality agreements.

    Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris climate accord. That was another beauty. That was a beauty.

    Exiting the Paris accord is probably not beautiful. Along with his removal of waste and pollution controls on corporations, it is going to harm the American people and the world. It also indicates to anyone that Trump cannot be relied upon to keep promises and treaties entered into by the USA, thus lowering US presence in the world, and boosting that of China.

    Trump may be seduced by corporate profit as a good thing. But he also seems to be seduced by a narrative which states that coal is a source of power, progress and stability. But Coal is no longer any of these things, as explained above and elsewhere. New coal power is also extremely expensive to build, which is why pro-coal and pro-free market governments are talking about subsidies and compulsions to buy coal power. Nobody wants to build it without such subsidies. Left to itself and the market, coal is dead. But it won’t be left to itself.

    Neoliberalism is capitalism II

    March 27, 2019

    If you are a pro-neoliberal capitalist political party, then clearly it is a good thing to accept money from wealthy corporations and people, as wealth marks virtue. You are doing good by accepting money from good people, and working to implement their good ideas. Everyone will benefit.

    It is logical to assume that organisations which largely represent non-wealthy people (like unions) are evil. They should be attacked because they are inherently evil to begin with and are probably envious of your virtue (like Satan). Any activity which opposes the virtue of wealth should be opposed and stopped. Any media which suggests that wealthy people are not virtuous is clearly immoral and ignorant. It should be shut down, or someone worthy like Mr. Murdoch should be encouraged to take it over. Free Speech means agreeing with neoliberalism or its culture war positions, everything else is blasphemy.

    Wealthy people drive the economy and create jobs, this is good. The fact that most people cannot be self-supporting without a job is the fault of those people themselves. If they were virtuous they would not need jobs. Jobs are a gift from their superiors.

    If people object to this position, neoliberals can proudly say “The profits of industries are owned by the people as shareholders and as members of pension funds. Everybody benefits from the set up.”

    Neoliberals can ignore the obvious problem that most people do not own many shares as such people can’t afford to risk it, and ordinary people have little to no control at all over what their pension fund does with their money, how it is distributed, and what it supports. But these ordinary people are ignorant of what is good to begin with. That most of the benefit of share-holding goes to relatively wealthy people is good. It is crazy to even suggest that wealth creation is driven by everyone who participates in the society including workers in unions and people who work without pay.

    Some companies can create wealth by destroying wealth and amenities for others, or through dumping pollution of production upon people, and this is right because if the people being dumped on were virtuous they would have the money to oppose the dumping in court. Developers, miners, roadbuilders are reasonable examples of such destructive companies. It is particularly good for such companies to be associated with a party which might attain government. The government can then support those company’s dispossession of others or general destruction. That the government can be seen to lose its position of neutrality and of governing for us all is irrelevant as the government is governing for the best people, and as most people can be distracted through culture wars and be persuaded to vote for racist or local issue groups which will support neoliberalism and established power in the long run.

    That the tax laws enable wealthy people to avoid tax is good design, and that corporations take the money they earn inside a country, from exploiting its minerals or soil, outside that country is also good as neoliberals don’t want to support the lazy and bad ordinary people.

    This is what neoliberals mean by free market. Regulation of markets and life to benefit those who are already wealthy and good, and prevent others from protesting or prevent the subsidizing of those who are poor and evil.

    The whole system is backed by God, and one of the problems in modern society is the decline of that belief. Morality is in crisis and we need to attack someone to prove our virtue and make our way to the promised land.