Shibboleths are as native to the human condition as tribal conflict. Neither being much inclined to disappear when ignored. And it is most commonly a poor faculty for ignoring the obvious that begets blogging bigots. We, of course, have our own shibboleths–such as telltale eyesight–and the tendency to report on what it reveals. Though for tonight I’ll limit perception to one of the left’s increasingly popular examples.
Is there a term now more certain to precede a defecation of discount moralizing than this one? Taking whatever shape or consistency racial, social, or Department of: everyone knows what smell follows the grunt.
That’s why it’s a bit surprising how long it has taken for the weather and SJWism to reach their natural confluence in Climate Justice. From an impartial perspective, I almost appreciate the symmetry. The Warming movement is as divorced from actual matters of climate as the Justice movement from equity. Both being shoddy cover for attacks on political or tribal opponents, with the tantalizing possibility of becoming very very rich in the process.
In that way Big Weather has become no mere racket, but a Matryoshka doll of them. It is a contemporarily unique nesting of flimflam, hypocrisy, greed, and liberal theology. That is to say, it is Justice exemplified. And sometimes, there just ain’t enough of it to go around.
Why ‘climate justice’ has India and the West at each other’s throats
You wouldn’t know it from the happy spin emanating from the Oval Office, but a Third World revolt in Bonn, Germany, this week almost derailed the Paris climate change negotiations in November. Although peace has been restored for now, it only happened by papering over this fundamental conundrum: The world can either avert climate catastrophe or seek “climate justice,” not both.
We can probably conclude any speculation right there. For my liberal neighbor has assured me that Justice supersedes catastrophe avoidance, and by no small margin. He offered all the usual battery in support: the wickedness of “Climate Profiling,” “painful ice age pasts,” and “no warming trend is illegal.” It’s not an exaggeration to say he supports unlimited carbon migration.
The revolt was triggered when 130 developing nations including India and China noticed that the draft action plan that is supposed to serve as the blueprint for the Paris negotiations had omitted their most important conditions about the “fairness and financing” of the final deal — in other words, who is going to take responsibility for the warming and who should pay to reduce it? The South African delegation condemned the omission as “apartheid” that would penalize poor countries for the sins of the rich. It has a point.
Haha, it has point indeed. That point is SOMEBODY GOT TO PAY. And that somebody is going to look very much like you, dear reader. I’m always fascinated by how shrewd third-worlders become at the opportunity to fleece an earnest West. Indians can’t fathom to shit in a hole, yet quickly grasp the windfalls in white people’s pieties.
The Paris negotiations are supposed to be the mother of allclimate negotiations. It was convened to impose binding emission reductions on all countries — not just the West…To this end, each country has been asked to submit its own good faith reduction plan that includes both how much it will cut emissions and its plan for getting there. Once finalized after a review in Paris, the plans will be legally binding — although how precisely they will be enforced is anyone’s guess.
Those plans will be enforced by mutual good faith. And those contingents who secure revenue streams from Western tax payers will abound in it.
…as Oren Cass, a Manhattan Institute analyst, notes, fighting climate change is a particularly vexing problem because the individual cost to each country, especially Third World ones, will be immediate and huge — and the benefits distant and uncertain. The notion that emission cuts can pay for themselves through increased energy efficiency is at best fanciful and, at worst, a lie.
We’ll just call Madoff’s accounting “fanciful” in that case. There is a fundamental engineering hurdle here. The most energy efficient combustion exhaust is a straight pipe. Once you decide to use smoke stacks as breathing tubes, significant and costly inefficiencies must be introduced to sanctify the process.
Given that non-white populations are utterly unmoved by 50-year weather forecasts, it is very likely those inefficiencies in third-world countries will require vast subsidies by a people who won’t much fancy the obligation. Though what’s fanciest of all is what will occur when these people lose demographic (and thus democratic) control of their countries. At that moment, the entire mitigation program will evaporate faster than the ice sheets. Liberals want a non-white West that still rides white hobby horses. Nothing could be more fanciful.
…Even this much, India claims, will require up to a $2.5 trillion investment over the next 15 years…But Western countries have to date pledged to raise only $1 trillion over 10 years ($100 billion annually) to offset the climate change costs of the entire Third World. Upping that commitment while simultaneously absorbing their own emission reduction costs will require Western government to take very radical — and very draconian — steps to pare back the living standards of their own citizens.
I don’t think Merkel overly burdens herself worrying about the comfort of her citizens, so we can pencil that in as a yes. Of course that presumes Western nations don’t decide to take very radical–and very draconian–steps to pare back the carbon output of current leaderships.
Third World countries insist that justice demands that every country get a quota based on its population. By that arithmetic, America’s total quota would add up to 128 Gt (and the entire developed world’s 406 Gt). But America used up over twice that amount between 1850-2011. As these countries see it, America (as the rest of the Western world) is in their ecological debt.
Justice demands. Ms. Lazarus should have dispensed with the meanderings about wretched refuse and simply engraved those two words on the base of that goofy statue. Racial justice demands you relinquish. Social justice demands you submit. And now climate justice makes the most predictable demand of all: Fuck you, pay me. It’s an age-old shibboleth.
The lie in these negotiations is flouncing about quite unashamedly. Third-world contingents purport full agreement with the claim that climate change is a mortal danger to the world, and to their particular precious people most poignantly. Thus however many gigatons of carbon America disgorged during the civil war is a long sunk cost and wholly irrelevant to the extraordinary measures now required to avert certain catastrophe. The point being that if India and China actually believed what they were saying, they would instantly concede that “Justice” or no, their own emissions must now be trimmed dramatically if they want to survive.
But, of course, that’s not what they’re saying. They are saying that sure climate change will end us all and must be dealt with, so long as it’s you doing the dealing. They are humoring our hysteria to the extent a profit may be extracted from the effort…and no more whatsoever. Our civilization’s late-stage flailing must be a marvel to behold.