Do politicians actually believe global warming is a real treat in the near future?

[ErrForceOnez]

Does anyone actually believe that politicians in the US or Europe actually buy into the narrative that 'man made' (preventable) global warming will have a catastrophic effect in the near future (say the next 30 to 40 years)?
None of these people (as far as I am aware, certainly not the big names in the US at least) are ever publicly critical of outsourcing manufacturing. If you produce a product in the US/Europe (even before we had a push to clean up emissions with legal restrictions) you are typically producing less carbon emissions (and pollution in general) than if you produce that same product in China (or India or Indonesia or wherever in the third world, but specifically China because they have grown their economy so much from this). This is before you even factor in whatever carbon impact shipping products across the ocean on a boat has. Creating laws that make it more expensive to produce products in the US is effectively just pushing companies (that can afford to) to shift their production to the third world, where there is no reason not to do it a cheap and dirty as possible (this also puts their smaller competition in a position where they are priced out of the market, as now domestic production becomes prohibitively expensive and they can't afford to ship their operation overseas - which means their market share will now be taken over by the competition which means even more volume produced in the higher-emission environment).

Another political belief that you tend to see these same people push for is third world migration into the US/Europe (in the US mostly through wanting to allow illegal immigrants to become naturalized and in Europe through wanting to take in more 'refugees'). There are obviously financial motives behind this (in the US it drives down the cost of what labor remains in the US, in Europe they seem to think that it will solve their low birthrate issue, which makes some of their socialized policies unsustainable long-term), but it is completely incompatible with a view that the world will potentially be uninhabitable in the near future. A human living in the third world has a much smaller carbon footprint than that same person living in the US/Europe. These people also tend to come from cultures that have a far higher birthrate (as in more children per household) than the nations they are migrating into, which means an exponentially larger population generation over generation (and in turn a much much larger future carbon footprint).

I am not trying to argue against the validity of 'man made' global warming, nor am I even arguing for/against any doomsday timescale, I am saying that there is no reason to ever definitively believe that any modern politician believes a word of this (unless you choose to believe that they are sociopaths and just do not care). They should not be taken seriously and any laws aimed at global warming pushed by these people should be outright rejected until they are willing to address immigration and outsourcing of labor.

 

[Niggernerd]

Lol no but they know it'll put more money in their pockets via donations from useful idiots who want to feel morally superior to others.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

No, stupid ideas are for the proles.

 

[Alkaline Cab]

I'd think so - at the very least in terms of hurricanes, floods, desertification, and other things that don't effect the first world.
They're just paid to look the other way.

 

[Chilson]

No, because if they did care they would actually address the major causes instead of attacking the auto industry and pushing ineffective green energy, both of which don't do dick to actually curb emissions.

The five largest super cargo ships produce more emissions in a year than all cars on the planet, but no one ever talks about it. The oceans reefs are dying not because of global warming, but we massively over fish the nautical animals that maintain the reefs.

The list goes on and on and the only unifying factor is that the major causes are all major industries with a mind-bogglingly massive lobbying presence on Capital hill (and within NGO's/non-profits).

 

[Ghost of Wesley Willis]

Probably the only ones that do are the hippie types in Green Parties across the world, but the average one that holds power probably doesn't behind closed doors because they know it's a good tool of control.

 

[Niggernerd]

Probably the only ones that do are the hippie types in Green Parties across the world, but the average one that holds power probably doesn't behind closed doors because they know it's a good tool of control.

Even that would be a stretch. A lot of those hippie types that have protests/events are ones who leave the biggest mess.

 

[byuu]

Greed and corruption override any actual belief they might have.

 

[protec cat]

I highly doubt it. Most 'green' measures are designed to enrich their rent seeking friends or their corporate / TBTB patrons. There was a point with emissions, say, where there was an issue with public health, but in most places, green measures are notably only for piously presented corruption and impunity.

 

[“Fun”times]

Pfffft, fuck no, a lot of them buying up beach front property and lobbying against the big bad alternative power source that is nuclear (because every nuclear power plant is a piece of shit Chernobyl and we totally haven’t developed cleaner and more efficient techniques since then) proves otherwise. If a politician is pushing “green” energy look at who’s sponsoring them, if they or someone related to them has their fingers in the pie. Otherwise they’d bitch at the chinamen for overfishing the ever loving shit outta oceans and stop sending shit overseas for a cheap buck.

 

[Save the Loli]

I'm sure a few of them genuinely do (Greta Thunberg does, for instance), but by and large the global elite simply intends to use the actual problem of global warming as a tool to get their agenda pushed forward and solidified both now and in the future. Never let a crisis go to waste, after all. We all know that man-made or not, they could step in at any moment and start taking it seriously, and I mean serious seriously, and make it so environmental laws aren't just "pay the 50 cent carbon tax to park your car" but using the actual resources of the government to start building serious energy infrastructure like nuclear power plants and giant solar farms hooked up to pumped-storage reservoirs and other means of updating the grid. It shouldn't matter the cost or if the government can only bomb 49 weddings in the Middle East instead of 50, we are told it's a matter of life and death and that means the government absolutely must do something just like a couple extra fat boomers dying meant everything had to close down.

This is why all of the "save the planet" measures are passed on to the plebs. It isn't these giant corporations's job to save the planet, it's YOUR job, citizen. Enjoy the insignificant dent you and your fellow plebs make in greenhouse gas emissions as you eat a diet of soy and bugs and ride cramped public transit (since you had to sell your car because the carbon taxes were too high), and stay at home in a dark house where the AC, heat, and electricity run only 15 minutes an hour because of the ongoing climate lockdown (better sell your house too, since only the pods are exempt from climate lockdowns). This is why "eat the bugs" and "we need more climate taxes and lockdowns!" are what the media pushes for instead of more common sense ways to have an impact on emissions like "require landfill gas capture at landfills" and "do something about how cargo shipping lines use international waters and flags of shitholes like Liberia and Panama to get away with insane amounts of pollution and emissions." But that would require actual journalism which might offend corporations and might require government regulators to do something instead of collect a salary and browse Facebook all day.

Basically it will be like 2020/2021 but played out over the course of decades in terms of how they will use misguided "environmental" laws to reshape the global economy and how labor works. I think they're hoping for climate change to get really bad and actually cause shit like megadroughts in India and floods of refugees everywhere which they can use for cheap labor, destabilizing countries, and replacing/subjugating native populations to finalize their master plan of turning the world into a mass of cultureless serfs indebted to major corporations.

 

[Joe Swanson]

If global warming was a real threat like the alarmists portray, there would be a hard push by the elites for nuclear power as it's the only power source within our grasp that can actually offset fossil fuels

 

[Not Really Here]

If they did they wouldn't own beachfront property or islands.

 

[Pixy]

Depends on which politicians you're talking to. The ones from small island nations that stand the most to lose from it most likely do.

Of course, they don't command as much sway on the international stage as larger nations might, unfortunately.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

I think you'll find no more than a dozen politicians in America who genuinely give a fuck. It's not a matter of belief at all. That's small people talk. There's a talking point that could keep them in power indefinitely if they play their cards right. All they have to do is talk big and then throw a few grand towards making prisoners clean up more medians along the road.

I really shouldn't have to say this, but if politicians were in the business of getting shit done, shit would get done, or at least there would be an outcome at some point. The truth is, they don't try, they're too busy fucking children and marketing themselves for those sweet, sweet, campaign donations/corporate bribes/war economy dollary-doos. Don't be fucking naive.

 

[Bad Gateway]

*shakes magic 8 ball*

"Ask again when electric cars fail"?

That's oddly specific.

 

[Chilson]

Probably the only ones that do are the hippie types in Green Parties across the world, but the average one that holds power probably doesn't behind closed doors because they know it's a good tool of control.

The hippie types in green parties are utter fucking morons. They are also bought and sold by corporations the same as the other political groups, they are often too stupid to know it though.

 

[Ghost of Wesley Willis]

The hippie types in green parties are utter fucking morons. They are also bought and sold by corporations the same as the other political groups, they are often too stupid to know it though.

The hippie types and the general 'activist' are nothing more than tools for the rich and powerful and have been for the past couple decades.

Extinction Rebellion making bank vandalization look pathetic is a good example of this.

 

[HERO_V]

If these politicians actually believed in "climate change" they would truly lead by example and show the populace how serious this issue is. Instead, they continue living their lives with double standards and expecting peasants (us) to live one way of life, while the elite get to maintain their status and continue on with business as usual. These are the same people that fly their private jets to an award show to give a speech on the dangers of global warming and how we need to protect the environment. They are also the same people that buy large mansions that use up more fossil fuels than most people use in months, if not years. On top of that, you have people like Obama buying a home on the ocean front, despite talking about the dangers of ocean water levels rising. They don't believe in this nonsense. It's just their form of religion that they strictly hold onto for the purpose of transforming the economy, increasing the wealth gap, and strengthening their grip over foreign nations. It's all a complete farce. That's not to say that we shouldn't protect the environment and be aware of our surroundings, but we shouldn't throw away everything on studies that can easily be manipulated for the purpose of pushing an evil global agenda.

 

[Irrelevant]

None of these people (as far as I am aware, certainly not the big names in the US at least) are ever publicly critical of outsourcing manufacturing. If you produce a product in the US/Europe (even before we had a push to clean up emissions with legal restrictions) you are typically producing less carbon emissions (and pollution in general) than if you produce that same product in China (or India or Indonesia or wherever in the third world, but specifically China because they have grown their economy so much from this). This is before you even factor in whatever carbon impact shipping products across the ocean on a boat has. Creating laws that make it more expensive to produce products in the US is effectively just pushing companies (that can afford to) to shift their production to the third world, where there is no reason not to do it a cheap and dirty as possible (this also puts their smaller competition in a position where they are priced out of the market, as now domestic production becomes prohibitively expensive and they can't afford to ship their operation overseas - which means their market share will now be taken over by the competition which means even more volume produced in the higher-emission environment).

They completely ignored this in 4+ years of the Brexit debate. The left wing environmentalists were suddenly all repeating capitalist theory of "comparative advantage" as a reason to stay in the EU.

But even a good capitalist can recognise that maybe food being grown, processed, and sold in three different countries is a bit excessive. Or cars where every part is made somewhere else and shipped around in multiple stages.