I did not see your LI post (probably don't need to now, given your excellent exec summary!)
I was planning to comment on LI, but as I reached your offer, I moved to Plan B. Off to draft a piece which i will send to you by email for critique, and see where we go.
I don't know what people like Eccles think they have to offer the world...massive energy poverty, massive government control, massive changes in human behavior needed...massive changes in energy composition and energy infrastructure--and each and every measure requiring government force (tyranny) to implement. And all supposedly to avoid some projected bad weather somewhere on earth 75 years from now. Billions of people still do not even have electricity, and have massive needs now for massively more energy consumption now, for the betterment of their lives.
Net Zero is truly doomed to being Net Zero Nowhere. Despite an estimated $7 trillion dollars spent pursuing Green Energy in the past decade, in the real world:
All time world record consumption of natural gas in 2024.
All time world record consumption of oil in 2024.
All time world record consumption of coal in 2024.
Eccles, you are yet another delusional leftist...thinking that you can have rational discourse with other leftists. The last paragraph of your Forbes article is, indeed, telling:
"But here’s the thing and I find it very telling. All of these folks know I’m a liberal with very different political views than theirs. Yet it’s easier for me to have civil and constructive discussions with them about climate change than with the people and organizations on the far left. The diehard climate activists have an orthodoxy from which even the slightest deviation is apostasy. Fall completely into line or you’re cast out of the Climate Church and branded as a climate-change denier or, even worse, a Republican!
Don’t believe me? Send this little piece to some of your diehard climate activist friends and see what they have to say."
So... Eccles gets the predicted pushback from the Climate Cult...and instead of saying, "what did I tell you", you cave, and grovel, and do a mea culpa.
I am so reminded of the scathing mountain of scorn heaped upon Micheal Moore by the Climate Cult for daring to criticize "Green Energy" in Planet of the Humans. As just one example, here is Moonbat Monbiot telling Micheal Moore he can be forgiven and welcomed back into the cult of true believers, and "loved again" (at the 5:30 mark) by the cult.
I appreciate your effort to reach out to those aligned with the political right in America who are open to or actively engaging in climate action. You are correct that building a broad coalition will be necessary to make real change.
If I can suggest a possible explanation for the defensiveness of those on the left, I suspect a fair amount of this stems from distrust borne out of the perception of fossil fuel companies (and, by extension, those who support them politically) as intentionally misleading the public regarding the harmful effects of their products on the environment. Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway comes to mind.
I can imagine it to be difficult to convince a left-leaning climate activist to trust the intentions of an Ecoright proponent if they grew up with this perspective, especially if the Ecoright proponent's solutions are more similar to the status-quo than their own. It may come across as greenwashing or some other manipulation.
Let's hear more voices advocating for a narrative of a better future we can all contribute to making into reality.
You raise a good and fair point. I don't deny the bad behavior of this industry in the past. And in many ways it's not a paragon of virtue today but I think it's come a long way. The issue for me is whether to hang on to the past or engage with them in the present. Many of the big players support a price on carbon. Cynics say this is because they believe it will never happen. My view is go to them and say, "Gee, I'm so pleased to hear your support of this1 You have a lot of influence and a lot of money so let's work together to make this happen." And, as I said at the end of my piece, If you'd like to write a piece yourself as a guest contributor I'd be pleased to publish it!
Surely we need a diversity of approaches, a bit of everything - including ways some of us think may not work and this includes “doom”. None of us know. For me personally I grapple with “fear” (rather than doom) - what if society becomes fearful about our climate? Could that be a positive - not sure.
Bob, I stand with you shoulder to shoulder.
I did not see your LI post (probably don't need to now, given your excellent exec summary!)
I was planning to comment on LI, but as I reached your offer, I moved to Plan B. Off to draft a piece which i will send to you by email for critique, and see where we go.
I don't know what people like Eccles think they have to offer the world...massive energy poverty, massive government control, massive changes in human behavior needed...massive changes in energy composition and energy infrastructure--and each and every measure requiring government force (tyranny) to implement. And all supposedly to avoid some projected bad weather somewhere on earth 75 years from now. Billions of people still do not even have electricity, and have massive needs now for massively more energy consumption now, for the betterment of their lives.
Net Zero is truly doomed to being Net Zero Nowhere. Despite an estimated $7 trillion dollars spent pursuing Green Energy in the past decade, in the real world:
All time world record consumption of natural gas in 2024.
All time world record consumption of oil in 2024.
All time world record consumption of coal in 2024.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-scale-of-global-fossil-fuel-production/
Eccles, you are yet another delusional leftist...thinking that you can have rational discourse with other leftists. The last paragraph of your Forbes article is, indeed, telling:
"But here’s the thing and I find it very telling. All of these folks know I’m a liberal with very different political views than theirs. Yet it’s easier for me to have civil and constructive discussions with them about climate change than with the people and organizations on the far left. The diehard climate activists have an orthodoxy from which even the slightest deviation is apostasy. Fall completely into line or you’re cast out of the Climate Church and branded as a climate-change denier or, even worse, a Republican!
Don’t believe me? Send this little piece to some of your diehard climate activist friends and see what they have to say."
So... Eccles gets the predicted pushback from the Climate Cult...and instead of saying, "what did I tell you", you cave, and grovel, and do a mea culpa.
I am so reminded of the scathing mountain of scorn heaped upon Micheal Moore by the Climate Cult for daring to criticize "Green Energy" in Planet of the Humans. As just one example, here is Moonbat Monbiot telling Micheal Moore he can be forgiven and welcomed back into the cult of true believers, and "loved again" (at the 5:30 mark) by the cult.
Oops, here's the link to the Monbiot video:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/22/monbiot-vs-moore-you-provided-us-with-no-solutions-to-climate-change/
I appreciate your effort to reach out to those aligned with the political right in America who are open to or actively engaging in climate action. You are correct that building a broad coalition will be necessary to make real change.
If I can suggest a possible explanation for the defensiveness of those on the left, I suspect a fair amount of this stems from distrust borne out of the perception of fossil fuel companies (and, by extension, those who support them politically) as intentionally misleading the public regarding the harmful effects of their products on the environment. Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway comes to mind.
I can imagine it to be difficult to convince a left-leaning climate activist to trust the intentions of an Ecoright proponent if they grew up with this perspective, especially if the Ecoright proponent's solutions are more similar to the status-quo than their own. It may come across as greenwashing or some other manipulation.
Let's hear more voices advocating for a narrative of a better future we can all contribute to making into reality.
You raise a good and fair point. I don't deny the bad behavior of this industry in the past. And in many ways it's not a paragon of virtue today but I think it's come a long way. The issue for me is whether to hang on to the past or engage with them in the present. Many of the big players support a price on carbon. Cynics say this is because they believe it will never happen. My view is go to them and say, "Gee, I'm so pleased to hear your support of this1 You have a lot of influence and a lot of money so let's work together to make this happen." And, as I said at the end of my piece, If you'd like to write a piece yourself as a guest contributor I'd be pleased to publish it!
Thank you for persisting with this important conversation. I’d love to take you up on your offer.
Surely we need a diversity of approaches, a bit of everything - including ways some of us think may not work and this includes “doom”. None of us know. For me personally I grapple with “fear” (rather than doom) - what if society becomes fearful about our climate? Could that be a positive - not sure.