[Sivad]

[maz]

Climate change: Big lifestyle changes 'needed to cut emissions'

"It will very rarely come down to a direct message like 'sorry, you can't buy that but you can buy this'. But there will be stronger messages within the (tax) system that make one thing more attractive than the other."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49499521

Taxes. This is the solution to everything. We have to pay the banks to keep the weather from changing?

They have to peddle this kooky nonsense to 10 year old girls lol

[Pants-of-dog]

Is there a historical example of a country using anti-pollution policies to subvert democracy?

[Sivad]

Is there a historical example of a country using anti-pollution policies to subvert democracy?

There are massive historical precedents. All throughout history elites have leveraged their control of natural resources to dominate the masses.

A hydraulic empire (also known as a hydraulic despotism, or water monopoly empire) is a social or government structure which maintains power and control through exclusive control over access to water. It arises through the need for flood control and irrigation, which requires central coordination and a specialized bureaucracy.[1]

Often associated with these terms and concepts is the notion of a water dynasty. This body is a political structure which is commonly characterized by a system of hierarchy and control often based on class or caste.

The "climate crisis" is just a pretext for technocratic power elites to gain despotic control over all global resources and global development and use that power to dominate the rest of us.

[maz]

Is there a historical example of a country using anti-pollution policies to subvert democracy?

Attempting to prevent the movement of people doesn't seem very democratic.

France’s protesters are part of a global backlash against climate-change taxes

The single most effective weapon in the fight against climate change is the tax code — imposing costs on those who emit greenhouse gases, economists say. But as French President Emmanuel Macron learned over the past three weeks, implementing such taxes can be politically explosive.

On Tuesday, France delayed for six months a plan to raise already steep taxes on diesel fuel by 24 cents a gallon and gasoline by about 12 cents a gallon. Macron argued that the taxes were needed to curb climate change by weaning motorists off petroleum products, but violent demonstrations in the streets of Paris and other French cities forced him to backtrack — at least for now.

“No tax is worth putting in danger the unity of the nation,” said Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, who was trotted out to announce the concession.

[Pants-of-dog]

There are massive historical precedents. All throughout history elites have leveraged their control of natural resources to dominate the masses.

The "climate crisis" is just a pretext for technocratic power elites to gain despotic control over all global resources and global development and use that power to dominate the rest of us.

So the answer is no.

Even hydraulic despotism is not comparable since limiting pollution is not comparable to access to necessary resources.

————————

Attempting to prevent the movement of people doesn't seem very democratic.

France’s protesters are part of a global backlash against climate-change taxes

The single most effective weapon in the fight against climate change is the tax code — imposing costs on those who emit greenhouse gases, economists say. But as French President Emmanuel Macron learned over the past three weeks, implementing such taxes can be politically explosive.

On Tuesday, France delayed for six months a plan to raise already steep taxes on diesel fuel by 24 cents a gallon and gasoline by about 12 cents a gallon. Macron argued that the taxes were needed to curb climate change by weaning motorists off petroleum products, but violent demonstrations in the streets of Paris and other French cities forced him to backtrack — at least for now.

“No tax is worth putting in danger the unity of the nation,” said Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, who was trotted out to announce the concession.

No one likes paying more taxes, but the popularity of a particular policy does not change whether or not the policy is democratic.

And this seems to have nothing to do with freedom of movement.

[Sivad]

In early modern England enclosure and other devices were used to ensure elite control of resources. Marxist historians argue that rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit.

[Sivad]

So the answer is no.

Even hydraulic despotism is not comparable since limiting pollution is not comparable to access to necessary resources.

The bullshit excuse for imposing hegemonic control is irrelevant. You can call it resource management or environmental protection, you can make up whatever bullshit excuse you want, the upshot is always the same: the ruthless domination of the many by the few.

[maz]

No one likes paying more taxes, but the popularity of a particular policy does not change whether or not the policy is democratic.

And this seems to have nothing to do with freedom of movement.

Where French citizens given the chance to vote on paying more global warming taxes on their fuel?

[Pants-of-dog]

In early modern England enclosure and other devices were used to ensure elite control of resources. Marxist historians argue that rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit.

And?

Are you arguing that this is comparable to Ms. Thunberg's campaign?

The bullshit excuse for imposing hegemonic control is irrelevant. You can call it resource management or environmental protection, you can make up whatever bullshit excuse you want, the upshot is always the same: the ruthless domination of the many by the few.

You tend to swear a lot when people disagree with your unsupported claims.

Now, since there is no historical example of a country using anti-pollution policies to subvert democracy, why should we assume this is happening now?

[Pants-of-dog]

Were French citizens given the chance to vote on paying more global warming taxes on their fuel?

The public is almost never given the chance to vote on a particular tax. Does that mean most taxes are anti-democratic?

[maz]

The public is almost never given the chance to vote on a particular tax. Does that mean most taxes are anti-democratic?

Yes. They are even more anti-democratic when they are imposed on people to fight a stupid hoax problem.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes. They are even more anti-democratic when they are imposed on people to fight a stupid hoax problem.

Then your criticism is about the anti democratic nature of taxation and not about Ms. Thunberg’s efforts.

If you are claiming that anthropogenic climate change theory is a hoax, plese note that you have already been asked to show this theory has been debunked, and you have not provided any explanation.

[Deutschmania]

This video humorously clarifies , and sums up this matter .

Enough said . Funny how the ridiculous right is making fools of themselves , and all the while so intellectually bankrupt that they have nothing to come back with than ad hominem bullying . At least now I know more than ever that the political enemy of the rights , and dignity of autistic people , as well as common sense , and common courtesy is the reactionary right .

[QatzelOk]

This is really one of the things that everybody overlooks: many people stand to profit from any political decision.

This reminds me of how the French posed as great defenders of peace and altruists in their opposition to the Iraq war, but simultaneously they were one of the countries making absurd amounts of money through oil deals. While it can be said that there was a 'war for oil' lobby, there was also a 'peace for oil' one.

I see what you're saying here, Verv.

You're saying that any sharp- minded nation of parasites would have supported destroying Iraq for fake reasons.

I'm in France right now, breathing the pungent smell of Libyan diesel. Ghaddafi's blood keeps their little shit-boxes running as the exhaust eats away the stone walls.

[Tainari88]

I see what you're saying here, Verv.

You're saying that any sharp- minded nation of parasites would have supported destroying Iraq for fake reasons.

I'm in France right now, breathing the pungent smell of Libyan diesel. Ghaddafi's blood keeps their little shit-boxes running as the exhaust eats away the stone walls.

You see I live for these sorts of observations Q.

I also wonder why the Yucatecan government keeps selling water that is not potable and is full of hard deposits...what is so hard about upgrading to a decent water system? It rains here almost every day and rainwater quality here is GOOD. No excuse to not store it and make sure it is drinkable. Someone is making money.

[Verv]

I see what you're saying here, Verv.

You're saying that any sharp- minded nation of parasites would have supported destroying Iraq for fake reasons.

I'm in France right now, breathing the pungent smell of Libyan diesel. Ghaddafi's blood keeps their little shit-boxes running as the exhaust eats away the stone walls.

If I had pointed out that the US government unjustly propped up a tyrant, you would be happy.

But when I point out that non-US actors were very content with maintaining the dictatorship of a tyrant, you are less happy.

As a general note... I now second guess whether or not we should have been involved in the second Iraq war. But that's neither here nor there. This isn't actually about realities to me, now, but rather about the hypocrisy of the left.

[Godstud]

@Verv Look at Iraq. A lot less people who have been killed and the country would not be a disaster zone if they had left Saddam in power. Lesser of two evils, I suppose, but there it is.

I don't think US should be interfering with the politics of ANY foreign power, but they are notoriously meddlesome if there's even a sniff of money.

[Verv]

Iraq tended to have a civil war once a decade. I assume that Hussein still in power would not have interrupted the pattern. But maybe it would have. I am more sympathetic to Hussein now than ever.

I simply wanted to say that the French were not as noble as people say they are -- and it touched a nerve, judging by QatzelOk's post.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is a weird argument to say that going to war in order to make money is morally similar to avoiding war to make money because both involve making money.

It is like a weird perversion of the fact that we can make money even without going to war.

In that respect, it is like the implied argument in this thread: that Thunberg’s movement is just as bad as the fossil fuel industry’s lying and deception because it is somehow associated with money too.