Aug 092021
 August 9, 2021  Posted by at 4:50 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , ,

Up Stories Evia 2021



The IPCC came out with another report today, which is a lead-in to another climate conference, this time in Glasgow in Oct-Nov 2021. All the headlines and reactions are exactly the same as they always are: There is no time to lose!, We have to act now!, but also: There is still hope! Since it’s all the same, I thought I’d repost an article from December 2015, ahead of the Paris conference named COP21. All I had to do was change the number and call this one not CON21 but CON26.

No, we’re not going to act in time, and no, there is no hope to halt the degradation of our planet. It’s all long baked into the cake, and if it wasn’t we’d still not stop it. We can do things as individuals but not as a group, let alone as a species. We cannot change our approach to the problems because we cannot change who we are.



I don’t know what makes me lose faith in mankind faster, the way we destroy our habitat through wanton random killing of everything alive, plants, animals and people, through pollution and climate change and blood-thirsty sheer stupidity, or if it is the way these things are being ‘protested’.

I’m certainly not a climate denier or anything like that, though I do think there are questions people gloss over very easily. And one of those questions has to be that of priorities. Is there anyone who has thought over whether the COP21 stage in Paris is the right one to target in protest, whatever shape it takes? Is there anyone who doesn’t think the ‘leaders’ are laughing out loud in -plush, fine wine and gourmet filled- private about the protests?

Protesters and other well-intended folk, from what I can see, are falling into the trap set for them: they are the frame to the picture in a political photo-op. They allow the ‘leaders’ to emanate the image that yes, there are protests and disagreements as everyone would expect, but that’s just a sign that people’s interests are properly presented, so all’s well.

COP21 is not a major event, that’s only what politicians and media make of it. In reality, it’s a mere showcase in which the protesters have been co-opted. They’re not in the director’s chair, they’re not even actors, they’re just extras.

I fully agree, and more than fully sympathize, with the notion of saving this planet before it’s too late. But I wouldn’t want to rely on a bunch of sociopaths to make it happen. There are children drowning every single day in the sea between Turkey and Greece, and the very same world leaders who are gathered in Paris are letting that happen. They have for a long time, without lifting a finger. And they’ve done worse -if that is possible-.

The only thing standing between the refugees and even greater and more lethal carnage are a wide, even confusingly so, array of volunteers, and the people of the Greek coastguard, who by now must be so traumatized from picking up little wide-eyed lifeless bodies from the water and the beaches, they’ll live the rest of their lives through sleepless nightmares.

Neither Obama nor Merkel nor Hollande will have those same nightmares. And let’s be honest, will you? You weren’t even there. And still, you guys are targeting a conference in Paris on climate change that features the exact same leaders that let babies drown with impunity. Drowned babies, climate change and warfare, these things all come from the same source. And you’re appealing to that very same source to stop climate change.

What on earth makes you think the leaders you appeal to would care about the climate when they can’t be bothered for a minute with people, and the conditions they live in, if they’re lucky enough to live at all? Why are you not instead protesting the preventable drownings of innocent children? Or is it that you think the climate is more important than human life? That perhaps one is a bigger issue than the other?

Moreover, the very same leaders that you for some reason expect to save the planet -which they won’t- don’t just let babies drown, they also, in the lands the refugees are fleeing, kill children and their parents on a daily basis with bombs and drones. Dozens, hundreds, if not thousands, every single day. That’s how much they care for a ‘healthy’ planet (how about we discuss what that actually is?).

And in the hallways of the CON21 conference they’ve been actively discussing plans to do more of the same, more killing, more war. Save the world, bombs away! That’s their view of the planet. And they’re supposed to save ‘the climate’?

There are a number of reasons why the CON21 conference will not move us one inch towards saving this planet. One of the biggest is outlined in just a few quoted words from a senior member of India’s delegation -nothing new, but a useful reminder.

India Opposes Deal To Phase Out Fossil Fuels By 2100

India would reject a deal to combat climate change that includes a pledge for the world to wean itself off fossil fuels this century, a senior official said, underlying the difficulties countries face in agreeing how to slow global warming.

India, the world’s third largest carbon emitter, is dependent on coal for most of its energy needs, and despite a pledge to expand solar and wind power has said its economy is too small and its people too poor to end use of the fossil fuel anytime soon. “It’s problematic for us to make that commitment at this point in time. It’s certainly a stumbling block (to a deal),” Ajay Mathur, a senior member of India’s negotiating team for Paris, told Reuters in an interview this week.

“The entire prosperity of the world has been built on cheap energy. And suddenly we are being forced into higher cost energy. That’s grossly unfair,” he said.

This means the ‘poorer’ countries, -by no means just India; China has 155 more coal plants in the pipeline despite their pollution levels moving ‘beyond index’-, the poorer counties won’t volunteer to lower their emissions unless richer nations lower theirs even a lot more. US per capita emissions are over 10 times higher than India’s, those of the EU six times. Ergo: Step 1: lower US emissions by 90%. It also means that richer nations won’t do this, because it would kill their economies.

Which, in case you haven’t noticed, are already doing very poorly, much worse than the media -let alone politicians- will tell you. In fact, the chances that the richer countries will ‘recover’ from the effects of their debt binge are about on par with those of renewable energy sources becoming cheaper than fossil fuels -barring subsidies. If only because producing them depends entirely on those same fossil fuels. All the rest of what you hear is just con.

The people of India obviously know it, and you might as well. It’s going to cost many trillions of dollars to replace even a halfway substantial part of our fossil energy use with renewables, and we already don’t have that kind of money today. We will have much less tomorrow.

Besides, despite all the talk of Big Oil turning into Big Energy, Shell et al are not energy companies, they’re oil -and gas- companies, and they’ll defend their (near) monopolies tooth and claw. Especially now that their market caps are sinking like so many stones. They have no money left to invest in anything, let alone an industry that’s not theirs. They lost some $250 billion in ‘value’ this week alone. They’re getting killed.

In the same vein, China can’t close more than a token few of its most polluting plants. China’s getting killed economically. And for all nations and corporations there’s one principle that trumps all: competitive advantage. If going ‘green’ means losing that, or even some of it, forget it. We won’t volunteer to go green if it makes us less rich.

And who do you think represents big oil -and the bankers that finance them- more than anyone else? Right, your same leaders again, who make you pay for the by now very extensive and expensive security details that keep them from having to face you. Just like they’re planning to make you pay dearly for the illusion of a world running on renewables.

Because that’s where the profit is: in the illusion.

Whatever makes most money is what will drive people’s, corporations’, and nations’ actions going forward. Saving energy and/or substituting energy sources is not what makes most money, and it will therefore not happen. Not on any meaningful scale, that is.

There will be attempts to force people to pay through the nose to soothe their consciences -which will be very profitable for those on the receiving end-, but people’s ability to pay for this is shrinking fast, so that won’t go anywhere.

The only thing that could help save this planet is for all westerners to reduce their energy use by 90%+, but, though it is theoretically and technically feasible, it won’t happen because the majority of us won’t give up even a part of our wealth, and the powers that be in today’s economies refuse to see their profits (re: power) and those of their backers go up in -ever hotter- air.

The current economic model depends on our profligate use of energy. A new economic model, then, you say? Good luck with that. The current one has left all political power with those who profit most from it. And besides, that’s a whole other problem, and a whole other issue to protest.

If you’re serious about wanting to save the planet, and I have no doubt you are, then I think you need to refocus. COP21 is not your thing, it’s not your stage. It’s your leaders’ stage, and your leaders are not your friends. They don’t even represent you either. The decisions that you want made will not be made there.

There will be lofty declarations loaded with targets for 2030, 2050 and 2100, and none of it will have any real value. Because none of the ‘leaders’ will be around to be held accountable when any of those dates will come to pass.

An imploding global economy may be your best shot at lowering emissions. But then again, it will lead to people burning anything they can get their hands on just to keep warm. Not a pretty prospect either. To be successful, we would need to abandon our current political and economic organizational structures, national governments and ‘up’, which select for the sociopaths that gather behind their heavy security details to decide on your future while gloating with glee in their power positions.

Better still, we should make it impossible for any single one of them to ever be elected to any important position ever again. For now, though, our political systems don’t select for those who care most for the world, or its children. We select for those who promise us the most wealth. And we’re willing to turn a blind eye to very many things to acquire that wealth and hold on to it.

The entire conference is just an exercise in “feel good”, on all sides. Is there anyone out there who really thinks the likes of Bill Gates and Richard Branson will do anything at all to stop this world from burning to the ground? You have any idea what their ecological footprints are?

Sometimes I think it’s the very ignorance of the protesting side that dooms this planet. There’s a huge profit-seeking sociopathic part of the equation, which has caused the problems in the first place, and there’s no serious counterweight in sight.

Having these oversized walking talking ego’s sign petitions and declarations they know they will never have to live up to is completely useless. Branson will still fly his planes, Gates will keep running his ultra-cooled server parks, and Obama and Merkel will make sure their economies churn out growth ahead of anything else. Every single country still demands growth. Whatever gains you make in terms of lower emissions will be nullified by that growth.

And in the hallways, ‘smart’ entrepreneurs stand ready to pocket a ‘smart’ profit from the alleged switch to clean energy. At the cost of you, the taxpayer. And you believe them, because you want to, and because it makes you feel good. And you don’t have the knowledge available to dispute their claims (hint: try thermodynamics).

You’re seeking the cooperation of people who let babies drown and who incessantly bomb the countries these babies and their families were seeking to escape.

I’m sorry, I know a lot of you have a lot of emotion invested in this, and it’s a good emotion, and you’re thinking this conference is really important and all, and our ‘last chance’ to save the planet. But you’ve been had, it’s as simple as that. And co-opted. And conned.

And it’s not the first time, either. All these conferences go the same way. To halt the demise of the planet, you can’t rely on the same people who cause it. Never works.




We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.



Support the Automatic Earth in virustime. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.


Home Forums CON26

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • #83041

    Up Stories Evia 2021     The IPCC came out with another report today, which is a lead-in to another climate conference, this time in Glasgow
    [See the full post at: CON26]


    Track the NorCal fires:,-122.26685&z=8&b=oo&a=modis_mp

    I lived in SoCo for 20 years.

    Dr P

    Covid info and opinion here is top notch, with some minimal expcetions.

    Climate coverage here is the complete opposite.

    John Day

    Ride Bike, Grow Veggies, Live in Thailand…

    2 out of 3 aint bad…

    those darned kids

    dr p: perhaps the most stunning intersection of these two topics is the story of dr. charles hoffe of lytton b.c.

    he has lost half of his income for running post-vaccine d-dimer tests on his patients and making a fuss about the results


    most his town burnt to the ground a day after setting canada’s all time temperature record (2?) for 3 consecutive days in a row eventually reaching 49.6ºC.

    those darned kids

    these two headlines are side by side at zh:

    “A Look Back At Nixon’s Infamous Monetary Decision”


    “Dixie Fire Now Single Largest Wildfire In California History, Only 21% Contained”


    DISCLAIMER! (i have to put this because as soon as people see the word “gold” they don’t listen). Gold Is Stupid. it is useless and it’s extraction is extremely toxic. no money should be linked to anything so pointless. i do like shiny jewelry, though)

    i believe these two events are intrinsically linked. in the days of the gold standard, you could only destroy the earth as fast as you could find gold to finance it with.

    look at the chart above posted by germ. you’ll see global surface temperatures went ¡BA-ZOING! shortly after 1970.

    now, with fiat money, we can destroy the earth as fast as bankers can come up with ways to keep the house of tokens viable. wanna frack? we’ll get you the cash. wanna open a gold mine? we’ll get you the cash. wanna build a 797 SUPERJUMBOGOOSEBIRD luxury airliner? we’ll get you the cash.


    but, when money was somehow linked to the earth, we only had so much with which to be greedy.

    and mmt?! god forbid something so easy, so awesome and so helpful get into the hands of humans, for they shall use this spigot to finance the construction of the swarms of ai drone locusts that gandhi warned us about.

    the best i can come up with is tree-based currency. really, we just need one currency. why is my labour worth more than a hondureño’s just because my oligarchs are richer?

    anyhoo, ¡down with fiat! ¡up with trees!

    V. Arnold

    Ride Bike, Grow Veggies, Live in Thailand…

    2 out of 3 aint bad…

    We (my wife primarily) grow a good deal of what we eat…
    We didn’t have A/C for the first 14 years; but, turning 72yo I became suseptable to temperatures above 35c (95f) and we installed A/C…we use it sparingly…

    CON26 is an excellent article/essay Ilargi and spot on…
    Life lately seems to have become one big CON after another…the lies, medical fraud, fake vaccines and on and on and on…ad infinitum…
    Keeping a grasp of the here and now has never been more critical and more difficult…
    Truly times that try mens souls…

    those darned kids

    i found an interesting article at global research, but i can post no links or, now it seems, quotes.

    basically it says there doesn’t exist enough land for carbon offsets to actually get to net zero.


    I decided a few years back that arguing with my conservative family members about “global warming” was pointless. Much more effective to point out how we humans were polluting the planet and point out that we were being “bad stewards.” (Since their religion suggests god wants them to be “good stewards” it was a good place to start the conversation from.). Why argue about warming when there are so many other points to agree about? The vast majority of humans (capitalist sociopaths excepted) prefer not to pollute the planet once they understand the extent of the pollution. Most of us find the natural world beautiful. What we need is to work together to make changes…and our leaders are either themselves capitalist sociopaths or are funded by the capitalist sociopaths, so expecting effective change from that lot is a joke.


    Great post Raul. This is where my lack of trust in authorities started. They will poison every river and every tree as long as they are behind a wall with security. We simply lost our seventh generation philosophy but I try where I can to adhere.

    absolute galore

    I remember the commercial from the 1970s, with a Native American standing at the side of the road as a car drives by and flings out a bag of garbage at his feet. Or something like that. It may have been part of the Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute campaign.

    But the Native American was played by an Italian, and it wasn’t so much the bag of paper garbage that was the problem, as it was the car that it was tossed out of. From the extraction of the materials to make it to the fuel that runs it to the roadways that allowed humans to create a vast sprawling network to the shopping opportunities it created and then became dependent on to keep the “economy” afloat, truly one of the worst manifestations of human ingenuity ever. (And turns out, the oil companies were already aware of the carbon thing being a bit of a stickler.)

    But oh well! Here we are. This is what happens when you pour vast unchecked amounts of highly concentrated energy into a system–biological organisms are going to use that energy at the fastest rate possible. Humans, despite our recent fantasies and denials, are biological organisms.

    I long ago stopped looking at it as “us” and “them.” Sure, there are the big baddies that have lots of money and power and “control” things (and as Ivan Illich showed, the more energy, the greater the inequity) and there are those that protest this “injustice” and then the masses who are basically trying to survive and hope their children do not drown seeking a better existence. (Side note: In the United States, motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death among children. In 2018, 636 children 12 years old and younger died in motor vehicle traffic crashes, and more than 97,000 were injured.)

    But overall, we are simply part of a system. And no one individual can change that system. Dimitri Orlov calls it the technosphere, and uses what is perhaps a metaphor, or perhaps he believes it to be a self-actualized creature. In any event, we all have roles to fulfill, based on where we were born, our genetic capabilities, how we were raised, and what fate, circumstance, luck etc. brings down the pike for us.

    Obviously mathematically most of us will be unknown unheralded extras on this stage, not Muhammad Ali or Miley Cyrus or Hunter Biden or Ghandi. The ever increasing energy inputs allow more of us to be born and survive, up to a point.

    But as the Limits to Growth study foresaw, we are hitting that point. And now we begin the de-energizing of the current global civilization. It will be particularly messy because A. there are so many of us and B. we have so many methods of killing one another.

    I share our hosts frustration with the various ineffectual and hypocritical protest movements, and they often do play right into the hands of the “elite”–I’m looking at you, Greta. That kind of naive sentimentality is easily employed by those wishing to present a veneer of “action” and “protest.”

    But it is equally sentimental to talk about “saving the planet.” I’m not the first to say it, but the planet does not need saving. And the hubris required to believe the human race is even remotely up to the task is quite plentiful.

    I lean toward John Michael Greer’s long view take on that–the planet’s climate is changing, the current civilization is waning. We will undoubtedly lose some magnificent species and whole habitats on the down cycle. But humans will most likely make it through, albeit in much smaller numbers, to create new societies for at least some time into the future. How this will play out in terms of the particulars is anybody’s guess. But we are definitely in the midst of a big bump down!

    Many would be tempted to take a nihilistic approach, which is understandable. Raul mentions faith in our leaders. That is most definitely not the place to put faith. But much of humanity has lost touch not just with nature, but with the strength and inspiration nature provides to build a life of faith.

    So that is what we can do. Try to create a life that we believe in, based on whatever moral or ethical or spiritual compass we are charting by. It could involve helping others in some way (always excellent for getting out of one’s own self-inflicted miseries), living a simple life, taking care of things around us as best as we can–whatever meshes with your beliefs. But it definitely takes Action and Intent and Effort to build faith and reap the benefits. And don’t expect it to save the world. It might help save a piece of your sanity.;^)

    Dr. D

    “Carbon offsets” can’t work anyway. …As soon as the tree rots, and it will, the carbon is re-released. It’s a scam, and the same scam as “cows release methane” … release that CO2 which was just trapped a week ago by the grass and hay. Net-neutral.

    They are a profit-only, science-free zone. Ask any engineer. But we can’t, because they would interject #Truth and #Reality, our only enemies we are in rebellion to.

    Moo Foo Bay

    “That’s how much they care for a ‘healthy planet’ (how about we discuss what that actually is?)”

    Yes. An excellent suggestion.

    Covid may come and go along with the political scandal de jour. Expecting true leadership from the sociopaths with their bloody fists on the political and economic levers is fruitless.

    Yet, one step toward resurrecting a healthy planet is envisioning what that looks like along with providing examples of how to get there. Yes to bikes and growing veggies but I trust the readers can provide a myriad of other examples with which to advance towards a healthier planet and simultaneously saw away at the perch where the sociopths roost.

    Go for it Ilargi.


    All human ‘economics’ is merely a sub, subset of Ecology, which itself is a subset the laws of thermodynamics.

    The study of energy transformation and entropy is The Heart of Darkness.

    It predates life itself.

    Solar systems, galaxies, blackholes, all followed the paths of energy transformation embodied in thermodynamics.

    We know some but are probably missing a few tricks of thermodynamics.

    Is light the fastest thing in the universe? Maybe, maybe not.

    Dmitry Orlov’s book Shrinking the Technosphere was IMHO a continuation of Ivan Illict’s ideas proposed in his book Energy and Equity (Ideas in Progress)

    Like Orlov and his Technosphere, Nate Hagens also proposed human enterprise as a Super-organism, an energy hungry giant amoeba whose only goal is More.

    Raul’s “we can change as individuals but not as a group” alludes to the same mechanism.

    Human groups of any size have a mind of their own.

    None of us are as stupid as all of us.


    But that quickly degenerates into Teamwork, it’s OK to leave them to die.



Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.