It Should Be An Economy, Instead It Is An Ecocaust

Not to say an Ecocide, and US Politicians have made it so:

Eco-nomy means house management, it’s not eco-caust, burning the house. So how come it’s happening nevertheless? Because brains are washed with petroleum media.

The world is dominated by a monopoly, the financial plutocracy, which is entangled with another, the fossil fuel plutocracy.

For example fracking was financed by Wall Street. Both are even entangled with Literal Islam (Wahhabism, etc.)… thanks to a conspiracy by FDR on the Great Bitter Lake in 1945 with the Abdulaziz, founder of Saudi Arabia.

Is it greed, or outright thievery by, and addiction from, fossil fuel pushers? Because finance and oil control media: how else to explain nuclear killed nobody at Fukushima, while fossil fuels kill ten million a year, and still everybody is indignant about the former?

Obama The Great Fossil Fueled! As one can see Obama/Democrats made the fossil fuel orgasm of the USA possible as never before (with preliminary work from Bush Senior to Bush W) to make US fracking profitable to Wall Street

Or how to explain Obama killed hydrogen… which was massively used in Europe already in the 1950s (“urban gas/gas de ville)? Hydrogen, and its derivatives (ammonia, etc.) would enable the storage of renewables, and could be used all over in transportation. Instead Japan, Germany, are closing nuclear, and switching to coal. Germany fear periods, which can last two weeks, with no wind and no sun.

The correct solution should be “green hydrogen” (hydrogen from renewables). Expanding these new technologies will cause a formidable economic expansion. Fossil fuel economy and finance are fundamentally fascist economic activities: they require only oligarchs, a few workers. Renewable economy is the exact opposite

Patrice Ayme



And yes, it will all burn, this is how climate will change!

A simplified version of the above comment was finally published by the NYT, after much tergiversations, apparently, as a comment to Paul Krugman… Except the New York Times sat nearly 48 hours on my comment before publishing it, long after the other comments. That tells me they read it very carefully, while making sure nobody else would read it (hide your sources, if you want to pass for a genius, as Einstein would say). Now the Paul Krugman editorial was pretty good, and he said things I have said for years… So I reproduce big chunks of it below, as after all, this is mostly what I have long said (and which was many times carefully read at NYT, before being censored…). As usual, Trump is accused (more or less implicitly, of Obama’s policies (look carefully at the graph above!), or policies of the US Deep State, in place for a century). Here is Paul Krugman:

Greta Versus the Greedy Grifters
Why a 17-year-old is a better economist than Steve Mnuchin.

I’ve never been a fan of Davos, that annual gathering of the rich and fatuous. One virtue of the pageant of preening and self-importance, however, is that it brings out the worst in some people, leading them to say things that reveal their vileness for all to see.

And so it was for Steven Mnuchin, Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary. First, Mnuchin doubled down on his claim that the 2017 tax cut will pay for itself — just days after his own department confirmed that the budget deficit in 2019 was more than $1 trillion, 75 percent higher than it was in 2016.

Then he sneered at Greta Thunberg, the young climate activist, suggesting that she go study economics before calling for an end to investment in fossil fuels…

… burning fossil fuels is a huge source of environmental damage, not just from climate change but also from local air pollution, which is a major health hazard we don’t do nearly enough to limit.

The International Monetary Fund makes regular estimates of worldwide subsidies to fossil fuels — subsidies that partly take the form of tax breaks and outright cash grants, but mainly involve not holding the industry accountable for the indirect costs it imposes. In 2017 it put these subsidies at $5.2 trillion; yes, that’s trillion with a “T.” For the U.S., the subsidies amounted to $649 billion, which is about $3 million for every worker employed in the extraction of coal, oil and gas.

Without these subsidies, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would still be investing in fossil fuels….

But maybe Mnuchin thinks that the I.M.F. should also take some courses in economics — along with the thousands of economists, including every living former Federal Reserve chair, dozens of Nobel laureates, and chief economists from both Democratic and Republican administrations, who signed an open letter calling for taxes on emissions of greenhouse gases.

In short, Greta Thunberg may be only 17, but her views are much closer to the consensus of the economics profession than those of the guy clinging to the zombie idea that tax cuts pay for themselves.

But could the economics consensus be wrong? Yes, but probably because it isn’t hard enough on fossil fuels.

On one side, a number of experts argue that standard models underestimate the risks of climate change, both because they don’t account for its disruptive effects and because they don’t put enough weight on the possibility of total catastrophe.

On the other side, estimates of the cost of reducing emissions tend to understate the role of innovation. Even modest incentives for expanded use of renewable energy led to a spectacular fall in prices over the past decade.

I still often find people — both right-wingers and climate activists — asserting that sharply reducing emissions would require a big decline in G.D.P. Everything we know, however, says that this is wrong, that we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth….

The bigger issue, however, is sheer greed.

Given the scale of subsidies we give to fossil fuels, the industry as a whole should be regarded as a gigantic grift. It makes money by ripping off everyone else, to some extent through direct taxpayer subsidies, to a greater extent by shunting the true costs of its operations off onto innocent bystanders.

And let’s be clear: Many of those “costs” take the form of sickness and death, because that’s what local air pollution causes. Other costs take the form of “natural” disasters like the burning of Australia, which increasingly bear the signature of climate change.

In a sane world we’d be trying to shut this grift down. But the grifters — which overwhelmingly means corporations and investors, since little of that $3-million-per-worker subsidy trickles down to the workers themselves — have bought themselves a lot of political influence.

And so people like Mnuchin claim not to see anything wrong with industries whose profits depend almost entirely on hurting people. Maybe he should take a course in economics — and another one in ethics.

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “It Should Be An Economy, Instead It Is An Ecocaust”

  1. EugenR Says:

    Amazingly not even one speaker in Davos speaks about the real reasons why we are heading towards global climate catastrophe. So i will speak up: 

    The today’s prevailing economic system demands, continuous economic growth, as high as possible. This need is  imposed on the economy by the existing financial system, based on debts, that needs to generate interest and yields on investments. Economic growth means environmental catastrophe. 

    Population growth, mainly in the underdeveloped regions, where customs influenced by organised and state religion prevent any kind of family planning. 

    Worldwide opposition to abandoning and forbidding meat eating, produced either on open pastures or in intensified barns, where they are fed by crops produced intensively on large farm lands.

    Opposition to abandon the traditional food components, grown on agricultural fields, to indore, intensive food production of crops, that would reduce the agricultural fields, and let nature take them back. This would reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers, enlarge the forests, and with it also the biodiversity. 

    There  is a lot of talk about the change of transportation and energy production, but very little is done. It’s enough to see the inefficient private cars still dominating the cities and roads, most of the time in traffic jams, to understand, how little is done. 

    And above all, nobody spoke about the real problem, the POLITICS, that says: While all the environmental problems are global, politics is local. While all the environmental problems are long term, the politics is short term. 


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: “Economic Growth” as it is, is the plutocratic road to hell.
      But we have to grow even more, but differently.
      However, that would put the present elites out of commission. So they fight back, with their control of the media.

      Debt, per se, is neither here, nor there: it can be cancelled. It has been, countless times in history by strong sovereign states.

      I have a highly explanatory theory of the fall and decline of Rome: it involves only one cause. Not enough greed for smarts to keep on going with the very clever Absolute Wealth Limit which enabled to block the exponentiation of plutocracy, and thus permitted the Roman Republic to perdure.

      Plutocracy promotes Pluto, that is the Dark Side: obscurantism, cruelty, playing god as the darkest angel imaginable, finding exaltation and hormonal run away by exerting will to power on fellow creatures, turning them into nothing, to better affirm that life doesn’t matter, and should disposed of.

      Thus, in particular, plutocracy and the associated plutophilia, repel and reject neurohormonal regimes conducive to science, technology, understanding, the quest of knowledge. They prefer torturing people, for example with unemployment, drugs, homelessness, the impossibility of having children or a family, and outrageously confusing sets of nonsensical beliefs.

      This inclination to pain and torture, oppression and subjugation, obscurantism and brutishness, is why Rome was enable to solve the quickening ecological and health crises it confronted… many of them of its own making.

      Right now, the path is clear: we need new energy sources. That will solve all the problems you speak about. Photovoltaics, a lot, and offshore wind, a bit could solve much of the problem, if combined with “GREEN” HYDROGEN (and its derivatives: ammonia, etc.). “GREEN” hydrogen planes and boats are feasible now.

      Nice nuclear is developable, but was not… except for a slow go-ahead with thermonuclear (nuclear will be necessary for big time space colonization)


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: