Importance of Natural Resources

Economics of Climate Change: Climate Change is Anti Capitalism Part 1


“Can we keep capitalism and stop climate change?”
Yes, we can. My argument on climate change is that it is a time cycle. We, on this planet
earth should look after our natural resources and look after the planet, there’s no denying
that fact, such as, for example; make better use of such plastic waste rather than seeing
it going into the oceans and causing damage on our marine life, etc and I think that is
vitally important. But there are countless myths that are being spread around by these
climate change alarmists. This is basically the whole argument for my video, it’s based
on anti capitalism. “I think an unfair criticism made of Marxists that all we care about is
discussing the economy and revolution and past struggles and things like that, but actually,
as we’ve discussed over the course of this weekend, Marxism is a very broad set of ideas
that looks at the broader wider questions and I think the environment is obviously the
most important questions; it’s the future of the planet and humanity. And, in fact,
I think we can apply a Marxists analysis to the question of the environment to help us
understand really the problem and the solution and actually the lessons we learned from actually
looking at economic crisis, from looking at the class struggles going on today, I think
actually help us understand how to analyse and solve the environmental problems. I mean,
what we can definitely see for sure so far is that capitalism really has been completely
unable to solve environmental questions.” Have a listen to this: “But on the latest
figures I’ve seen, a hundred years ago weather related disasters killed half a million people
a year, today, it’s 20,000 a year; still 20,000 too many, but it’s a reduction of 95 percent,
a reduction of 95 percent, it does not lead to a death of billions. I mean aren’t you
scaring people with this rhetoric, aren’t you?” “I think there’s a danger of scaring
people simply because we’re not taking it seriously enough and people are feeling really,
you know, desperate that we’re heard on this and unfortunately alarmist language works
which is why we’re discussing it right now.” She basically admits that she has no evidence
that billions of people are going to die in 12 years time as a result of all of this and
Andrew Neil basically puts her in her place and she concedes that it’s really all about
scaring folk and, you know, it’s a useful tactic to make people aware so that they can
make change and do stuff. But the real agenda behind people like herself and, of course,
the founder of Extinction Rebellion and he conceded to it, it’s a movement to overthrow
capitalism and this is essentially what their entire argument is based on. Now, another
argument you’re going to hear similar to that of global warming is on the ocean acidification.
Apparently the CO2 levels, etc, it’s causing this acidification seeing sea life creatures
dying, etc, their shells aren’t able to form the same and they aren’t able to adapt due
to the higher CO2 levels and they’re all going to go extinct, according to these very type
of people. Just have a listen to what Patrick Moore goes on to explain here on oyster population:
“The NRDC document also contended quote “acidification may already be impacting marine life around
the world, for example; specific oysters that not successfully reproduced in the wild since
2004.” This is clearly not true, as in false. A specific oyster production has been increasing
steadily for 150,000 tonnes in 1950 to more than 500,000 tonnes in 2013 even though most
specific oysters are grown in aquaculture, the seed or spat for these operations is primarily
harvested from wild breeding oysters.” Patrick Moore goes onto explain that more than 500,000
years ago CO2 levels were twice as high as they are today, sea creatures of that time
period, like the oysters, would merely harden their shells to adapt and change to the changing
temperatures of the environment of that time period. There was no extinction. There’s something
that I want to show you, adds up to everything that contradicts their entire narrative. You
can see that over 550 million years that there’s been consistency. I can even show you more
graph evidence that you can see even from the Roman period of history when the Roman
Empire was around, the earth was hotter in that time period than it is today, and again,
that evidence is abundantly clear. “Joining us now Phil McDuff writer for on economics
and social policy for the Guardian, Phil, welcome to the show: “Hello.” “Glad to have
you here, I recently read your piece ‘Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism.
Have we got the stomach for it?’ So, let’s get to the spoilers, have we got the stomach
for it?” “I don’t think we necessarily do, I think part of the issue is that if you look
at the people who oppose doing something about climate change, you have a minority of people
who are the kind of the enemy as you know, the Bolsha runners, the people who just want
to burn down the rain forest because they want to burn down the rain forest, that kind
of evil thing.” And this is really what the agenda all comes down to, it’s basically opposing
capitalism. It’s this idea that’s it’s all capitalism’s fault and therefore we need to
overthrow it. Now, there are some well meaning people out there and I’ve not got a problem
with them, because those people, you know, do mean well and they want to see things improve,
such as, you know, the plastic waste that’s in the oceans, I can reason with those people
and they’re scared, but you’ve got people like this who are trying to lead the agenda
in Extinction Rebellion, are trying to scare folk with their socialist agenda because their
real agenda is not about the environment, they couldn’t care less about that. Think
about it, see if they truthfully cared about the environment, explain the very reason why
they look at all of those socialist regimes throughout recorded history and yet they turn
a blind eye to it. I mean, take for example the Soviet Union that used Nuclear bombs to
mine with and if that wasn’t bad enough, they then redirected the rivers due to agricultural
policy that fed the Aral Sea and by the year 1960 it became devastated, so much so, there
was no Aral Sea left; it was once the 4th largest lake in the world and it became nothing
and that was between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, there was no Aral Sea left. The fishing industry
of those two countries was left devastated and the land was just left contaminated. That
was an example of what happened as a result of socialism, that’s not to say that all of
them supported the Soviet Union. This is the thing and I’ve explained this many times before;
there’s a strong difference between that of what you have of theory and that of practice
and that’s just the real world of socialism in practice. What he’s calling out for ends
up creating an even greater disaster to the environment. Today, you don’t live under capitalism
because if you did, you would be living under a free market economy. It’s actually thanks
to capitalism that’s been finding solutions, you know, do stuff with the plastic waste,
for example; there’s been some examples of the plastic being used to grind down and use
in roads; they’ve even been trying to discover ways to make plastics edible so that, you
know, if waste does go into oceans or whatever (not that you would ever want to,) but so
that it’s edible, unlike the plastics that you see today. That’s what the market does.
The market always finds solutions to problems. Meanwhile, these people seem to think the
solution is just overthrowing capitalism because, and this is the funny part, folk, just have
a listen to this guy: “and I don’t quite know how the fuck we’re going to sort it out, okay?
So, I’m going to give you some ideas about what Extinction Rebellion is doing and what
I think and then afterwards, hopefully you will be relieved to know we’re not going to
have a Q and A, right? Because as I’ve been trying to say to people around the country,
the days of Q and A’s are over, right? If you want to discuss with me whether it’s 1.1
degrees centigrade or 1.13 or whatever, if you call those technical questions, I’m here
all day, you can come and discuss, you know, climate sensitivity. That’s not where we’re
at, where we’re at is we’re in this total fucking crisis, right? And if we don’t start
to emotionally connect with that then there’s, we’re going nowhere.” So, this is the problem
with these folk, people like this saying, you know, oh, forget about questions and answers;
forget about statistics because what does that matter? We’ll just go head first into
everything and everything will all be fine because, you know, there’s going to be a complete
disaster if we don’t do otherwise. It was the same thing with economics and economics
applies to his argument, especially when you’re talking about that of the environment, right?
Socialists, as you hear him speaking about emotionally connecting, right? Everything
is about emotions. The problem is, the study of economics doesn’t give a toss about how
you feel, right? It doesn’t, it doesn’t care. It’s not a study about, you know, the stock
market, it’s not a study about the finances you have; economics is a study of basically
resource usage, how you can, you know, better improve the material wealth of the masses
whilst using the fewest resources as possible. To basically be efficient. Now, we’ll get
back to that other guy’s argument in a second about the forest fires, but, this is the laughable
thing, right? If you’re going to take the attitude of just going into everything head
first and don’t even bother thinking about it, don’t even bother questioning it, just
forget statistics, you end up with disaster and a prime example of that was just like
I explained of the ‘starving time’ when you saw the pilgrims die due to starvation; what
caused their starvation? Communal ownership of property, in other words, the absence of
secure private property rights. That’s the reason why, folk, the Enclosure Movement came
around. That’s why the periodical famines had came to an end because of the Enclosure
Movement, because of the private ownership of land. So, what’s he arguing for? In the
20th century we saw the disaster of what happened as a result of the centralisation of agriculture
in 1929 when, you know, they centralised agriculture and millions died of starvation. If that wasn’t
bad enough, you saw it in China. In 1960 more than about 40 million odd people had died
due to starvation. It’s all well saying, you know, on one hand, okay, we’re going to overthrow
capitalism, right, so you’re going to overthrow capitalism, then what? Most of the 70 million
people living in Great Britain dying of starvation? These people are so dangerously stupid it’s
unreal. He’s basically saying to you, you know something? Forget facts, forget statistics,
my feelings matter more than anything you could provide me with. My feelings matter
more than any statistics that you can throw at me. You know, so basically, forget all
the evidence that you fling at me about global warming, because my feelings matter more than
people’s own lives at risk. That’s honestly what he’s trying to say. If we just go back
to that of the other argument where the guy mentions about that of the forest fires, what
he’s basically trying to say is that it is was all because of mankind, we were the ones
that caused it, oh, we’re all evil. There’s been forest fires over decades and that’s
been something of a continuous cycle, that doesn’t necessarily mean to say that it was
mankind that caused it, after all, we seen hotter temperatures back in the Roman time
period. Again, you can look at that line graph evidence to see that the earth’s temperature
has been declining. We’re in a mini ice age. In his argument, he’s basically saying that
oh, it’s all the evil people. These are the people who try to say on one hand, people
are so peace loving and we should all come together and sing Kumbaya and everything else,
we’ll all sing Kumbaya and come together and all live happily ever after, but at the same
time he’s basically insulting people. Basically saying that we’re the ones that are the cause
of everything, etc, etc. Well, that’s rather quite interesting, why? There’s the evidence
right there, folk, you see from 2002, even 2003, 2004, I’m pretty sure right up to about
2010 bar 2009 maybe, you see that the forest fires were far greater in those years than
it was in 2019. Yet, they’re basing their argument off of recent forest fires in 2019,
there’s been a decline. Here’s another line graph that you can see that basically shows
you from this over a longer time period that things aren’t quite made out as what these
people try to make out to be. If these people ever had it their way, your life would be
misery. No one denies that, of course, when there’s forest fires there’s a problem and
that we must look after our environment and we must, you know, seek to grow more trees
and I’m all for these, you know, organisations, these charities, etc and even things like
that of the forestry commission seeking to grow and enhance our environment in such a
way. You know, I’m all for that, but this idea to just blame mankind when it’s been
a time cycle for, you know, century, after century, after millennia, after millennia,
that’s the laughable part.


Reader Comments

  1. "Don't question me because if you question me then you will find out everything we are saying is the biggest pile of BS" -that should have been what the guy from Extinction Rebellion said.

  2. Hi Scotty, great video as always. To be honest these 'watermelons' are doing my head in as they claim to care about the planet but they want power.

    What happened in London when extinction rebellion blocked the roads was disgraceful. They simply hate normal working class folk who are trying to get on with their lives. Dont get me wrong I'm all for looking after the environment as it is very important that we do but unfortunately these 'watermelon' bastards do not seem to care about working class people as they use fear and emotions to brainwash them.

    Your right Scotty, the free market would solve our environmental problems as it always does. If we had a hot summer day let's just say it is 90f outside (32c) they will blame it on global warming.

  3. The Sun is the cause of global warming

    The Data is exaggerated through homogenizing data

    The Oceans are the main producer of CO2 emissions

  4. i have been talking about this for so fucking long, al gore ruined climate science by shoving it into politics. politics is a cancer, no matter what good politicians do, they must do something worse to get to the position, climate science was once real science, but when it got mixed with politics, it got exaggerated, turned into lies, and used purely to justify the corrupt politicians desires, that being more power to the state. capitalism is the only way to effectively combat climate change, even if they made the use of carbon illegal, the best they could do is force innocent people into poverty and suffering, while indirectly giving the guilty, or desperate the means to take control over everyone. power is a necessity to our way of life, without it there would be nothing but wasted productivity and space. what we need is more productivity, and efficiency. we need to make better engines that have better energy efficiency, such that less carbon translates to more power. we need to innovate and integrate new energy sources into our existing engines, and we need the whole world to be more productive. Brazil burns rain forests to the ground for farm land, that is a 3 part attack on the climate, mean while most american individuals produce a bigger carbon footprint by being alive than their cars. we need geoengineering to colonize space, and to save our planet, we could make machines to take the carbon out of the air, we could focus more on nuclear. these people flat out deny all of those possibilities, claiming it wont be effective, some even saying it would be effective, but it would send the "wrong message" to the world. every single one of them has two suggestions at most. more state control, and less power. they want more solar panels, but producing them requires carbon, and they don't generate much energy. they want more wind turbines, but that's the same thing, only it produces slightly more energy and kills thousands of birds who fly into them. the best solutions are ignored, the absolute worst options, rarely being solutions to the problems they claim, are the ones they want. fucking politicians. the cancer of society.

  5. I listen to your videos whenever I get a chance, and when I do they have been a very positive influence on my education. Thank you for taking time out of you day to make these videos. I am entering college next year and I plan on eventually getting a degree in economics. What did you major in when you went to college?

  6. Nobody has claimed climate change will kill billions in 12 years what is being said is in 12 years time that is basically the point of no return where climate change cannot be reversed. The co2 graph you showed was combined with two separate research graphs. The temperature one was made by Scotese which did no research into correlation, the co2 one was made by Berner which did research into correlation and found there was a correlation between co2 and paleotemperatures. Your views on climate change activism in my opinion lack nuance and you are taking the opinions of fringe Marxist organisations and blowing them up to be a far larger faction of the movement when in reality there not really all that big or powerful, the largest groups struggle to get even beyond 1000 members. One of the most prominent voices of climate change on YouTube is PotHoler54 is a self proclaimed conservative. He doesn't let his opposition to the left change his view on climate change. I am personally disagree with him on his means as a social democrat I think that fighting climate change cannot be tackled with one ideology, method or solution. I think all options should be open whether that be through private, public, government or something in between.

  7. I don't know where you got that graph from on the little ice age, but we are not living in it anymore it is estimated to have ended in 1860, around the time we started industrialising and used fossil fuels. I have a feeling that graph has been manipulated from the hockey stick graph.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *