Because eof my limited time I’m not able to answer to all the topics immediately all the time. So this is the continuation of the topic called “Earth’s Recent Climate Spiral”.
  
   In the final post Amocratis had said:

Quote:“That may seem to be all that is needed for the individual to exist, but we know we are in the catch 22 because the very things we do, that seem unnecessary, and that seemingly ruining our chances for long term survival, are also the very things which must be done to allow us to have any chance of long term survival at all.   
 
Specifically We must amass know how, and the economic, productive, and organizational resource foundations, to conduct geo-engineering, in the broad sense, required for us to weather natural calamities which occur at frequencies of once every hundreds to hundred thousands of years.   To do that we must maintain the conditions required to motivate and cause us to amass these things.
 
In the long run there is no such thing as living in peace with nature.   Nature doesn’t believe in peace.  She only tolerates temporary and uneasy truces.  And she has and will violated every truce agreement and doesn’t always provide any advanced warning at all.  Nature is the mother that has killed almost every child she ever spawned, and will in the end kill every last child she ever spawned, down to the very last one.    In the end nature is an enemy humans can never vanquish, but which will never stop trying to vanquish humans, and which will almost certainly be victorious at the end.    But to survive longer and postpone the date of our defeat we need the weapons to battle nature, we just need to make sure we don’t kill ourselves with these weapons first.”
 

To this I’m answering:
 
   I don’t know who it was but I remember reading somewhere that nature does not value individuals. Nature values species. And that’s my point again. I am currently working on Mr. Wayne Dyer and his approach on the Dao-De-Jing. And in this philosophy he is explaining how at one event he killed a bee who was struggling for its life with a newspaper on the tennis-court and than asked himself “Who am I to kill that bee?”. Meaning: That bee is part of the “10,000 things” as it is being referred to. And the 10,000 things is the owner of the life of that bee. It’s the power that organizes the movement of the stars, so who are we (humans) to decide that the time has come for that bee to die?
 
   And this comes back in all religion. We are allowed to do many things. But the Dao is the owner of life, therefore we are not allowed to destroy life. + The Prophet Mohammad reportedly foresaw the situation of the world today. Some accounts have such reference + highly spiritual people have these abilities of foreseeing the future in some cases (these are called “Sidhi’s” in the Hindu system of thought). And the accounts say that this is one of the few cases in which the Prophet cursed / uttered bad wishes for a group of people.
 
  So true spirituality does not approve a “what the heck” attitude toward nature. And I’m not talking about stray dogs. Stray dogs have to be killed by euthanasia, there is no other solution. But to me, you cannot go into an open field and take away all the ecosystem of several species living there. They have a right to live as much as us. I won’t get into the theological debate. But this is how I understand it.
 
+ Even if we don’t, Half of the youth now are now worried that world will end within their lifetimes:
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/alarmist-clim...00631.html
 
Isn’t that really sad? I had zillions of problems as a teenager, I even had friends who needed some medical assistance because of thier family issues. And now, again, who are we to put that burden on the back of teenagers?
 
It’s not only about animals, we are eating, breathing, drinking micro-plastics right now. So this isn’t how it’s supposed to work.
 
So in our age we are smart enough to create problem, yet we have enough intelligence (unlike earlier societies in history) to define problems and remove them before they destroy us: Just like we managed to fix the Ozone layer and/or avoided nuclear confrontation during the cold war. So there is definitely a problem of choice + will to create change here. As I’m writing this text Italy is being flooded and Spain is burning (Forest fires). And that’s also what spiritual leaders are saying. People like Eckhart Tolle for instance are telling us to “fix it”. They say “use your brain and fix it”. So this has to be our common approach on these issues.

   For Instance, no one should be building coal plant anymore. So COP 26 in November 2021 was an abomination. I think we have already reached the point of phasing out coal to a 100% today. So there is a problem of communication. We should be able to see things before being struck by great disasters.
 
   Geoengineering is not a good idea in the current state of things. Carbon capture based on solar or nuclear energy tough could be a very good idea. And it’s feasible too. If we reduced military budgets to invest more into clean energy, I think it could work. But I’m talking about massive carbon capture devices working on huge solar farms here. If we could convince China to work on that instead of harassing Taiwan for instance, it’s technically possible to do that in the next two decades.
 
   And again: That’s a very spiritual approach here. The Ego likes domination + competition. It’s our higher self that says “Slow down, breathe a little, look there is a solution that works for everyone”. So that’s the future of China too. Are they going to be the Soviet Union 2.0 or are they going to make a genuine addition to the history of mankind? So I’m not that pessimistic about them either. If they are smart enough to build the world’s biggest navy, We can also expect them to make a positive contribution to our common future as well. So If I was a politician, I would work on that

China having the worlds biggest navy is a perfect example of why -and how- we're failing to address climate change. They have the biggest navy made up of converted fishing trawlers, for sure. Just like our response to climate change. All show.

They do use a lot of armed trawlers as covert naval auxiliaries, sure, but that’s not what gave them the world’s largest navy. It is actually building the largest number of purpose built naval combatants such as submarines, destroyers, frigates, corvettes, and aircraft carriers.

Their fleet is much more heavily biased towards near shore and regional operation and depend on land based air cover, so they are no match for the US fleet in oceanic warfare, But in near shore and regional theater their fleet is no joke.

(May 21, 2023 at 6:14 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: China having the worlds biggest navy is a perfect example of why -and how- we're failing to address climate change.  They have the biggest navy made up of converted fishing trawlers, for sure.  Just like our response to climate change.  All show.

   Also, they are unwilling to engage in nuclear talks, are supporting Iran + North Korea in their Nuclear Program, this in turn is leading countries like Saudi-Arabia to question the efficiency the US Nuclear Umbrella and this can cause many other countries to want to join this “Nuclear Club”.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-rejects...22740.html
 
   Still, a new START deal is absolutely necessary today. We have solutions to the environmental crisis. As logical beings we should be focusing our energy on that rather than highly expensive weapons that will not be used as long as we exist.

(May 21, 2023 at 11:18 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: They do use a lot of armed trawlers as covert naval auxiliaries, sure,  but that’s not what gave them the world’s largest navy.    It is actually building the largest number of purpose built naval combatants such as submarines, destroyers, frigates, corvettes, and aircraft carriers.    

Their fleet is much more heavily biased towards near shore and regional operation and depend on land based air cover, so they are no match for the US fleet in oceanic warfare,   But in near shore and regional theater their fleet is no joke.

   This is still a terrible headache for the US + Allies if they decide to take the island of Taiwan by force.  And everyone says they are simply waiting for an opportunity (like a contested election result, a major environmental crisis, an event in some other place of the world they will divide the resources of the US navy etc.)
 
   2 days ago I was watching a short documentary on a German Steel company who, despite lower costs, cheap labor and cheap energy prices simply refused to move to China. Many EU countries are working on how to bring back as many industries as possible back to their own countries. For instance French Farmers want to restart their own almond production that has almost entirely moved to California in the last 40 years or so.
 
   I personally am not buying “made in PRC” anymore. If I can’t find a “made in Turkey” alternative, I Try to find a “made in the E.U.” or “Made in India / Malaysia / north America” alternative (in that order). I am not buying a telescope because although the trademark is American or German (Like Meade / Bresser / Celestron etc). The entire supply chain + place of production has moved to China since the 1990’s. So I’m keeping my money + I am using my old telescope instead

Things are moving very slowly. It’s been almost 40 years since Carl Sagan spoke before the U.S. Congress on the seriousness of the issue of climate change (Second link below).
 
Nothing serious was really done about the climate until the Paris Agreement (COP 21) in 2016. Now a new summit took place in Paris in which 50 countries, NGO’s and important international companies have pledged some 100 Billion to switch to “a new economic model” that would allow us to avoid the worst impact of Global Climate Change.
 
The interesting thing is that the Kyoto protocol in 1998 was entirely based on idealistic approaches like “how do we save the planet?”.
 
This is very different. In this summit that ended today, rich nations + rich companies + the World Bank + the IMF are coming together and they are saying “Climate change is going to cost us trillions and trillions, It is bad for our businesses, it is bad for our profit schemes, so let’s finally do something about it”.
 
I am very hopeful that a new worldwide economic model is gradually emerging. I think this will be a new type of capitalism. A different system altogether that is based on neo-liberalism but is, in many ways, completely different from it. The only issue is if we will get there in time (because it’s already very late in many ways)
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/frances-macro...31288.html
 

Cynically, I can't shake the suspicion that our institutions' new interest in climate change is based on them finally giving up trying to figure out how to profit off it. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together has long known and long been screaming that climate change is bad for business as usual.

I doubt that a new type of capitalism could arise until they figure out some way to be at the top of it..and then..how new is it, really? Like, the drapes or new, or the carpet is new?

There are always businesses that can profit both in the short term and long term from both the fear of climate change, and efforts to combat climate change.

Fear of climate change and combating climate change are not the same thing. Rich ignoramus who thinks they want to move from the beach front to at least where elevation is a few hundred feet above sea level out of fear for climate change is not doing anything to combat climate change, nor would climate change actually fulfill their particular phobic fears. But there are business opportunity in it,

There are also always businesses that can profit from climate change denial, both in the short run and long run. And opportunity to profit from climate change denial will don’t ie even if the worst predictions of consequences of climate change come to pass.

Ecological doom-loops: Why ecosystem collapses may occur much sooner than expected

"This means an ecosystem predicted to collapse in the 2090s owing to the creeping rise of a single source of stress, such as global temperatures, could, in a worst-case scenario, collapse in the 2030s"

https://phys.org/news/2023-06-ecological...ooner.html

I think we have different things in mind when we talk about businesses Anom. I'd call what you're talking about climate ponzis and climate pump and dumps. IE, scams. Criminal enterprises designed to take advantage of the consumer while simultaneously defrauding the investors.