Cannuck, why I don't use quote option is because I only reply for the general audience when I get baited into it and with some benefit of formulating and hearing my own thoughts. We exchanged enough info here to know we are on the opposites of ideas and reality. Most often it seems to me that we don't understand each other's posts which makes things simply futile.
I wouldn't say opposite, just have differing points of view. People who have opposite ideas can learn from the other and meet somewhere in the middle, since they are two sides of the same coin.
I don't know why you bring up covid funding. I don't think I qualified for it and this stuff doesn't affect me but as I mentioned before if you think money is better spent by government than yourself than I guess leave the money with the government.
I pay taxes, just as any citizen. The Corporate tax rate is lower than my personal tax rate, so it makes economic sense to file separately. The Covid relief is a social program designed for those who are in need during the plandemic/pandemic, however you want to look at it. L'aissez faire economics would probably serve the same function if the general population was better prepared to deal on their own accord.
I am not against tech, although technology has long term consequences to our society and some of it is probably very unhealthy. There is a lot of opposition to 5G and there are more chemical compounds being created than we can test for safety. Also, tech can and has affected human interaction in a significant way and probably not for the best.
On this point we agree. When I was younger, technology was hyped as a way to bring us closer, but in fact, I see the opposite effect. There are indeed benefits, such as having the ability to communicate with the outside world as I am doing now. When I first came north, television hadn't even arrived. I helped install the first satellite servers in communities. The Internet has brought information in, together with the evils of society. I am now working on developing Intranet systems for community-based communications.
No one here, I imagine, should be against green tech, even if it is not obvious now but competition is very healthy and utilization of hydrocarbons is not going away either. If I am against something it is the radical government taxation and subsidization and overall irresponsible public energy policy. No one is hiding green tech, if it was competitive it will be utilized. In some remote areas I don't doubt solar power is very economical and useful.
On this point we also agree. I don't believe in carbon taxation or carbon credits any more than I support government funded oil pipelines. Radicalism is dangerous, but sometimes radical thinking is what is required in order to bring about the necessary changes. The 'business as usual' model hasn't worked either has it? Why think outside the box, when you believe there is no box?
I am not a fan of fake moral stances on the environment which seems to be the mob of today's times, indoctrinating children and using them as pawns and supporting policy that will have horrible effects on society. I don't doubt your connection to the environment and your way of life. However, taxing carbon and making it more expensive is unfair to regular people that struggle to get by, first thing that is needed is to lift people from poverty so they can be a in position to care for the environment.
We agree on this point also. I have been a proponent for green technology and a more sustainable lifestyle. I walk the talk. It's really up to people to make the necessary changes in their lives for society as a whole to move onward and upward. The changes can be as simple as their choice of product considering things like ingredients, packaging, shipping and origin. A local land-based consumer model is what I am currently living and developing. This will, in turn, reduce one's carbon footprint.
Politics and Science, measuring the consequences of green policy on the climate is impossible.
I agree with his one word answer. "no". Although Jordon Peterson may be a well-read scholar, I wonder if he has ever set foot on a glacier? The same goes for most politicians IMO. Having been there, done that, outside the political sphere, I am no-doubt biased to a particular view. I would invite all politicians to take the same steps, and see for themselves. Perhaps they would have a better perspective.
"this is also a problem I have with the environmentalist movement is there is a powerful stream of anti-human sentiment that motivates it and masquerading under the guise of a virtue on planetary scale"
On this point we also agree, that is the corporate greed vs the corporate green that I mentioned in a previous post. Again it boils down to values. I would argue that his view of social economics and science may have limited scope. Bjorn Lomberg has some very interesting reads, but how many have actually studied or read his works. I wonder if Donald has even heard of him? In any case, these are my thoughts and the predictions of well-renowned scientists. I would also argue what Science has to say about the existence of God.
https://thenewamerican.com/what-science-says-about-the-existence-of-god/