Yes, even a cursory review of what Project 2025 and Agenda 47 promise, which is easily found withe simplest Google search, shows how extreme it is. Three references:
Yes, even a cursory review of what Project 2025 and Agenda 47 promise, which is easily found withe simplest Google search, shows how extreme it is. Three references:
An article in The Guardian from July about ultra-conservative, climate-denying Project 2025 discusses would impact efforts to address carbon emissions. This is the link:
The details in Project 2025 are in the nearly 1000-page publication called the Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. ~350 authors from the full range of far-right ideologies describe how to dismantle government, including anything to do with responding to the climate emergency. The various authors are well-known anti-science anti-environmentalists of all stripes.
Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt, said about the Heritage Foundation:
“What troubles me is the Heritage Foundation’s long history … of working to undermine environmental protection at the expense of health and wellbeing of the American people, at the expense of life on Earth.”
Here are just four highlights:
1) Elimination of three offices in the Dept. of Energy that are crucial to the energy transition to clean energy
2) Slash funding to the Dept. of Energy’s grid deployment office to stymie renewable energy development
3) Huge expansion of gas infrastructure
4) Cut the EPA’s environmental justice and public engagement functions, and terminating new hires
In my view, this information makes voting "Against" Trump, regardless of the Democratic candidate for President, absolutely defensible.
Still unconvinced? If you compare Biden's Christmas message with Trump's, this becomes even more of a no-brainer.
I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that these people are doing literally _everything_ they can to kill the planet and every living thing on it. I simply refuse to believe they are SO blind as to see what is happening to the climate; they must know it, too. But what is in it for them? Why are they so adamant to hasten the process?
They believe that they will die of old age before the climate kills them. In the meantime they’ll fill their Scrooge McDuck’s money bunker fatter than Smaug’s
I have a friend from high school who has worked in oil and gas for his whole life, and despite his intelligence he is fully convinced that fossil fuels are absolutely necessary to society, that the global warming issue is manageable, and that the threats are overblown. He is not in the least amenable to any rational discussion of the science. And I am sure that in his work, in Texas, that the only people he deals with on a professional level are of the exact same mindset. He has internalized the arguments of the "merchants of doubt" and any suggestion to the contrary triggers a psychologically-driven, closed-loop defense that cannot be pierced short of a deprogramming such as is needed for interventions with people who have been seduced into a cult. Outside of this topic alone, he is a congenial, loving Dad and family man. Perhaps this is one variation of Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil." Sadly, his industry employers have the dark money that influences elected officials, which explains how so many in the Congress are equally dismissive of the scientific consensus and 100% behind supporting the fossil fuel and related industries (plastics, chemicals, Big Ag, etc.).
Unbelievable... I understand the programming thing, and I understand it worked well in the 80s until perhaps the 10s... But now, you just have to pop your head outside your own window to see the climate catastrophe happening in real-time. I mean, it's no longer just Haiti having to cope with floods, or India having to cope with temperatures above 45 degrees Celsius. It's no longer, as we call it, a "ver-van-mijn-bed-show"...
Right - it is obvious, and that's why the denial campaign has shifted to delay and distract, rather than deny. It's ingenious but diabolical, and especially cynical since it is so calculated in light of what they know as well as you do what the truth is, based upon the consensus of the most advanced scientific modeling. The totally unfounded claims that offshore wind turbines are killing whales is a perfect example: throw out a baseless claim and let the traditional media struggle to convince everyone it isn't true, which they do, patiently and rationally, meanwhile, the distraction machine is already coming up with new fabrications to tie us down with fighting the lies. The effort should not be so focused on rebutting the lies - that should be a one sentence factual statement that the lie has no basis whatever. Then immediately shift to going after the source - who is saying this, what organizations are they tied to, what is their funding??? It is astounding how quickly how a large percentage of these allegedly unrelated claims from various "grassroots" organizations and media outlets can be tracked back to the funding of a handful of billionaire oligarchs like the Kochs, Scaifes, Mellons, Coors, Devos, etc. Books to read: Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean, and Dark Money, by Jane Mayer. It's not like any of this is a secret, but your average reader of traditional media isn't aware of it.
Yeah, the "astroturfing" strategy... Good point, the media should directly shift to the source: what are they saying, why, and who pays them? Would be a good idea for scientific publications, too, to make this aspect more clear in the press.
But still I wonder: to what end are the Kochs et al doing this? It seems they are hell-bent on seeing earth's ecology perish. But why? Do they think they can "ride it out"? Do they think they can make a heap of cash off of civilization's crash, and then "wait out" the climate catastrophe and biodiversity collapse in their bunkers? No one is going to live that long: it will take Earth millions of years to recover. And what kind of outlook is living out the rest of your life in a bunker? If it's even feasible... I mean, there's no way you can stash food for 50 or 100 years (let alone have enough for your children or grandchildren to live on), and it won't be possible to grow new food with earth's ecology gone. They can't be that naive or stupid to see these problems. What future do they envision for themselves then? Escape to Mars? Salvation by the AI God named "Singularity" they are trying to summon? I really wonder...
Without reading minds, it's speculation. My suspicion that, armed with some degree of the psychological defense mechanism of denial, they comfort themselves with any one of the scenarios you suggest - their money and resources will immunize them, technology will advance and solve any CO2 problem, the claims of climate crisis are exaggerated and unrealistic, etc. But their number one goal, as tried and true libertarians, is to dismantle any institutions, governmental or otherwise, that interfere with the business decisions they make based entirely on profit generation. The absolutely feel entitled to do anything necessary to increase their personal wealth, regardless of the effects of this on anyone, or humanity in general. Recall the last scene in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's novel about how and why elite business should control everything, where her "heroes" fly away to wherever it is they are escaping to, while below them the electrical grid fails and the lights of civilization progressively go out. If you are interested in getting a small-scale newsletter I send out, let me know at bertrandbartok@gmail.com. This is one section, based upon an AP article, of the most recent one:
Upward social mobility in the U.S. – not as easy as people claim.
As pointed out in this article, only 1 out of 40 black children born into families in the lowest quintile of household income ever reach the top quintile. The chances for a white child are ~four times higher, between 1 out of 9-10.
Of all the black children in that bottom quintile, 75.4% never reach above the 4th quintile. For white children, this percentage is 53.4%
These statistics are taken from “Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: A Intergenerational Perspective”, from the Opportunity Insights project based at Harvard.
The socioeconomic status is, not surprisingly, a pretty good predictor of victimhood, criminal justice involvement, deficient health care and educational outcomes.
The author of the article uses a metaphor of the Apollo missions – for the launch to be successful, everything has to go right, and if even one thing goes wrong, there is failure. (He even uses the phrase “escape velocity” to denote being able to move away from an economically depressed neighborhood to a better life.)
Similarly, for a black child to be successful everything has to go right – family, education, jobs, friends, neighborhoods, adult interventions, hard work and good luck. For wealthier households, one or two of these pieces may be shaky or unhelpful, but success can still be achieved.
This is the backdrop of facts that puts the lie to the glib claim that people who are poor are 100% to blame, which is then the justification for denying government assistance to help them.
Let’s take one example.
Hunger disparity is an example of a barrier to success. Studies show that performance by children in a variety of spheres is worse if they are hungry.
The Governor of Iowa announced 3-days before Christmas that the state would not participate in an available U.S. food assistance program this coming summer.
The program is the 2024 Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (Summer EBT), and it provides $40/month for each poor child to help with food costs while school is not in session.
The governor offered these reasons [to which I have added an observation]:
Too expensive [despite that Feds pay half]
Doesn’t constitute a long-term solution [Being hungry today is a short-term problem]
Does not “promote nutrition” [Calories are part of “nutrition”; perhaps apply a punitive BMI qualification?]
Childhood obesity is an epidemic [Hunger would be better for the state’s poor children?]
Investment should go to other programs that are more flexible [Sadly means the funds
would likely get siphoned off and not go to poor children’s needs]
Compare this concern with the following headline from the Iowa Capital Dispatch 2/1/2023: “Billions in federal farm payments flow to a select group of producers, report shows.” The top 10% of recipients took in 79% of the funds over the last 25-years.
“The proposals come as waters off the Florida coast reach levels of heat more commonly found in hot tubs, and as much of the nation continues to swelter under triple-digit temperatures.”
Florida is the ONLY state to reject federal 💲 to help curb emissions. Wouldn’t want to “politicize the weather”….sigh.
For those who want to know more about "Project 2025" but don't want to wade through the 100+ pages of the document, the Wikipedia article referenced by Gary is an excellent overview, quite sufficient to scare the pants off of you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Yes, even a cursory review of what Project 2025 and Agenda 47 promise, which is easily found withe simplest Google search, shows how extreme it is. Three references:
1) HTTPS://APNEWS.COM/ARTICLE/TRUMP-POLICIES-AGENDA-ELECTION-2024-SECOND-TERM-D656D8F08629A8DA14A65C4075545E0F
2) THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY'S PROJECT 2025",
3) HTTPS://WWW.TBSNEWS.NET/WORLD/AGENDA-47-WHAT-TRUMP-HAS-PROMISED-IF-HE-WINS-2024-658382)
An article in The Guardian from July about ultra-conservative, climate-denying Project 2025 discusses would impact efforts to address carbon emissions. This is the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president?utm_term=658429f037fe802292b0aadc7dbb05ae&utm_campaign=DownToEarth&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email
This would be the worst disaster you can imagine.
The details in Project 2025 are in the nearly 1000-page publication called the Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. ~350 authors from the full range of far-right ideologies describe how to dismantle government, including anything to do with responding to the climate emergency. The various authors are well-known anti-science anti-environmentalists of all stripes.
Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt, said about the Heritage Foundation:
“What troubles me is the Heritage Foundation’s long history … of working to undermine environmental protection at the expense of health and wellbeing of the American people, at the expense of life on Earth.”
Here are just four highlights:
1) Elimination of three offices in the Dept. of Energy that are crucial to the energy transition to clean energy
2) Slash funding to the Dept. of Energy’s grid deployment office to stymie renewable energy development
3) Huge expansion of gas infrastructure
4) Cut the EPA’s environmental justice and public engagement functions, and terminating new hires
In my view, this information makes voting "Against" Trump, regardless of the Democratic candidate for President, absolutely defensible.
Still unconvinced? If you compare Biden's Christmas message with Trump's, this becomes even more of a no-brainer.
Gary...your ability to boil down the facts to basic "highlights" is superb! Happy to see your comments here...YOU ROCK!
Thanks so much, Julie - it is gratifying to know someone finds what I am writing of value to them. Gary
I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that these people are doing literally _everything_ they can to kill the planet and every living thing on it. I simply refuse to believe they are SO blind as to see what is happening to the climate; they must know it, too. But what is in it for them? Why are they so adamant to hasten the process?
They believe their money will save them...
They believe that they will die of old age before the climate kills them. In the meantime they’ll fill their Scrooge McDuck’s money bunker fatter than Smaug’s
From what? The biodiversity collapse? They cannot be *that* stupid...
Hi Francine, they should watch the end of the movie, Don't Look Up, tto see how that idea works out!
Exactly
I have a friend from high school who has worked in oil and gas for his whole life, and despite his intelligence he is fully convinced that fossil fuels are absolutely necessary to society, that the global warming issue is manageable, and that the threats are overblown. He is not in the least amenable to any rational discussion of the science. And I am sure that in his work, in Texas, that the only people he deals with on a professional level are of the exact same mindset. He has internalized the arguments of the "merchants of doubt" and any suggestion to the contrary triggers a psychologically-driven, closed-loop defense that cannot be pierced short of a deprogramming such as is needed for interventions with people who have been seduced into a cult. Outside of this topic alone, he is a congenial, loving Dad and family man. Perhaps this is one variation of Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil." Sadly, his industry employers have the dark money that influences elected officials, which explains how so many in the Congress are equally dismissive of the scientific consensus and 100% behind supporting the fossil fuel and related industries (plastics, chemicals, Big Ag, etc.).
Unbelievable... I understand the programming thing, and I understand it worked well in the 80s until perhaps the 10s... But now, you just have to pop your head outside your own window to see the climate catastrophe happening in real-time. I mean, it's no longer just Haiti having to cope with floods, or India having to cope with temperatures above 45 degrees Celsius. It's no longer, as we call it, a "ver-van-mijn-bed-show"...
Right - it is obvious, and that's why the denial campaign has shifted to delay and distract, rather than deny. It's ingenious but diabolical, and especially cynical since it is so calculated in light of what they know as well as you do what the truth is, based upon the consensus of the most advanced scientific modeling. The totally unfounded claims that offshore wind turbines are killing whales is a perfect example: throw out a baseless claim and let the traditional media struggle to convince everyone it isn't true, which they do, patiently and rationally, meanwhile, the distraction machine is already coming up with new fabrications to tie us down with fighting the lies. The effort should not be so focused on rebutting the lies - that should be a one sentence factual statement that the lie has no basis whatever. Then immediately shift to going after the source - who is saying this, what organizations are they tied to, what is their funding??? It is astounding how quickly how a large percentage of these allegedly unrelated claims from various "grassroots" organizations and media outlets can be tracked back to the funding of a handful of billionaire oligarchs like the Kochs, Scaifes, Mellons, Coors, Devos, etc. Books to read: Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean, and Dark Money, by Jane Mayer. It's not like any of this is a secret, but your average reader of traditional media isn't aware of it.
Yeah, the "astroturfing" strategy... Good point, the media should directly shift to the source: what are they saying, why, and who pays them? Would be a good idea for scientific publications, too, to make this aspect more clear in the press.
But still I wonder: to what end are the Kochs et al doing this? It seems they are hell-bent on seeing earth's ecology perish. But why? Do they think they can "ride it out"? Do they think they can make a heap of cash off of civilization's crash, and then "wait out" the climate catastrophe and biodiversity collapse in their bunkers? No one is going to live that long: it will take Earth millions of years to recover. And what kind of outlook is living out the rest of your life in a bunker? If it's even feasible... I mean, there's no way you can stash food for 50 or 100 years (let alone have enough for your children or grandchildren to live on), and it won't be possible to grow new food with earth's ecology gone. They can't be that naive or stupid to see these problems. What future do they envision for themselves then? Escape to Mars? Salvation by the AI God named "Singularity" they are trying to summon? I really wonder...
Without reading minds, it's speculation. My suspicion that, armed with some degree of the psychological defense mechanism of denial, they comfort themselves with any one of the scenarios you suggest - their money and resources will immunize them, technology will advance and solve any CO2 problem, the claims of climate crisis are exaggerated and unrealistic, etc. But their number one goal, as tried and true libertarians, is to dismantle any institutions, governmental or otherwise, that interfere with the business decisions they make based entirely on profit generation. The absolutely feel entitled to do anything necessary to increase their personal wealth, regardless of the effects of this on anyone, or humanity in general. Recall the last scene in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's novel about how and why elite business should control everything, where her "heroes" fly away to wherever it is they are escaping to, while below them the electrical grid fails and the lights of civilization progressively go out. If you are interested in getting a small-scale newsletter I send out, let me know at bertrandbartok@gmail.com. This is one section, based upon an AP article, of the most recent one:
Upward social mobility in the U.S. – not as easy as people claim.
As pointed out in this article, only 1 out of 40 black children born into families in the lowest quintile of household income ever reach the top quintile. The chances for a white child are ~four times higher, between 1 out of 9-10.
Of all the black children in that bottom quintile, 75.4% never reach above the 4th quintile. For white children, this percentage is 53.4%
These statistics are taken from “Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: A Intergenerational Perspective”, from the Opportunity Insights project based at Harvard.
The socioeconomic status is, not surprisingly, a pretty good predictor of victimhood, criminal justice involvement, deficient health care and educational outcomes.
The author of the article uses a metaphor of the Apollo missions – for the launch to be successful, everything has to go right, and if even one thing goes wrong, there is failure. (He even uses the phrase “escape velocity” to denote being able to move away from an economically depressed neighborhood to a better life.)
Similarly, for a black child to be successful everything has to go right – family, education, jobs, friends, neighborhoods, adult interventions, hard work and good luck. For wealthier households, one or two of these pieces may be shaky or unhelpful, but success can still be achieved.
This is the backdrop of facts that puts the lie to the glib claim that people who are poor are 100% to blame, which is then the justification for denying government assistance to help them.
Let’s take one example.
Hunger disparity is an example of a barrier to success. Studies show that performance by children in a variety of spheres is worse if they are hungry.
The Governor of Iowa announced 3-days before Christmas that the state would not participate in an available U.S. food assistance program this coming summer.
The program is the 2024 Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (Summer EBT), and it provides $40/month for each poor child to help with food costs while school is not in session.
The governor offered these reasons [to which I have added an observation]:
Too expensive [despite that Feds pay half]
Doesn’t constitute a long-term solution [Being hungry today is a short-term problem]
Does not “promote nutrition” [Calories are part of “nutrition”; perhaps apply a punitive BMI qualification?]
Childhood obesity is an epidemic [Hunger would be better for the state’s poor children?]
Investment should go to other programs that are more flexible [Sadly means the funds
would likely get siphoned off and not go to poor children’s needs]
Compare this concern with the following headline from the Iowa Capital Dispatch 2/1/2023: “Billions in federal farm payments flow to a select group of producers, report shows.” The top 10% of recipients took in 79% of the funds over the last 25-years.
All this while poor children are left hungry.
Thanks, Gary ! From the Guardian article⬇️
“The proposals come as waters off the Florida coast reach levels of heat more commonly found in hot tubs, and as much of the nation continues to swelter under triple-digit temperatures.”
Florida is the ONLY state to reject federal 💲 to help curb emissions. Wouldn’t want to “politicize the weather”….sigh.
https://www.businessinsider.com/to-avoid-politicization-roadways-florida-declines-320m-federal-funds-2023-12
We’ve also been under tropical storm type weather for a month. Very weird for the time of year.
Yeah, looking out the window at what's happening is a political act in Florida. Watching Faux News is mo' better.
For those who want to know more about "Project 2025" but don't want to wade through the 100+ pages of the document, the Wikipedia article referenced by Gary is an excellent overview, quite sufficient to scare the pants off of you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Thanks, for both your post and the reminder that even "a cursory review" can be mind boggling. Well done, sir.
Oh, and that comparison of Christmas messages from fpotus and POTUS.... stunning.