>>519025420
>>519026242
The climate debate misframes the stakes. Human survival isn't threatened; our species endured ice ages with 4C colder temperatures using stone tools and fire. We'd adapt to warming, though not without disruption. The real question isn't species survival but system stability. Climate change threatens massive disruption: shifting agricultural zones, coastal displacement, and large-scale migration. These changes would destabilize current power structures and institutional control. The global elite face losing their grip if civilization experiences this upheaval.
This explains the policy pattern. Rather than enabling decentralized adaptation (which humans excel at), solutions consistently centralize control: international agreements, carbon credit systems for existing financial institutions, regulations that large corporations navigate but small competitors cannot, and digital monitoring infrastructure tracking individual consumption. These restrictions disproportionately impact the middle class while elites continue unchanged; private jets operate while ordinary people face fuel taxes. If genuinely environmental, you'd expect sacrifice from the top down.
The framing itself reveals the strategy: "existential crisis" justifies emergency measures and expanded authority. Prevention requires global compliance with centralized rules. Adaptation happens locally without requiring international governance. Plymouth Rock, ocean carbon sequestration, natural climate cycles; all complicate the narrative but get dismissed because uncertainty undermines the imperative for immediate centralized action.
The question isn't whether climate changes - it's who decides how society responds. "Save the planet" becomes justification for concentrating power. The real grift isn't the science; it's using consensus to expand control over a population who notice their sacrifices don't apply to those demanding them.