Frankly, the reason they are hysterical is 2 fold:
The environmentalist movement is founded by literal god damned Nazis who were obsessed with the "soil" part of "Blood & Soil" (long discussion on what that actually meant to the Nazis and how that pertains to conservationism), and believed in Malthusian predictions of population collapse. All of the internationalist organizations can be thrown directly in the garbage for that.
The largest corporations in the world, particularly within agriculture, finance, and trade are facing a disaster because they will not be able to easily respond to climate changes, in the same way they control the world's monetary system since they can't respond to price changes. Climate Change is going to completely alter the environments of many continents and will result in a large movement of people. Maybe even the construction of new major cities (Canada in particular comes to mind), this means that the agricultural order of the world and it's commodity trading are going to be changed rather violently in the coming decades, and companies like Cargil are going to have to figure out how to adapt to how food is not going to be grown when, where, and how they want it to be. Worse, they might not even be able to grow what they want to, which is want the largest agricultural corporations rely on.
(continued) Farmers are always going to be the first people effected by Climactic change and any change that happens to them is going to effect food distribution to the rest of the country and every single thing that implies from political stability, economic well-being, public healthcare, population density, and much much more. Thanks to FDR's farm system, farmers are effectively dependent on share-cropping for the major Agricultural firms, and on federal subsidies to survive in such a highly regulated market that admits its sole purpose is to keep food prices extremely low. Probably lower than they even should be.
However, Climate Change means that the only proper solution to the oncoming problems to agriculture would be to radically de-regulate, well past the point of ending subsidies. This is a lethal threat to the largest corporations that depend on controlling agricultural commodity trading, and it also threatens establishment political loyalty over these regions. Farmers being allowed to adapt to Climate Change means increased food price volatility, worse: it means deflationary pressure on the major agricultural firms that will either have to eat the cost, force the farmers to take the hit, or force the consumer to offset the deflation with taxation. This means that:
You have the firm eat the cost and go out of business for being unprofitable (the correct decision, but you lose political control over your cartel)
You have the local farmers eat the cost by having them go out of business, which threatens your political control over your food supply from angry farmers.
You make consumers pay a shitload more in taxes or inflation to offset the decreasing price of food, which will weaken political control over them and foment significant resentment against the government.
From their perspective, it's only bad news. Look at it like this, Climate Change causing deflation on agriculture is like Caronavirus causing deflation on the stock markets: they chose options 2 & 3, put 46 million people out of work and hyperinflate the currency. The is already a catastrophe, and their hoping to barely scrape by with rampant fraud, a highly agitated population, and they've already lost the capitol once. Climate Change will do the same thing, but for food. That is why they are scared. You think the Boomer Riot at the capitol was bad? Try a Bread Riot. Or worse: a Water Riot.
I'm not sure I'd be willing to dismiss that (we're over 400 ppm atm), considering the change in atmosphereic concentration changes albedo, increases ocean acidification (which we know alters rain-bands), and allows both the ocean and atmosphere to store more physical energy. It's bound to have significant effects on plant and animal life, and it clearly is.
Frankly, the reason they are hysterical is 2 fold:
The environmentalist movement is founded by literal god damned Nazis who were obsessed with the "soil" part of "Blood & Soil" (long discussion on what that actually meant to the Nazis and how that pertains to conservationism), and believed in Malthusian predictions of population collapse. All of the internationalist organizations can be thrown directly in the garbage for that.
The largest corporations in the world, particularly within agriculture, finance, and trade are facing a disaster because they will not be able to easily respond to climate changes, in the same way they control the world's monetary system since they can't respond to price changes. Climate Change is going to completely alter the environments of many continents and will result in a large movement of people. Maybe even the construction of new major cities (Canada in particular comes to mind), this means that the agricultural order of the world and it's commodity trading are going to be changed rather violently in the coming decades, and companies like Cargil are going to have to figure out how to adapt to how food is not going to be grown when, where, and how they want it to be. Worse, they might not even be able to grow what they want to, which is want the largest agricultural corporations rely on.
(continued) Farmers are always going to be the first people effected by Climactic change and any change that happens to them is going to effect food distribution to the rest of the country and every single thing that implies from political stability, economic well-being, public healthcare, population density, and much much more. Thanks to FDR's farm system, farmers are effectively dependent on share-cropping for the major Agricultural firms, and on federal subsidies to survive in such a highly regulated market that admits its sole purpose is to keep food prices extremely low. Probably lower than they even should be.
However, Climate Change means that the only proper solution to the oncoming problems to agriculture would be to radically de-regulate, well past the point of ending subsidies. This is a lethal threat to the largest corporations that depend on controlling agricultural commodity trading, and it also threatens establishment political loyalty over these regions. Farmers being allowed to adapt to Climate Change means increased food price volatility, worse: it means deflationary pressure on the major agricultural firms that will either have to eat the cost, force the farmers to take the hit, or force the consumer to offset the deflation with taxation. This means that:
From their perspective, it's only bad news. Look at it like this, Climate Change causing deflation on agriculture is like Caronavirus causing deflation on the stock markets: they chose options 2 & 3, put 46 million people out of work and hyperinflate the currency. The is already a catastrophe, and their hoping to barely scrape by with rampant fraud, a highly agitated population, and they've already lost the capitol once. Climate Change will do the same thing, but for food. That is why they are scared. You think the Boomer Riot at the capitol was bad? Try a Bread Riot. Or worse: a Water Riot.
what's the pretext of CO2?
I'm not sure I'd be willing to dismiss that (we're over 400 ppm atm), considering the change in atmosphereic concentration changes albedo, increases ocean acidification (which we know alters rain-bands), and allows both the ocean and atmosphere to store more physical energy. It's bound to have significant effects on plant and animal life, and it clearly is.