Climate Grief vs. Climate Optimism: Why Not Open the Mind?

“The Centre for Climate Psychology and Change is committed to supporting people where they are at…. We are working on a rich programme of events, which includes a grief facilitator training, run by Francis Weller.”

It is grief and grieving in AlarmistLand. Jonathan Watts of The Guardian wrote:

Climate instability and nature extinction are making the Earth an uglier, riskier and more uncertain place, desiccating water supplies, driving up the price of food, displacing humans and non-humans, battering cities and ecosystems with ever fiercer storms, floods, heatwaves, droughts and forest fires. Still worse could be in store as we approach or pass a series of dangerous tipping points for Amazon rainforest dieback, ocean circulation breakdown, ice-cap collapse and other unimaginably horrible, but ever more possible, catastrophes.

Yet, apparently we must still have hope. It is mandatory. Change is impossible, we are told, without positive thinking and a belief in a better future. That is the message of just about every politician and business leader I have interviewed in close to two decades on the environment beat.

He added:

But what if it is hope that is the problem? What if hope is the antidepressant that has been keeping us all comfortably numb when we have every right to be sad, worried, stirred to action or just plain angry?

These are not questions most of us want to ask. Me included, though most people who read environmental coverage assume the opposite because the trends we report on are relentlessly grim. Some of my Guardian colleagues joke that my job is to make everyone feel miserable.

Stay Positive?

The alarmists are resisting calls to be positive, despite the need to do so as PR (doomism turns off activists, warns Michael Mann), and despite a list of intellectual arguments that challenge the gloomy narrative.

But optimism is bad too! States self-described Climate Psychology Consultant Steffi Bednarek:

When we force positivity or dismiss negative emotions, we fail to “name” the fear, grief, or despair we may actually be experiencing. This creates a disconnect between our inner emotional reality and the external world, leaving emotions unprocessed and, therefore, more likely to resurface in harmful ways – such as chronic stress, burnout, emotional reactivity, wanting to believe in false miracle solutions or false leaders.

Ignoring or diminishing real emotions in favour of mandated positivity can foster feelings of resignation. If people are only encouraged to “stay positive” in the face of a global crisis, their deeper emotional responses are invalidated. It takes enormous energy to suppress strong emotional responses. We also can’t selectively suppress, so suppressing anxiety and grief will also suppress joy and curiosity. This means that suppression of emotional states leads to a flattening of vitality which can lead to disengagement and inaction.

The climate crisis is overwhelming and, for many, deeply distressing. Forced positivity can create cognitive dissonance, where there’s a gap between what people are told to feel and their actual emotional experience. This can lead to confusion, frustration, and increased emotional fragmentation.

True resilience doesn’t come from ignoring difficult feelings but from acknowledging and working through them. Only by facing emotions such as eco-anxiety, grief, and loss can we find ways to adapt psychologically, build resilience, and engage in meaningful climate action.

The Centre for Climate Psychology and Change is committed to supporting people where they are at. We offer online training, workshops and events that bring regenerative disturbance to embedded habits of thinking whilst nurturing collective resilience, trauma aware leadership and psychological adaptability in a time of global upheaval.

Alarmists are in a bad place. They are now choosing denial rather than a fundamental rethink of Deep Ecology climate religion. Tomorrow, the strange optimism of scientist/alarmist/activist Andrew Dessler will be examined.

The post Climate Grief vs. Climate Optimism: Why Not Open the Mind? appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/YWvQDuR

December 11, 2024 at 01:04AM

UK Embraces Net Zero Electric Military Vehicles

Essay by Eric Worrall

My question – will they be powered by Miliband’s giant flywheels?

Net zero plans for Armed Forces could ‘put soldiers at risk’

Military grandees query MoD’s ‘climate change agenda’ in pushing trials of electric combat vehicles

Ethan CroftSunday Political Correspondent

07 December 2024 8:00pm GMT

Ministers are forging ahead with plans to use electric vehicles (EVs) for combat on the battlefield despite warnings from military grandees that they could put the Armed Forces at risk.

The Telegraph has learnt that the Ministry of Defence will be ramping up testing of battlefield EVs next year at the Army’s Bovington Garrison in Dorset, home of the Tank Museum.

…

However, military grandees on Saturday called for the Government to think again before pressing ahead with the “crazy endeavour”, warning that a rush to net zero on the battlefield could put British troops at a disadvantage.

…

“It is hard enough to keep the current vehicles supplied with fuel, that is a massive operation on its own – I just can’t see how it would possibly work with EVs.

…

Read more (paywalled): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/07/net-zero-soldiers-at-risk-battlefield-evs-combat-warnings/

Just when you think the British government has reached peak stupid, they surprise us all by achieving some new level of absurdity.

What happens when the electric battlefield vehicle runs out of electricity? Do they ask the other side to please stop attacking for 8 hours until the solar panels complete the recharge?

On a positive note, we can’t fault the current British government for their effort to keep us entertained. Whenever I am stuck for something to write about, all I have to do is put “Miliband” or “Starmer” in my google search, and I have my next WUWT story.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/vXjI69m

December 11, 2024 at 12:01AM

Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy

“Storm Darragh leaves UK solar farm in pieces in blow to green energy” Storm Darragh leaves UK solar farm in pieces in blow to green energy | Daily Mail Online

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/woVjltp

December 10, 2024 at 11:43PM

Private Jets, Public Hypocrisy: How Climate Alarmists Just Reinvented Irony

Ah, the sweet scent of self-awareness wafting through the hallowed halls of climate orthodoxy. A new article from Nature titled “Private Aviation is Making a Growing Contribution to Climate Change” pulls back the velvet curtain on the jet-setting hypocrisy of the ultra-wealthy, and boy, is it rich. Literally. For years, skeptics like Michael Crichton have pointed out the glaring contradictions between the climate rhetoric of the global elite and their private jet-fueled lifestyles. Now, the same critique has oozed into the very peer-reviewed journals that once dismissed such observations as heresy.

The Study That Took Off

The Nature piece explores the carbon carnage of private aviation, quantifying the annual emissions of private jets at a hefty 15.6 million tons of CO2 in 2023. For context, that’s about the same as the yearly emissions of Croatia. Nearly half of these flights were under 500 km—essentially airborne Ubers for billionaires—and some were as short as 50 km. In one hilarious (or infuriating) twist, many jets weren’t even carrying passengers but were repositioned empty. Efficiency, thy name is not “private aviation.”

The report notes that while commercial aviation’s carbon footprint is broadly understood, private jets occupy a particularly egregious spot in the emissions hierarchy. They emit 5-9 times more CO2 per passenger than a commercial flight, depending on whether you’re in economy or lounging in business class. Yet, despite their planetary bloviating, the elites’ addiction to private aviation remains unchecked, with emissions growing by 46% between 2019 and 2023.

Abstract

Commercial aviation’s contribution to climate change is growing, but the global role of private aviation is not well quantified. Here we calculate the sector’s CO2 emissions, using flight tracker data from the ADS-B Exchange platform for the period 2019 to 2023. Flight times for 25,993 private aircraft and 18,655,789 individual flights in 2019-2023 are linked to 72 aircraft models and their average fuel consumption. We find that private aviation contributed at least 15.6 Mt CO2 in direct emissions in 2023, or about 3.6 t CO2 per flight. Almost half of all flights (47.4%) are shorter than 500 km. Private aviation is concentrated in the USA, where 68.7% of the aircraft are registered. Flight pattern analysis confirms extensive travel for leisure purposes, and for cultural and political events. Emissions increased by 46% between 2019-2023, with industry expectations of continued strong growth. Regulation is needed to address the sector’s growing climate impact.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01775-z

Where Have We Heard This Before?

Long before Nature decided to go all National Enquirer on the Davos crowd, the late Michael Crichton was calling out the same nonsense. In his 2007 lecture, “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” Crichton argued that environmentalism had morphed into a quasi-religion for the affluent, complete with sin (carbon emissions), indulgences (carbon offsets), and a priestly class of celebrities and politicians eager to atone in public while sinning in private. Crichton’s observations didn’t just age well—they’ve fossilized into truth.

This hypocrisy has always been a favorite target for skeptics, and it’s finally catching up with the climate priesthood. Even leftist commentators have started to gnash their teeth at the contradiction: how can one scold the masses for their SUVs while gallivanting across continents in Gulfstreams?

Davos, Cannes, and COP28: Where Hypocrisy Takes Flight

The Nature article specifically names events like the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Cannes Film Festival, and COP28 as magnets for private jet traffic. These gatherings are not just a who’s who of climate alarmism—they’re a what’s what of conspicuous carbon consumption. In 2023 alone, Davos saw 1,559 private jet flights, while COP28, the UN’s very own climate carnival, added 1,012 flights to the tally.

Here’s the kicker: the same tail numbers pop up at multiple events. Aircraft ferrying delegates to Davos also frequent Cannes and COP28. If ever there were a carbon aristocracy, this is it.

What’s Fueling This Hypocrisy?

The ultra-wealthy’s love affair with private jets is about more than just luxury; it’s about control. Why endure the indignities of TSA pat-downs or missed connections when you can glide through your own terminal? But this convenience comes with a carbon cost that the global elite are happy to externalize—onto you.

The Nature authors recommend regulating private aviation to mitigate its emissions. But let’s not kid ourselves: any such policies would likely exempt the very people they’re meant to target. As the study acknowledges, focusing on CO2 reductions tends to disproportionately burden the less affluent. In other words, the elites’ jet-setting won’t stop, but your gas-powered car might.

The Left Eats Its Own

What’s particularly fascinating about this development is the way the left is turning on itself. Climate activists now accuse their own heroes of being complicit in the planetary apocalypse. Twitter (sorry, X) is aflame with videos like those shared by Stay Grounded, an anti-aviation network calling out celebrity CO2 offenders. Even mainstream outlets like the New York Times have started to notice the glaring disconnect between climate rhetoric and reality.

It’s Schadenfreude of the highest order: the same people who flew into COP28 to scold you for not biking to work are now being publicly skewered by their ideological comrades.

Final Approach: Will Anything Change?

Probably not. The ultra-wealthy will continue to jet around the globe while preaching austerity to the rest of us. What will change is the increasing recognition of this hypocrisy, as even climate faithful can no longer ignore the absurdity of private jets at a climate conference.

The takeaway is clear: the climate crisis, to the extent it exists, is not a crisis for the elite. It’s a crisis for everyone else, to be managed with taxes, regulations, and lifestyle restrictions that leave the jet set untouched. Until the climate faithful are willing to ground their planes, their sermons will remain as hollow as the cargo bays of their empty repositioning flights.

In the meantime, buckle up, folks. The hypocrisy show isn’t landing anytime soon.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/CaEQk6y

December 10, 2024 at 08:08PM