Onesnaženje, ki ga povzroča fanatični ekologizem

29
1031
Prava katastrofa za okolje je ekološki radikalizem

Nova religija – čaščenje Matere Zemlje

Mediji nas vedno bolj v apokaliptičnem duhu zasipajo z  problematiko ekologije. Brez dvoma je ekološko vprašanje zelo pomembno za preživetje živalskih in rastlinskih vrst, pa tudi našega planeta in človeka samega. Na svetost ekološkega boja ter na nujnost urgentnih in radikalnih ekoloških odločitev in ekološke revolucije nas opozarjajo že naši otroci in najstniki z Greto Thunberg na čelu. O tem govori papež Frančišek, o teh vprašanjih bo razpravljala tudi škofovska sinoda o Amazoniji, o tem razpravlja EU, OZN …

Vprašanje je torej resno! Kako rešiti Zemljo? Kako skrbeti za stvarstvo in kaj so temelji za našo odgovornost do doma, v katerem živimo? O tem razmišljamo? Katere rešitve predlagamo kristjani? Kako se soočamo s predlogi, ki so nekrščanski, nekatere pa tudi proti-krščanski?

Pojavljajo se ideje o »iztrebljanju človeka«, ki je kriv za onesnaženje, celo o ljudožerstvu in kompostiranju človeških trupel

Kremiranje trupel in žarni pogrebi so zelo praktični: mrliča ni potrebno imeti več na parah, praktično je tudi za komunalno službo, saj ni potrebno kopati grobov in žara zavzame veliko manj prostora. Z vidika higieničnosti in ekologije sem slišal dva ugovora  proti kremiranju. Prvi ugovor se dotika radioaktivnosti pepela. Če to drži (ne vem, naj povedo strokovnjaki), je pametno, da je slovo od upepeljenih dragih čim krajše in na pogrebe ne hodijo otroci. Duhovniki in pogrebci pa bi morali imeti beneficiran delovni staž in ustrezno zaščitno obleko proti radioaktivnemu sevanju.

Drugi argument proti žarnim pogrebom: za sežig človeka je potrebno precej energije, s tem pa onesnažujemo in segrevamo ozračje. Če drži tudi to, potem je logično, da upepeljevanje trupel ni niti higienično, niti ekološko in je potrebno iskati boljše rešitve. Zakaj ne bi naših pokojnih zmleli in kompostirali? S predelanimi ostanki bi gnojili parke, gozdove in njive. Veliko bolj ekološko in koristno!

Če hočemo rešiti Zemljo, Trump ne sme zmagati na prihodnjih volitvah

Če že ne moremo brez mesa, zakaj ne bi zmanjšali število krav in jedli ljudi, ki so umrli v prometnih nesrečah, terorističnih napadih, vojnah in drugih nezgodah? Ljudožerstvo je obstajalo in menda še vedno ni povsem zatrto. Nasprotno, zakaj ne bi kar vsi mesojedci postali ljudožerci? Švedski profesor Magnus Soderlund, ki predlaga ljudožerstvo, meni, da so problem zgolj naši predsodki in tabuji. Bodo naši otroci, ki Bog ne daj, da gredo na pogreb svojega dedka in babice, ker to lahko povzroči čustvene rane, po novem vsi navdušeni in hvaležni, imeli svoje stare starše na krožniku, za kosilo?

In ker je ljudi na svetu preveč, sedaj nas je menda 7 milijard, čez kakšno desetletje pa nas bo 10 milijard, je potrebno začeti število ljudi zmanjševati. Kako? Na voljo je veliko možnosti: abortus, kontracepcija, sterilizacija, zauživanje hrane, ki povzroča neplodnost, evtanazija, spodbujanje homoseksualnosti… Take in podobne ideje zagovarjajo vsi, ki so napredni, npr. Bernie Sanders – eden izmed favoritov za novega ameriškega predsednika.

Naš odrešenik ni Kristus, ampak nova religija, ki jo moramo šele odkriti

V čem je torej, po mnenju fanatičnih ekologistov, problem? Problem je naša pamet! Potrebna je prevzgoja! Spremeniti je potrebno naš način razmišljanja, sicer nas čaka katastrofa! Problem je sedanji ameriški predsednik Donald Trump, ki ne da denarja za splav in 90 % afriških žen, ki se zaradi svoje zaostalosti nočejo podvreči abortusu. To je treba nujno spremeniti! Če hočemo rešiti Zemljo, Trump ne sme zmagati na prihodnjih volitvah! Afriške žene pa je potrebno spametovati! To je predvsem naloga medijev, katerih naloga je v prvi vrsti »ozaveščanje« (beri ideološka kolonizacija), ne pa informacija, ki naj zavzema le kakšen procent dejavnosti. Da bodo ljudje postali ljudožerci jim je potrebno vcepiti strah in jim povedati, da je to nujno in etično, če se želimo rešiti, saj smo tik pred katastrofo.

Zlahka lahko ugotovimo, da gre za projekt »novega človeka« in »nove univerzalne religije«. Tudi ta religija ne more brez boga oziroma boginje (Mati Zemlja, Gaja, Narava) in brez greha. Greh pa ni več žalitev Boga in kršenje desetih Božjih zapovedi, temveč vsako upiranje radikalnemu ekologizmu, ki se razglaša za edino zveličavno in edino pravo religijo. Boginja Gaja zahteva naše žrtve! Potrebno se ji podvreči! Ker so nekateri znanstveniki »ateisti«, je potrebna tudi »nova inkvizicija«. Naš odrešenik ni Kristus, ampak nova religija, ki jo moramo, na podlagi človeške pameti in etike, odkriti sami!

Je mogoče rešiti stvarstvo brez Stvarnika? Se fanatični verniki Matere Zemlje tega zavedajo?

Krščanstvo je škodljivo, ker nasprotuje abortusu in evtanaziji ter drugim naprednim in etičnim tehnološkim rešitvam. Judovsko – krščanski Oče je kriv za vse zlo na svetu, Mati Zemlja je edina, ki lahko stvari postavi na pravo mesto. Če kristjani ne bodo spremenili Svetega pisma in svojih dogem, je potrebno Cerkev prepovedati, kristjane pa zaradi »ateizma« preganjati, kot v času Rimskega imperija, v prvih stoletjih po Kristusu.

Preganjanje kristjanov je vsekakor možen in verjeten scenarij, saj se že dogaja. Tudi kompostiranje ljudi in ljudožerstvo bo morda uvedeno. Pred nekaj desetletji smo se spogledovali ob žarnih pogrebih, danes so postali običajni. Pred nekaj leti nihče ni mislil, da bo evtanazija uzakonjena; danes pa marsikje na svetu, večina državljanov glasuje za evtanazijo. Zakaj ne bi bilo tako tudi z novimi predlogi, ki se nam sedaj zdijo morda še smešni? Ideološka kolonizacija bo vsaj do neke mere zagotovo uspela. Pri tem pa ne smemo zanemariti možnosti uporov in porasta skrajnih desničarskih organizacij in strank, ki s krščanstvom prav tako ne bodo imele nič skupnega, čeprav se bodo morda nanj sklicevale.

Nemogoče pa je, da bi biocentrizem, radikalni ekologizem, panteizem, nespoštovanje človeškega dostojanstva, zavračanje Božjih zapovedi, medijske manipulacije in ideološki kolonializem uresničili »Raj na Zemlji«. Se vam ne zdi, da vse skupaj diši po peklu? Ne drvimo proti raju, ampak peklu! Stvarstva ni mogoče rešiti brez Stvarnika in v boju proti Stvarniku. Lahko se odločamo za graditev pekla, lahko pobijemo več milijard ljudi, lahko uničimo tudi planet na katerem živimo. Boga pa take človeške neumnosti vendarle ne morejo ukiniti. Bog, bodi hvaljen!

29 KOMENTARJI

  1. Rešitev je le ravnovesje s stvarstvom, ki je človeku namenilo razumna plemenitost, ki ji kraljuje ljubezen.

    Mnogi bi pa želeli, da se človek odlikuje po zverinskosti in nerazumnem nasprotovanju ravnovesja s stvarstvom.

  2. Ni vojne brez kolateralnih žrtev. Tako vam verjamem, da imate enako radi mojo hčerko Gajo kot jaz.

    Če sem tako dal ime hčerki, ni treba trikrat ugibati, “katere vere sem”. Da, iste kot vaš papež. Verjamem, da je onesnaževanje sodu izbilo dno in da držijo znanstvene napovedi, da bodo v naslednjih dva tisoč letih razpadli celotni ekosistemi rezultirajoč v izumrtju več kot 90% vseh rastlinskih in živalskih vrst, ki jih poznamo danes. Ta proces se je že začel. Ne da se ga več ustaviti. Dalo bi se ga mogoče le omiliti. Če ne bi toliko bilo odvisno od človeka, za katerega vemo, kakšno fanatično inercijo ima.

    Govorite o kanibalizmu. Seveda ima človeško meso natanko tisto sestavo beljakovin, ki jo potrebujemo za kar najhitrejšo rast otrok, a že iz znanstvenih razlogov ne moremo priporočati kanibalizma. Po tej poti se ne prenašajo le mikronutrienti ampak tudi bakterije, virusi in ostale bolezni. Najlažje se bolezen na človeka prenese z drugega človeka. Veliko lažje kot npr. z ježa. Še najlažje če tega drugega človeka pojemo. Pravzaprav je znanost potrdila še več, kar Židje in arabski muslimani vedo že stoletja. Bolezni se zelo enostavno prenašajo tudi s svinje na človeka. Svinja nam je naslednja najbolj sorodna žival od tistih, ki jih jemo. Zato se tudi bolezni najlažje prenašajo. Tako WHO odsvetuje svinjino. Ne samo svinjine, odsvetuje katerokoli rdeče meso! Vsa so rakotvorna, še najbolj izrazito v kombinaciji z vseprisotnimi kemikalijami znanimi kot prehranski dodatki oziroma E-ji.

    V obupanih poskusih najti novo hrano so se znanstveniki zatekli celo k žuželkam. Da bi prehranili človeštvo predlagajo prehod z mesa na kobilice. Za kilogram hladnokrvnih kobilic potrebujemo desetkrat manj rastlinske krme kot za kilogram mesa toplokrvne živali. Tako bi lahko rešili planet! Res je. A so pri tem zanemarili, da ljudje nismo vrsta mačk. V svoji hrani ne potrebujemo toliko proteinov. Imamo prebavila praktično enaka kot opice, zato je nepresentljivo za nas najlažja hrana sadje. No, Eskimom moj nasvet res ne pomaga veliko. A ostali bi se lahko malo zamislili.

  3. Tudi sicer je zlo neprimerno bolj banalno, kot deluje na prvi pogled. V Združenih Državah so imeli blazne težave z Indijanci. Kako to? Belci so se v navzkrižnem prerivanju za oblast nad ozemljem z ugodno klimo posluževali Indijancev. Prodajali so jim puške in alkohol. Nekateri prodajali iz brezobzirnega koristoljubja, drugi celo podarjali iz vojaških taktičnih (a ne strateških 🙁 ) računic.

    Podobno sranje imamo danes s plastiko. Po eni strani fanatično pritiskamo na Evropejce, da opustijo slamice in plastične vrečke, čeprav plastika v oceanih ni naša. Tista mikroplastika izvira kar lepo iz Tajske. Mi svojo pridno recikliramo (ali vsaj odvržemo na trajne deponije). In odkod torej plastika Azijcem? Tja so je zanesle črne ovce kapitalizma zainteresirane le za hiter dobiček. Dali so jim vrečke, ne da bi jih naučili, kako se uporabljajo. Le izdelek brez odgovornosti od začetka do konca njegove življenjske dobe. Torej bi se problem dalo zelo hitro rešiti. Seveda bi! A če ne bi zato potrebovali spremembo obnašanja ljudi. Človek pa ima bolano inercijo!

  4. Še Trump.

    Seveda je Trump grozen. Med njegovo “elito” sem pod njegovim pokroviteljstvom (beri spremembami oz. opuščanjem zakonodaje) bije ogorčen boj, kdo bo uplenil zadnje primerke številnih ogroženih vrst zveri in drugih markantnih eksotičnih živali. Krščansko?!? Upam, da se mu boste uprli.

    V ekonomiji pa “njegove” politike nimajo tako negativnega ogljičnega odtisa kot njegova retorika. Pač Američani nazaj na svojo celino vračajo nekatere industrije, ki so drugod bolj energetsko potratne kot pri njih doma. A tudi retoriko bo treba spremeniti, ker je že brez njegove pomoči inercija človeške rase prevelika.

    • V svoje politikantstvo boš moral nehat štrikat znanost. Se bo treba odločit ali si ateist, levičar, ki mu je vseeno, ali pa si resnicoljubni desničar. Odveč se nam je prlizovati tu s pravoslavjem, ker si se že doslej velikokrat izpričal kot ateist.
      Sicer mi je všeč, da ogljični odtis vidiš kot stvar retorike. Torej znanstveno je še vedno nedokazan ta vpliv. In najbrž nikoli ne bo dokazan, ker ga nihče sploh niti ne skuša dokazati. Tudi vsa ostala tvoja sklicevanja na znanost so na nivoju bioenergetike in astrologije.

  5. Alternativne tehnologije pridobivanju energije iz fosilnih goriv obstajajo. Nekaterim od njih ze zdaj govori v prid celo ekonomska, ne le okoljska racunica. Podobno velja za pogon motorjev.

    Vse moznosti imamo recimo tudi odpovedati se plasticni embalazi, ki povzroca grozljivo onesnazenost planeta, se posebej morij.

    Le odlociti se je treba. Pritiske za tako odlocitev, za prehod in zapustitev evidentno naravi in cloveku skodljivih tehnologij ne bi imenoval ekoloski fanatizem. Tistih, ki bi v imenu ekologizma posebej promovirali splav in evtanazijo, zanesljivo ni veliko.

  6. BV vidi vnaprej in resno opozarja. Dodal bi le, da je ključen dejavnik družina.
    —-
    “… ugovora proti kremiranju. Prvi … radioaktivnosti pepela.”
    Ja, res je. Človeško telo je radioaktivno, zato je radioaktiven tudi pepel. Radioaktivna doza, ki jo dobi človek od samega sebe, je primerljiva z dozo, ki jo dobi človek od zunaj, zato je pepel nenevaren, če primerjamo njegov vpliv s kakšnim drugim vplivom v zvezi z zdravjem. Povprečnega Slovenca veliko bolj ogroža izobilje (beri “prevelika teža”). Zakaj ne jemo fižola, repe, jabolk … namesto golaža, sira, šunke …?
    Z drugim ugovorom se strinjam, ne pa s “predlaganimi ukrepi” – seveda.

    • Če je človeško telo radioaktivno,ostane tako tudi po smrti-kremacija da ali ne. V vsakem primeru pa se bodo naša telesa slej ko prej spremenila v prah-t.i. zdrava prehrana gor ali dol.

      • 1) Ne poznam nobenega razloga, zakaj bi se radioaktivnost po upepelitvi bistveno spremenila.
        2) Res je, da bomo slej ko prej prah in tudi čaščenje zdravja je problem, toda tudi zdravje duhovnikov je treba varovati. V tem smislu pišem, da ni treba, da bi bil kakšen duhovnik, četudi ima zelo veliko pogrebov, v strahu zaradi radioaktivnosti. Poznam pa nekaj duhovnikov, ki so resno zboleli zaradi izobilja. Takim bi svetoval, da naj se zgledujejo pri Strletu, ki nam je sicer vsem lahko za zgled.

  7. Zmedenost gornjega zapisa kaže stanje duha v naši družba prav tako pa nekateri komentarji. Vsakdo pametuje o vsem in na koncu, ko mu zmanjka idej pa se sklicuje na Boga, ki ga nihče ne more tudi s tako norimi idejami kot jih sam niza ukiniti.
    Če že pišeš takšen članek, bi človek pričakoval, da nakaže neko rešitev ne pa da se spotika ob tako imenovane častilce kot sam piše Matere Zemlje. In potem ugotavlja vse mogoče načine, kako bodo določeni iztrebili človeštvo..
    Avtor piše celo, da bo šlo tako daleč, da bodo mogoče naslednji rodovi namesto, da bi pokopali svoje prednike le te pojedli kot ljudožerci..Če bi malce pogledal navade kanibalov, bi videl, da oni ne pojedo človeka zaradi hrane. Pa še nekaj je v tem problem, kanibali, najprej sovražnika usmrtijo in potem pojedo..ne čakajo, da bi ta umrl naravne smrti.
    Bom zaključil kot avtor zapisa.. Bog pomagaj njemu in vsem podobnim ob takšnih zapisih.

    • Ideje o zmanjševanju ljudi na zemlji so dejstvo, tudi ideje o ljudožerstvu so dokumentirane in jih širijo univerzitetni profesorji. Tega si nisem izmislil. Lahko bi navedel še to, da se ljudje, kot npr. Kate Cunninham, poročajo z drevesi. »Vse je mogoče!« Tudi to, da daš točno določenemu drevesu človeško ime in se z njim poročiš… Sporočilo teh obredov je, da so rastline na isti stopnji, kot človek.
      Vsekakor se strinjam, da naš odnos do stvartva oziroma narave ni ustrezen. A menim, da tudi »ekologističen« odnos do stvarstva ni ustrezen in je iracionalna ideologija ter norost. Verjetno ni slučajno, da Greta Thumberg – simbol boja proti podnembnim spremembam, z mavrično zastavo v rokah podpira parade ponosa…
      Je »socialni darvinizem« sprejemljiv? Se človeštvo ni nič naučilo iz izkušnje nacizma? Kdo bo odločal, kdo lahko živi in koga je potrebno ubiti? Imamo pravico črniti Hitlerja, če se sami zavzemamo za enake rešitve?
      Neznanstvena je demonizacija CO2, ki je za življenje na zemlji življenskega pomena in ga je bilo v preteklosti v ozračju tudi že več kot danes, a svet zaradi tega ni propadel. Zakaj je kar naenkrat »Satanov plin«?
      Znanstveno nedokazane so tudi teorije o »globalnem segrevanju«, ki naj bi bilo posledica človeških dejavnosti. Znanstveniki vedo, da so bile ledene dobe, ko na zemlji še ni bilo človeka, da klima ni nekaj statičnega ampak se skozi zgodovino spreminja. V času Rimskega imperija in srednjega veka je bilo topleje, od 16-19 st. hladneje, mi pa živimo v času, ko se Zemlja ogreva. Bi radi imeli v rokah termostat, kot v svojih stanovanjih?
      V prispevkih sem spodbudil k iskanju »krščanskih« rešitev, kar se mi zdi povsem legitimno. Naj dodam, spodbujam, k iskanju rešitev, ki so v skladu z zdravo pametjo in razumom. Sam sem diplomiran teolog, torej nisem politik, ekonomist, ekolog…Sam pahko prispevam svoje mnenje in opozorim, da ekologizem ni pot v bolj čisto naravo.
      Tako, kot so dejstvo ekologistične ideje o rešitvi Zemlje, so dejstvo tudi »Božje zapovedi«, ki so zapisane v Svetem pismu. Če bi izhajali iz »Božje besede«, sem prepričan, bi se porodile mnoge ideje in nam dobrih idej ne bi zmanjkalo. Moj namen v tem prispevku ni bilo prinesti rešitve na krožniku, ampak spodbuditi bralce k iskanju rešitev. Če sem že izzvan naj zgolj naštejem nekaj tem za razpravo (kot rečeno nisem strokovnjak za to področje):
      – Omejevanje prometa v mestih; poskrbeti je potrebno za tramvaje…
      – Ogrevanje stavb, ki bo manj onesnaževalo ozračje; problem ni CO2, ampak druge strupene snovi, ki jih pošiljamo v ozračje.
      – Slovenija bi lahko izboljšala želežniški promet in s tem zmanjšala promet z avtomobili in tovornjaki. Kateri politiki in lobiji si za to ne prizadevajo, oziroma temu nasprotujejo?
      – Obnovljivi viri energije. Npr. Portugalska ima sistem veternih elektrarn in mini hidro elektrarn; ponoči, ko je višek elektrike s pumpami črpajo vodo v rezervoarje; podnevi pa ta voda poganja elektrarne…To so zgradili s črpanjem sredstev EU.
      – Potrebno je razvijati čiste tehnologije. Torej je potreben razvoj, ne pa to, da drvimo v primitivizem! Največ onesnaženja je v nerazvitih delih sveta (zažiganje gozdov, slaba kmetijska tehnologija, slabo ravnaje z odpadki…). Tudi njim bi morali pomagati, da se civilizirajo in napredujejo v kvaliteti življenja.
      – Po napovedih se bo v naslednjih nekaj desetletjih povečalo št. prebivalcev v mestih za 1.6 miljarde in bo znašalo okoli 70% celotnega človeštva. Torej je še posebej velika naloga razvijati mesta, da bo v njih življenje znosno (tudi kolesarske steze, parki, urejen promet v mestu in z drugimi mesti…). Za to pa je potrebno razvijati urbanizem. Kje smo v Sloveniji?

      • Kdo vam daje vedenje, da povecevanje koncentracij CO2 ni problem, kar izrecno trdite? Vase teolosko znanje? Potem predlagam, da si preko obraza nadenete neprodusno npr. pvc vrecko in krajsi cas, ne vec kot minuto, izdihujete in vdihujete vanjo. Ko se boste slabo pocutili ( respiratorna acidoza se rece temu stanju), se spomnite, da je to tisto, kar clovek pocenja atmosferi.

        In da, CO2 ima v atmosferi toplogredne ucinke.To je v fiziki vedenje izven vsakega dvoma.

        • Predlog glede dihanja v plastnični vrečki je neustrezen. Bogu hvala, da imajo
          CO2 in drugi plini v ozračju toplogredne ucinke. Brez tople grede na Zemlji ne bi bilo življenja, oziroma bi zmrznili, saj bi bila povprečna temperatura na Zemlji prenizka in ne bi bila okoli + 15 st. C, ampak za kakšnih 30 stopinj nižja, torej kvečjemu -15 st. C. (Tako sem prebral, ne vem če drži).
          Ravno demagogija v zvezi s CO2 postavlja teorijo o antropogenem vzroku za segrevanje Zemlje pod velik vprašaj. Če je škodljiv CO2, potem sta škodljiva tudi voda in kisik. CO2 je med drugim potreben za proces fotosinteze. Sedanja koncentracija CO2 nikakor ni alarm za strašenje ljudi s koncem sveta. Znanstveniki ugotavljajo (sam za to nimam dokazov, se zanesem nanje in upam, da to drži), da so obstajala obdobja v zgodovini našega planeta, ko je bila koncentracija CO2 15X višja, kot je danes. A Zemlja zaradi tega ni propadla. Res pa je, da ljudje vplivamo na povečevanje CO2. Kot sem se dal podučiti CO2 tvori največ okoli 5% tople grede. Večino tople grede (okoli 90%) tvori vodna para. Od 5% tople grede, ki jo tvori CO2, človek prispeva le en majhen delček. Zanimivo, da so pred sedanjo propagando o globalnem segrevanju pisali knjige o tem, da bomo zaradi CO2 zmrznili.
          Seveda nisem zagovornik onesnaževanja narave. Kolikor vem strokovnjaki merijo kolikšno je onesnaževanje s svincem, SO2, CO, mikro-prašnimi delci… Ti podatki so verjetno dostopni. Zakaj nas torej ekologisti strašijo s CO2? Menim da s tem delajo slabo uslugo ekologiji in zavzemanju za reševanje resničnih problemov: onesnaženje rek, morja, mest… Kaj pa svetlobno in zvočno onesnaženje? Z lažmi in ideologijo pa so onesnažene tudi človeške duše in to je po mojem mnenju najnevarnejša onesnaženost. Brez «ekologije človeka« ne more biti ekologije stvarstva.

          • Tako je, gospod Vidmar! Z vplivom CO2 (brez znanstvenih dokazov) strašijo tisti, ki imajo radi visoke davke. Za svoje potrebe, seveda. Gre za ideologijo, ne za stroko.

            Ne ukvarjajo se pa s stvarnimi in zlahka dokazljivimi ekološkimi težavami, kot je čezmeren hrup, lokalno neposredno onesnaženje zraka, vode, škodljive kancerogene substance, kmetijsko zastrupljanje zemlje, vode in pridelkov itd.

          • Res pa je, da ljudje vplivamo na povečevanje CO2.
            ==========
            Količina CO2, ki jo ljudje proizvedemo napram količini CO2 v atmosferi je praktično zanemarljiva.
            Vpliv CO2 na termične lastnosti atmosfere, predvsem na absorbcijo infrardeče svetlobe je zanemarljiva. Atmosfera se v 99,99% segreva s konvekcijo in ne z absorbcijo infrardeče svetlobe.

        • V fiziki takšno vedenje ne obstaja. Nobenega eksperimenta ni, ki bi to potrjeval. Tisti, ki to trdijo skrivajo svoje podatke in jih ne dajo na razpolago. Eksperimenta niso izvedli, nobenega.
          Ne razumem kako lahko tako vehementno zapišeš takšno trditev, pri čemer nimaš niti ene reference, če že sam ne poznaš problematiko,da bi o njej lahko sklepal.
          In potem še očitaš avtorju, da je teolog!? Avtor je večji znanstvenik in intelektualec kot si sam, IF!

          • Global Warming and the Ozone Layer: What’s More Dangerous, CO2 or Nuclear War?
            An Overview, By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
            Global Research, September 29, 2019

            4500 climate strikes in over 100 countries. Several million protesters demand that governments around the World “take action” on the devastating environmental impacts of climate change.

            Many of the climate activists point to the destructive impacts of global capitalism on their lives.

            “Capitalism = death (or extinction)”.

            “Cancel Capitalism.”

            People’s lives are destroyed. Politicians are coopted by the corporate giants including Big Oil. The economic, environmental and social structures are undermined. The outcome is a process of Worldwide impoverishment.

            The oil giants were indelibly under fire. In New York City, climate activists confronted “Big Oil”:

            “ExxonKnew: Make Them Pay” outside a meeting of fossil fuel CEOs and government representatives at the Morgan Library and Museum, just blocks away from the U.N. Climate Summit in New York.

            Who is Funding the Protest Movement

            “Exxon: Make Them Pay”?

            The unspoken truth is that Big Oil funds the campaign against Big Oil. Sounds contradictory?

            Climate activists have been lied to.

            The Climate Movement (New Green Deal) is funded by major charities and corporate foundations including the National Endowment for Democracy, Soros Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers Trust, Shell Foundation, BP, Goldman Sachs, among others.

            Whereas “Big Oil” is held responsible for the devastating impacts of the fossil fuel industry, the architects of Big Oil, namely the Rockefeller family is the major protagonist of the Green New Deal:

            “Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute published in 2016).

            Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance.

            But who controls that debate? Major capitalist foundations ultimately call the shots?

            There is an obvious contradictory relationship. The protest movement is funded by corporate foundations.

            According to William Engdahl, the New Green Deal is a multibillion “economic project”:

            Prince Charles, … along with the Bank of England and City of London finance have promoted “green financial instruments,” led by Green Bonds, to redirect pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects. A key player in the linking of world financial institutions with the Green Agenda is outgoing Bank of England head Mark Carney. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements’ Financial Stability Board (FSB), chaired then by Carney, created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), to advise “investors, lenders and insurance about climate related risks.” That was certainly a bizarre focus for world central bankers.

            And the Protest movement including the Extinction Rebellion provide a justification for investing in Green Bonds:

            The omnipresent Wall Street bank, Goldman Sachs, … has just unveiled the first global index of top-ranking environmental stocks, done along with the London-based CDP, formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project. The CDP, notably, is financed by investors such as HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, American International Group, and State Street Corp.

            The new index, called CDP Environment EW and CDP Eurozone EW, aims to lure investment funds, state pension systems such as the CalPERS (the California Public Employees’ Retirement System) and CalSTRS (the California State Teachers’ Retirement System) with a combined $600+ billion in assets, to invest in their carefully chosen targets.

            A cursory review suggests that the key climate organizations are invariably funded by corporate capital (including the Oil giants):

            Climate Action has links with a number of financial partners with a view to promoting “Green investments” in what is described as the “global sustainability industry.”
            The Climate Institute at climate.org, is a major research entity funded by Ford Motor Company Fund, GE Foundation, Goldman Sachs, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, among others.
            The Climate Leadership Council is an initiative of major corporations which funds the global climate consensus.

            Global Warming. The Concepts

            While climate activists express their concern regarding the nefarious impacts of global capitalism on climate, including those pertaining to militarization (and defense spending), the scientific analysis of climate under the auspices of the IPCC largely focusses on a single variable: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), i.e. the impact of increased emissions of CO2 derived from fossil fuels (including fracking) on average global temperature.

            Depletion of the ozone layer is what triggers global warming. The ozone layer is in the Earth’s stratosphere. “Ozone is constantly being produced and destroyed naturally. This ozone layer filters out ultra-violet (UV) rays from the Sun and protects life on Earth.”

            Greenhouse gas emissions affecting the ozone layer largely consist of water vapor (50%), carbon dioxide (CO2) (20%) and clouds (25%). The remaining greenhouse gases (5%) is made up of small aerosol particles, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (N2O) (both a greenhouse gas as well as an “ozone destroyer” with devastating impacts on climate). (approximate figures provided by NASA for 2011).

            Decrease of the ozone layer “will increase the amount of Ultra Violet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, and worsen the impacts due to UV exposure.”

            The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the key UN body “for assessing the science related to climate change”.

            The focus of the IPCC is to estimate the additional CO2 greenhouse gas generated by fossil fuel extraction. It is assumed that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from Planet Earth results solely from CO2 emissions tied to fossil fuel extraction (including fracking).

            Note: The CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel extraction constitute a very small percentage of total CO2 emissions (estimated at 20% of total greenhouse gas emissions), i.e a very small percentage of the 20%.

            The current IPCC climate debate focus consists of the following:

            -Rising CO2 emissions (from fossile fuels) constitute the sole cause of global warming, attributable to the depletion of the ozone layer.
            -To reduce the depletion of the ozone layer requires a reduction in fossil fuel extraction, which constitutes the major cause of rising CO2 emissions.

            The IPCC May 2018 report entitled Global warming of 1.5°C puts forth the following methodology:

            “an understanding of the impacts of 1.5°C global warming above pre-industrial levels and related global emission pathways in the context of strengthening the response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”

            Most of the results in this IPCC study are based on model simulations of likely impacts comparing a 2.0 C increase in average global temperature to the 1.5°C global warming above pre-industrial levels.

            The report highlights major environmental and social impacts which are based on simulations of rising temperature attributable to increased CO2 emissions attributable to fossil fuel extraction.

            These include impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, species loss and extinctions (plants, insects and vertebrates), impacts on oceans and waterways, as well as social impacts including poverty.

            The report distinguishes between terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems. It examines the impacts of global warming on ocean temperatures. It also addresses “associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels”and the impacts on marine life and biodiversity. The social impacts on (e.g. on fishing communities) are also acknowledged.

            On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Similarly, “limiting global warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans”

            Critique: Single Variable Analysis

            There are many other complex factors which directly or indirectly affect climate and environmental structures including the ozone layer, which have been excluded from the IPCC model simulations.

            The quantitative results of the IPCC are deterministic to say the least. According to MIT Professor Richard S Lindzen:

            “Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance.

            This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics.”

            They omit variables which affect climate. With the exception of fossil fuel, they do not address the impacts of government policy on climate, nor do they address how US led wars as well as the multi-trillion dollar war economy threatens Planet Earth.

            It is the art of omission:

            A single highly relevant variable carbon-dioxide (CO2) “Explains Everything”. (ceteris paribus).
            With all other variables excluded, through omission, CO2 “Explains nothing”.
            CO2 emissions cannot reasonably explain the complexities of climate change.
            By centering solely on CO2, the Climate debate has excluded “everything else”.

            The climatic and environmental crisis in different regions of the World are identified. The underlying causality is the single variable approach: helloCO2 emissions from fossil fuel extraction.

            And the IPCC’s stylized results are then used to justify the Green New Deal multibillion corporate bonanza.

            A whole series of important processes including biodiversity, animal life, poverty, species loss, etc have been explained by the IPCC solely referring to the impact of the the increase in CO2 emissions on global warming, nothing else.

            Measurement: Biased and Flawed Global Temperature Readings

            There are serious problems in estimating CO2 emissions (from fossil fuel) as well average global temperature.

            Global warming cannot be identified and explained by a single global temperature. There are numerous regional temperatures which describe climatic conditions. A global (weighted) average temperatures established from major geographical readings does not provide an understanding of the complexities of climate.

            Moreover, there is evidence that the Global Average Temperature is manipulated. This temperature has a direct bearing on gains and losses in multibillion dollar Carbon Trade transactions:

            When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. (Telegraph, 7 February, 2015)

            This belief has rested on … official data records. … the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), … the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, UK Met Office. [as well] as … measurements made by satellites, compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) (The Telegraph, 24 January 2015)

            The Impact of Radioactivity on Climate

            Are increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuel the only cause of climate change and environmental degradation?

            In this article, we focus briefly on the impacts on the Ozone Layer resulting from the explosion of nuclear bombs, an issue which has not been addressed by the New Green Deal, as well as radiation from nuclear power plants. We also focus on Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and the “militarization of the climate”.

            Radiation from Nuclear Power Plants (Fukushima)

            The dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination.

            In this regard, since 2011, amply documented, marine life as well as species loss has been affected by the release of radioactive plutonium into the Pacific Ocean following the Fukushima-Daichi disaster.

            Radioactive elements have not only been detected in the food chain in Japan, radioactive rain water has been recorded in California.

            Nuclear Testing and Radioactive Fallout

            The testing of nuclear weapons has been ongoing throughout the post WWII era. Among the more than 2000 tests, a large number of these tests are “not underground” or “underwater”, i.e the testing in the atmosphere. According to a 2000 Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to the General Assembly

            “The main man-made contribution to the exposure of the world’s population [to radiation] has come from the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, from 1945 to 1980. Each nuclear test resulted in unrestrained release into the environment of substantial quantities of radioactive materials, which were widely dispersed in the atmosphere and deposited everywhere on the Earth’s surface.”

            Climate Change, Panic Scenarios, Killing Scientific Debate. The Dark Story Behind “Global Warming”
            The above report highlights the impacts of radiation on living cells as well on the concurrent incidence of leukaemia, cancer of the thyroid, lung and breast cancer.

            What would be the impact of the explosion of nuclear weapons on the World’s climate?

            The issue of nuclear winter was first addressed in a 1983 study by R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan (referred to as TTAPS) “Global Atmospheric Consequences of Nuclear War”

            The publication of the TTAPS study at the height of the Cold War unleashed a concern on the devastating impacts of nuclear war including its climatic impacts.

            The extreme cold, high radiation levels, and the widespread destruction of industrial, medical, and transportation infrastructures along with food supplies and crops would trigger a massive death toll from starvation, exposure, and disease.

            The TTAPS study concluded: “…the possibility of the extinction of Homo Sapiens cannot be excluded.”

            It also created an awareness among US foreign policy-makers, which today is totally absent. Trump does not have the foggiest idea regarding the impacts of a nuclear war.

            According to Atomic Archive.com which essentially summarizes the concepts of the TTAP study (p. 22) “When a nuclear weapon explodes in the air, the surrounding air is subjected to great heat, followed by relatively rapid cooling.”

            These conditions are ideal for the production of tremendous amounts of nitric oxides. These oxides are carried into the upper atmosphere, where they reduce the concentration of protective ozone. Ozone is necessary to block harmful ultraviolet radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface.

            Oxides of nitrogen form a catalytic cycle to reduce the protective ozone layer.

            Oxides of nitrogen form a catalytic cycle to reduce the protective ozone layer.

            The nitric oxides produced by the weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the Northern Hemisphere by as much as 30 to 70 percent. Such a depletion might produce changes in the Earth’s climate, and would allow more ultraviolet radiation from the sun through the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth, where it could produce dangerous burns and a variety of potentially dangerous ecological effects.

            It has been estimated that as much as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megaton of nuclear explosive power. See Atomic Archive

            The 2008 Simulation of Nuclear Conflict. Impacts on Ozone Layer

            In a major 2008 study by Michael Mills et al entitled Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict (Academy of Sciences of the United States) a simulation was conducted (largely based on the concepts outlined in the TTPS 1983 study) of a nuclear conflict involving 100 Hiroshima sized bombs. The simulation confirmed that the nuclear explosions “could produce long-term damage to the ozone layer, enabling higher than “extreme” levels of ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth’s surface, (see GSN, March 16, 2010).

            Increased levels of UV radiation from the sun could persist for years, possibly with a drastic impact on humans and the environment, even thousands of miles from the area of the nuclear conflict. …

            “A regional nuclear exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons … would produce unprecedented low-ozone columns over populated areas in conjunction with the coldest surface temperatures experienced in the last 1,000 years, and would likely result in a global nuclear famine,” …

            The research by Mills and colleagues was the first to address the possibility that a nuclear explosion could lead to increased ultraviolet radiation levels on Earth, according to a NCAR press release issued during the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. NTI

            According to Prof. Allan Robock:

            In the 1980s, using simple climate models, we discovered that global nuclear arsenals, if used on cities and industrial areas, could produce a nuclear winter and lead to global famine.

            Smoke from the fires would last for years in the upper atmosphere, blocking sunlight, and making it cold, dark and dry at the Earth’s surface. It would also destroy ozone, enhancing ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface.

            While the immediate effects of nuclear strikes might kill hundreds of thousands, the numbers that would die from starvation in the years that followed could run into billions.

            In the real sense of the word, nuclear war could potentially lead to a process of Human Extinction:

            A very large nuclear war would be a calamity of indescribable proportions and absolutely unpredictable consequences, with the uncertainties tending toward the worse. . . . All-out nuclear war would mean the destruction of contemporary civilization, throw man back centuries, cause the deaths of hundreds of millions or billions of people, and, with a certain degree of probability, would cause man to be destroyed as a biological species . . . Andrei Sakharov, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1983

            Those concerns have largely been excluded from the Climate Debate and the Extinction Rebellion.

            The Extinction Rebellion Protest Movement has its eyes riveted on the rising emissions of Carbon Dioxide (from fossil fuel), heralded as “the most dangerous and prevalent greenhouse gas”.

            All other variables are excluded. Scientific lies by omission.

            .
            Impacts of Chemicals on the Ozone layer

            In recent history, Ozone layer depletion was caused by chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs. The CFCs are a greenhouse gas which was previously used in air conditioning and cooling units including refrigerators.

            The use of CFCs was banned under the Montreal Protocol. A June 2016 study however confirms that the Montreal Protocol failed to fully resolve the CFC ban:

            “when countries began phasing out CFCs, manufacturers replaced them with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs don’t deplete ozone, but they are potent greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming. The challenge going forward, then, will be to develop new alternatives to HFCs — and to have the world adopt them, once again.”

            Moreover, the Montreal Protocol did not eliminate methyl bromide (MeBr) which is an ozone-depleting substance .

            Methyl bromide (MeBr) is used increasingly as a biocidal fumigant, primarily in agricultural soils prior to planting of crops. This usage carries potential for stratospheric ozone reduction due to Br atom catalysis, depending on how much MeBr escapes from fumigated soils to the atmosphere.

            The IPCC simulations neglect the fact that HFC as well as MeBr constitute a threat to the ozone layer.

            A recent UN report nonetheless confirms that despite the IPCC alarm bell, “Earth’s protective ozone layer is finally healing from damage caused by aerosol sprays and coolants, a new United Nations report said.”

            The ozone layer had been thinning since the late 1970s. Scientist raised the alarm and ozone-depleting chemicals were phased out worldwide.
            As a result, the upper ozone layer above the Northern Hemisphere should be completely repaired in the 2030s and the gaping Antarctic ozone hole should disappear in the 2060s, according to a scientific assessment released Monday at a conference in Quito, Ecuador. The Southern Hemisphere lags a bit and its ozone layer should be healed by mid-century. (AP November 2018)
            .

            This report on ozone layer repair not only contradicts IPCC CO2 fossil fuel hype, it also suggests that the CO2 single variable analysis and projections are flawed.
            .
            Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD)

            The militarization of climate is rarely mentioned in the Climate Debate. “In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’”

            It defined ‘environmental modification techniques’ as ‘any technique for changing –through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’

            While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather modification for military use has become a scientific taboo.

            Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter and environmentalists are focused on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Neither is the possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices. (Michel Chossudovsky, The Ecologist, 2007)

            The US possesses a vast arsenal of electromagnetic weapons which are capable of disrupting climate through environmental modification techniques (ENMOD). (See the author’s earlier writings)

            The impacts of ENMOD techniques for military use were documented by CBC TV in the early 1990s. The report acknowledged that the HAARP facility in Alaska (now closed down or transferred to another location) under the auspices of the US Air Force had the ability of triggering typhoons, earthquakes, floods and droughts:

            “Directed energy is such a powerful technology it could be used to heat the ionosphere to turn weather into a weapon of war. Imagine using a flood to destroy a city or tornadoes to decimate an approaching army in the desert. The military has spent a huge amount of time on weather modification as a concept for battle environments. If an electromagnetic pulse went off over a city, basically all the electronic things in your home would wink and go out, and they would be permanently destroyed.”

            CBC Video

            .

            “Owning the Weather” for Military Use

            According to US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report, (originally at http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf)

            the US Military Would eventually “Own the Weather”.

            Required Capability: Why Would We Want to Mess with the Weather? [title of Chapter 2, following Introduction]

            According to Gen Gordon Sullivan, former Army chief of staff, “As we leap technology into the 21st century, we will be able to see the enemy day or night, in any weather— and go after him relentlessly.” global, precise, real-time, robust, systematic weather-modification capability would provide war-fighting CINCs with a powerful force multiplier to achieve military objectives. Since weather will be common to all possible futures, a weather-modification capability would be universally applicable and have utility across the entire spectrum of conflict. The capability of influencing the weather even on a small scale could change it from a force degrader to a force multiplier.

            Advanced techniques of climatic warfare including environmental modification techniques:

            “offer(s) the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary”, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:

            ‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.” (emphasis added) US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report

            source: US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report
            Concluding Remarks

            Climate instability is an important concern. But it cannot be analyzed in isolation. It is an extremely complex process.

            While there is a significant grassroots movement of young activists, the CO2 Climate Consensus has distracted millions of people from an understanding of the broader and ongoing threats to human life on Planet Earth. In turn, the climate debate has excluded the fact amply documented that climate can be used to serve military objectives.

            These climate strikes are taking place at a time of crisis, largely marked by US threats to wage war on Iran. The use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran is contemplated.

            Activists are often misled by those who fund the campaign including Rockefeller et al, as well as by the organizers and the public relations operatives involving Hollywood celebrities, et al.

            The underlying science methodology is in many regard flawed.

            In a bitter irony, the movement against capitalism is funded by capitalism. It’s called “manufactured dissent”.

            Global warfare

            Global warfare using advanced weapons systems coupled with deliberate acts of destruction, sabotage and destabilization of sovereign countries constitutes the most serious threat to the survival of humanity.

            The globalization of war is coupled with the derogation of civil rights, the surveillance State, neoliberal IMF-World Bank macroeconomic reforms applied Worldwide which trigger mass poverty, unemployment and environmental destruction. This global policy framework (controlled by powerful financial interests) repeals workers’ rights, destroys family farming, undermines the Welfare state leading to the privatization health and education, etc.

            What is required is a broad protest movement which encompasses these interrelated dimensions. The underlying causes of this Worldwide Crisis must be understood. It is not caused by a single variable (aka CO2 emissions).

            The Extinction Debate and Nuclear War

            Nine countries including US, Russia, France, China, UK, Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea together possess nearly 14,000 nuclear weapons. (2017 data) The US and Russia have 6185 and 6500 respectively.

            According to ICAN, “The United States and Russia maintain roughly 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high-alert status – ready to be launched within minutes of a warning.”

            Today’s nuclear bombs (with the exception of the so-called mini-nukes) are significantly more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than a Hiroshima bomb.

            The B61.11 “mini-nuke” (categorized as a “low yield” “more usable” nuclear bomb) has an explosive capacity between one third and twelve times a Hiroshima bomb.

            People should understand. There are enough nuclear bombs to destroy life on planet Earth several times over. Surely this should be part of the Extinction Debate.

            While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from previous wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust. (Michel Chossudovsky, 2011)

            War rather than CO2 emissions is the greatest threat to humanity. Oops, according to the media, nuclear weapons are a means to achieving World peace.

            Trump has a 1.2 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program, initially set up by Obama.

            While this multibillion dollar project is intended “to make the world safer”, these (expensive) nuclear weapons are categorized as “more usable” “humanitarian bombs”, “safe for the surrounding population”, according to scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon.

            US-NATO and their allies are involved in illegal acts of war. Nuclear war is on the drawing-board of the Pentagon.

            But these wars are no longer illegal: they are part of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P). These are “humanitarian wars” or “counter-terrorism” ops despite the fact that millions of people have been killed and entire nations have been destroyed. It’s called “collateral damage”.

            Needless to say, there are powerful financial interests behind the globalization of war. and without extensive media propaganda, they could not have a leg to stand on.

            War is good for business. And luckily for the Military Industrial Complex, the antiwar movement is dead.

            The Ritual of Rebellion Prevails.

            University of Manchester sociologist Max Gluckman (1911-1975) in his writings showed how ritualized forms of rebellion by those who protest against those in power “through a controlled expression of hostility to authority” ultimately leads to the reinforcement of the established structures of authority.

            Is that not what is happening today?

            The movement against capitalism is funded and supported by capitalism.

            The antiwar movement is dead. There are no protests directed against global warfare and the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis.

            What’s More Dangerous, CO2 or Nuclear War?

    • Osebno sem govoril z salezijanskim misijonarjem Jožkom Kramarjem, ki je bil misijonar med ljudožerci na Papui. Tako, da je razložil kako delujejo oziroma kako je njihovo obredje.
      Mislim, pa da ni vse tako enoznačno kot se piše v varovanju zemlje pa seveda različnih pristopih tega…Sedaj že ugotavljajo, da so električni avtomobili zaradi potrošnje električne energije večji onesnaževalci okolja, kot dizli…
      Res pa je ekologija donosen posel, marsikdaj tudi pod krinko napredka.
      In vse te analize, ki so včasih podobne tisti zgodbi o Popajevi špinači

  8. Verjamem v krščanskega Boga in sem doktor znanosti. Ali gre to skupaj? Seveda gre. Kot znanstvenik hitro ugotoviš, da vsak rešen problemček ustvari kar nekaj novih vprašanj. Ni potrebno veliko, da ugotoviš jasno dejstvo: Vse to je ustvaril naš Bog in naš razum ima samo omejeno sposobnost razumevanja. Ko enkrat to razumeš, je bistveno lažje delati in razumeti.
    Glede onesnaževanja sveta je pa dejstvo, da je človek v svoji svobodi šel predaleč. In to je bistvo problema. Na vseh področjih. Človek je Boga zamenjal s svojim EGO in podredil vse svoje življenje samo zadovoljevanju EGO potreb. Pa tukaj ne gre samo za nove izdelke in storitve temveč tudi moralno se je popolnoma podredil temu načinu razmišljanja. Npr. razmišljanje o splavu, evtanaziji, …
    Glede plastike in iz nje narejenih izdelkov je tako, da je mogoče že zdaj njihovo uporabo bistveno zmanjšati in urediti tako, da bomo uporabljali samo tisto, ki jo je možno ponovno uporabiti. Potrebno je samo postaviti ta cilj in v to usmeriti subvencije. Torej gre za politično odločitev. In Slovenija bi tukaj lahko zaorala ledino in postala drugim vzgled. Seveda to ne gre pričakovati od sedanje vlade, ker je za to potrebno problem razumeti predvsem na moralni in strokovni ravni. Tega pa trenutno ni videti ne na eni, ne na drugi ravni.

  9. Odgovor “slovencsm” (16.9. ob 16.07) nakazuje rešitve teh perečih problemov, po mojem.
    Težava je, ker obstoječa ureditev (ki jo poznamo kot najboljšo) teh rešitev ne zaznava oz. povzroča kvečjemu nove probleme.

  10. Predlog glede dihanja v plastnični vrečki je neustrezen. Bogu hvala, da imajo
    CO2 in drugi plini v ozračju toplogredne ucinke. Brez tople grede na Zemlji ne bi bilo življenja, oziroma bi zmrznili, saj bi bila povprečna temperatura na Zemlji prenizka in ne bi bila okoli + 15 st. C, ampak za kakšnih 30 stopinj nižja, torej kvečjemu -15 st. C. (Tako sem prebral, ne vem če drži).
    Ravno demagogija v zvezi s CO2 postavlja teorijo o antropogenem vzroku za segrevanje Zemlje pod velik vprašaj. Če je škodljiv CO2, potem sta škodljiva tudi voda in kisik. CO2 je med drugim potreben za proces fotosinteze. Sedanja koncentracija CO2 nikakor ni alarm za strašenje ljudi s koncem sveta. Znanstveniki ugotavljajo (sam za to nimam dokazov, se zanesem nanje in upam, da to drži), da so obstajala obdobja v zgodovini našega planeta, ko je bila koncentracija CO2 15X višja, kot je danes. A Zemlja zaradi tega ni propadla. Res pa je, da ljudje vplivamo na povečevanje CO2. Kot sem se dal podučiti CO2 tvori največ okoli 5% tople grede. Večino tople grede (okoli 90%) tvori vodna para. Od 5% tople grede, ki jo tvori CO2, človek prispeva le en majhen delček. Zanimivo, da so pred sedanjo propagando o globalnem segrevanju pisali knjige o tem, da bomo zaradi CO2 zmrznili.
    Seveda nisem zagovornik onesnaževanja narave. Kolikor vem strokovnjaki merijo kolikšno je onesnaževanje s svincem, SO2, CO, mikro-prašnimi delci… Ti podatki so verjetno dostopni. Zakaj nas torej ekologisti strašijo s CO2? Menim da s tem delajo slabo uslugo ekologiji in zavzemanju za reševanje resničnih problemov: onesnaženje rek, morja, mest… Kaj pa svetlobno in zvočno onesnaženje? Z lažmi in ideologijo pa so onesnažene tudi človeške duše in to je po mojem mnenju najnevarnejša onesnaženost. Brez «ekologije človeka« ne more biti ekologije stvarstva.

    • Clovek diha zato ali tudi zato ( ne le zaradi dovoda kisika), da se znebi CO2, ki ga tvori v telesu. Delno ga pa odvaja prek ledvic in urina. Brez tega bi hitro umrl. Seveda mora biti tudi CO2 prisoten za zivljenje, ampak v pravi meri. V zivem svetu je vse v pravih merah in ravnotezjih. In celo vsako zdravilo je potencialno strup.

      Problem za kvaliteto in dolgorocno prezivetje clovestva, pa tudi mnogih rastlinskih ( recimo smreka in jelka v nasih krajih) in zivalskih vrst na planetu je ta, da na njem postaja pretoplo in da so trendi vec kot zaskrbljujoci in spremembe rapidne. Obenem enako rastejo skode zaradi sus in pogostejsih neurij oz ekstremnih vremenskih pojavov.

      Ne vidim razumnega razloga, zakaj ne bi clovestvo naredilo vse mozno, da koncentracije plinov, vseh plinov s toplogrednimi ucinki v atmosferi ne bi vec tako hitro rastle oz sploh ne bi rasle. Clovestvu bo bolje tako. In to ni ideolosko vprasanje. Z LGBT nima vsebinsko nobenega opravka.

      • Mislim, da ste zgrešili poanto članka. Seveda skrb za okolje sama po sebi ni problematična, je celo naša dolžnost.

        Kot jaz razumem, g. Vidmar opozarja na dve pasti povezani s sodobnim okoljevarstvenim gibanjem:
        1) dejstvo je, da velik del sodobnih ekologov okoljevarstveni program povezuje z drugimi pozicijami, ki so radikalno proti-krščanske oz. celo anti-humane (t. i. deep ecology, specizem itd.)
        2) težava je, da bi s tem, ko pripoznamo nekatere pozitivne dele programa t. i. zelenega gibanja hkrati pristali na vse. Z drugimi besedami, da bi celo podprli recimo nekatere zelene stranke, čeprav te poleg dobrih stvari zagovarjajo tudi pozicije, ki so izrazito proti-krščanske. To bi bila faustovska kupčija. Če se prav spomnim, ste prav vi že večkrat pozitivno pisali npr. o nemških in avstrijskih Zelenih, čeprav so ti na socialnem področju radikalno levičarski.

        Sam bi še dodal, da je velik del tega, kar nam danes prodajajo kot ekološko, zelo vprašljivo. Namesto da bi tako vse sile usmerili v nekatere tehnologije, ki lahko dejansko znižajo raven izpustov toplogrednih plinov (predvsem jedrska energija, razvoj fuzije), so prav zeleni običajno največji nasprotnik novih jedrskih elektrarn. Namesto njih pa forsirajo pravljice o tem, da bo svet poganjal veter ipd.

        • Na Tirolskem obstaja dolgoletna, mislim da pozitivna izkusnja koaliranja tamkajsnje mocne Ljudske stranke z Zelenimi. Tudi aktualni avstrijski predsednik, ki je povsem spodoben drzavnik, izhaja iz Tirolske in je nekdanji voditelj Zelenih. Ni nujno, da bi zeleni tezili z levicarsko druzbeno agendo.

          • Priznam, da ne poznam tako dobro situacije na Tirolskem. Mogoče je tam deželna stranka Zelenih res bolj zmerna. Vem pa, da so na zvezni ravni Zeleni najbolj izrazito levičarska stranka, kar zadeva socialna vprašanja. Njihova voditeljica v Evropskem parlamentu je bila npr. znana U. Lunacek.

            Poleg tega tudi širša zgodovina avstrijskih Zelenih lepo dokazuje mojo zgornjo poanto o vprašljivi ekološki vrednosti zelenega političnega programa. Stranka se je namreč uveljavila v 80-ih zaradi (uspešnega) nasprotovanja jedrski elektrarni, ki jo je želela zgraditi tedanja vlada socialdemokrata Bruna Kreiskyja.

      • Tebi ni važno zakaj gre, le da ljudi prestrašiš, da bi se obnašali kot bi želel. Ne se čudit, če ob tem izgubiš kredibilnost in z njo tudi vse ostalo za kar se zavzemaš, izpuhti! je mar to tako težko razumeti?

Comments are closed.

Prijava

Za komentiranje se prijavite