When humanity faces a problem such as that, imagined or not, there are two main approaches we could take to solving it.
1. We could stop doing the things that cause the problem, or
2. We could find some kind of technological solution to the problem.
These two approaches seem to map quite nicely onto the two political approaches considered in the Harmony of Interest, do they not?
In this case, the first option would see us devolve to the stone age, or, at least to a world of windmills and horse drawn carts. The second option might just see us to the stars.
Last night's Top Gear featured two electric cars. One, the Tesla, had an electric motor and a bunch of lithium ion batteries - the type you get in your laptop. Now, anyone that has owned a laptop for more than five minutes knows that lithium ion batteries are utter junk. They degrade spectacularly over time, so that your laptop, which ran on a full charge for 4 hours when you bought it, after a year or so runs for 4 minutes. Who in their right mind, is going to spend £90,000 on a car that will probably do the same thing? And yet environmentalists, clinging on for dear life to their dogma, support this kind of junk, and never mind the impact on the environment of all those batteries.
I have been excited about the second car they featured for some time now. This car also had an electric motor to drive it, but this time the electricity comes from a hydrogen fuel cell. So, unlike the Tesla, it only takes 3 minutes to "charge it up" instead of a dozen hours. It'll do 270 miles on a tank of fuel, as opposed to 40 in the Tesla. And because it's turning hydrogen into electricity, its only by-product is water - no doubt the next civilisation busting pollutant to be identified by the environmental "scientific" community.
The second car, by the way, is made by Honda. Which goes to show that there are those, even within globalist corporations, that would see civilisation move forward.
You see, the problem is that the environmentalist approach to solving the alleged global warming problem, which is based on option 1 above, is genocidal. If we choose option 1, we will be required to switch stuff off.
Option 2 is a much saner approach. But how could we achieve it?
Our car industry, what's left of it, is collapsing. While that's rather bad for those that work in that industry, the knock on effect of that collapse has really serious consequences for the rest of us as well. Because the car industry has been "derived." Yep, billions of Great British Pounds "worth" of derivatives contracts have been brought into existence with the car industry as their foundation. When the car industry goes ...
And you wonder why the banks won't lend any money.
Imagine what would happen if the government decided to phase out oil based fuels for cars in 20 years. Now there's a way to kick start an economy.
You would think, would you not, that faced with the joint cataclysms of global warming and the financial collapse, the world's governments would embrace the opportunities of Honda's car. But sadly, we live under the thumb of the "British System," a system which is far from British, but is rather an import from Venice, Rome and Babylon.
So the next time a bunch of losers break through a fence at Stansted Airport in order to protest your right to buy a plane ticket, ask yourself, whose side are they on? Why aren't they out there campaigning for a hydrogen based society? Instead of shouting "CO2, CO2, CO2!" why aren't they shouting "H H H!" Are they working for the betterment of humanity, to save us from a Carbon Dioxide based global disaster, or are they just dumb stooges for an Anglo Dutch Saudi Oligarchy that wants to see the planet depopulated through collapsed infrastructures, civil unrest, famine and war, while that Oligrachy lines its pockets on the slave labour of those "fortunate" enough to be left behind and the continued use of oil?