I forget, is Pentti Linkola extreme right or extreme left in the Finn political spectrum? That is not entirely clear since his totalitarian climate solutions could be viewed as either right or left extremist. However, inasmuch as they involve draconian world government (which is in fact an unpleasant realistic solution) I have to place him on the left.
1
Every time I read a story like this I find myself thinking.: "The human race really is doomed. We're simply too stupid to survive". I'm in my late 60s, I've had cancer twice and I don't have kids. By the time things get really bad I'll be long gone. Pity about the rest of you, though.
16
Argh! Why are you giving more media attention to Putkonen’s dim witted comment about sausages and pet food?! Finnish YLE played right into the ‘Perussuomalaiset’ Party’s hands by focusing on Putkonen’s simplistic comment during the debate, and now the ‘Perussuomalaiset’ Party are getting even more (undeserved) attention.
Finnish media has forgotten that Putkonen is pals with Fryckman; you could look into that and find out what’s really going on behind the political scenes...
Sorry for the rant.
4
@MH, great points. I wish that people would've pointed that out. You shouldn't be giving unfounded & harmful claims a platform because it emboldens them & allows them to convince more people of their dangerous claims. Climate change poses a real threat to our species & Finland should show the rest of the world that environmentally sustainable living is possible, cheaper, etc. even when they don't pollute as much as other western nations. Young people generally speaking do not hold as generalized views about black & brown people & usually want more action regarding climate change. Despite the rise in support, the Finns have only won one seat while the more climate change aware Social Democrats, Greens, Left Alliance & National Coalition have won seats, so last night wasn't a total garbage fire. Not to mention the good news about the rise of the A.L.D.E, moderate partes such as En Marche! & the Greens in election polls for the upcoming European Parliament elections this year while at the same time the far right being stagnant or declining in the polls. It shows that higher voter turnout means better results for pro E.U, pro climate change awareness & anti white supremacy voices than for the other side.
2
Climate man made change is hoax, witch hunt and fake news. It's simply a new enforced "religion" to control masses by global deep state. Even if mankind ceases to exist, the climate goes on changing and again changing.
After planted climate hysteria, all we can guess, what will be next? Aliens?
5
Seems that ignorance and gullibility know no boundaries.
6
The True Finn party has taken Trump's messages and run with them. Keep the message as simplistic as possible so its base can comprehend it. Everyone, even the most dense among us loves puppies, although I have my doubts about Trump. He loves nothing but self. All I can suggest, Finland, is don't go the way of puppy hating Trump.
4
Dump Trump
2
Time for some honesty from those who "mean well."
Yes, pollution so massive that it changes the Earth's temperature is widespread.
Yes, all that filth is being dumped on all of us for the profit of a few.
Yes, we can live well in ways that don't dump that filth on all of us.
However, yes, some of those who mean well ARE betraying the people who must live and work in this world. It is all about how the fix is done.
It can be fixed. It can be paid for fairly. It is not always fixed very much by proposals, and those often shift the burden onto those least able to pay it.
The rich get richer from it all, while the filth continues to be pumped out on all of us.
It must be fixed. It must be done right. It can be a betrayal. It really can.
It isn't always. But just a few betrayals will damage the cause, being advertised all out of proportion.
Self policing is vital. The Yellow Vests in France show what happens when unbalanced judgment attempts a cure at the expense of the least able to pay for it, just because they are presumed to be the least able to resist it.
5
Seems pretty obvious that the people with the most wealth should be shouldering the biggest burden when it comes to climate change.
6
As a foreigner living in Finland I can assure you the Finns party has not abandoned immigration hysteria as an electoral issue, although I believe they have realized that young people's concern about the environment threatens their voter base just about as much as their acceptance of a more diverse Finland. One can hope that it's simply a desperate pivot to try to retain their share of the voting base because it's obvious to most educated Finns (as mentioned previously there are many) are aware that climate change is the defining issue of our age. What our skin color, cultural background, language, sexual orientation etc. is won't matter in the least when we are struggling to survive on a dead planet.
7
All right. Let's give this perspective.
Finland is one of northernmost nations in the world.
Basic form of outdoor water here is for large part of year solid. It is impossible to live here and have CO2 emissions equal to nations of equatorial area in terms of living.
As for industry... Finnish one is very clean, one of cleanest in world. Trying to have it reduce emissions will just start killing that industry, to have it move to countries with lower standards and resulting in INCREASE of global emissions.
Global warming has to be looked upon globally. Eyes must turn to most prolific pollutioners who have least demanding emission standards and have them fix them. Not killing clean industries in favor of dirty ones.
If all industries globally were required to be at least as clean as Finnish ones, we would hardly have global warming.
So let's get back to Finn shaming when that is case. Until then, I think most of the world has some cleaning work to do...
2
Isn't it remarkable how seamless the transition has been from
(a) Climate change is not happening
(b) The climate is changing, humans may be contributing to it, but the solutions "the Left" (always pronounced with a sneer, while stating that the Right has rational solution but the "Left"s proposals are based on 'feelings') proposes will bankrupt us.
(it doesn't need to be stated outright, but the implicit conclusion is: "Therefore we reject all 'socialist' solutions [ie policies that favor 99% of the population, even if it means cutting our own throats] and support only pure 'capitalist' solutions [ie socialism for the rich, "cake crumbs" for the rest]
7
As someone living in Finland, the story is misleading. The rise of the Finns Party was a direct result of cases of sexual mistreatment of minors by asylum seekers in the city of Oulu. The issue here still is immigration for the Finns, while climate change action is an issue supported especially by the young. The Finns are coasting on the bad news about sexual offenses but their members are the least committed of the major parties in the country. We'll see with the election Sunday how one-topic they are.
4
Thanks for the article by NYT.
It seems easier to see the Finnish situation from vantage point of US based people as compared to us living in Finland (though one of the two writers has Finnish name…), being quite close and with somewhat distorted perspective of the views of the campaigning parties.
When making an article about an issue, it would be better to share actual arguments by the party leadership, instead of using some fringe comments by some candidates who might not even make it. Maybe because the statements are fact based and not feeling based, unlike those proposed by the left, they are not shared.
1. "Finland has since 1990 already cut the emissions twice as much as EU countries on average" For example 80% of energy production is already carbon neutral (Germany on the flip side: 20%)
2. "Finland is not able to save the world, but it can wreck it's own economy by being overly ambitious by raising construction, heating, movement and transportation costs"
3. "Privately owned cars make up only 11% of the emissions in Finland, despite Finland being the country with longest distances and coldest climate in EU. Finns Party opposes halting the sales gasoline and diesel powered vehicles by 2035, as proposed by ministry of transportation."
4. "Finland should not make higher or smaller emission cuts than other EU countries.
5. "Cutting more than others would just transfer the production to those countries that are cutting less, because production there would be cheaper. "
6. "Government has agreed to increase the amount of bio fuel to twice of that of EU levels. This would increase the price of fuel by 30-50 cents/l." In a country where fuel is already very expensive, but has long distances and car being the only option of transportation in many places.
14
@Petri
"Feeling based" = assertions made without evidence.
Exhibit A (see comment)
2
I'd like to share a viewpoint that was left from the article.
As it was said in the text, True Finns are not denying the climate change. However, they are sceptical about the suggested methods used to tackle the issue.
Food, fuel, electricity, and such are already quite expensive in Finland, and because of our long, dark winters and sparsely populated areas, it is not easy for us to cut down the energy use and private driving to the minimum. Adding more environmental protection taxes would not affect much the life of a "city vegan hippie" but could severely complicate the life and work of an average family man or woman living in the (northern) rural areas.
Furthermore, True Finns are advocating the idea that being very ambitious about climate politics would have a minimal effect on the actual issue (since there is only 5,5 million of us) but severe consequences for Finland's economy. Looking from this viewpoint, Finland's attempt to affect the global warming looks mostly like a symbolic gesture leading into an economical suicide.
On top of that, Finland is one of the few EU countries who have already cut down their CO₂ emissions in the past years. So it's not like we haven't done anything already. The question is how much can we expect from ourselves when the biggest contributors to the problem seem to do very little?
27
@Aurora
That claim about Finland being "one of the few" is not quite true; Finland has reduced CO2 emissions slightly more than EU average since 1990 and is on path to Paris goals, but several other EU countries have done their part, too.
Note BTW that "True Finns" is not the proper name of the party, the official English name is just "The Finns party". The meaning of Finnish name is more along the lines of "people's party". Specifically, the name doesn't imply "ethnic purity" or such.
1
Maybe "Climate Hysteria" is the next stage of denial. So this could be something that becomes more popular in USA as well. It is not outright denying climate science as such, although it is denying/ignoring its policy implications. In Finland straight denial is not so effective because people tend to be more educated (there are those as well of course). I would say "Immigration Hysteria" is more real than "Climate Hysteria". I.e., right wingers accuse others of hysteria while practicing hysteria themselves when talking about immigration (e.g., "population replacement" and other such nonsense).
11
Working people know that regressive consumption and sales taxes are aimed at them not the rich who actually cause global warming. Working people don't control industry or the economy or consume the bulk of the pollutants. Middle class "environmentalists" blame 'backwards' workers and yap about "the planet" while ignoring the real plight of billions of human beings. This breeds scepticism of global warming claims, and resentment, which open the door to rightist politics. As long as 'environmentalism' refuses to acknowledge that it is capitalism that has wrought this catastrophe in the service profits for billionaire families, it will never obtain or deserve the support of the vast majority of toiling humanity, who are the first and primary victims of pollution right now.
9
Opinions are useless with climate change, aka global warming. It is real and it is here. Makes no difference what anyone “thinks”.
18
Their argument is based on a pro-pet platform? I love pets. But I can beat a pro-pet platform.
How about "I'd like to see my grandchildren and great grandchildren without lung cancer from breathing smog-free air, with lower taxes because they won't have to pay for these increasingly volatile natural disasters, and having enough to eat rather than going without or overworking to compensate when rising temperatures and scarcer water make food more expensive?
Then my grandkids can relax and spend more time with their pet. Even take them to the dog park which hasn't been reconnoitered for an emergency vegetable garden."
Finally, I looked at my the label of my dog's super bougie organic kibble. Yep, first ingredient is chicken. The second ingredient is chicken meal - which includes fat and bones - not as wasteful as humans eating it. The next ingredients in order are oatmeal, barley, chickpeas, peas, pea protein, sunflower seed meal, flax seed, coconut oil.
So I guess my dog already is thriving with some plant based food. Idiots. If they can't be bothered to google some research about climate change, at least research the dog food in their own pantries.
9
It's been interesting watching the climate change theatrics playing out in France - where President Macron, after giving the rich a tax cut, gave everyone an increased gas tax - to "save the planet"....it was the last straw for the Yellow Vests, many of whom live outside the cities and must now drive long distances to jobs. However, the Yellow Vests were smart - and refused to align themselves with any political party. Now they are in direct dialog with the government, discussing a critical question....how to ameliorate vast income inequality as well as deal with climate change - without doing it on the backs of the have-nots.
14
It seems it's not just the US that has a sizable electorate that is very ignorant and will be easily manipulated into voting against their best interest. We can blame Russia all we want but the trolling they do would not take root if people did not kinda believe in these hoaxes. And this is worldwide.
I'm not an End of the World nut, but I won't be too sad when the next cataclysm wipes us out and let's another life form take a stab at being the dominant one on Earth.
6
@A reader -- There is ignorance and arrogance enough for everyone to display some.
Yes, it is possible to betray the vulnerable, and yes they will notice. That does not make them stupid.
2
Putting animals before people seems like a weak pitch. And yet...
3
@Hey Now
Pets are a very marginal point in the discussion. Livelihood of farmers is a bit more relevant. Meat vs. veganism is one front in this culture war.
Wow. They literally said the opposition wants to kill puppies? It's amazing people believe this.
4
It's about time that somebody stands up and calls the climate change obsession "hysteria." Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It's the single most important nutrient for all the photosynthesizing plants on the planet. All the carbon in every cell of our bodies was CO2 in the atmosphere not too long ago. And it's not at all clear that CO2 is absorbing all the infrared radiation escaping from the earth. CO2 only absorbs certain specific wavelengths of IR radiation. Most IR photons just zip right past CO2 molecules. So, yes let's get away from coal and use natural gas instead. Yes let's develop solar and wind power and better methods of energy storage and energy transmission. But let's all calm down and turn off the hysterics. Providing all the energy we need without digging up the earth for it is an admirable goal, and we may get there. We're making lots of progress. We should all just be happy about how much progress we're making and keep working to make more. But we don't have to turn everything upside-down to make progress and cause a lot of new problems by doing so. STOP CLIMATE HYSTERIA NOW!
6
@The Skeptical Chymist -- A person can kill himself drinking too much clean water. A person can be killed by too much oxygen, as were the astronauts who died in Apollo 1. Divers know that the mix of gases is key to safety, and too much carbon dioxide in the mix is a particular great danger.
Enough is vital. Too much is deadly. It isn't "hysteria."
7
@The Skeptical Chymist
A watched pot never Boyles, eh?
So sayeth the frog.
4
You can say you don’t believe in gravity, but the apple will still hit you on the head.
You can say you don’t believe in global warming, but that’s not going to stop it getting hotter.
Many people don’t understand what a threat to humanity global warming is.
We’re close to taking the climate beyond human experience and our adaptive capacity.
19
@Erik Frederiksen -- In addition, climate warming in the past has hit a "tipping point" when small gradual changes become sudden and vast changes. We know it has happened, and that it happened suddenly. We do not know what might set it off.
Should we experiment on ourselves, to see how far we can go before setting it off? That is like Russian Roulette. We'd get an answer, but it is a bad idea to try the question.
10
The article in today's NYT may provide an example for Democrats to use when campaigning - that smart investors and multi nationals ACCEPT the climate change science and are acting accordingly.
Thanks for publishing these important articles!
2
Finland seems not to care about future generations with their disregard for climate change policies. It won't be the cats and dogs that won't have food, it will be their children and grandchildren.
4
@Jacquie Here is the thing... Finnish industry per ton of produced goods is one of cleanest in the world.
We are hitting diminishing returns and HARD. Cutting one ton of produced CO2 in Finland costs massively more than on India, China, countries of Africa etc. But those are not Even trying to cut on emissions.
If Finland tries to cut emissions even more, industries will shut down and move to nations with lower standards. Resulting in INCREASE of global emissions.
Global climate is global issue and there can be no get out of jail for free-cards issued. Developing countries must be forces to do their part. Their CO2 heats the climate just as much as CO2 of developed ones.
Punishing already clean industries to death and being replaced by dirty ones is counterproductive.
14
@Jacquie Finland is actually on the path to Paris goals for 2030 to reduce CO2 emissions by 30 % since 1990. The discussion evolves around far more radical requirements that would be harder to meet.
At the same time, CO2 emissions per capita in China have grown 250 % since 1990, and are now roughly the same as in Finland. China's population is 250 times the population of Finland.
Can we justify a continued move of industrial production from here to China with this development? You WILL find that hard to sell, unless you establish a dictatorship that abolishes democracy and severely restricts freedom of speech. Yet that is what the more zealous climate policy advocates propose.
7
@Jacquie. Did you read the article? Are you confusing the Finnish people with the “Finns” party?
3
Both the left and right are equally guilty of using hysteria to further their political goals. Instead of attacking the parties on the right which use the left's inflammatory rhetoric to gain themselves votes, it seems the left should instead stop opening itself to attack by using end-of-the-world polemics in order to frighten people into voting for them and their policies.
7
@Shane -- The problem isn't "end of the world polemics." The world really is being damaged.
The problem is promotion of ineffective ideas, or ideas that put the burden on those least able to bear it, to the profit of those who always seem to profit.
6
@Mark Thomason
The end of the world polemics become ridiculous when overused. In 2006, we saw newspaper articles predicting that in 20 years, snow will be a memory only in Nordics, and people can't ski any more. This year, Sweden decided to apply for the 2026 Winter Olympics (and think of the carbon footprint of that).
Then there is the discussion on energy production. "We don't have time, we must act now! Nothing is more important!" some political parties say.
"Let's build another nuclear plant to shut down the coal and gas plants in cities that you run".
The answer is a resounding "No!" because the Greens are strong in Helsinki, the only major city using coal in Finland.
1
Exactly!
1
The lesson from the "yellow vests" in France is rather stark for those liberals who are (rightly) worried about Global Warming but who also defend the Western Oligarchy/1%.
It is this: we have absolutely no chance of selling higher taxes or lower living standards to the lower and middle classes while the Oligarchy exists.
None.
13
As long as there are rabbits, folks won't have to worry about feeding their pets (as long as the pet isn't a rabbit).
Not quite tongue-in-cheek: Immigration and climate policy are directly linked. An overwhelming percentage of illegal immigrants to the U.S. come from areas where their carbon footprints are much smaller than if they were to reside in the U.S. Keeping such people out of economic environments where they will almost certainly increase their carbon footprints will aid in the effort to keep temperature increases to the 1.5 goal. You decide: people or 1.5?
2
@Manty
This is not a marginal point. One part of the discussion in Finland about "hysteria" is the talk about population growth. There is talk that people should not have children, to erduce carbon footprint. The Boy Scouts are marketing a climate game where one action to reduce climate emissions is to "be voluntarily childless". And then people wonder why pre-teens are distressed. "Mom, why are you not voluntarily childless?"
At the same time, *the very same parties and organisations* that talk about being clihdless to stop population growth are in favour of unrestricted immigration, despite the fact that the carbon footprint of immigrants grows very large (and immigrants tend to travel a lot).
This cognitive dissonance irritates many people.
(For the record, Finland's population is stable, except for immigration which makes it grow.)
5
Not all countries will be hurt by climate change. Some will be helped. More temperate weather is not a bad thing. Can we fault the Finns for pausing to question what's in it for them?
2
@Phat -- They don't want their country to turn to mud, filled with dead reindeer. They have a very particular climate and culture, and too much warming would do it not good at all.
4
Finland is a very small country and the Finns are right when they say their impact is small. There is no way Finland itself could keep temperature rises to 1.5 degrees. Not to diminish the larger problem but they are fewer than the population of NYC.
7
@Commenter Every country, even the small, must embrace climate change as real. A lot of small countries add up to a big area. And climate change doesn't recognize nation borders.
3
Both climate change and the upcoming extinction of the human race is just a normal component of the evolutionary process. Of course, I’ll be happy (in my grave) if I turn out to be wrong.
5
One would think that if any country stood to benefit from climate warming it would be Finland.
3
The evolved, educated, and rational portion of our human race cannot let the cavemen who did not evolve, listen, or care to understand prevail.
This is war.
1
Sound familiar? Maybe there's a Finn Party member lurking somewhere in the Executive branch of our government.
2
I wonder if the Finns stopped the culture of hot saunas, would it delay the climate change or perhaps it would actually accelerate it.
@PaulN
Yes, some activists are also attacking saunas and fireplaces. What that means is that this is just yet another front of the culture wars, and climate is just a proxy for trying to take control of other people.
You almost have to feel sorry for these right wingers because of how easily they are manipulated. They are easily convinced that so-called elites are making stuff up for their own benefit. Tell them climate scientists are fear mongering to get more government grants for their research and they will believe it. Or tell them that scientists are manipulating their data for the same purpose and they will accept it. The right thrives on conspiracy theories. They could go here https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html and check CO2 levels but they probably would conclude the data are fake. It really is frustrating. We have a sense how catastrophic it will be if the denial on the right continues to hamper taking action but there seems little we can do about it. Climate change denial has gone on now fro several decades and is still going strong.
4
Who's fueling climate fears? The word hysteria is correct when describing America's climate armageddon politicians. Where's the middle ground?
1
There is no doubt that the reality of climate change will require efforts to make life more difficult in order to fight it. But the alternative is that if these difficulties are not only accepted, but necessarily radically increased, the raw vengeance of climate change will make life impossible on this planet. Scientific reports have successively indicated that the coming total disaster is giving us less time to respond properly to slow it down. Reversing it already seems impossible. The concept that more CO2 will favor better plant growth has been analyzed and is proved wrong since the rising temperatures encourages world-wide fires that destroys vegetation and already the oceans are accepting less CO2. There is a rapidly approaching trigger point where the melting permafrost in the arctic regions will release massive amounts of methane which is far more a contribution to global warming than CO2 and that will be a major disaster. It probably will be wise to have a few more pets since the approaching horrors will make it necessary to eat them when the worst time arrive.
3
Well, man-made climate change is absolutely a real deal and absolutely a serious problem (though, frankly, with methane already leaking from the permafrost it is too late to reverse course and I think we'd be better off with geoengineering solutions)...
BUT Finland's contribution to the problem, and honestly to the solution, really is pretty minuscule. To an extent "every little bit helps" but to make a medical example, not every needs or should have a CAT scan, MRI, X-ray and bloodwork done over a scraped knee. That ends up being actually counterproductive, as it inflates costs and makes the real work harder for everyone. It is thus, I think, a good thing Fins in general do want to do something about climate change, and their politicians too, but it isn't wise to push a button so hard it breaks.
5
@JB. The polar areas are changing much more quickly than other spots on the globe. Finland could be affected before most other countries. Their contribution to the problem has nothing to do with it.
6
This is what happens when there is no leadership at the global level to tackle something as serious as climate change. Since US withdrew from the Paris treaty, why should other nations sacrifice for which they are only responsible for minuscule amount, and it won’t be enough to make a dent.
13
@VS
Perhaps Finland has already sacrificed.
At Finland's price of $6.50 per gallon, we'd have to raise our gasoline prices by $469 billion per year to equal to them.
At Finland's price of $0.18 per kwh for electricity, we'd have to increase our prices by $270 billion.
And, maybe CO2 is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Food crops and forestry growth would increase by 20% by 2100 under CO2 projections. The growth would be so intense that perhaps the CO2 increase would stop because of plant consumption.
3
@John Huppenthal
To the best of my understanding,- at concentrations of CO2 that would lead to roughly a +3 degrees Celcius increase in average global temperature, unicorn-pegasus hybrids will spontaneously materialize out of the excess CO2 and fly us to planets of our choosing.
12
@John Huppenthal Where do you source this projection of 20% increases in food production in the face of increased droughts and flooding? Certainly from no responsible agronomist!
It needs to be made very clear to the anti climate changers that one consequence of the change will be disruptions to agriculture and the potential for widespread famine. Maybe even in places they wouldn’t expect. I say this because they will surely blame everything besides climate.
15
@Billbo
"...potential for widespread famine..."
In 2018, combined Corn and Wheat production hit an all-time record of 1.7 billion tons.
The projected CO2 levels for 2100 would increase this production by 28%. 20% due to the increased CO2 levels and another 8% because CO2 allows plants to grow with less water.
5
@John Huppenthal Do you have a source for your figures? Particularly that increased CO2 allows plants to grow with less water?
6
@John Huppenthal
Your claim is false. The faster growth expected from increased CO2 would produce less nutrition in the plant and would not allow plants to grow with less water.
5
I twice lived in Finland for extended periods of time. In both cases, I traveled around the country as part of my Fulbright awards, and have kept up with Finnish politics for the past 20 years. This article attaches great importance to the recent gains of the Finns, to about 16% in recent polls. Let's pay attention to the numbers for a minute. It's 16 percent, which is pretty small beans in the larger picture of Finnish politics. Most of the rest of the electorate is firmly dedicated to altering the current fouling of the environment, and has been so for years. Moreover, while many of the voters polled are new voters, their presence will serve to energize their opponents, especially younger voters. Most Finns were horrified at the defeat of Gore--a true environmentalist-- in 2000, and stunned by the election of Trump. He may be a hero to some in Finland, but they are a tiny minority. The opposition parties to the Finns will combine to cast the Finns into the abyss in which they belong.
47
@Harvey Green
"...current fouling of the environment..."
At 57 ppm, nitrogen dioxide is at an all-time low and 43 ppm below national standards
At .069 ppm, ozone pollution is at an all-time low
At .015 micrograms per cubic meter, lead is far below trend and by far its lowest level on record.
At 56 ppm, PM10 pollution isn't at a record low but, it is as low as we can realistically get it without paving the entire undeveloped surface of the U.S. Wind picks up dust, fact of life.
Carbon monoxide is within 2/100th's of a ppm of being at an all-time low and far below its average for the last decade.
Maybe our environment isn't being fouled at all.
Maybe CO2 is good for it.
CO2 in our lungs? 40,000 ppm
CO2 in a submarine? 8,000 ppm
CO2 in a high performance greenhouse? 1,000 ppm
CO2 while God was creating us over the last 4 billion years? 800 ppm
Gore maybe a true environmentalist but his personal carbon footprint is probably at least a hundred times more than mine.
3
@John Huppenthal. And your sources are?
3
Seems like the resounding comment being given from the world's politicians is "Why me?" Its the tragedy of the commons, unless we all work together than no one works at all.
I just wonder, how long do these people seriously think this will continue? The 'Why me?' response is not going to stop the food shortages and eventual social unrest. What does the conservative Finland politicians propose to do when they are in fact experiencing these things? Demand other countries give food? Won't the same response work for these other countries then? "Why me?"
16
Social Democrats in Finland have favored cap-and-trade programs though they have been disappointing. They believe in market solutions. Performance standards have worked better in most places.
Social Democrats in they resent program promise to favor cars with low exhaust pipe emissions and considerably hike the taxes for the others. It is a hard selling package and not very wise in democracy.
2
Interesting.
More and more people around the globe are dealing with the disastrous consequences of climate change. It's kind of hard to embrace this type of idiotic rhetoric when you're home or business is being flooded.
29
@DR In those cases, I do recommend people suffering to look at the emissions of their industries.
CO2 from India or Bangladesh is identical to Finnish one
2
If it succeeds, the incredibly narrow identity politics of these right-wing "populists" will make the homelands they claim to prize unrecognizable for future generations.
30
Right-wingers in other countries are finally catching up to our own Republican Party. They've learned that there are many people who will actually believe laughably absurd nonsense like having to kill your pets because of "liberals." And all in service of the entrenched interests who fund this to perpetuate their own profits.
92
We’ve gotten to a point in which individuals can claim to have a position on an issue without even engaging the substance of an issue. For instance, just claiming that those who are concerned about the climate are “hysterical,” rather than actually engage the science for the policies.
This tendency has entered our politics as well. Our leaders now utilize this tactic, instead of ever responding rationally to any of the claims against them (such as being caught in a lie, for example) they just call their accuser a loser or some other name, and people accept this as an adequate response.
Our discourse is being dumbed down across the board, and important issues are never even practically engaged anymore. I hope we reach a point where this trend reverses.
47
@JuMP
I agree. It's the "Dunning Kruger Effect" at a societal level. Opinions are facts; gut knowledge is evidence.
1
@JuMP This article is a complete misrepresentation about the discussion and the arguments. If you only quote the ending comment from a five minute argument such as "There has to be a limit to climate hysteria" and "Vote Finland back". then of course the people being quoted will seem like nutters. Climate hysteria in this context doesn't mean that "climate change is not happening" or "it's not caused by humans". It's statement against making rash decisions locally (in a country that has already cut twice as much as EU countries on average) that would have fast harmful effects on our economy without having any effect on the climate, which is affected by global decisions. If other countries would do what Finland has already done after 1990's, we would be fast on our track to stop climate change (energy production in Finland is 80% carbon neutral. 78% of emmissions in EU come from energy production).
1
Just like bacteria making wine, they eat all their food and poison their environment to the point where they all die. We are just like them. One day nature will make humanity pay for the reckless and blind manner in which we exploit her.
47
Bacteria are not responsible for fermenting wine. Yeasts, which are eukaryotic unicellular organisms, ferment wine (as well as other alcoholic beverages). Some bacteria such as Acetobacter, which are prokaryotes, spoil wine, turning it into vinegar.
22
@JMG
True, but it doesn't affect Joe's point.
5
Thank you for clarification!
BTW: I recall candidate Obama railing against "millionaires, billionaires, and corporate jet owners," among other targets of class envy.
So why don't we talk about left-wing populism and demagoguery and the danger it poses?
12
@Liberty hound
I guess you mean when candidate Obama criticized McCain for supporting policies that favored the wealthy over the rest of the nation?
Please spell out in detail - with evidence, not just reactive opinions - the specific danger posed by such comments.
The overwhelming evidence, from Nobel prize winning economists (besides Paul Krugman), for example, is that President Trump's single legislative success (it can hardly be called "his" accomplishment as virtually any Republican president with both houses of Congress would have passed something essentially the same) actually does favor the wealthy, exactly as candidate Obama state.
So please specify what the danger is of telling the truth.
63
@Liberty hound
Let's see...Democracy is about empowering all the people. Obama points out that millionaires and billionaires have too much power and influence. They get this power and influence by owning the vast majority of the wealth of the nation which they use in massive lobbying efforts in Washington. Then, they get even more power and influence.
That seems like a legitimate concern in a Democracy. Countries where only a small group of citizens call the shots are called Oligarchies. Do you want to live in an Oligarchy? I don't.
I see no danger whatsoever in anything Mr. Obama had to say. Mostly, I see the danger in an electorate that was stupid enough to elect Donald Trump who has done nothing for them whatsoever.
6
@Liberty hound You won't find billionaires, and not even very many millionaires in Finland, and no corporate jet owners. This is one of the most egalitarian countries in the world.
That hasn't stopped left-wing populism. Talk is cheap.
2
Please, please, please. Stop enabling the completely divisive and imaginary right wing slur of "Urban Elites".
55
@latweek ... what would be a correct alternative?
1
@BD
There is no correct alternative because it is a fiction. This is right-wing propagandists inventing a boogeyman to whip up people who don't know better.
39
@BD
the majority of the population.
13