Study: Climate Change Activists are Hypocrites

by Joe Jarvis Via The Daily Bell

A strange thing happens when you don’t trust the government. You take responsibility for your actions, instead of shirking your duty and handing off the burden to the collective.

I’ve long suspected this. People assume the government will actually do what it says it will. If you think your tax dollars will feed the hungry, house the homeless, and provide for the poor, why bother donating to charity? You have done your part.

This comes down to differences in the collective versus individualist philosophy.

Collectivists favor a top-down approach. They want the government to force everyone to do their part–or at least what the collectivist thinks is their part. But notice the burden tends to be on someone else… It’s the rich that need to pay their fair share, while the collectivist apparently already does pay his or her entirely subjective fair share.

Individualists, on the other hand, value freedom, and don’t want the collective to force its will on people. They believe that individual action can culminate in large-scale solutions. But they also believe in personal responsibility. Yes, people should be free to do what they want, but when their actions harm others, that individual should be held responsible.

So an individualist values the principle of personal freedom, but they also may value a clean healthy environment. Yet based on their philosophy, the ends cannot justify the means. You can’t sacrifice personal freedom with the hope of helping the environment.

This difference is why a recent study on attitudes towards climate change should come as no surprise.

A study by Cornell and the University of Michigan researchers found that those “highly concerned” about climate change were less likely to engage in recycling and other eco-friendly behaviors than global-warming skeptics.

Published in the April edition of the Journal of Environmental Psychology, the one-year study broke 600 participants into three groups based on their level of concern about climate change: “highly concerned,” “cautiously worried,” and “skeptical.”

The “highly concerned” cluster was “most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the ‘Skeptical’ opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the researchers concluded.

Conducting the study, entitled “Believing in climate change but not behaving sustainably,” were Cornell assistant professor Neil A. Lewis Jr. and University of Michigan researchers Michael P. Hall and Phoebe C. Ellsworth.

The skeptics were the more likely than the “highly concerned” to recycle, use public transportation and reusable shopping bags, and buy eco-friendly products.

“Belief in climate change predicted support for government policies to combat climate change, but did not generally translate to individual-level, self-reported pro-environmental behavior,” said the paper.

Why? Even the researchers were stumped, although it’s possible that skeptics may place more emphasis on personal responsibility than government action.

“These results suggest that different groups may prefer different strategies for addressing climate change,” said the paper. “Thus, belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior, indicating that changing skeptical Americans’ minds need not be a top priority for climate policymakers.”

As Pacific Standard’s Tom Jacobs put it, “remember that conservatism prizes individual action over collective efforts.”

“So while they may assert disbelief in order to stave off coercive (in their view) actions by the government, many could take pride in doing what they can do on a personal basis,” he said in a Friday post.

The authors note that changing people’s minds is not necessary to address climate change. Individualists actually are doing “their fair share” to improve the environment, while collectivists are focused on bullying everyone into agreeing with them… but not actually doing anything to help!

I’ve written about this before when a “progressive” complained that we called the mini-farm Prickly Pear Plantation. He ignored the solar panels, rainwater collection, happy healthy free-range chickens, organic gardens, and recycled materials used in building farm infrastructure. All he cared about was being offended by a word he associated with slavery.

Unsurprisingly, my network consists of many individualists. The harshest critics of the Federal Reserve are the most likely to use cryptocurrencies. Recognizing the evils of socialism, we used cryptocurrencies to transfer money across borders which allowed a family to flee Venezuela. Dissatisfied with the manipulative media, a friend of mine started an internet tv broadcasting social network called badmirror.tv (which is also funded with cryptocurrencies).

I personally don’t want to rub chemicals all over my body. So did I petition the government to strictly regulate what can be put in hygiene products? No, I started making my own soap, toothpaste, and deodorant. I interact daily with the free-range chickens that lay the eggs I eat. I walk past four beehives to work in the food forest which is restoring the soil and will provide healthy food for generations. These are things I care about, but I don’t feel it is my place to try to force others to care.

Joe Quirk believes that Seasteading is a viable way to provide better governance, sustainable ocean farming, cheap and effective healthcare, protection against a rising ocean–and all while having a positive impact on the environment. That’s why he did the research, wrote a book, negotiated with governments, and is building the first seastead off the coast of French Polynesia.

Gabriel Scheare wanted to live in a like-minded community for people to work, live, learn, and start businesses. So he is building one.

Jean-Loïck wanted a co-living co-working space that could grow into a worldwide distributed mutual aide style society. So he started one.

The point is, if you believe in something, prove it. Everyone can talk the talk. But anyone who is not walking the walk is saying through their actions that they expect someone else to take care of the problem.

Environmentalists’ trust in government–and the energy they spend trying to steer it–is sorely misplaced.

Change will happen through individual action, not through trying to force authorities to mandate change that only leads to oppression and the negative effects which stem from coercion.

You have much more power as an individual than you may realize. In fact, that is the whole theme of our free guide, which teaches you how to reclaim three types of freedom, in just two years.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!

Comments

thebigunit Tue, 05/15/2018 - 17:17 Permalink

I think the dichotomy between "collectivist" philosophy and "individualist" philosophy is too highly abstracted and obscures fundamental realities.

Fundamental reality #1:  

Fourteen thousand years ago ALL humans were "collectivist".  People lived in tribes and made their living as foraging hunter gatherers.  A tribe had an alpha male leader, or shaman who talked to the spirit world and called the shots.  The tribe members shared the results of their foraging and shared their sex partners since there was no such thing as private property or inheritance.  Tribal behavior {"collectivism") is primitive and likely built into human DNA.

 

Fundamental reality #2:

Sometime in the last 8,000 - 12,000 years, the human brain became big enough to understand the advanced processes of herding and agriculture, the predictability of time, and the benefits of deferring consumption and saving.  The consequences of these processes were: production of food, private property dedicated to production, accumulation of food surpluses ("wealth"). trade, and marriage and inheritance to transfer wealth between generations.  Together, these consequences are understood as "capitalism".

Capitalism exists in a social context.  It is NOT a philosophy of extreme "individualism".  Capitalism is all about "advanced" relationships beyond tribalism: marriage, heredity, trade, contracts.

Collectivism is ultimately subservience to a tribal shaman.  Capitalism is about "individual" freedom to establish diverse relationships, but capitalism is as much about relationships as it is about individuality.

 

 

Itdoesntmatter Stu Elsample Wed, 05/16/2018 - 07:36 Permalink

Truly you people are morons...Capitalism provides the means to which the wealthy collect all the wealth, transfer it to tax havens so that they don't have to contribute to the infrastructure that enables them to collect that wealth, and use that wealth to buy politicians so that they can legislate barriers to anyone touching any of their wealth.

 

You people are too fuckin stupid to realize the one percent has you hypnotized to support an economic model that keeps the 99% paying for everything...fucktards...fuck you people are stupid...

In reply to by Stu Elsample

crazytechnician Rex Andrus Wed, 05/16/2018 - 11:57 Permalink

So a rich guy walks into a Lambo dealership and spends 500k on a brand new Lambo. Outside the showroom the homeless guy calls him a filthy rich asshole because he could have just fed a thousand people for 6 months with that kind of money. The rich asshole says "I prefer to help keep 1000 taxpayers in productive jobs building these Lambo's , their supply chain's , their suppliers , their raw materials than encourage 1000 people to hold their hands out for 6 months , what happens when the cash finally runs out ?" .. Socialists will just never get it.

In reply to by Rex Andrus

boattrash Itdoesntmatter Wed, 05/16/2018 - 09:58 Permalink

idm, Here's two cents worth from this moron. You and I have one fucking thing in common, in that GOVT SEES US BOTH AS A FUCKING CASH-COW. (any that they don't, well, they see as votes).

Why the carbon BS for Man Made Global Warming? It's the only thing they can try to measure and tax. Period! Have their "scientists" looked at the magnetic polar activity in this iron-core rock we call earth? Fuck no, because they can't tax it.

Have their "scientists" looked at the solar activity? Fuck no, because they can't tax it....and on and on and on, with every other possible cause of "Global Warming".

I don't want the Govt to protect me, I want them to get the fuck out of my way, and get the fuck out of my wallet. Let all of my failures be mine, and mine alone. Every human being should have a right to starve to death, as well as a desire and responsibility to try not to. But WTF, maybe I'm stupid.

 

In reply to by Itdoesntmatter

HenryKissinger… Itdoesntmatter Wed, 05/16/2018 - 10:50 Permalink

you didn`t build that ! Hussein Obomba

shorter version of :

"Capitalism provides the means to which the wealthy collect all the wealth, transfer it to tax havens so that they don't have to contribute to the infrastructure that enables them to collect that wealth, and use that wealth to buy politicians so that they can legislate barriers to anyone touching any of their wealth."

In reply to by Itdoesntmatter

crazytechnician Stu Elsample Wed, 05/16/2018 - 07:40 Permalink

Not only that but under Soviet style forms of socialism it also forces the entire society to become unproductive and move toward mass starvation. Then you have the National Socialism type models (NAZI) which force everybody to become over productive and the surplus is pushed into mass war & genocide. Whichever form socialism takes , it's centralised top-down command-and-control structure it always ends in total failure with millions either dying of starvation or mass genocide or both. No exceptions. Of course any socialist's reading this will of course argue that none of those were 'real' socialism. They should ask themselves what examples of 'real' socialism have ever existed that have worked. The answer of course is none.

In reply to by Stu Elsample

techpriest crazytechnician Wed, 05/16/2018 - 10:18 Permalink

On this matter, I like to point out that economics is not about money, but is a study on how people make decisions.

Putting the politics aside, what some would call "capitalism" can either be 1) the notion that you let people make their own decisions with their own property, or 2) something more akin to fascism in which you simply give all the power to select corporations and associated non-profits, i.e. professional membership organizations. A lot of hay get made by trying to determine which of the two is the official definition, but IMO (1) is. What we call "socialism" is a variant of that second definition, except that we give the power to a different set of corporations, namely government and academia.

At the bottom of it, we find that when we go towards rule by "experts" (socialism, fascism, Nazism, crony capitalism), we very quickly end up with a situation where the experts arrange to have all decisions made according to their design, with very little concern for anyone else. Any benefits, i.e. health care or education, are not really for your benefit, so much as you make you a more productive worker for the benefit of the ruling expert. A world that favored the individual, family, and local community has existed, however, and from those times what we see is that things such as health care, education, etc. are vastly better, and since it has existed in reality before, we could re-create such a world. Whether it will be called capitalism doesn't matter, what matters is that we get rid of the rule by experts.

In reply to by crazytechnician

thebigunit crazytechnician Wed, 05/16/2018 - 13:15 Permalink

The link between "collectivism" and mass starvation is absolutely real and completely unknown by modern progressives and socialists.

it's centralised top-down command-and-control structure it always ends in total failure with millions either dying of starvation or mass genocide or both. No exceptions. 

In the twentieth century, there have been mass famines in the Ukraine, Russia, Armenia, China, North Korea, and in this century, Cuba and Venezuela, just to name a few.

Socialists only know how to redistribute and consume.  They DON'T know how to produce.

It is generally true of progressives and liberals: THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE FOOD COMES FROM!

In reply to by crazytechnician

ThirdWorldDude Stu Elsample Wed, 05/16/2018 - 07:40 Permalink

A-ha, so that's why "capitalist" America is sporting such an enormous trade deficit with "socialist/communist" China.  /s

 

See how it works when you're trying to spin the message, chump?

The study and article don't address wealth-production on a societal level, but rather draw a line between different personality traits of "collectivists" vs. "individualists". Which, btw, is already very well documented by the r/K selection theory... 

In reply to by Stu Elsample

techpriest ThirdWorldDude Wed, 05/16/2018 - 10:26 Permalink

From what my Chinese in-laws have explained, at the height of communism, everything quickly fell apart as you could not do anything without permission. By the 70s they started backing off from it, and by the 90s they created something more like fascism, where they permitted a lot more economic freedom, while trying to maintain the ability to tax and control it when desired.

The result is kinda interesting. On paper they can look very productive, but sometimes it is real production, and other times the production is completely wasted (i.e. ghost cities, solar panels in dark alleys, etc.). Also, some parts of their economy is freer than what you see in the US, but some parts are still under tight control. I would be careful when using labels like "capitalism/socialism" when talking about what are in reality mixed or fascist economies in the US and China.

In reply to by ThirdWorldDude

ThirdWorldDude techpriest Wed, 05/16/2018 - 15:54 Permalink

Pure systems exist only in theory. Having said that, it remains a fact that majority of the means of production in "fascist" China remain in the state's hands, which is the essence of communism/socialism. The opposite is applicable to corporatist America, where the majority of the means of production is concentrated in the hands of (a few) individuals. That is also the general definition of capitalism, regardless of the system's stage of evolution or individual characteristics.

In reply to by techpriest

ejmoosa DanDaley Wed, 05/16/2018 - 07:55 Permalink

When you own your home and will need to sell it in the future, you take better care of it than if you rent the home and all you can lose is a $500 deposit.

Yes indeed it is pretty simple.  And it should be simple to grasp even for those renting.

What they fear is that those deposits rise to cover the actual risks encountered by property owners renting to them.  

In reply to by DanDaley

thebigunit bluskyes Wed, 05/16/2018 - 13:26 Permalink

I did the self study.  I'm reporting it to you, but your mind is wandering.

I would suggest getting your head out of the "education" system, and do some self-study.

The reason that ancient (not "primitive") societies were able to build with 200 ton stones is that the societies had mastered agriculture by which a smaller number of people could feed a larger population, and some people could be priests, philosophers, or build temples and pyramids.

Exhibit A is the very fertile and productive Nile River Valley and the civilization of ancient Egypt. 

You're heard of Egypt, right?

In reply to by bluskyes

tangent thebigunit Wed, 05/16/2018 - 09:39 Permalink

#1 No, tribes did not redistribute resources. One English colony came to America with a few hundred people who planned to share their resources like a collectivist tribe. They promptly began literally starving to death until they changed their mind. Funny how they don't teach you that in history class, huh?

#2 The natural economic state is capitalism because humans nature is to believe something can be "mine" from the age of three on unless they are propagandized otherwise. Farms actually allowed socialism to creep in as people could afford to waste money on without immediate starvation, so a revolt was less obvious. I fail to see the complexity of capitalism. The products of you and your labor are yours until it is agreed otherwise. Land ownership is complex under any system. Maybe property ownership in general is complex in nature, but that would then apply to any economic system as it defines who owns what.

Taxation is slavery. Taxation is extortion. Taxation is theft. Only voluntary contracts are valid, but collectivism attempts to force people into unwanted contracts.

In reply to by thebigunit

thebigunit tangent Wed, 05/16/2018 - 13:31 Permalink

You're a very confused puppy.  Did tribes redistribute resources?

No.

#1 No, tribes did not redistribute resources.

Or maybe Yes.

One English colony came to America with a few hundred people who planned to share their resources like a collectivist tribe. They promptly began literally starving to death until they changed their mind.

Funny how you didn't pay attention in your history class.

Funny how they don't teach you that in history class, huh?

 

In reply to by tangent

Rex Andrus thebigunit Wed, 05/16/2018 - 11:13 Permalink

Just like rabbis and priest-advocates of secrets clothed in ignorance, all the tribal men smoke cigs, drink ayahuasca and force the women to do all the work. Reject your politicized indoctrination, if you dare. It just ain't that way, Beav.

True Hallucinations - Being an Account of the Authors' Extraordinary Adventures In the Devil's Paradise https://archive.org/details/pdfy-lcL1Fj40AGH7cqhY

In reply to by thebigunit

SmallerGovNow2 Wed, 05/16/2018 - 08:22 Permalink

CO2 is plant food.  Skeptics are better educated and probably know about photosynthesis.  Climate alarmists have been and continue to be DEAD WRONG.  Great example...

Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.

I love the part about how “demographers agree almost unanimously.” Sound familiar? (the science is settled, 95% of "climate scientists" agree).  I don’t know whether that was really true in 1970, but if they did, the demographers were unanimously wrong.

Let’s just take India, where the famines were supposed to start. In 2013, India became the world’s “seventh-largest exporter of agricultural products.” China is prosperous and relatively well-fed—much better than under Mao’s disastrous experiments. Most Latin American countries, which were supposed to be starving fifteen years ago, are also net exporters of grain, fruit, meat, and so on.

So yes, lots to be skeptical about...

. . . _ _ _ . . . Wed, 05/16/2018 - 08:32 Permalink

...changing skeptical Americans’ minds need not be a top priority for climate policymakers.

The assumption is that governments and climate policymakers actually care about the environment whereas what they really care about is power and control. The reasons they want Americans to change their minds is not to help the environment, rather to control their other actions which are not even climate-related; subservience conditioning, if you will.

Skeptics will always be better informed than non-skeptics precisely because they do not follow blindly. Their nature causes them to do the research which those who simply believe need not do. Same with 9/11. Same with religion.
Faith is another way of putting responsibility on the collective.

lucyvp Wed, 05/16/2018 - 08:41 Permalink

I have seen this too,  greenies, crying for more windmills, and a carbon tax, and at the same time drive gas guzzlers, keep their house artic cold in the summer, and have a gazillion lights on  all the time, have way more stuff in the trash than in the recylcing can.   it goes on and on.

BankSurfyMan Wed, 05/16/2018 - 09:02 Permalink

Smog, black smoke stacks, lung cancer, drink a 12 pack a day, smoke 3 packs of jacks and cough your lungs out! Order a pizza and never take a shower again! China works!

taketheredpill Wed, 05/16/2018 - 09:16 Permalink

Change will happen through individual action

 

How?  We cast spells??

The Government is the only hope but in the US at least nothing will happen within the current corrupt 2 party framework.

Greendawg Wed, 05/16/2018 - 09:47 Permalink

Vegans are still worse. I refuse to endure those sociopaths crying "fuck the people save the animals" while these raging narcissists consume their lettuce grown in animals parts.

Emergency Ward Wed, 05/16/2018 - 09:54 Permalink

Outta my way! I'm on my way to the Global Environmental and Personal Firearm Weapon Ban Conference.

I'm headed to the private jet terminal in my Prius surrounded by a motorcade of blacked-out Escalades full of heavily-armed private security agents.

U4 eee aaa Wed, 05/16/2018 - 10:53 Permalink

They should also ask how many of each belive in God and that they will ultimately be judged by Him based on the lives they lived on Earth. It stands to reason that if you don't believe you will be judged, you don't have to be accountable to anything and this is why the enviros would have no problem with their hypocrisy

21st.century Wed, 05/16/2018 - 11:15 Permalink

Individually, you pick a charity you believe in (trust) and quietly fund, volunteer or both.

the local charity of our choice for business and personal monies donated- has an 86% direct-to-need percentage of budget. (as per their yearly published tax filings) 

they do magnificent work !

pick your own causes - and ignore the rest. The US is in desperate need of charity reforms -- the sickening examples of clinton , obama, Heinz, Tides, soros "foundations" .. and the political nature of their so-called "work" must be eliminated.

the last century corruption of the tax code needs to be stopped in this modern century!

and, as the article includes climate "beliefs" -- and most know this is the mechanism being used for the selling of collectivism ... healthy contempt must be deployed against these socialists.

to celebrate my contempt- every year on Earth Day we

burn a tire in the fire-pit !