I think that the crazy ideological quest being prosecuted by the Albo cult is leaving people feeling disenfranchised from the democratic process. When people get taken for granted and get bossed about by ideological cretins, sometimes they get fed up and start speaking out. Maybe the following is good symbolism for the consequences of such conduct:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13809653/Sunrise-Jim-Chalmers-heckled-Nat-Barr.html

Dear John,

«What are these “scary” effects you speak of»

Well the article already mentions these effects, which can be summed up as the loss of individual autonomy, or in the words of the article: "generational transformation of humanity to be socially altered, behaviourally regulated, technologically controlled, and economically centralised".

The article mentions the loss of independent small-scale agriculture and food production, the increase in artificial foods, global governance and persecution of oppositions, also "facial recognition systems, carbon emission milestones for everybody monitored through digital ID, currency and social credit systems, calculations of travel mileages and taxation incentives, and reward/punishment mechanisms".

The article also speaks of inducing guilt, but personally that bothers me less because I know who I am, I know I have done nothing wrong and I do not listen to "authorities" anyway and am not susceptible to their propaganda. However, the effect of such guilt on young generations cannot be under-estimated.

What particularly scares me most is, "utilise all cutting-edge technologies to monitor, change, regulate, and, ultimately, control every human activity":

The terror of digital technology is already upon us, it already restricts the activities I can participate in, the places I can go, and it already costs me a lot to try to circumvent. It is constantly getting worse and the article promises us even more of that menace.

I was aspiring all my life to simplify my life, to be independent and self-sufficient, I chose to come to Australia because it was still relatively "backward" at the time, but alas not any more. Life today is only getting more complex, more strangulating, there will come a time when I will no longer be able to take it - I only hope to die naturally before that.

"scary” effects"
The Climate Change professionals are over-using terms similar to this one but for a totally different reason. The people who get scared due to the negativity of a changing climate aren't the ones contributing to pollution contributing to damaging the atmosphere. It's the people who make careers & fortunes from pushing "renewables' that will not be invented for a long time yet & when they do become available, the raw materials to produce them will be exhausted.
The innocent will always cop the short straw & the conniving will always get the money !
In the end, Nature will say enough & the new humanity will start the cycle of stupidity all over again. Chances are that's how Mars & others became barren just like the craniums of the Woke !

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for your response. I understand your concerns.

The irony, however, is that renewable technologies are making it increasingly feasible for someone like yourself to live an off-grid lifestyle and minimise (if not completely eliminate) any further need to increase their digital footprints. There are people already doing this. Some even live nomadic lives with virtually no need for internet access at all.

I wouldn’t worry about what the article says; it's just fearmongering. The author is wrong on every count.

The fears surrounding renewables stem from a desire to retain the status quo and a fear of change. For some, it's also about a perceived feminising and weakening effect that renewable technologies will have on societies, given the deep connections to ruggedness, strength, and dominance that industries like oil, coal, and gas, have long been associated with.

It's no coincidence that climate change denial is a phenomenon only seen amongst the politicly and socially conservative.

Dear John,

First, I am surprised that a scientist like yourself would use such unscientific language as "renewable technologies", straight from government propaganda: according to the laws of thermodynamics, no energy in nature is renewable - and should we find one, then we could have used it to build a perpetuum mobile device!

So we need another name for it, then let's instead call it "non-fossil energy" or "non-fossil technologies". You may of course suggest other name(s) if you like.

I always believed that humankind should wean itself of fossil fuels, but that has nothing to do with the fabled "climate-change" - it's rather because I just find it wrong to consume in 200 years what the earth has accumulated in its crust during 2 billion years or thereabouts, not leaving anything for future species.

Non-fossil technologies in themselves are neutral and need not affect the levels of digitisation or the ability to live off-grid. However, the danger could come from government's desire to enforce and monitor its non-fossil policies.

«I wouldn’t worry about what the article says»

Perhaps because you personally have not much to lose if any of that is true. I have much more to lose, so I worry, even if only a quarter of the article is true.

«For some, it's also about a perceived feminising and weakening effect that renewable technologies will have on societies, given the deep connections to ruggedness, strength, and dominance that industries like oil, coal, and gas, have long been associated with.»

Childish and totally irrelevant in my case.

As far as I'm concerned, I would be more than happy to purchase an electric car, but it would have to be a car, not a computer on wheels. Unfortunately, all new cars incorporate computers (and lots of them), forcing me to use older and older cars, which obviously run on petrol.

«It's no coincidence that climate change denial is a phenomenon only seen amongst the politicly and socially conservative.»

Tha's because it is indeed a political issue, a highly charged one at that, which I really don't like to get into.

Yuyutsu,

I’m using terminology that is well understood. “Non-fossil” doesn’t work because that would include nuclear. The term “renewable” refers to power sources that replenish naturally. How about “naturally replenishing energy”?

I, too, don’t agree with the idea of stripping the planet of finite resources so quickly, but there’s nothing “fabled” about the science of climate change. I find it interesting that you have enough scientific knowledge to pick on the term “renewable”, but not enough to understand the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

//Non-fossil technologies in themselves are neutral and need not affect the levels of digitisation or the ability to live off-grid. However, the danger could come from government's desire to enforce and monitor its non-fossil policies.//

Governments already monitor and regulate fossil fuel use extensively. From fuel taxes to emissions standards, there are a lot of policies in place to control and track how fossil fuels are produced, distributed, and consumed. If anything, fossil fuel industries are often subject to significant government oversight because of their environmental and economic impact.

“Naturally replenishing energy” technologies can at least be used can be used privately, which in turn reduces the need for centralised control. If someone installs solar panels and batteries and generates their own electricity, they’re less reliant on a centralised grid or large energy companies that are subject to more government regulation.

You should actually be more worried about fossil fuel polices.

That being said, I’m not so sure your expressing your real concerns here. The fact that they're heavily weighted towards “naturally replenishing energy” technologies makes your concerns just look like run-of-the-mill climate change denial with a philosophical dress slapped on it.

//Childish and totally irrelevant in my case.//

That wasn’t meant to refer to you personally. Sorry, the confusion was my fault there.