I’m Henrik Jönsson, an independent commentator on current issues in Sweden and abroad. Recently a TSUNAMI of climate activism has arisen and its crest bears the face of 16-year old climate activist superstar Greta Thunberg. Thunberg is, for those of you living under rocks and who have therefore missed her, what you would get if you crossed Pippi Longstocking with Eeyore the donkey: a brooding misanthrope with a can-do attitude and pigtails. If you appreciate my videos, please feel free to support my work using one of the payment options to my left. Many thanks to those of you who are already doing it, without you this channel would not be possible. Also – if you haven’t already, don’t forget to hit the subscribe button down below and click the bell icon so you’ll get notified whenever I release a new video, which I do every Saturday morning at 8 AM. At the same time as Greta’s brand of likeable doomsday narrative purposely is causing a global panic, the IPCC, that is the United Nations body for assessing science related to climate change, has released a massively complex tome on policy suggestions for a sustainable energy future. Combining these two forces for climate action, is like putting a hurricane and a 1000-page dissertation on thermodynamics in a room, hoping it will spontaneously produce a windmill capable of powering the continent of Atlantis. Instead of communicating about what’s really going on and what to do about it, people are now breaking each others heads with songs of faith and devotion. I’m calling it: the climate clusterfuck. Stay tuned! *Intro music* As many of you will know, The Kingdom of SWEDEN, a tiny sausage of a country, squeezed between oil-rich Norway in the west, and by authoritarian Russia in the east, has for a few decades moved its social policies further and further into the most extreme top right corner of the World Value Survey map – a tool developed by a global network of social scientists to assess cultural values. It is only fitting then that Sweden, with its miniscule carbon footprint, and monumental messiah complex, should produce the child-figurehead of a global climate activist movement. Let me begin by stating that I am not a climate change denier. There is clear evidence that the world is warming slightly, and that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to this process. This is often presented as a “99,9% scientific consensus on the climate crisis.” It is not, though. There is a lot of debate concerning the outcome and consequences of a slightly warmer climate. This does not mean striving for a more energy efficient economy is not desirable. The question is how we choose to do it, what will generate the best possible outcomes – and what actually will work for real. Also, don’t get me wrong, I am absolutely in awe of what the team around Greta Thunberg has accomplished in terms of global reach of communication. From being praised by the Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow in the UK to getting a date with the pope in the Vatican state, under adult supervision, she has become nothing short of a phenomenon. Just imagine what she had been able to accomplish if she’d been flying instead of relying on her only allowed mode of transportation: the pogo stick. Joking aside, the problem with Greta Thunberg is not what she is doing, or the fact that she is getting there one painful skip at a time, but what she is SAYING. Because Greta is actively encouraging panic. I don’t want you to be hopeful, I want you to panic. Panic, for those of you who are familiar with it, is usually not the preferred state for solving immensely complicated energy and economic policy issues on a trans-national level. Even your average mad scientist would agree, that raving madness would constitute a more productive problem solving state than, specifically, panic. ”The PTA has disbanded! Ahh!!” Regardless of efficacy, the problem lies not with miss Thunberg, but rather with the response from the adult establishment who quickly turned Greta into a high-margin virtue-signaling mascot. Those questioning the appropriateness of promoting a child prophet were slammed as bigot reactionaries and urged to “dare to take in her message” – and at the same time those raising questions concerning that very same message were slammed as aggressive oafs for attacking a child as if she was a grown-up. Predictably, the left-wing establishment has been falling over themselves with praise. It should be noted that it’s generally the same crowd that opposed the “shock doctrine” of market liberalisation a decade ago, that are now viewing the climate doctrine as the perfect justification for implementing global socialism. Turns out the problem was not so much the shock as the doctrine. In Sweden, where all political issues currently are related back to the large-scale experiment on migration, that policy makers have been conducting for the past 20 years, the left-leaning newspapers now all equate critique of miss Thunberg with fascism. “News of the Day”, the currently leading counter-indicator-newspaper on Swedish policy, has taken this strategy the farthest with no less than three major editorials pushing this view just the last two weeks. As Editor-in-chief Peter Wolodarski bluntly states: The spiteful needle pricks that Thunberg still is receiving in her native Sweden are uniquely petty. They essentially come from circles that are annoyed by the fact that people are debating something other than immigration, multiculturalism and crime levels. Greta Thunberg is interfering with their agenda. The Editor of literature continues in the same vein: I envy those who, when they see Greta Thunberg do not think of climate change, but of the cultural war. Political Editor Per Svensson concludes this tirade by quoting the overheard views of the despicable classes: If that bloody Greta Thunberg and her family stops flying is completely uninteresting! And the Sweden Democrats… they had it wrong, but they were right in the end. Through this statement Svensson conveniently bundles anyone criticising Greta Thunberg with those who criticise immigration. To summarize the debate climate of the climate debate: we’ve got a child protagonist whose message of panic must be heeded by adults, but who cannot be questioned by adults without severe repercussions. Which is sort of like living under the terrible rule of King Joffrey from Game of Thrones, except that the looming threat of white walkers has been replaced with an army of passive-aggressive organic coffee baristas with vintage beards. THE PANIC DOCTRINE The disservice this panic doctrine is doing to the capacity for a rational environmental discussion is immeasurable. Sterilisation advocates now promote leading childless lives to reduce their carbon footprint. ”I think that we, as individuals, through voluntary decisions of not giving birth, can solve this (climate change). Maybe we can redefine what a ”core family” really is.” (I’m totally cool with you doing that brother) The Extinction Movement, a new-fangled attempt to resurrect parts of the now-defunct Occupy-movement under the guise of environmentalism advocate a stop to pretty much the entirety of human civilisation – use less, travel less, produce less, import less, consume less – do these people have any ideas aside from doing less? – Talk less, you immoral YouTube man. You might argue that nobody takes activist fringe movements like these seriously – but hold your horses – last week, the UK Parliament actually declared a “climate change emergency” after pressure from – the Extinction Rebellion. Sure, the declaration does not compel the government to actually DO anything, but it still makes the democratic institutions look like they are run by opportunistic sycophants… oh wait. Further, even popular political activists like the US Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez misrepresent the situation as if the end of the world is nigh. ”The world is gonna end in twelve years if we don’t adress climate change.” This is sort of like having C3PO as the policy advisor to an administration run by pastor Jim Jones. ”Sir, the chances of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3720-1.” This line of action purports to represent an idealized “return to naturalness” which was first championed by enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jaques Rousseau in the 18th century. The ideal of the “noble savage” is a regressive doctrine, now driven by panic, suggesting a possibility for humanity to redeem itself by sacrificing civilisation and returning to a fictitious and ecologically balanced “natural state.” This reduces the climate issue to a religious question, which grants believers moral leverage over their peers through asceticism – rather than through level-headed debate on how to best manage this as an issue of economics. Economics? Yes, economics! Do not be Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who misunderstands economy as a tool of greed. ”Your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?” Economy in this regard means the rational use of resources to maximize the possibility of a desirable outcome. It does not mean greedy cheapness and shortsightedness. In life, we can only do so many things. If we choose X, we might not also be able to choose Y. This is called “alternative cost” in economic science. We must carefully put our resources to work where they have the biggest impact and not fall for less efficient actions because they FEEL right. If you subscribe to an ascetic Rousseauan world view this might seem counter intuitive – but flying less might for instance not be the best move if you want to reduce carbon emissions. Let me explain: In Sweden, a movement to stop flying is picking up speed, even though the Swedes are so few that a reduced number of flights are undetectable from a global carbon emission perspective. But a reduced number of flights in Sweden has a great impact for the Scandinavian aviation industry – which is one of the leading aviation industries in the world. If we keep the Scandinavian aviation researchers in business, so that they may – for instance – develop new composite materials, new and more efficient engines or improved wings with even less air resistance – this will affect the global aviation fleet with massive reductions on fuel consumption as a result. As such, the Swedes choosing to boycott the airlines are – from a point of alternative cost – probably contributing to HIGHER carbon emissions in the long run. It’s the economy, stupid. Another example: If you, instead of spending money subsidizing electric bicycles like we now do in Sweden, use this money to increase our capacity to produce electricity for export, we could for instance help our neighbouring country Poland to reduce its reliance on coal power. A 1% increase in Swedish exportable energy to Poland would reduce their carbon emissions equal to what 600,000 cars emit in one year. While the electric bicycles make no measurable difference at all, except for satisfying the ascetic Roussean ideal of approaching “that, oh so moral, natural state”. If you care about the environment, care about economy and technology rather than encouraging panic and striving for some bizarre “natural state” that was never there in the first place. CONSTRUCTIVE ALTERNATIVES Most of westerners have been raised with the Roussean view of our civilization being doomed. We live on borrowed time, and the world’s resources are running out. The story goes like this: Mankind is systematically destroying the planet. More and more people live in misery and poverty. Life used to be better. This is the result of over-consumption, over-population and over-confidence. Now we all have to cut back on our consumption, change our decadent way of life and try to redeem ourselves by living more simply. Like in the good, decent old days. ”We don’t have a cow, we have a bull.” “Moooo!” Except that none of this is true. Globally, more and more people live longer, are healthier, happier and better educated. This is a fact, not an opinion. In the 1970s, overpopulation was considered humanity’s greatest problem, especially in populous countries such as China and India. The United States actually supported UNFPA Sterilization Campaigns to encourage people to have fewer children. Nobody speaks of over-population today, because the population growth never escalated as the alarmists suggested through movies like “Soylent Green” Further, food production was made more efficient, fields more productive and crops more nutritious through technological breakthroughs. Deforestation was another scare of the 1980’s where environmentalists predicted the collapse of the global ecosystem due to fear of the rain forests disappearing. Today about a third of the world is forest, its size has changed very little since the Second World War and few speak of deforestation anymore. Through a rational risk analysis, we can make an assessment of what is a reasonable line of action to achieve a desired climate outcome. We have done it before, we can do it again. Regardless on your stance: panic won’t cut it. The alarmists do not seek solutions, because solutions undermine alarmism. The delusion that the world’s resources are running out and should be left where they are means that every new life is a problem, every new phenomenon a threat and every stranger a potential enemy. Envisioning sustainability as an ideally balanced primordial state both makes it impossible to solve the real problems facing humanity – as well as dooming mankind to a hell disguised as Rousseau’s version of the Garden of Eden. Do you think reason is a better tool for solving complex societal challenges than emotions? Have you experienced regressive climate morality in your local community? Please share your experiences in the comment section down below, I appreciate all respectful feedback! Please share this video, and subscribe to my YouTube channel. My name is Henrik Jönsson, and I support the motto of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Don’t Panic. Thank you very much for watching this video.