I don’t think far-right parties appeal to logic. I think they create a narrative that is based on feelings of fear, and then present themselves as the only solution to their imaginary problem. Something like that.

I understand and agree with what you say but I am a bit confused with the choice of article. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a organisation where the literal economic elites meet (in Davos among other places) to talk about what to do to maximize their power and profits.

Of course their mission statement could be considered as inspiring, but I believe we should be vigilant. It’s just PR imo. They have similar statements from personalities we know of, from who we couldn’t get fooled anymore. An examples could be:

Mark Zuckerberg: Building a global community that works for everyone - World Economic Forum (WEF) - 2017

Since this article is an adapted excerpt, of the book What a Bee Knows, perhaps one idea would be to download it and check out the bibliography for the relevant citations.

They still have a tone of open-source stuff. It’s just that not everything is open-source anymore. Meaning, since everything is not public, we have no way of knowing if this private piece of software is what they say, or anything else actually.

So, trust a company because they say they are not evil? I’ll pass

From Signal Blog 01 Nov 2021:

Improving first impressions on Signal

We build Signal in the open, with publicly available source code for our applications and servers. To keep Signal a free global communication service without spam, we must depart from our totally-open posture and develop one piece of the server in private: a system for detecting and disrupting spam campaigns.

Signal’s encryption was great. Still, for some years now they are not 100% open source and they still advertise themselves as open source.

It looks like Anark mixed up stuff (around 18 min). CNT was anarcho-syndicalist and they organised in this manner. It’s not that they organised like platformists, just did not call themselves this way, as Anark says.

I am a bit confused. On one hand it says:

No watering down of decarbonisation targets

And on the other hand:

(…) provide greater assistance for heavy industry to cope with energy costs, rather than easing decarbonisation targets

Can’t wait for the Mexico episode!

I would also like to add that many of the big polluters use their involvement to renewable projects as a marketing/advertisement strategy, in order to portray themselves as if they were part of the solution (energy transition), when in reality they are doing business as usual.

I asked you to read the article to make obvious why some charts for Europe are actually kinda rigged. (Edit: Energy consumption from fossil fuel may look “good” for europe, but at what cost for other places) And btw, it was not by mistake that I used the global chart. So from the article:

both Egypt and Morocco also remain net importers of fossil fuel energy, buying in large quantities of oil and gas to fuel their own economies, while selling their cleaner energy to Europe,

I thought I would be clear why it is so bad to do these projects where water is scarce. From the article

Greenpeace’s report argues that European-backed renewable and lower-carbon projects producing energy for export are hampering the two countries’ ability to decarbonise their own economies, displacing local populations and consuming millions of litres of fresh water, in some cases in environments where it was already scarce.

In relation to your question but why?, for me the answer is the rest of the article and from the summary you mentioned in the following sections which I will not copy-paste:

• Extractivism and Neocolonialism in the Global South

• Morocco and Egypt: From extractivism to green colonialism

I’m sorry, I don’t know what else to say.

Ok. Well, I suppose if you read this summary and still wonder, I don’t think I can say something in a few sentences to make its content more clear.

Take a look at the article!

What do you understand by capitalism?

Briefly, an economic system that is based on private entities controlling the production. Infinite growth is part of it. The role of government differs depending from one school of thought to an other but the tendencies are from minimal to none interventions of the government. Of course I could go on, but I thought of keeping it short.

China -a self-defined socialist country-

Well, to my knowledge, for several decades now they have been calling it, Socialist Market Economy and the rest of the world knows it’s just a market economy.

Btw what is socialism to you?

Just keep in mind that renewable energy is not really implemented for sustainability, but mainly for profit. Also, due to capitalism the energy consumption keeps increasing. Take a look at this chart. Oil energy consumption keeps increasing, coal has not plateaued yet - none of them is decreasing for sure. So far, there is no renewable energy transition because renewable energy is just being added, it does not replace energy coming from extractive industries.

It is equally important to keep our eyes open to how renewable projects are legislated and executed, and in the same time continue to evolve them. This evolution should take into consideration things like habitat disruptions (earth, sea, air), mining, wastes produced, to name just a few.

there is no chance that it is legal in any country that recognises and protects human rights.

It looks like there is No ban on conversion therapy in many states in the US, parts of Australia, Sweden and several places in Europe, according to the map on the wiki page Legality of conversion therapy.

I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to explain all this.

Without knowing much about current politics in Serbia (or having actual trust or hope in governmental politics in general) I wanted to ask you: is there any interesting opposing politicians/parties/coalitions to your knowledge?

Now that you mentioned the Luddites, last year I listened to a very informative podcast from Margaret Killjoy:

• Part One: All Hail King Ludd: How the Luddites Almost Saved Us

• Part Two: All Hail King Ludd: How the Luddites Almost Saved Us

Thank you very much for your insight!

No matter how her narrative is now:

In 2015, the younger Le Pen expelled her father from the party after a public clash over her public moderation. “I wonder: Did you really do this?” Le Pen asked herself, according to an account she told French television in 2019. “Because it seemed so insane. But we had no choice. It was either that or the movement would disappear.”

From How Le Pen turned respectable (and why you shouldn’t be fooled) - Politico, I think this article is an ok overview (with some issues imo, but not in relation to her father).