The article, by Phil McDuff, goes on the discuss the “Green New Deal” currently being peddled in the US Congress, and declares a radical turn toward socialism is really at the heart of saving the planet from climate change:
The radical economics isn’t a hidden clause, but a headline feature. Climate change is the result of our current economic and industrial system. GND-style proposals marry sweeping environmental policy changes with broader socialist reforms because the level of disruption required to keep us at a temperature anywhere below “absolutely catastrophic” is fundamentally, on a deep structural level, incompatible with the status quo.
The “status quo,” is the various forms of capitalism. These are regulated by states, manipulated by immensely powerful central banks, and distorted by global NGOs like the World Bank. Despite these fences, there is still enough market-based freedom that many leftwing ideologues regard it as a type of radical laissez-faire capitalism marked by unrestrained and fossil-fuel powered consumption.
And, it must be killed.
The new green-socialist global state imagined by McDuff and politicians like AOC will undo decades of gains against abject poverty — gains enjoyed by the world’s most at-risk and poorest populations.
Quality of life indicators
The biggest gains tend to be in Africa and South Asia.
Moreover, we have yet to observe evidence that these trends will be reversed due to climate change.
Green dealers predict the effects of climate change will disastrous.
The details of this global disaster are sketchy at best. The rhetoric
However, deaths from climate-caused natural disasters have gone into steep decline. This is why efforts to predict coming natural-disaster-fueled doom rely on dollar amounts and property damage, which naturally grow over time as homes and machines become more expensive.
Centuries of capital accumulation in market societies, even ordinary people increasingly have access to better medical care, infrastructure, and disaster aid.
Of course, the choice between Green Socialit policy and alternatives must be framed as a choice between climate socialism or total extinction.
October’s report released by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finds that the costs of implementation are astonomical.
Green energy will have to be subsidized by our taxes, and the actual goal of climate-change-prevention schemes is to regulate energy production, reduce access to cheaper forms of energy, and then replace part of that lost capacity with subsidized new forms of green energy. To do this, subsidies require pulling wealth out of the productive economy.
According to Green Socialists, s
This is just silly. Even economist William Nordhaus, who has been hailed as a champion of climate-change policies, found that recent carbon-tax and regulatory schemes were so costly, that it would be better to do nothing.
Statistician Hans Rosling saw a fundamental conflict between well-meaning first-world activists and ordinary people in the developing world.
When speaking to environmentally-conscious audiences, Rosling noted many in the audience insisted that “No, everybody in the world cannot have cars and washing machines.” For these activists, the imperative of lowering energy usage simply demands it.
But, pointing to a photo of a low-income women
slaving over a wash basin , Rosling asks: “How can we tell this woman that she isn’t going to have a washing machine?”
What people don’t realize is that climate-control schemes would hurt people in the poorer parts of the world. Demand for growing access to electricity, personal transportation, and heating-and-cooling technologies are highest in the developing world.
These people need heating and air conditioning. They’ll need water filtration technology. They’ll need
Green New Deals and talk over carbon taxes and climate regulations smack of first-world chauvinism. The rich world already has its cars and its washing machines. Green New Deals would reduce the wealth of people in the rich world, but it would devastate China, India, Africa, and South America — where most live closer to subsistence levels.
Maybe it’s time to just shut up about this