Claim: Americans will have to settle for less, to defeat climate change


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Atlantic wants people to view climate change as a wartime situation. They demand Americans accept a lower standard of living, to defeat Global Warming.

According to The Atlantic;

Why Solving Climate Change Will Be Like Mobilizing for War

… Assuming we do manage to significantly accelerate deployment without cancerous levels of corporatist corruption, if emissions targets still remain out of reach, some growth must be temporarily sacrificed. At the same time, investment across the portfolio of energy technologies will need to continue.

In other words, we are contemplating the sorts of austerities associated with wartime economies. For ordinary Americans, austerities might include an end to expansive suburban lifestyles and budget air travel, and an accelerated return to high-density urban living and train travel. For businesses, this might mean rethinking entire supply chains, as high-emissions sectors become unviable under new emissions regimes.

What Gates and others are advocating for is not so much a technological revolution as a technocratic one. One for which there is no successful peacetime precedent. Which is not to say, of course, that it cannot work. There is always a first time for every new level of complexity and scale in human cooperation. But it’s sobering to look back at the (partial) precedents we do have. …

Read more:

I must say, given repeated claims that subsidising green energy will stimulate the economy, it seems peculiar that greens also believe people should adopt a wartime austerity mentality, and brace themselves for a lower standard of living. Perhaps the economic stimulus will be delivered in the form of more green air miles, and an increase in the number of climate conferences.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 15, 2015 8:50 am

Well, if The Atlantic means anything like America’s longest war, we are talking business as usual.

James Poulos
Reply to  Arbeegee
October 15, 2015 12:52 pm

Austerity for everyone to pay for green subsidies.

Reply to  James Poulos
October 15, 2015 1:26 pm

Follow the money
If I make fossils prohibitively expensive by claiming CO2 is bad, then after a period of adjustment I don’t need to fund alt energy with stipends because it’s “naturally” competitive.
Of course the consumer pays for that and a percentage of that “new” profit money is supposed to go to the poor undeveloped nations.
“Either you are with me or against me”
::::: whooops, sorry wrong con job ::::::

October 15, 2015 8:51 am

Let’s start by sacrificing The Atlantic

DD More
Reply to  Neo
October 15, 2015 11:59 am

For ordinary Americans, austerities might include an end to expansive suburban lifestyles and budget air travel, and an accelerated return to high-density urban living and train travel.
But that’s not for The Atlantic reader, because they are not ordinary, they are influential.
Magazine Reader Profile
Affluent and accomplished, The Atlantic readers represent a vital audience of the country’s most influential thought leaders.
AFFLUENCE: HHI $ 200,000 14% HHI $ 100,000 46%
MEDIAN HHI : $ 94,233
And you know they are influential, because they say so 12 times in 15 pages.

Reply to  DD More
October 16, 2015 7:21 am

What a happy coincidence that their climate scare justifies everything they have always wanted anyway; force us back into high density cities where we are more easily taxed and controlled; take from the poor and give to the rich; etc., etc.

Reply to  DD More
October 16, 2015 1:13 pm

One small step for a magazine, a giant leap back to the 1800s for mankind…

Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 16, 2015 9:24 pm

Yes indeed, a touch of afluenza. I spent the evening watching hans rosling videos. I’ve really enjoyed his webpage for quite a while. His most recent best is a infomercial on extreme poverty. Statistical trends point to it ending worldwide within 15 years. 1970 and after appeared to be the point of departure when we started to take a nosedive. If you have e an hour check out his latest video.
Sadly, for all his wonderful work on blowing up ignorance concerning beliefs vs reality, he really does a poor job with climate change.
I wonder why that is so.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  DD More
October 16, 2015 4:18 pm

Speaking of wartime sacrifices, I once read a sociological hypothesis that posits that war is a biological safety valve meant to rid the world of excess breeding-age males. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but this new “wartime” footing is apparently meant to be gender neutral, making for politically correct human population reductions. They want no suburbs, no cars, no air travel, high density city living, everyone traveling on foot or by train, the only thing they are leaving out of their little wish list is to tell us how many humans they want the Earth to support, and their plan for getting us to that reduction.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 16, 2015 4:29 pm

Follow the money to the influential ideas.
I scoff at the notion that you are right. Then I relax and think again. Bill Gates thinks the best number is about 500 M worldwide.
As I observe the world, I find that money doesn’t really change you, it just accentuates certain aspects of your being.

Reply to  DD More
October 17, 2015 1:33 pm

Gosh, I meet their demographic rather well other than being a bit older — and apparently wiser since I find The Atlantic hardly influential at all. Curious….

John Catley
October 15, 2015 8:52 am

What do you expect from a Guardian rag?

October 15, 2015 8:56 am

Once again, the cure is worse than the (misdiagnosed) disease.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  oeman50
October 16, 2015 4:19 pm

True enough.
I’d suggest the government take the same approach to climate change that it takes with the U.S. national debt: Let future generations deal with it.

G. Karst
October 15, 2015 8:56 am

Control over sheeple relies on a continual state of scarcity, enabling a continuous ongoing “emergency” measures rationing and restricting access to vital resources. Right out of the playbook written by Mr Orwell. I wonder if there is ANYTHING that can be done to defeat this movement, which will stomp on the face of humanity, for possibly millennia. GK

Reply to  G. Karst
October 15, 2015 10:30 am

I was going to post almost the same comment. Just reread 1984 a few weeks ago and when Winston reads from the book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, it was very clear to me that the totalitarian left has found their perpetual war, climate change, the war to finally rid the world of capitalism and enter into the totalitarian dream of total control of the population.

John Moore.
Reply to  Kristy
October 16, 2015 2:51 am

How very true. Not only is the left succeding but here in the UK they are turning the Conservative party leftwards also.

Russell Johnson
Reply to  Kristy
October 16, 2015 5:00 am

We are experiencing the effects of a State imposed Ideology. Climate Change is a major part of the ideological system–you must believe in it or you oppose the State’s power and authority. Currently it’s enforced via federal funding and the PC police. The State has used the power of the Judicial and Executive branches to circumvent the Legislature and impose various rules, guide lines and standards to legitimize the war on climate change.
The media is not dis-similar to the State and for the most part it is a mouthpiece for the ideology; praising and supporting climate change adherents while punishing and demonizing anyone with an opposing view. Beyond that, try having an online discussion about any part of climate change–any hint of opposition will bring a pro-climate change troll down on your head–policing the ideology (WUWT is an exception).

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Kristy
October 16, 2015 4:40 pm

We need people like Judy Curry and Freeman Dyson to stop voting for the leftist coalition, hoping that it will fulfill the things they want, when it’s constituent interests want opposite things. In some ways, they become sort of like Boxer, the abused horse from Orwell’s Animal Farm. In voting for Obama, they serve the “cause” with their political voice (ie. their votes), even if they voice opposition to the weakness of the alarmist science.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 16, 2015 4:57 pm

The Democrats target the protected class. Since they’ve been pretty good at both creating the protected classes and giving them stuff (including rights) they continue to get their vote.
The next likely group to vote for Dem is the mellenials. Hands down Dem voters.
Now couple the above with how the Dem are light years ahead of using the Internet to get the vote out.

Reply to  G. Karst
October 15, 2015 11:13 am

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Reply to  BFL
October 15, 2015 2:06 pm

Newspeak is the political language that eliminates expressive thought and unnecessary words, which promotes the narrowing of thought so that the mind is more easily controlled. Newspeak loses words by removing words that represent opposing thought. You can see this in the immigration and climate debate. What was illegal aliens is now just immigration so that if you oppose the government on illegal immigration you will be labeled anti-immigration and a nativist. AGW has been changed to climate change so that if you question the influence of man on warming, you are labeled as someone who believes the climate does not change or anti-science.

Reply to  Kristy
October 15, 2015 2:20 pm

Very good.
Be careful, you’ll steal the trade of a select few editors.
Even better, start a WUWT offshoot.
Take common everyday articles and red line through newspeak. Show your readers.
Of course, if you already see they are doing that, you can also understand that these articles are written by a team of spinners. They start with a theme, surround it with psuedofacts and reduce the theme to less than 30 words.
Colbert had a team who unraveled bushspeak.
It made him a star.

Reply to  G. Karst
October 15, 2015 12:00 pm

It’s eerie to realize how apt this analogy is. It’s almost as if these people are tuning into the same supernal source that inspired Orwell. But while he was recording it, they embody it.

Reply to  rw
October 16, 2015 1:40 am

For some Orwell’s 1984 is a warning for other an instruction manual , you pick what you think the greens see it has.

Reply to  G. Karst
October 15, 2015 1:25 pm

“Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” -George Orwell, 1984

October 15, 2015 9:04 am

Getting us, the peasants, the accept less has been the plan all along. However, the all-wise priests who will know how to save us from the wrath of Mother Earth will not need to make sacrifices.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  alexwade
October 15, 2015 12:38 pm

As long as the sheeple deliver baskets of fruits and exotic foods and virgins to the steps of the climate temple then the climate priests will keep the evil warming at bay with sufficient “adjustments” when the time comes.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 15, 2015 12:48 pm

Well done. Let’s dance.
If it cools, they will claim victory.
If it cools too much they will give you an allotment of fossils as a temporary measure.
If it get to warm, you’ll have to do better (sacrifice more).
Always pushing the button of conservation and charity.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 15, 2015 2:34 pm

Yeah, well, I don’t see anyone doing this. The Earnestly-Concerned NPR/Atlantic Class wring their hands and shake their heads, maybe if they’ve really got money to burn to whack a couple of solar panels on their roof to up their PC cred. Cancel flights? Buy less crap from China? Turn back the heat? FUGGEDABOUTIT! After all, it’s the 3rd World’s “problem” now . . .

October 15, 2015 9:05 am

I must say, given repeated claims that subsidising green energy will stimulate the economy, it seems peculiar that greens also believe people should adopt a wartime austerity mentality, and brace themselves for a lower standard of living.

Well, the lie didn’t work (“green economic boom”) so why not go for the truth? At least then nobody can complain when we are all reduced to penury.

Reply to  H.R.
October 15, 2015 9:12 am

It takes a rather peculiar form of idiocy to believe that taking money from one person by force, and giving it to others will be good for the economy.

Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2015 11:41 am

It takes a rather peculiar form of idiocy the believe that taking money from the masses, and giving it to very few will be good to the masses and the economy.

Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2015 5:27 pm

Pat: Who do you believe is doing that? The leftists do when they tax everyone to give money to politically favored individuals and companies.
If you are referring to lowered taxes, that is allowing individuals to keep more of what they earned, nothing is being taken from anyone.
PS, lower taxes have resulted in increased economic activity every time it has been tried.

Steve Jones
Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2015 5:47 pm

MarkW says: ” lower taxes have resulted in increased economic activity every time it has been tried.”

That is not true.
Look at the mess Kansas is in right now after Sam Brownback cut taxes…

William R
Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2015 9:10 pm

Steve, he said “economic activity”, not tax revenue. Still, is that the only example that you can think of? If so, then I think the point has been proven.

Reply to  MarkW
October 16, 2015 6:23 am

“Who do you believe is doing that?”
Your own government is doing that, by the trillions, every year. And nothing to do with left, right or whatever your party of choice is. Billions in subsidies to oil companies, billions to special interest groups and corporations in tax breaks (like Walmart), trillions in “defense” equipment like tanks nobody wants that will never be used and planes that don’t work. All that money, funneled to the very few 1% richest people in your country, who “coincidentally” OWN your politicians.
I bet you still believe you live in a democracy.

Steve Jones
Reply to  MarkW
October 16, 2015 6:43 am

William R…
The example in Kansas does in fact show that “economic activity” has not benefited from tax reductions.
When someone says ” every time it has been tried.” all you need is one counterexample to prove their statement is wrong.

Reply to  Steve Jones
October 16, 2015 7:03 am

Steve Jones (replying to William R…)..

The example in Kansas does in fact show that “economic activity” has not benefited from tax reductions.
When someone says ” every time it has been tried.” all you need is one counterexample to prove their statement is wrong.

Dead wrong. Kansas cut taxes IN THE MIDDLE OF OBAMA’S Longest-ever recession, lengthened by Oboma’s tax increases, federal wasted dollars, federal ‘stimulus” money and a “zero-rate” government loan program, and EXTREME high energy prices deliberately caused by higher energy taxes and regulatory penalties of Oboma’s (your’s!) failed CAGW policies.
Even in Lenin/Stalin’s Russian economy (1920’s and again in Khrushchev’s reforms after Stalin died), tax cuts increased productivity and raised the economy. Kennedy’s tax cuts worked. Reagan’s tax cuts worked. Bush’s tax cuts worked.

Steve Jones
Reply to  MarkW
October 16, 2015 7:12 am

RACookPE1978 says: “N THE MIDDLE OF OBAMA’S Longest-ever recession,”

The “Great Recession” started as a result of the housing crisis of 2007-2008. Just to refresh your memory, Obama did not take office until January 2009, long after the start of the recession. So, you should be calling it “BUSH’S RECESSION”

Secondly, the Brownback did not take office in Kansas until 2011, and did not sign the tax cut legislation until May 2012.

Needless to say, the tax cuts did not improve the economy in Kansas at all.

Reply to  Steve Jones
October 16, 2015 9:12 am

The deep recession in 2008 came as the subsidized housing bubble (propped up BY forced democrat lending requirements to people who did have the resources to actually afford houses even at real world prices!) collapsed beginning mid-2007. And THAT housing price bubble collapsed because Nancy Peolsi’s 2007 House of Representatives began energy and oil regulatory and restrictions BECAUSE she feared CAGW and demanded immediate oil price increases and increased restrictions on federal lands.
ALL of the fracking energy produced now that is saving the economy for Oboma is DESPITE these regulations and is the result of drilling SINCE 2007-2008. But most especially due to Arabian price sell-outs desired to
(1) aid Oboma
(2) destroy the North Dakota, Pennsylvania, OK, and TX oil companies. And hurt ISIS-Iran as well.

Steve Jones
Reply to  MarkW
October 16, 2015 7:14 am

PS RACookPE1978……Neighboring states to Kansas, which did not cut taxes, have had improving economies as compared to Kansas.

Steve Jones
Reply to  MarkW
October 16, 2015 11:25 am

RACookPE1978 says: ” forced democrat lending requirements”

You neglect to realize that the Bush was in control of things when the housing bubble inflated and burst. Trying to blame the democrats is foolish on your part. The blame goes more to the Wall Street bankers that bundled toxic mortgages and sold them to unsuspecting investors. The “kaissez-faire” attitude of the Bush Administration contributed to Wall Street excesses. Lending requirements are set by the banking system, not a particular political party.

Steve Jones
Reply to  MarkW
October 16, 2015 11:31 am

PS RACookPE1978
When you say: “Nancy Peolsi’s 2007 House of Representatives began energy and oil regulatory and restrictions ” you show that you are ignorant of how regulation works in DC.

Bush is in charge of the EPA, and the Interior Deprtment. Congress doesn’t make regulations, so your claim that Pelosi began restrictions is laughable. Congress can pass legislation, and the president must sign it. Congress cannot by itself issue regulations.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  MarkW
October 16, 2015 3:09 pm

Great link, Steve. The tax cuts were signed into law in 2012, as you know…and 4 straight months of rising unemployment all the way up to 4.6% (lol) 4 1/2 years later means those tax cuts didn’t stimulate the economy? Their labor force and employment took off for 3 years after those cuts.

October 15, 2015 9:10 am

Leftists everywhere are always going on and on about how other people have to suffer in order to bring about their view of an ideal world.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2015 10:02 am

Bingo, MarkW!

October 15, 2015 9:11 am

New problem, same old solution.
It was always about power and control.
P.S. the “problem” is that someone, somewhere, is prosperous and happy.

4 eyes
Reply to  Merovign
October 15, 2015 3:38 pm

Someone, somewhere is more prosperous and happier. And they can’t stand it.

October 15, 2015 9:16 am

“In other words, we are contemplating the sorts of austerities associated with wartime economies. For ordinary Americans, austerities might include an end to expansive suburban lifestyles and budget air travel, and an accelerated return to high-density urban living and train travel. For businesses, this might mean rethinking entire supply chains, as high-emissions sectors become [nonviable] under new emissions.” regimes.”
Agree with Neo. If we have to implement austerity measures, let’s start with folding up The Atlantic, The Guardian, and Michael Mann’s position at Penn State. Those should be good for starters.

October 15, 2015 9:27 am

…defeat climate change
What does that even mean??

Reply to  dbstealey
October 15, 2015 9:32 am

That’s the key – it means whatever they want it to at any point in time.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 15, 2015 9:47 am

exactly- undefined terms, circular reasoning, capricious policies that just happen to benefit those forcing others to accept them. All part of the extremist wackjob bigot behavior profile.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 15, 2015 2:35 pm

Anything they want it to.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 15, 2015 3:31 pm

…defeat climate change
More to the point how will these idiots even know when they’ve “won”

Reply to  AB
October 15, 2015 6:00 pm

They’ve “won” when the “new emissions regimes” choke the free market.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 15, 2015 6:24 pm

A few victories
1. The codification of CO2 as a pollutant was and is a big deal. They already won that little juicy morsel.
2. They won’t get their carbon tax anytime soon but they have secured a 1T dollar over 10 year slush fund.
3. They seized the moral high ground with the Pope.
Next step is to use that CO2 boogeyman and apply it locally (within the US first) so that class action lawsuits can claim disparate impact. I make fossil energy for you, it degrades my life so you owe me money type deal.
Disparate impact was recently declared valid concerning the fair housing act in the US. The next step is to apply it to places like coal mining communities or perhaps near a major refinery.
Supposedly back in the late 90s (a quick Google will get you close), this was the plan all along as Clintons administration (Gore VP) was trying to promote greater home ownership among minorities and the poor. The CO2 angle was a way to further placate the base. Bush stalled it and preferred the Iraq hoax. This administration picked up the CAGW (CO2) hoax.
So what does it look like when they “win” ?
The Clinton vision was to lift the poor from poverty and be rewarded with a happy base.
Lots of merging trends on this one.

Bruce Cobb
October 15, 2015 9:31 am

In short, what they are proposing is a war on democracy. Their “solution” to a false problem is to lower living standards and by various propaganda efforts encourage people to not only accept, but to positively affirm those lower living standards. It is an abomination of the highest order.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 15, 2015 9:45 am

Plain-spoken truth, sir.

October 15, 2015 9:35 am

Yikes! there’s a large “Ice Blob” that has formed in Antarctica east of the Fauklands…lol
Must be a computer glitch:

October 15, 2015 9:42 am

Unless we are talking secret war, then we should have the courage to discuss it openly and often at presidential debates and fireside chats before general elections. It’s not as though global warming did a sneak attack in between elections.

Phil R
October 15, 2015 9:44 am

“In other words, we are contemplating the sorts of austerities associated with wartime economies. For ordinary Americans, austerities might include an end to expansive suburban lifestyles and budget air travel, and an accelerated return to high-density urban living and train travel. For businesses, this might mean rethinking entire supply chains, as high-emissions sectors become [nonviable] under new emissions.” regimes.”
I notice that austerity only includes “ordinary” Americans (you and me) and businesses (engines of the economy). Glaringly absent is any austerity for the benevolent, elite overlords.

October 15, 2015 9:58 am

The Atlantic is a powerful first wave journal.
It sets the tone for the copycats.
This one rekindles the moral high ground.
Rattles sabres to the cause.
Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the Intellectual Ivy Elite leaning forward for Paris.
If you know its a pseudoscience hoax, you also realize it’s a game. The more money, the more power, the better your odds at winning when it’s your turn.
Even if it gets colder the ones above will claim victory for preparing us for “the change” and sell you access to their solutions. If we all suffer a drop in living standards, they will offer a way up.
Perhaps, the Apache Nation has the right approach. Perhaps the best one can do is protect your independence according to your means, your wealth, your power. Keep distance from the lie(s) because it corrupts the soul (or whatever part of you that is valued the most) or engage in battle based on your means.
Make no mistake. We are living thru a significant transitional era. As a side note, but equally important to the trends above, I’m sure many of you are aware of the growing computer processing power. This fact is a driving factor in an increasing belief that the world can be organized into a nice orderly flow. The road to …
Full article

average joe
Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 1:19 pm

Knute – take it from a seasoned computer engineer (me). The artificial intelligence projections are as stupid as the climate model projections. There is one small but very important detail AI nuts – err, I mean people, overlook. Brains do not run on “calculations per second”, although true computer dreamers like to believe that they do. I have looked into this in depth and I am convinced that they don’t. I don’t know for sure what they run on, but it ain’t calcs per second. That is why the chart is meaningless in the real world. Calculations are meaningless without the algorithms to drive them. And the algorithms part is where we haven’t a clue how brains do what they do.

Reply to  average joe
October 15, 2015 1:35 pm

Roger that Joe.
But they are true believers in AI solving the problems of mankind. Doesnt matter if its possible. Its ticklishly true enough to give life to the phantom. It’s part of the pseudoscience.
Hubris at play.
Follow the money. New money from the new “clean” industries are challenging old money from classic “dirty” ones.

Barbara Skolaut
October 15, 2015 10:00 am

The greenies are going to “brace themselves for a lower standard of living”?
You mean “brace themselves for a lower standard of living FOR EVERYBODY BUT THEMSELVES.”

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Barbara Skolaut
October 15, 2015 6:21 pm

But perhaps they will let us eat cake.

October 15, 2015 10:02 am

Nothing Americans do, or the West does, will stop or substantially slow the rise in worldwide CO2. Americans won’t go on a wartime austerity footing once that is pointed out to them. That this isn’t obvious to this author and his fellow field marshalls shows how out of touch he and they are. They can’t see what will happen next–after they sound their trumpets.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  rogerknights
October 15, 2015 1:12 pm

Aiming for the stars, successfully shooting the moon.
Hyperbole is a climate boon.
A public rife with guilt and original sin,
Incremental victories, the Greens will win.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
October 15, 2015 7:47 pm

And if the greens win we’ll be utterly screwed.
Since they aren’t too pragmatic, I don’t mean to be rude.
They’ll spend all the money on a vast solar park.
And then recommend candles for when it goes dark.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 15, 2015 7:59 pm

Has potential for a pop up book with a glittering candle at the end.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  Rob Morrow
October 15, 2015 10:49 pm

When the peasant’s last candle burned it wasn’t the end,
As the consensus’ arguments continued to wend.
After the Leap manifesto we all fled the metropolis,
The plebs agree, we’d have preferred a zombie apocalypse.

October 15, 2015 10:04 am

I’ll move to the hills before I move to an urban city. First because I can’t own a gun in NYC, second because it’s the last place I want to be in the event of a pandemic.
Maybe I’m getting paranoid, but this idea strikes me as a rounding up of the herd.

Reply to  NancyG22
October 15, 2015 10:32 am

Ben Carson so far is the only guy to get the gun issue right. Your right to keep and bear arms in the US is to complicate life for Tyrants it is not just some kind of convenience for vigilantes.

Reply to  fossilsage
October 15, 2015 11:06 am

Then there are the people who would laugh in your face at the notion that such guns would ever be needed to prevent government-sanctioned jackboots in this country. …But in the same breath soberly explain how total free-press is needed for the exact same purpose.
Climate Taliban. There. Almost sort of relevant.

Reply to  Arbeegee
October 15, 2015 2:10 pm

The fact that the Taliban have guns is what makes them hard to deal with! I mean there probably aren’t a lot of women volunteering to be treated like that except for the social convention that that’s the way things will be so long as these guys have a way to fight back with impunity.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  NancyG22
October 15, 2015 11:27 am

Why can’t you own a gun in NYC?

Steve Jones
Reply to  Christopher Paino
October 15, 2015 11:34 am

Who says you can’t own a gun in NYC?

Reply to  Christopher Paino
October 15, 2015 5:29 pm

Legally you can. However getting the permit requires knowing the right people and donating massive amounts to the right political campaigns.

Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2015 5:59 pm

It’s tedious, but you don’t have to know someone other than an attorney or gun dealer familiar with the process. The most important thing to remember is you have to show competency and a legitimate reason. Home defense is considered legitimate and you have to be able to articulate that you understand when you can use deadly force.
I know it’s an emotional issue and perhaps it should be easier, but I’m kind of alright with the process. I’m not a NYer so perhaps I’m out of line, but the cautious approach to who gets a permit seems prudent.

William R
Reply to  Christopher Paino
October 15, 2015 9:16 pm

As has been shown in a CA lawsuit, you don’t need to show cause in order to exercise an constitutional right. Do I need to fill out a form and show just cause in order to speak my opinion, or to go to church, or to have a meeting? I anticipate a court challenge to any NYC law that says otherwise, if it’s not underway already.

October 15, 2015 10:09 am

I wonder if the person writing this article realizes that they are one of the sheeple who will be required to “settle for less”? We seem to read about this type on nonsensical idiocy at least once a week from one news source or another, each of the writers always seems to assume that they are part of the elite who will not need to sacrifice much. I don’t know any journalists personally, but my understanding has always been that they are paid relatively little (with rare exceptions) which would put them squarely in the same category as the rest of us when those austerity measures are enforced.

Reply to  jgriggs3
October 15, 2015 6:05 pm

Articles like this are written as a team. Conceptual story line, research, selection of the villian, the hero and the lemmings. Perhaps some other sideline roles. Similar content development as goes on in TV and movies.
And these people are like other people. They have a circle of influence and being influenced. Careers to think about. Mouths to feed. Schools they want their kids to go to.
Pet causes. They may even have similar fears as you do.

Reply to  Knute
October 20, 2015 11:38 am

Knute, I am not sure what you are intending to mean with your comment. You fail to address my original point that people who write stories such as this are usually not among the elite and will become part of the “poor” segment of society who must sacrifice their lifestyle and lives even to the cause based on the solutions they propose. Regardless of how a person comes to be influenced in any given direction they are still responsible for thinking about the consequences of what they propose and weighing the benefits of maintaining our current course versus the new course they suggest.

Reply to  jgriggs3
October 20, 2015 1:19 pm

I agree.
I am also aware that integrity and accountability are noble values executed by imperfect people.
Is there something more that I’ve left unaddressed ?

October 15, 2015 10:19 am

Hunger Games 2.0

Kevin R.
October 15, 2015 10:23 am

They imagine that they will be able to dictate our lifestyles and how we live after they’ve destroyed the economy. They imagine high-density urban living – cities. Actually what would happen is they destroy the economy and then those that are lucky and plucky enough to still be among the living will be married to the land living in a feudal state of existence.

Reply to  Kevin R.
October 15, 2015 11:35 am

Great phrase
“lucky and plucky”.

October 15, 2015 10:27 am

Asking someone in the US, where “poor” people make $2000/month including government aid to sacrifice is one thing, asking a truly poor person in India making $60/month to sacrifice for a possible, maybe, future climate catastrophe is something else again.

Reply to  Andy May
October 15, 2015 11:21 am

Ah, a core belief ?
Not wanting to be wasteful and a desire to help your fellow man are two of the core heartstrings. Conservation and charity.
In the cost accounting of the CAGW movement, money will flow from richer developed nations to the poorer, less developed nations (ie. The 1T fund over 10 years as seed money). This will also be done on a local level to varying degrees of success based on the country. What I predict you’ll see is a sort of competition amongst those nations of who can be the be conservationists and the most charitable.
So, it begs the question :
Does your core charitable belief include a 10% reduction in your standard of living for a _______ increase in theirs ?

Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 11:22 am

Be sb “best” … ugh

Ian W
Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 11:56 am

The problem is that giving money to poor countries results in the leaders of those poor countries rapidly increasing their bank accounts (in Switzerland) and no change to the people in those countries. Even if the money did go to the real poor it would be in the “give a man a fish” way and not “teach him to fish” which is the longer term solution. The only people that believe in money transfers from one country to another are those bankers who will salami slice generous sums for themselves as they do the transfers. For example a significant percentage of UK’s foreign aid never leaves the country and goes into the coffers of City companies running the ‘Foreign Aid Programme’. Companies run by CEO’s that spend significant time lobbying politicians on the merits of foreign aid to the poor countries.

Reply to  Ian W
October 15, 2015 12:08 pm

And the lion’s share of people agree that is a problem. The easy counter to that is we’ll create a better foundation. Better managed, more accountable, more teach a man to fish oriented.
So let’s say, for the sake of argument, that man can actually do that well. And yes, it’s hard to believe, but there will always be someone trying it better because charity is a core heartstrings belief. Not to get too far into the hypothetical, but there are examples of particularly small outfits that do this well.
So back to my question ….
What percentage _____ % drop in your standard of living are you willing to sustain in order that the less fortunate can increase theirs ?
Btw, this is a significant belief that allows film flam artists the opportunity to get all kinds of malarkey through man’s BS filter.

William R
Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 9:22 pm

0%. Charity is not charity if it is forced…then it is theft.

Reply to  Knute
October 20, 2015 11:31 am

+1 William Money taken by force is never charity.
@Knute you mentioned above after my last comment that everyone has their pet causes they work for, that extends to me. I will sacrifice a small percent of my lifestyle for my pet cause, but this is not it. So the answer is no, I will not sacrifice some percentage of my lifestyle so that they can have a better life. If that makes me sound heartless then so be it.

Reply to  jgriggs3
October 20, 2015 1:26 pm

I’m not raising the concept as debate, but I am raising it as observation. CAGW has been allowed to fester as an untruth because it kind of sort of maybe placates the desire to give to the less fortunate. Perhaps the most common exasperated answer in conversation:
“Oh, come on now, these scientists could find a reason to argue about anything. At the end of the day, it’s good that the choices of the fortunate consider the impact on the less fortunate.”
Intellectual laziness meets false guilt.

October 15, 2015 10:27 am

Another breakthrough, “telling it like it is” article cribbed from the notes of the very first “agenda 21” meeting, what? some 40 years ago? Nobody suggested delivering a dish of austerity to Wall Street when they speculated and invented financial instruments that threatened the world financial system. No they rewarded them with payouts that resulted in financial rewards for the very people responsible for that disaster and dried up credit to do useful industrial things! Look forward to that in spades with Carbon Credits!!!

October 15, 2015 10:30 am

I agree , let’s go to war against these socialist elites pretending to be Greenies !!!!

Reply to  Marcus
October 15, 2015 11:03 am

We must DEFEND climate change !!!

October 15, 2015 10:39 am

“…defeat climate change.”
It just keeps getting weirder and weirder these days.

October 15, 2015 11:04 am

“…an accelerated return to high-density urban living…”
I envision a major Model Cities program, reminiscent of Detroit. These all become state supported Democratic power bases.

john robertson
October 15, 2015 11:26 am

An accelerated return to high-denisty urban living…
What and when?
Does the article explain this past utopia?
As we have noticed a dramatic population shift from the country to the cities, in the last 6 decades, how far back in time do we have to go to find this “life style” to which the authors would have us return?
Life; Short an brutal over for most at 35 years.
Socialist Heaven?

Mike Henderson
Reply to  john robertson
October 15, 2015 1:31 pm

My thoughts also.

Reply to  john robertson
October 15, 2015 1:46 pm

damn it John move into your container and shut up!

Gil Dewart
October 15, 2015 11:36 am

It is a kind of war — class warfare. The rulers against the rest of us.

Reply to  Gil Dewart
October 15, 2015 12:17 pm

Kinda sucks when your Gulfstream has to sit on the tarmack cause there’s no Jet-A around.

ferd berple
October 15, 2015 11:49 am

Look at history. As soon as any country stops growing its economy, the country starts to decline. There has never been a successful “steady state”, sustainable model.
Climate change is never going to go to war against the US. If it does, turn up the furnace in winter and the air-conditioner in summer. Problem solved.
Tell me, which would you rather have. Climate change or:comment image

Reply to  ferd berple
October 15, 2015 11:57 am

I didn’t get that. Saw the image.
Climate change submission or war ?
Are those the forced choices you envision ?

ferd berple
Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 12:20 pm

Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 15, 2015 12:38 pm

Ah, understand.
Real problems fester and approach while the world swings at a phantom.

David Cage
Reply to  Knute
October 16, 2015 12:47 am

…..I didn’t get that. Saw the image.
Climate change submission or war ?
Are those the forced choices you envision ?……
In a sense we have just that choice. Allow the UN to spend lavishly on climate change junkets for a few corporate cronies or spend the money on controlling clearly terrorist states like ISIL.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 17, 2015 3:46 pm

There may be a place and time to use that image.
This ain’t it.

ferd berple
October 15, 2015 12:03 pm

The Atlantic solution is illogical. What they are saying is that the best way to deal with climate change is to use less heating in the winter and less cooling in the summer.
Followed to its logical conclusion, the Atlantic is calling for people to stop heating their houses in winter and stop cooling their houses in summer. And of course turn off all electrical appliances and walk everywhere. In other words, the solution to Climate Change is Poverty.
Once you are poor, Climate Change wont bother you. You will be too busy try to get enough to eat and stay warm, there won’t be any time to worry about Climate Change.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 15, 2015 12:22 pm

“The Atlantic solution is illogical.”
I get the science battle. Science needs to assert it’s fundamentals of critical thinking skills. All for it. That’s the logical theatre.
The Atlantic is not appealing to logic. It is appealing to emotional heartstrings, namely conservation and charity.
In a cult, they often use psuedoscience, yet defeating the psuedoscience is often not the best way of defeating the cult. What works most often is having the cult follower “see” the life they could have (and the life for their offspring even more so) if they leave the cult behind.
So what is an alternative outlet for the core beliefs of conservation and charity ?

Doug Bunge
Reply to  ferd berple
October 16, 2015 10:03 am

“Once you are poor, Climate Change wont bother you. You will be too busy try to get enough to eat and stay warm, there won’t be any time to worry about Climate Change.”
Replace “Climate Change” with “consumerism” and I think that is the end goal of the left. Climate Change is just the tool they are using at the moment.

October 15, 2015 12:14 pm

The comments over at the Atlantic are effectively demolishing the article.
What seems to have happened is that the political/media classes have entirely failed to keep up with the science and economics of climate. Which gives us skeptics a huge advantage.

Reply to  Jay Currie
October 15, 2015 12:29 pm

To the believer, the science is a low impact factor in decision making. To the fencesitter, it is higher, but still not the deciding factor because both sides have “uncertainty”.
Try this commonly heard phrase
“I’m not sure if we are f____ up the planet, but I’m all for a using our resources without polluting our environment and I’m certainly for helping out my fellow man”
Cagwistas seize on that opening.
Skeptics don’t offer a better alternative.

David Cage
Reply to  Jay Currie
October 16, 2015 1:00 am

What seems to have happened is that the political/media classes have entirely failed to keep up with the science and economics of climate. Which gives us skeptics a huge advantage…..
No several social science studies have proved beyond question ( They can, and given half a chance, will show every tiny detail of the studies which do stand up to very close scrutiny unlike climate scientists and their global warming) that a well presented factually totally incorrect case beats even the best of logical cases. Even overt fiction dressed up as being the likely scenario helps indoctrinate the vast majority of people.

October 15, 2015 12:15 pm

Even if the West eliminates all emissions of CO2, global emissions would only be 5% less than 1990.

Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 15, 2015 8:58 pm

Yeah, well it’s a “symbolic” gesture.
Like symbolically setting fire to yourself in front of your ex-girlfriends house after being spurned.
A meaningless gesture that results in massive personal agony and achieves nothing beyond upsetting everyone involved, including the paramedics who are called to the scene.
But, we are “leading the way”.
Except that having clearly demonstrated how to rapidly destroy a once prosperous and powerful economy – it is hard to imagine who might wish to follow our example.

October 15, 2015 12:15 pm

So, if the population in sub-Saharan Africa continues to expand per UN projections, do we need to halve our standard of living for each doubling?

Reply to  probono
October 15, 2015 12:41 pm

England has to pay more.
They ruled the world far longer than most .

Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 3:38 pm

So raising everyone’s standard of living isn’t an option?

Reply to  probono
October 15, 2015 4:41 pm

That is the option.
While you are doing that you have to account for those that are lagging. Move them along a little faster.
The fraud artists get under the skin of doubt. They tell folks that people are suffering while they prosper. And while they prosper they are destroying the world. They hook their false guilt and turn the worm around … make them pay.
Very tawdry, but evidently easy to do.
If you show how badly this will affect the silent majority (aka middle class), self preservation kicks in. Self preservation usually wins over false guilt.

Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 6:27 pm

How about we give them a fishing pole instead of more fish?

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 15, 2015 6:46 pm

Sadly, it’s kind of sick and twisted that the business of helping the poor is a business. Yeah yeah, sure sure your a NPO, but you pay yourself, your organization and are not sleeping on reed mats.
Okay, that’s the sick part. There are, however some really well run lean mean no frills outfits that do some good stuff. They ascribe to the teach so they don’t need you mantra. Obviously, you can see there is little profit to this model.
The trick for the trickster is to associate himself with a little bit of the truth while they slide in their main agenda. It’s the con, the ruse. Been done a million times and will be done a million more.
This one is epic though.
Truly epic.

Reply to  probono
October 15, 2015 9:22 pm

It is important to grasp that the Sub-Saharan demographics have no relationship to their problems.
Nor does the constant conflict and civil strife. Or FGM or internecine conflict, cattle theft or military conscription. Or living a life of permanent fear and oppression.
Everybody in Africa is prevented from prospering due to the fact that global mean temperatures are approximately 0.8degC above 1850 levels. Although we have no idea how the 1850 global average temperature could be calculated to an accuracy of within 1 degree centigrade.
Consequently the Africans are fleeing to Europe where we are beset by storms and flooding induced by “extreme weather”, in order to escape from their imagined increased average hotness.
This entire thing is now a complete joke. Reality was abandoned some considerable time ago.
I wish that I could laugh. But some real people are really going to really suffer.
(Contains sarcasm)

October 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Are they advocating what happened to thousands of people in Britain that were forced to”sacrifice” their coal to stop CC?

Reply to  asybot
October 15, 2015 12:36 pm

Britain has been the “pilot project”, yet the press on the actual effects on the British people has been sparse.
This is ripe territory for a webpage like WUWT.
A series of articles and perhaps you tube doc of the common plight would make a dent.
It makes a dent because it challenges the boundaries of “to what end do I deny my own to help my fellow man”.

David, UK
October 15, 2015 12:57 pm

Americans will have to settle for a lower standard of living, regardless, when your colossal national debt comes home to roost. That debt won’t be going away, and the same goes for the UK. In the end, we’re all screwed.

Reply to  David, UK
October 15, 2015 1:05 pm

Fiat currencies go up and down in credibility since their inception. Perhaps the dollar has had its day. Perhaps the SDR of the IMF is next. Some suffer more than others and many prosper.
Which one will you be ?

Reply to  David, UK
October 17, 2015 2:00 am

That colossal debt is for our children and grandchildren. I’m sure they will appreciate it (not) as it will be soooo much better with an unchanged climate!
SteveT. do I need a sarc?

October 15, 2015 1:00 pm

we are contemplating the sorts of austerities associated with wartime economies.

So are choices appear to be:
1) Give government the power to force austerity on its citizens in a bid to reduce, however slightly, a future warming that may or may not occur and may or may not be harmful.
2) Ignore the alarmists, continue to encourage prosperity, adopt clean alternative energy sources when they become reliable and affordable, and plan to adapt to the negative aspects of climate change when and if they occur.
To me, option 2 is the only logical and responsible choice. The only reason to choose option 1 is if you despise liberty and actually want a big, all controlling government to tell everyone what to do and to plan every aspect of the economy. Such societies are always ‘austere’ for everyone but the elites who run things. Who would want that, except for those who believe they are the elites who will run government and tell everyone else what to do?

Reply to  Louis
October 15, 2015 2:02 pm

How about option 3 we get nuclear power actually running instead of knee capped by insane levels of regulation that are almost as nutso as “no more carbon dioxide”. If any one had been furiously injured in the last 75 years by nuclear power (since the actual bombs were dropped) we would be treated to unending photos and stories of those results. Nuclear power is the way to go ” the science is settled”

Reply to  fossilsage
October 15, 2015 2:12 pm

In some ways, the greenies are not unlike other groups. They have varying opinions on what type of power is good power. Nuclear was riding a crest for awhile until fukushima. It has yet to recover it’s place in the debate.
It doubly didn’t help that California (a major source of the new money behind greenies) got spooked by takes of residual radiation. I’m sure your not surprised about how chatter at parties moves insider opinions.

Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 3:30 pm

you mean meaningless spooking on residual radiation? When the residual doesn’t exceed background quit talking about it!

Reply to  fossilsage
October 15, 2015 4:34 pm

Two prongs too the spear. They aren’t going to hear your facts till you hear their unreasonable emotion.

Reply to  fossilsage
October 15, 2015 3:33 pm

If nuclear power is reliable, affordable, and clean, then of course we should adopt it. But we don’t need a third option for that because it is included in option 2. Hydropower should also be included as a clean, reliable, and affordable energy source, as well as Fusion should it becomes available.

more soylent green!
October 15, 2015 1:01 pm

We’ve had it too good for too long, haven’t we?* Why should we enjoy lives of privilege when the rest of the world doesn’t have it so well?** Suffering and hardship builds character. Good for us.***
* By ‘we,’ I mean you.
** Ibid
*** ‘Us’ — everybody but me and my cronies. I’ve got mine, you’ll never get yours. That’s good, makes you more willing to comply.

October 15, 2015 1:02 pm

‘They demand Americans accept a lower standard of living’
Any reason will do. For now, they are getting some use out of Global Warming. Once Global Warming has been put to rest, they will still demand Americans accept a lower standard of living.

Reply to  Gamecock
October 15, 2015 1:51 pm

Yes, and that seems to be the Pope’s message in his Encyclical as well:

23. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.
50. …a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.
71. …the gift of the earth with its fruits belongs to everyone. [Are fossil fuels not a fruit of the earth?]
122. A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle.
161. Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain.
164. A global consensus is essential for confronting the deeper problems…
173. Enforceable international agreements are urgently needed, since local authorities are not always capable of effective intervention.
193. We know how unsustainable is the behaviour of those who constantly consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity. That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.

Reply to  Louis
October 15, 2015 2:02 pm

The US will not only pay more, it will use CO2 regs internally to establish class action lawsuits based on disparate impact.
CO2 regs are a key lynchpin.

Joel Snider
October 15, 2015 1:19 pm

Well, at least we’ll PAY a lot more for less.

October 15, 2015 1:29 pm

I view the article in a “positive” light. It is actually a small movement in the direction of the greenies being “honest”. For far too long they have been trying to sell the fact that we need to cut out fossil fuels to save the planet and trying to make it appear that they only calling for a slight economic inconvenience of some carbon taxes that will end up re-shaping our fossil fuel consumption in time to save the planet. In this article, this little bit of extra “honesty” is showing that they are calling for much more than just an inconvenience; instead looking for us to move into wartime “austerity”. Unfortunately, what they have described only tells a small part of the adverse story. In order to meet the greenie targets, there will also have to be a move away from meat in our diets, massive expansion, thus public expenditure in public transit, and substantial social changes (e.g., visiting your grown children across the country for a weekend a couple times a year will be a thing of the past). Add to all this added expenditure, further expense of sending hundreds of $billions to developing countries. I think the best method of educate the masses who don’t really get fussed about climate change politics to take an interest AND stop the greenies in their tracks is to educate them about the fantasy world the greenies want us to move into (rather than the alarmist world they apparently think we will avoid). As mentioned – I only wish they had gone a lot further, and been a lot more honest about the fantasy world they want us to move to – I’d rather keep the society we currently have and adapt to whatever the sea level rises to.

Reply to  PJ
October 15, 2015 2:05 pm

“I think the best method of educate the masses who don’t really get fussed about climate change politics to take an interest AND stop the greenies in their tracks is to educate them about the fantasy world the greenies want us to move into (rather than the alarmist world they apparently think we will avoid)”
You don’t have to do much educating in the classic sense if you just show people how much this will cost them. What has this cost the average Brit ? …. they are the pilot project

October 15, 2015 2:03 pm

The Climate Crazies can spout off all they want. Guaranteed professional politicians will not be running on a platform of calculated pain and poverty. In opinion polls, even when respondents buy into the Climate Catastrophe scenarios, these same people reject artificially raising energy prices to “solve” the CO2 problem by wide margins, like 35-65% (that was the result in a NYTimes poll).
You’ll notice there was very little chatter among the Democratic candidates about climate, much to the deep chagrin of the activist types. Running on climate-based engineered poverty is suicide for electoral candidates.

Proud Skeptic
October 15, 2015 3:48 pm

My comment in The Atlantic comment section:
Yes, fighting climate change will be like preparing for war…but not like WWII or any of those other wars where we actually won. This will be like Viet Nam or Iraq…bad information, unclear objectives, constantly changing tactics, and rules of engagement that will make it impossible to win.
It is one thing to decide that the science behind climate change is sound. There are plenty of reasons to believe that. But to believe that the world will somehow organize itself and balance competing national interests AND ultimately solve the technological problems that will need to be solved is the worst kind of naivete.
It sounds like the old peace and love stuff we used to see on college campuses during the 60’s. Silly, starry eyed foolishness.

October 15, 2015 5:10 pm

“We AGW Skeptics shall go to the end of the AGW fraud. We shall fight in France come November 30th 2015, we shall fight over the false acidification propaganda of the seas and barely rising oceans, we shall fight the U.N and NGO’s with growing confidence and growing strength in the air and social media, we shall defend our island Earth, whatever the cost to the climate alarmists may be. We shall fight on the beaches of Al Gore and Obama’s seaside mansions, we shall fight on the landing grounds of Charles De Gaulle Airport, we shall fight in the bio-fuel fields and in the streets worldwide, we shall fight in the wind turbine scarred hills; we shall never surrender,… “

October 15, 2015 5:15 pm

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth and commented:
Climate change is camouflage for the unstoppable collapse of the Anglo-American banking system

Reply to  joekano76
October 15, 2015 6:37 pm

“Climate change is camouflage for the unstoppable collapse of the Anglo-American banking system.”
Global finance is so intertwined these days it’s no longer just “those people” who get hurt when the system collapses. All fiat systems do. Greed is the nature of the beast and the beast lies within us … some more than others.
I replied to your post because there is a connectedness between the selling of homes to people who cant afford them and the propping up of energy prices for again, people who can’t afford them. Failure of this ponzie type scheme takes time. We are nowhere near a true bubble in the energy bonanza, but we are at a low point in real commodity pricing.
The smart eggs are buying coal and other fossils as a hedge for the coming phantom energy bust.
The housing debacle is similar to how the energy debacle is structured. Bet you a steak dinner they’ll write a book about it someday.
The Age of the Ponzie ?

Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 10:41 pm
October 15, 2015 6:07 pm

This is a WWI deja vu; when US women were donating bobby pins to the war effort, and US corporations were supplying Hitler with war materials; aluminum, rubber, fuel, etc. The same corporations, the same families who are funding AGW-alarmism. Check Wayback or Nuremberg archives for Nuremberg Manufacturing and Pharmaceutical Tribunals, or read DOJ attorney and Nuremberg prosecutor John Loftus. Ford, Dupont, Standard Oil, and Wall Street bankers, including Prescott Bush, whose bank, UBC (Bush was a director) was seized for aiding the enemy. It’s probably a coincidence that his son, HW Bush, signed the UN environmental treaty at the Rio Conference in 1992.
The oxymoron described by Al Gore when challenged about his electricity use at one of his homes, equal to 12 Nashville households; that his electricity usage was irrelevant because he could buy carbon credits (from his own carbon credit trading corporation), is that the earth’s environment is out of the loop.

Physics Major
October 15, 2015 6:13 pm

Does anyone read The Atlantic?
And to Venkatesh Rao, the author of this screed, I say: go off and live for a year without using any fossil fuels or products derived from fossil fuels. Then come back and tell us how much fun you had. Hell, I’m not that cruel, a year is too much, make it three months.

Eugene WR Gallun
October 15, 2015 6:30 pm

Certainly Al Gore is not going to settle for less.
Eugene WR Gallun

Tom J
October 15, 2015 6:45 pm

I demand that the President of the United States accept a lower standard of aircraft. A 747 for one man!
I demand that the President’s wife, Michelle, accept a lower standard of vacation. No more Bahamas, Idaho, et al.
I demand John Kerry accept a lower standard (or at least a smaller number) of mansions.
I demand Al Gore, Harrison Ford, Oprah Winfrey, John Travolta, Leonardo DiCaprio et al accept a lower standard of travel rather than private jet (or being allowed to own any aircraft whatsoever). A commuter bus will do.
I demand all presidents, directors, lobbyists et al, for environmental NGOs accept a lower standard of (i.e. much smaller) paycheck. Such incomes contribute to overconsumption.
I demand that the Atlantic stop bloviating about common people accepting a lower standard of living while having the mind bending audacity to refer to a man, Bill Gates, who owns a 66,000 (yes, sixty six thousand) square foot mansion, and three Porsches. Words utterly fail me as to how any publication that claims (either overtly or covertly) even so much as a pretense to logic or decency can parrot the advocacy of such an incredibly consumptuous individual in such a disgusting, immoral scheme as to coerce material sacrifice from those who have so much less than him.

Reply to  Tom J
October 15, 2015 6:54 pm

I’m not condoning the behavoir but I can role play.
The silent majority (SM) harbors dreams for themselves or their children to “make it”, so they have a twisted sense of admiration for the guy who lives on the top of the hill.
Couple the silent and not so silent admiration with the following approach. When the rich pontificate, the SM give many a free pass because the rich show how much they give to charity, influence the world for the better and blow angels out of their orafice. The rich know this so they through great pains to present an image of caring and being in touch with the common man.
This is a particular button for me, so I’ll stop here.

Reply to  Knute
October 15, 2015 10:36 pm

Few at the top got there by being righteous, in fact, very much the opposite and many could easily compete for real “Godfathers”.

October 15, 2015 8:50 pm

Why does Dr. Evil have a United Nations logo on his jacket? Seriously? I suspected the UN might be evil, but now …

October 15, 2015 11:09 pm

Is this the same Gates that made billions out of Microsoft?
I would have thought he had more smarts than to fall for the global warming fanaticism.

Reply to  Soldier
October 16, 2015 6:25 am
Mr G is a major mover and shaker in CAGW. He was/is also one of the nuclear power advocates but got bodyslammed after fukushima. Mr G is a true believer that computing power is a big part of the solution.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Soldier
October 18, 2015 3:09 am

Well, he got there by accident.

David Cage
October 16, 2015 12:44 am

I would settle for the measures if those who advocate them had lived at that level for ten years to demonstrate the viability first. In the mean time perhaps they could start paying their fair share of taxation instead of using loopholes to get taxation on multi million pound incomes that are lower percentage tax rate than the bottom ten percent workers pay on average.

October 16, 2015 12:52 am

Alot of this has to do with capping the market where its at and closing the door to any new technology companies being able to compete with existing vested ones. They want their devils due back out of where it was placed.
Sonny Bono lifetime patent laws on everything that moves funny or different. What a great way to stifle things further and produce less real beneficial technologies.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 16, 2015 4:00 am

A war with an imaginary enemy. Where have I read about that before?

October 16, 2015 7:00 am

The article being spoken of here is “Why Solving Climate Change Will Be Like Mobilizing for War”. It is written by Venkatesh Rao (a writer based in Seattle and the founder of Ribbon Farm).
To say

The Atlantic wants people to view climate change as a wartime situation.

misrepresents the piece as the opinion of the editorial board of The Atlantic.
It is not.
The article contains the opinions of the author, Mr. Rao. His blog, Ribbon Farm, has a subtitle “Experiments in refactored perceptions” which he explains “is a geek joke. It refers to changing how you see the world by trying to rewire the software inside your head through writing.”
The phrasing like “The Atlantic wants people to view…” is often used in propagandistic reporting on both sides of all political and scientific wars — its purpose is to extend the statements of a single person to a larger group — as in “Climate Skeptics want you to believe CO2 is not a GHG.” when they are actually referring to a single blog comment from a single, anonymous commenter.
In order to maintain credibility, essay’s here have to be careful of this type of improper broad-brush attribution. Using propaganda techniques to fight perceived propaganda is a bad idea.

Beta Blocker
October 16, 2015 8:38 am

I posted the following commentary on the Atlantic Monthly concerning the Rao article, only to see it blocked by the Atlantic Monthly’s staff within a few minutes of the time it went up:

President Obama has proposed a series of aggressive carbon pollution reduction targets — 28% by 2025, 32% by 2030, and 80% by 2050.
However, the administration’s Clean Power Plan will achieve less than half of the goal targeted for the year 2025. The only practical way to reduce America’s carbon emissions to the extent needed to achieve the President’s emission reduction targets is to directly constrain the production and consumption of all carbon fuels and to artificially raise the price of all carbon fuels to levels which will make them uncompetitive in the energy marketplace.
By law, the EPA is the lead agency of government charged with determining what pollution reduction measures are appropriate for mitigating the dangers of a pollutant which has been identified through an EPA-published Endangerment Finding as a danger to human health and the environment. The EPA is also responsible for developing and implementing the regulatory framework needed to enforce the necessary pollution abatement actions.
Because the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon has been successfully defended in the courts, the Executive Branch and the EPA now have full and unquestioned legal authority to regulate carbon emissions to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act, and to do so without needing another word of new legislation from the US Congress to enforce strong anti-carbon measures.
But as it concerns the regulation of America’s carbon emissions, the Obama Administration is not using the EPA nearly to the extent the law not only allows, but also demands, now that an Endangerment Finding for carbon has been published and has been successfully defended in the courts.
The necessary steps towards aggressive decarbonization of America’s economy can be done through an integrated combination of two major anti-carbon measures administered by the EPA. The first measure would be to directly constrain emissions of carbon pollution through a specified series of state, regional, and national emission limits which are determined through the setting of an appropriate Ambient Air Quality Standard (AAQS) for carbon dioxide. The second measure would be to impose a corresponding framework of stiff carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated carbon tax.
As long as the EPA properly follows its existing and well-tested regulatory rule-making processes and procedures; and as long as the anti-carbon regulations are themselves fair and impartial in their application, then this two-prong regulatory attack on carbon emissions can be made bulletproof against the threat of lawsuits. And so there exists today a clear and unambiguous public policy pathway towards decarbonizing America’s economy, if the EPA were to be given instructions by the Obama Administration to use its full legal authority in pursuit of that goal.

It is clearly apparent the Atlantic Monthly’s staff does not want their readership to know that the EPA and the Obama Administration have not gone nearly as far as the Clean Air Act allows them to go in aggressively regulating America’s carbon emissions.
Whether one believes that CO2 is ‘a dangerous pollutant when present in excessive atmospheric concentrations’ on the one hand, or else it is ‘a substance vital for life on earth’ on the other, it serves the interests of both positions to know that the EPA does in fact have clear legal authority, whether for good or for ill depending on one’s opinions, to push GHG regulation much more aggressively than it is now doing.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
October 16, 2015 3:33 pm

“It is clearly apparent the Atlantic Monthly’s staff does not want their readership to know that the EPA and the Obama Administration have not gone nearly as far as the Clean Air Act allows them to go in aggressively regulating America’s carbon emissions.”
Nice try, maybe they didn’t like your font.
In all seriousness, you are actually getting very close to the Holy Grail of what “they” want. Please realize this effort goes back to the Clinton days, got stalled during the Kyoto bodyslam Bush administration and reinvented under the current administration.
The Democratic administration is very wedded to the class action lawsuit cottage industry. They wed nicely because class actions are normally made up of the voting demographic most likely to support the Dem. The CO2 victory sets up as you described NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards). If a county fails to meet those NAAQS they lose all kinds of federal funding. Non attainment zones also are honey holes for class action lawsuits. If you live in an area that doesn’t meet those NAAQS you can join a class action lawsuit to sue your county. Recently Supreme Court ruled that if you are a protected class you can sue if a condition creates adverse impact. (Disparate impact … wiki does good … I know your dying to know what a protected class is)
So you have two seemingly unrelated things that come together to increase the Dem power base.
The administration can provide the NAAQS regs. The county can fail them and the class actions can sue. This concept doesn’t end with counties. If you are an industry and fail to meet local CO2 attainment values and there is a community nearby that is exposed to non attainment CO2, they get to sue that industry too.
That is the grand prize.
If Hilary wins she’ll continue to roll with it.
If Trump wins he’ll very likely bodyslam it as well.
It’s kind of a big excuse me, tipping point.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Knute
October 17, 2015 7:06 am

if the EPA followed past practice once an Endangerment Finding for an atmospheric pollutant has been published, developing and justifying a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO2 would be the next major step in the regulatory rulemaking process for abating America’s carbon emissions.
But it has been five years since the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding was upheld by the US Supreme Court, and the EPA hasn’t published a NAAQS for CO2, nor has there been any indication the EPA is in the process of developing one.
If the environmental activist groups are as committed to reducing America’s GHG emissions as they claim to be, then they should be aggressively suing the EPA to force it to set a NAAQS for CO2 and then to develop and publish a regulatory framework for abating America’s GHG emissions which is consistent with the NAAQS that has been chosen — 350 ppm, 400 ppm, 450, ppm, 500 ppm, whatever the EPA decides the target concentration ought to be..
However, to my knowledge, none of the activist environmental groups has sued the EPA to set a NAAQS for carbon pollution, nor has anyone in the Progressive Left’s nationally prominent leadership demanded that the Obama Administration set a NAAQS.
The burning question here is this …. why hasn’t anyone with national political influence and who also claims to be greatly concerned about America’s carbon emissions put pressure on the Obama Administration to set a NAAQS for carbon?

Reply to  Beta Blocker
October 17, 2015 9:35 am

“The burning question here is this …. why hasn’t anyone with national political influence and who also claims to be greatly concerned about America’s carbon emissions put pressure on the Obama Administration to set a NAAQS for carbon?”
Because they know that a full frontal assault will reveal the prize they seek … massive class action lawsuits against “dirty” industries and noncompliant states/counties. Imagine the backlash that creates.
Okay here’s an example. It’s now common knowledge that the administration decided to have a war on the coal industry. They denied it until they were successful in doing so. Do you think the administration would have won reelection if they were upfront about that ?
Do you think whoever the Dem candidate is would fair well if she represented the party that is going to unleash this wave of lawsuits ?
Fear of backlash prevents them from full rollout, so they take little bites. They establish asthma and cancer claims. Set up satellites to measure CO2. Construct databases to identify disparate impact. Fund snazzy faux graphics. Enlist the pope. On and on.
WUWT has much of the history of the endangerment determination going back pre 2010. Perhaps an article describing the history will help pull it together for the unaware viewer.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Knute
October 17, 2015 10:46 am

Knute, just as a point of information concerning the topic of why the EPA has not set a NAAQS for CO2, I also posed the same question directly to Ventkatesh Rao by attempting to post a similar comment as the one shown above to his October 15th 2015 Ribbonfarm article concerning the Atlantic Monthly piece. That comment was blocked as well, just as one should have expected expected, I guess.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
October 17, 2015 3:21 pm

Yes, I read that in your first post. I figured if you had the presence of mind to do that you’d be open to the reasons why you were rejected by Atlantic.
Unfortunately, while there have some self sacrificng efforts to counter the plan, it hasn’t been able to compete with the slow and steady Dem gameplan. The key to their plan is that they have multiple tactics working at a time. They’ve also done a masterful job of creating additional protected classes.
The GOP is really the bigger disappointment here. They had the power to stop the ruse after the last midterms, but whimped out … pulled their punches. McCain and Romney both pulled punches during their run for the prez as well. They ain’t stooopid and knew what was up.
Besides attorneys are huge lobbyists for themselves.
And so you have the Dems marching onward. The GOP trying to figure out how to salvage some power and money out of the trend without being full sellouts. Scientists (good ones) ostracized. Scientists (poor ones) selling out for funding.
Most people I’ve spoken to in real life are conflicted and they certainly aren’t willing to get crushed by the runaway train.
Even if it gets cold or we need to start burning more fossils, I don’t see the “institutionalized infrastructure” on carbon liability going away anytime soon.

October 16, 2015 11:50 am

The claim that the United States, or even all the rich countries can save the planet is a fallacy. In 2010 the USA had 12% of global emissions. If those emissions remain unchanged, then that share will fall to less than 10% by 2030 due to emissions growth in developing countries.
Adding in more rich countries to the emissions reductions will not make much difference. Seven large developing nations* will are forecast to increase their emissions between 2010 and 2030 by more than the entire 13Gt emissions from Australia, Canada, EU, Japan and USA combined.
*China, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Turkey, Mexico and Vietnam.

October 16, 2015 12:22 pm

To compare climate change to war is insane. It so happens that the claim that carbon dioxide is warming up the world is totally wrong. That can be easily proved by the Feynman test. Richard Feynman told us that no matter how beautiful a theory is, if its predictions do not agree with observations it is wrong. And the predictions of the greenhouse theory of global warming simply do not agree with observations. It is not a secret that we are now living through a pause (or hiatus) of warming. It has been going on for the last 18 years now, During this period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing as proven by the Keeling curve, compiled by the Mauna Loa laboratory in Hawaii. At the same time, however, there was no increase of global; air temperature, hence the “pause” designation. Problem with that is that this does not agree with the predictions of the Arrhenius greenhouse theory. That is the theory that IPCC uses to predict our climate, and it has been predicting warming for all these 18 years. This invalidates Arrhenius: it does not meet the Feynman test. The correct greenhouse theory to use is MGT (Miskolczi greenhouse theory), They have known it since 2007 but refused to use it because they did not like its predictions. It predicts what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to air does not cause warming. And that settles it. There is no global warming and manufacturing a “wartime emergency” to fight a non-existent warming is total insanity. Billions have been wasted on that fool’s errand and the flow of that money must be stopped. They get it by putting their hand in my pocket.
P,S. I posted this on the Atlantic website too

Steve Jones
Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
October 16, 2015 12:31 pm

[Snip. Sockpuppetry. ~mod.]

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Steve Jones
October 16, 2015 3:21 pm

What did he predict the temperature rise would be from 1896 to 2015?
From your own link: “… In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors. His work is currently seen less as an accurate prediction of global warming than as the first demonstration that it should be taken as a serious possibility…”
You seem to have very low standards for equating predictions with observations.

October 17, 2015 9:49 am

We’ll have to settle for less to defeat climate change? BS. One of the goals of climate change is to force us to use less so that there’s more for the rest.

October 18, 2015 2:13 am

“They demand Americans accept a lower standard of living, to defeat Global Warming.”
Well they certainly have the right President to achieve that goal.
I am sure the 94 million Americans out of work are not consuming much.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights