The Conversation: Private Home Ownership May Not Be Viable Because Climate

 A memorial of the town of Hampstead, New Hampshire. Historic and genealogic sketches

A memorial of the town of Hampstead, New Hampshire. Historic and genealogic sketches. By Internet Archive Book Images [No restrictions], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Western Sydney University Researcher Louise Crabtree, writing for The Conversation, thinks in a world torn by climate disasters ownership of private property may have to be sacrificed, to be replaced by a system of housing cooperatives or a roaming right to reside.

Can property survive the great climate transition?

Property is under threat, physically and conceptually, from climate change.

July 13, 2017 6.06am AEST

Author
Louise Crabtree
Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

As we become an increasingly urban species, urban resilience is emerging as a big deal. The idea is generating a lot of noise about how to develop or retrofit cities that can deal with the many challenges before us, or consume less energy in the transition to post-carbon economies.

If our cities are to become more resilient and sustainable, our systems of property need to come along for the ride.

Models that allow for change

These are live questions. There are no easy answers, but there are places where we might start.

Models such as rolling easements offer one way to handle property that is in flux. Rolling easements are a form of property that recognises that the coast is a dynamic landscape and allows for the coastline of wetlands to migrate inland as sea levels rise.

These sound promising in their capacity to balance private and public interests in property, but their potential has not yet been tested in areas of urban development, such as housing.

Echoing the potential mobility and flexibility of rolling easements are diverse housing tenures that can dislocate the right to reside in place from exclusionary, proprietary title to an individual, speculative housing “asset”.

Examples include housing co-operatives and community land trusts. So far, these have proven effective in delivering a range of affordable and flexible housing options, but still ultimately rely on an understanding that property is static.

We might also need to start thinking about our claims not being static but dependent on the web of relationships we are entwined in, including with non-humans. Some say that First Peoples might have a grasp of property dynamics that is more suited to the times we are entering.

Read more: http://theconversation.com/can-property-survive-the-great-climate-transition-80672

I would have thought the current system of paying more insurance if you want to live somewhere desirable but vulnerable, like low lying beachfront property, works pretty well. But apparently this solution is not good enough. People who believe they own their own house can’t easily be relocated if some rare species of slime mould is discovered lurking in their back garden.

If you assume the author is an inconsequential fringe academic, think again. According to her university bibliography, in 2009, the author of the article Louise Crabtree received the following recognition from then Federal Minister for Housing Tanya Pilbersek.

… Louise’s work on resilience and governance in community housing was the basis for her receipt of the inaugural Housing Minister’s Award for Early Career Researchers in 2009; in announcing the award, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek described the work as ‘crucial’.

Read more: https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/ics/people/researchers/louise_crabtree

Louise’s reference to the wisdom of the first peoples being “more suited” to surviving the future is also worth a read. The following quote from that referenced Guardian article caught my eye.

The western idea of private property is flawed. Indigenous peoples have it right

Our capitalist property regime and economic system have succeeded at producing remarkable surplus. But the benefits of this system too often flow to a small fraction of the population, while land, water, air and people pay the long-term price.

Prior generations responded to similar crises by turning to communism. But today, Marx, Lenin and Mao no longer offer a scythe sharp enough to fell the stalks of capitalism.

Another, more cutting-edge possibility is to heed the diverse indigenous voices displaced and drowned out by imperialism. From Standing Rock to Queensland, colonized and indigenous people are demanding new relationships to water that sustains the life and land which provides for the people.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/27/western-idea-private-property-flawed-indigenous-peoples-have-it-right

Advertisements

197 thoughts on “The Conversation: Private Home Ownership May Not Be Viable Because Climate

      • Warmunism is what they came up with when the Soviet Union collapsed. They are watermellons. Never forget that they are red on the inside.

      • This is straight out of Agenda 21. It’s their goal to force everyone out of small communities and then squeeze them into crowded communist-style blocks. It literally spells this out and how they are going to go about doing it, climastrology is the catalyst.

      • One of the biggest lobbies in the US–the Real Estate Marketplace including the Home Builders might have something to say about this—if it is ever postulated as a societal option.

    • This is simply an example of green marxism inventing a problem to which the required solution is the socio-economic ‘solution’ that they want to see.

      • Exactly. And if I may add, I notice a significant change in the educational curriculum and the political inclination of high school and university professors in USA and Europe. One reason why Latinamerica has an overall lousy society (poverty, corruption, and crime) is the teaching of communism in their educational systems. Many of those nations apply a flawed form of capitalism, but the “solution” seems to be hyper corrupt tyrannical socialism. This is why Lula da Silva is going to jail, Venezuela allowed itself to be invaded by communist Cubans, and Colombia may fall in the hands of narco communists.

      • @ Fernando L: As a longtime resident of Colombia I can testify that, to be polite, your assessment of Colombia is pure BS.

      • . . . and if you don’t agree with their solution, then you will “re-educated” until you do. Further resistance will end with a bullet to the back of your head. It doesn’t matter if it’s green marxism, red marxism, or socialism, the only difference between them is the time taken to put the bullet in your head.

      • Greg,
        Colombia is teetering on the edge (once again) of enabling FARC to continue its violent Cuban/Venezuelan/Narco fueled assault. You may be living there but you are not seeing the forest for the trees in front of your face.

    • Seriously, make her live in a flapping tent with holes in the fabric for about 3 months. Winter or summer, no bathroom, no access to clean water, store-bought food, any modern conveniences. She can bail out someone’s basement and fill sandbags during flooding, like the nasty floods we have in my area right now from a massive serious of training thunderstorms, one right after another.
      The people who propose these things should be the first to live that way. I can just picture this cow in a muddy, miserable tent city like that of the War Bond veterans (USA) in the 1920s, asking for what they were promised by the US Government after WWI.
      What a marooone!

      • You realize, of course, that when she visualizes Our Glorious Communitarian Future, she always sees herself as one of the Commissars appointed to oversee the masses of proles who need Discipline from a Stern Hand. In order to Save the World, of course.

      • Let’s see what she thinks when she contracts some godawful disease and tries the local witch doctor’s remedies for something that’s going to kill her. These people have never experienced any real hardship and have no understanding where we came from.

      • You realize, of course, that when she visualizes Our Glorious Communitarian Future, she always sees herself as one of the Commissars appointed to oversee the masses of proles who need Discipline from a Stern Hand. In order to Save the World, of course.

        She should consider what happened to Trotsky and anyone else who falls out of favor with communists.

    • Why wouldn’t that be lovely? Everyone lives in a rolling series of homeless shelters, and carries one’s personal property on one’s back (or probably, it’s confined to an Iphone). Yep, that’s just the future I’m looking forward to . . .

    • Sydney. A banksters paradise. Money is created, constantly. From nothing. When more is required squeeze in some more immigrants or when they run out refugees.

      Unfortunately, this is a ponzi scheme. There are losers. The less well off or those that do not want to work too hard can no longer afford to buy a home.

      In the end the whole bankster fraud will blow up. So hang in there you would be watermelons. Save some cash. The prices will suddenly drop. At that point cash is king. Be patient.

    • She belongs to a long list of radicals who infest the loony left but her ideas and grand desires all too often become the rule of the land. She would be comfortable in Stalin’s, Chairman Moe’s, Poll pots and 100’s of other evil elitist regimes who have risen to to top of the socialist dictator refuse pile, destroying country’s, caused unending suffering and misery. Many of these inhabit the likes of the UN with it’s Agenda 21!

    • This has been tried in Cambodia by the Pol Pot regieme, and look at what happened there with an estimated one to three million dead out of a population of eight millions, about 25%. And this happened in only four years of Pol Pot’s premiership.

    • That could be literally true. Their love of theory leaves them disconnected from reality in a way that mimics schizophrenia. link

      • The defining characteristic seems to be their inability to be wrong about anything.
        They picked up a thought from somewhere and now it’s their thought and must be defended.
        One can try to get them to actually examine that thought, but only at personal risk.

      • You’ve got the essential necrotic factor commieBob: critical theory. The humanities academy has been completely conquered and corrupted by it.

        The method is, invent an internally coherent set of axioms that suits your most cherished cultural prejudices, e.g., Critical Race Theory. Dignify it as “theory.”

        Collect selected data on your targets and foes. Tendentiously interpret the data to confirm your most damning extrapolations. Publish. Repeat.

        It’s not even pseudo-scholarship. It’s plain character assassination.

        The best examination of this corrupted practice by far was Paul Gross’ and Norman Levitt’s “Higher Superstition: the academic left and its quarrel with science.

      • By the way, consensus climatology has abandoned science in favor of critical theory. Assume demonized CO2 and elaborate all the negative consequences.

        The assumption is never abandoned or disproved. Every study is confirmatory.

        Climatology has become “AGW Studies,” composed to be categorized with Departments of Sociology, Louise Crabtree’s “Human Geography,” or Gender Studies.

        Places where flabby thinking and fake scholarship have found a home.

    • She seems about average for an Australian academic. Her colleagues, self-described as historians, writing on Australia and the Great War are no less imaginative—and false.

    • We also need a shove, or better, a number of large backhoes to dig out the roots of communism, communitarianism, and totalitarian ideals.

  1. That’s for the little people of course, no? Surely that would not apply to jetset movie stars and UN bureaucrats flying around the world selflessly preaching climate action.

  2. Once you realize that environmentalism is mostly just an excuse to feed the left’s totalitarian impulses to control other people’s lives, what seems to be gibberish starts making sense.

  3. Neomarxism showing ITS true face in policy basen climate “science” and “solutions”?

  4. What is new?

    Believe me the United Nations are leading the way with their “sustainability” and “Agenda 21 – 2030” programs.

    Check out this website!
    http://green-agenda.com/index.html
    Check out the Agenda 21 and “sustainable” links and much more.

    Socialism and population control policies are well under way.

    Check out this document from one of the UN’s many “initiatives”
    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/unitednations-conference-on-human-settlements_habitat1.pdf
    Check Page 8. The high lights are mine.

    Even my city is promoting “stack and pack” with their “sustainable earthquake recovery plan”
    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/christchurch-central-recovery-plan1.pdf

    Search for the word “density”.

    Dont be fooled by their “medium density” housing, what they really mean are modest stack and packs, not private homes. Modest because high rises are banned because of the earthquake risk.

    Here is their interpretation of agenda 21 for the gullible.

    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sustainabilitypolicy-docs.pdf

    Think Global warming foolishess is on the decline? Well maybe, but we have another wolf getting ready to take over.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  5. Just another way to use “global warming” to sneak communism in the back door.

    And it is “global warming” that they mean, because they’re always trying for the “hottest evvaar” day, week, month, year – not the coldest, regardless of what weather they’re blaming on CAGW, be it rain, hail, snow, flood, cyclone, drought. If it’s weather and a tad uncomfortable outside of their air-conditioned academic castle, then it has to be “extreme” weather and therefore the fault of the dreaded “global warming” and that awful “carbon”.

    Just because a large portion of the population have decided they don’t feel like working for their living, they feel entitled to try and take what others have worked hard for. They’re in for a rude shock.

      • Living sustainably includes the stupid idea that future people can have the same resources as we have now. That is simply wrong and sustainability as they define it is wrong.

        You can protect the environment, the plants and animals, and the people by being careful and thoughtful, but “sustainable” means freezing things the way they are. The UN includes the suppression of technological advancements as part of sustainability. They even say modern pharmaceuticals, all agriculture, transportation, and indoor plumbing are unsustainable. Awesomely stupid, anti-human, and evil, but those are their goals.

        The Indigenous People idea is interesting if they would be honest about it. Many American Indians were farmers and lived in essentially permanent settlements until we stole their lands and forced them into becoming migrants. The Incans and Aztecs built large cities and developed the land.

        The idea of ingenious people living off the the land as homeless, “green,” migratory groups or individuals has the subtext of there being very, very few people.

        Kim said, “There’s nothing wrong with conserving and trying to live sustainably. But the goal should be to live sustainably at the maximum possible standard of living.”

        Do not forget that the UN thinks that North Koreans are living the good life, using hoe and rake to scratch out survival. They want equal subsistence poverty for all. That means, no machinery (all hand tools and they would be communally owned), no livestock (we are all vegan by force and perforce malnourished and weak), and no guns (banned from hunting completely and also unable to self-defend). With the sequestered human settlements that they plan, each small settlement would be cut off from the others and completely dependent on the Capitol for key supplies. Rebel and they cut off everything, Think Hunger Games—each District was specialized such that no one district could survive on its own—rebellion was easily put down by simply cutting off supplies and then there were the mandatory mass killings to make the point of the Capitol’s power.

        KTM said, “They either need to let other smarter people devise how to improve our standards of living across the globe while we achieve sustainability, or they simply need to step aside and allow capitalism to bring the world out of poverty while we continue thinking how to make things more sustainable.”

        You have to stop using the word “sustainability.” It was adopted by the UN as a goal because it cannot be defined. Yes, even they cannot define it, such that it can be whatever they want it to be at the time. As we do not know the developments of the future it is impossible to make cogent, logical decisions based on “sustainability.”

        The fact is that the environment gets cleaned up and future mistakes avoided as countries become wealthy and their standard of living rises. People then have the time, the resources, and the interest to clean up their land. The interest is there in all countries, but when you are simply trying to survive, the environment is low on your priority list.

        Unfortunately, the UN’s goal is to bleed the Developed countries, de-industrialize the Western world, and send huge amounts of wealth to Undeveloped countries to keep them from ever developing. There is absolutely no reason for a government to clean up its country when its needs are being satisfied for free by the UN. There is no need to worry about the health and education and productivity of the people until the funds are cut off and the government is forced depend on taxes from its people. With foreign aid, a weak and uneducated people are unlikely to be able to revolt effectively. Foreign aid is an evil thing and should be cancelled in toto. Funds for disasters, sure, but nothing regular in any way.

    • There’s nothing wrong with conserving and trying to live sustainably. But the goal should be to live sustainably at the maximum possible standard of living.

      The so called academics who think the only way to live sustainably is to regress to an aboriginal standard of living aren’t very smart, and they are very closed minded. If they are allowed to have their way, regressive living will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

      They either need to let other smarter people devise how to improve our standards of living across the globe while we achieve sustainability, or they simply need to step aside and allow capitalism to bring the world out of poverty while we continue thinking how to make things more sustainable.

      People improve the world, more people improve the world more. How egotistical do these people have to be to think they alone make a meaningful contribution to the world while the masses are all dead weight?

      • Good points Ktm. Notice that tyrants, especially the socialist kind (Socialist, Communists, Fascists are all of the same kind, always led by tyrants only the names are different) always want to reduce population but are never ready to lead by example. They want to outlaw private property, but the tyrants and their sycophants always live in huge mansions or palaces with first class security systems, while the common people (poor people under socialists) live in danger and hardship. Tyrants always to take away peoples guns but arm their lackeys and security people to the teeth.
        Sounds like there is way too much contract and grant money floating around for worthless and hateful ideas. I think these grants and contracts to universities cut be cut by 60-80% and produce a lot better real science and engineering.

      • If they feel so strongly about their beliefs, then they should band together in one area/region of Australia with those who are willing to follow their dictates. Leave the rest of the people to live life on their own terms, and in freedom.

        Here in the US, the states should revert back to a strong states rights system. Then those of like mind can decide their future according to their own precepts. For me that would mean moving out of California more than likely, given the number of liberals who control the state. .Although, I could hold out hope that Northern California would be allowed to break away as a separate state.

      • There is nothing wrong with living “sustainably” so long as it’s voluntary.
        When you seek the right to force others to live by your standards, you are entering the realm of totalitarianism.

      • Those theoretical-minded leftists should spend a year living “aboriginal” style in, let’s say, The Congo and then come back and report about how “sustainable” and pastoral and desirable that-all is. Cooking on a dung fire with dysentery eating your guts is SOOOOO “green,” y’know.

  6. … in a world torn by climate disasters …

    If the spinning Earth suddenly changed tilt by 3° we can expect climate shifts that some will call disastrous. She must be speaking about weather.

    Like atoms, these folks make up everything.

  7. Let us all live in dormatories or barraks. wear uniforms, and do what we are told and let government look our for us. Has not that worked out best in the past?

  8. Typical waste of space academic who is probably waking up to the fact that academia is fun if you’re lazy and don’t really want to work for a living but doesn’t pay much especially if you continue to seek grants of other peoples’ money and they don’t give it. . Wants to have “rolling property rights” presumably so she can move into someone else’s place without paying for it. where I live that is called theft.

    • One reason why so many academics gravitate towards socialism is that they view capitalism as being defective. How do they know it’s defective? Because they aren’t being paid what they are convinced they are worth.

      They’ve spent years honing their academic chops, but some guy who never even went to college works his way up from the cash register to regional manager, and is now earning more than the academic.
      In their minds, that is wrong and any system that would allow such a travesty is by definition broken and must be replaced.

  9. These are the people who run our lives, incapable of learning from history… The violence of Stalin and Mao isn’t enough for her, she wants a better “Scythe” to cut down the Capitalists….. These people are completely mad. But they control our politics, universities and media…. Now I’m really depressed.

    • Oh, don’t be depressed, JH. These nitwits need to be exposed to the light of day for what they really are: lazy, self-centered jerks who think they’re ten evolutionary steps above us while we’re down here, just rolling around in the mud. They forget that we can use the mud to build nice, cozy brick houses with doors that can be locked to keep them out in cold weather.
      The more they rattle on, the more ridiculous they look to realists. I’d guess they don’t know where their food comes from. Oh! That’s right! It comes from the store.

      • Where exactly in the world beyond this website are people regularly hearing the counter arguments to this Socialist anti-human drivel?
        Socialism/ Communism is just like AGW. It is based on a theoretical model that has no relationship to reality. The pull of it’s message is so strong for the weak minded Utopians that they disregard ALL the evidence!
        Socialism/ Communism has been tried in many places. It has failed in every single case! It makes no allowance for the differing wants and needs of different people, nor the good that comes from human desire to better their lot!
        AGW is tried repeatedly in models. It fails in every single case! It makes no allowance for negative feedbacks that negate any warming from CO2. It ignores the known benefits of cheap energy and the known benefits of global warming ( that isn’t occurring beyond natural variation, anyway).
        The reality of these hypothesized systems is that they can only be maintained by coercion. As people react with anger and disappointment and refuse to comply with the resultant enforced poverty, more oppressive and finally violent enforcement is required. Along the way, Democracy is sacrificed for the false ideals of a ruling clique.
        Human society cannot move forward with politicians leading the way by force. The elites are marching us off a cliff!

    • J.H.,
      They don’t run my life. Don’t let them run yours.
      “It riles them to believe
      That you perceive
      The web they weave
      And keep on thinking free.”
      Moody Blues.

  10. But that indigenous nomadic lifestyle would play Larry Dooley with getting to work in Academia. And roaming recharge points for the computer.

  11. Hey, let’s all go and live in caves, or yurts. We’ll have to get state permission to pitch the yurt, of course, giving full consideration to local indigenous peoples/animals/insects/fungi. Sounds like a winner. .

    • I’m all for the idea. I’ll follow Louise Crabtree and Tanya Plibeserk just as soon as they renounce their possessions and move into the cave.

      Not holding my breath.

  12. In Russia, such form of housing is called “kommunalka”, where several individuals share a flat, usually one kitchen and one toilet only, if any. Thanks, Louise, but NO, thanks.

  13. If we built most new houses with wood then it would sequester vast amounts of CO2, I heard if they did it in the UK alone it would store 3.8 million tonnes annually.

  14. Global warming: unfalsifiable and applicable to justify every totalitarian fantasy.

    And recognition from Tanya Pilbersek. Any rational person would consider that damnation.

    • yeah;-) damned with faint praise indeed!
      as to their claims of the first nations/etc doing ok?
      err yeah?
      per capita spend BY whitey to supply the happy natives who insist on living outback BUT want as many modcons as urban folks..is far far above sanity!
      single non native person needs a hand..go find a charity and they dont tend to do much unless kids are involved r housing or oher help
      if you happen to be an illegal with kids or dark complected?
      they can suddenly find emergency or rentals or even hotels and all the furniture etc handed over.
      white privelege?
      ive yet to see that.

      and as for roaming accomodations etc
      just who???is going to pay the rates and keep maintenance up?

    • She is actually nice in person. Her politics and views on certain subjects is questionable however.

      • Patrick, politicians are all nice in person to those who do not know them. Same as confidence tricksters. It is only when you get to know them that the nauseating stench becomes apparrent.

  15. With or without the climate scare, they were always going to lay this on. By “they” I mean the intellectual descendants of the potty theorists and control freaks who buggered the last century. Now they have a new century to wreck with their globalist goo.

    The Conversation, independently funded by slavishly tax-funded intermediaries, is an ideal echo chamber for their one way conversations. Not a single concurring grunt, bleat or moo from the Great Herd of Independent Minds will be lost.

    • One way conversations is a perfect description of what takes place there. I held out for several months before I left in disgust. The only good that came of the time spent there was that I was so peeved when I left that it sparked my thoughts, which led to a bit of inspiration regarding climate interactions. It was shortly after that when I pieced together enough of the puzzle to make my first prediction regarding the winter of 2016/17 having a strong probability for bringing heavy rains and flooding to the Pacific Northwest and California. That was in early March of 2014. I made several comments using Disqus, and more than likely I made comments here at WUWT, but WordPress does not allow me to look back through my comments.

      • @ Michael Palmer…thanks, but what a lousy system. I could spend weeks trying to find the related comment. Disqus let’s a person scroll back through all of their comments. I wish that WordPress did similar.

  16. Communism rears its head, only recently Corbyn talked of seizing private property in the UK

    • This isn’t going to be much of a civil war when the other side won’t look up from their stupid “smart” phones!

  17. And climate obsessed extremists project that skeptics are motivated by their political views. The climate social mania, with its spreading corruption of every aspect of society, combined with its high infection rate of the allegedly “best and brightest”, is one if the biggest risks to the progress of humanity in quite a while.

    • and theyve been IN our schools from the unis for 20yrs unchecked and gaining control
      going to be damned hard to remove the infestation

  18. Typical conceited, western intellectual fantasist.

    Does this idiot imagine the Chinese and Russians will give up their newly found capitalist derived freedom just to revert to her communist idyll? Not to mention India which is only now emerging from generations of poverty.

    And with sea levels rising at around 2mm a year (global average, I believe) just how fast does this clown believe the land will be swamped by the sea, 1 year, 10 years, 100 years?…….Nah! Nearer 10,000 years, assuming something doesn’t happen in the interim, like another ice age or a meteor strike.

    All these morons are resisting the very movement that brings prosperity; physical, social and intellectual change. Without it, the world, and humanity stagnates. Far from resisting climate change, we should be embracing it because it offers new opportunities.

    And whilst they continue on their insane campaigns they utterly ignore the fact that the only meaningful manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14% over the last 30 years. Nothing like that has ever happened in our lifetimes.

    And whilst the planets temperature gradually equalises, in my (over simplistic) belief, extreme weather events will continue to decline as there is a reduced violent reaction between cold and warm weather fronts, which contribute to weather events, because the cold air will be warmer.

    The coming 100 years or so may well be the calm before the storm, so it’s high time these people started investigating how to maximise the opportunities available instead of running around with their hair on fire.

      • “Except it isn’t warming!!!”

        The answer to every one of these doom and gloom predictions/solutions concerning an extreme present/future world.

        It’s not warming. There is no evidence the climate is doing anything unusual. There is no problem to solve concerning the Earth’s climate.

  19. No need to force anyone against their will. Western Sydney University researchers can test their community paradise small-scale with a likeminded group first. Renouncing their monetary possessions, privileges and privacy is the first step and their second nature, right?

  20. The putrid stench of the Ministry of We Know Best for Your Own Good remains as vile at ever. The faux intellectuals ideologues over at The Conversation in their echoing microverse are hard at this stuff, all the time. They’re UN anointed clones. The tedious, sanctimonious ‘output’ is expected of them.

  21. The generation that grew up watching start trek next generation, they are confused, no one told them it’s just a TV show

    • In Aus they have grown up watching the Mad Max films, which have many of the elements she predicts: mobile populations, wheeled homes, ….

      • Just about any “zombie apocalypse” setting is a socialist wet dream. Modern capitalist society goes belly up, 95% of the population become undead cannibals, the survivors band together in communal enclaves, the best-and-brightest become the new lords of the manor, the commoners’ rights and needs take an eternal backseat to The Greater Good (not getting et by zombies).

  22. If these lunatic socialists ever got their way, the first thing they would do is purge all of the non conformists.

    That’s the bit about the socialist utopia they never mention. It might even lead to mass murder. Socialism has form for this

  23. Watermelon is an appropriate insult for the hard greens. She is apparently of the New Urbanism sect of Marxists, very much into urban “planning”. Most people regard that sort of lifestyle to be like the scene setting first chapter of “1984”, very much a dystopia. A situation like New York City in the early 1900’s is just what most people escaped when they had a chance.
    What I think is particularly repulsive about anyone advocating either an aristocracy or the very similar Leninist elite is that they always place themselves in the ruling class.

  24. When climate change converges to socialism, it is far more about how to impose ideology than it is about how hot it gets in the summer.

  25. CTM, not sure why but my ISP seems to be stuck trying to load sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov from all your pages ? Should I block it ? Tanx in advance…

  26. Some say that First Peoples might have a grasp of property dynamics that is more suited to the times we are entering.

    So Dr Crabtree, do you say so? Why didn’t you say that right away?

    Some say we are reaching a tipping point, after which the rules we have constructed will no longer apply or be of use.

    {{According to who?}} Again, do you say we are reaching a tipping point? If you do, why don’t you just say it, if you don’t, why don’t you say it? If you don’t know, why don’t you say that you don’t have idea?

    This kind of “some say” has a taste of untruth. As if the author writes something she does not really believe in, of believes in, but does not have the courage to say so, lacking evidence. Either way, this is crap. FUD, as some say.

    • She doesn’t have the guts to say the stupid things she believes so she hides behind B.S. lines like that. This thought string and it’s musing are complete trash! The ramblings of an undisciplined and confused mind, lost in emotion.

  27. California should lead the way, by opening all beach-side property with a new ownership and sharing model that creates just access to water. All previously private beaches should become open camps, with indigenous peoples and refuges given first priority. The first beachhead should be Malibu, using eminent domain and marshal law as required. Water to the people!

  28. Been there, done that. Stalin and Mao Tse Tung couldn’t make it work. Human beings are individuals, not compliant pieces in a collectivist jigsaw.

      • Yeah! Self regulating! The more people they kill, the greater the surplus of food, but then the fewer agricultural workers you have, and so on, and so on until the only people left to work are the elites- and then they turn on each other cause they ain’t doing that!

  29. She seems to use a lot of words to mean not a lot, as for First people having the right model OK if you don’t want a very high standard of living, long life, good health and many more benefits that come with a more fixed style of living.
    We are still waiting for all the promised climate disasters to turn up in greater numbers but I think I might be long gone before they do, if then!

    James Bull

  30. As I write this we are getting severe snow in both the South and the lower North Island of New Zealand .25 years ago some woman came to New Zealand from the UN and stated that our children would never see snow again except on the mountain tops .Then we have the news that a very large chunk of ice shelf has cracked off in the Weddel Sea in Antarctica and a university woman scientist tried to make the case for global warming and the ice was melting .This Ice shelf is mostly north of the Antarctic circle at about the same latitude as Iceland .As for this Crabtree woman if she thinks that the aborigines have the right life style she should join them for a year or two living on grubs and lizards and sheltering under a bark hut .We have the same nuts here in the universities making up absolute drivel and it can only get worse when we legalize marijuana .
    Bring on global warming its freezing here.

    • I suspect the lifestyle of the aborigines is more like regular white poverty with the monthly welfare check sitting in for the grubs and lizards. Even the aborigines don’t want to live like she thunks aborigines do!

  31. Ooooh! Official nomadism?!? Government-sponsored, of course! Is someone going to move my Steinway for me? Not leaving that behind, not my books, either.
    What’s next? Lysenkoism? I did my best the other day to squash the nonsense about genetics by an ignoramus who wanted to toss Mendelian genetics out the window and didn’t understand the difference between hybridizing and GMOs, and believed that grafting produces a new plant species.
    I’m convinced more and more that these academics are completely disconnected from reality.
    Here, hold my marshmallows, willya? I have to go stir the pot some more. Keep the campfires burning. This may take a while!

    • “Official nomadism”

      The perfect way to put it. You boiled this article’s argument down to two words.

  32. I suspect she can’t afford to buy in her preferred Sydney suburb & would rather just nationalize other peoples homes to suit her sense of privilege.

  33. She has Ivory Tower’s Disease (ITD). Nothing but a pin-head who lives in a fantasy world of humanity-hating, gaia-worshipping neo-marxism.

  34. Silly me. I thought communism was beat. I thank God that I’m too old to see this come to fruition, and that I did not have kids to put up with this nonsense.

  35. “rolling easements”

    Say what?

    Western Sydney University Researcher Louise Crabtree is asking people to drink the “Kool-Aid”; because she is sold on the climate disaster alarms.

    Then again, she does not explain in detail how such changes actually work. Said rolling easements are supposed to alleviate sea level impacts; yet those impacts are all focused on habitation in identified flood zones.
    Meaning, rolling easements is fiction meant to confuse “real estate” illiterates.

    Ms. Crabtree is apparently a confirmed communist and wants the communist life for all persons and property.
    Of course, all of the people will live in sustainable cities; not that she has any understanding of “sustainable”.

    Another climate religion groupie seeking climate glory and fame.

    • The “changing easement” isn’t actually that mad, though her description of it is off kilter.

      The current Texas law states that all ocean shorelines are public property for 50 ft or so from the shore. This caused some drama after hurricane Ike after people found that their yards, or even where their homes one stood, were now considered public property as the shore was reshaped by the storm. The government’s response was simple. “You knew about this law when you bought the land, you paid increased insurance because of it, and the land price was reduced because this might happen”.

      Her problem is expanding this to the entirety of the city through idiotic ideas about how much the sea level will rise.

    • It’s the cominтеrм professors who have to be rooted out before these ugly folk destroy free enterprise and democracy. This female student has likely been loaded up without argument or protest. Unlike no nonsense, self confident women we see on this site, a high proportion of young female students are malleable and easily recruitable. They have a lot more ‘caring, nurture and community instincts’ than young men and they fill up certain disciplines that stimulate this propensity and of course there are a number of women-only disciplines where Victimhood 101 is the chief subject. It is why most campus protest fotos feature women in the majority. Manipulation of these young women ideologically is akin to sexual harassment.

      I supported women’s lib from the beginning, but I wish their emancipation had been completed before half of them were co-opted by opportunist iдеоlоgues, male and female.

  36. “heed the diverse indigenous voices displaced and drowned out by imperialism.”

    I attended a lecture by a first-nations Canadian. One of the points he made was we all needed to live closer to nature. It was the middle of winter, and we were meeting in a warm and comfortable western-technology, capitalism-enabled, structure.

    What did he have in mind — we should all gather outside by a fire, maybe?

    • ““heed the diverse indigenous voices displaced and drowned out by imperialism.”

      Here’s are some of the indigenous voices around my neck of the woods.

      They don’t look too “drowned out by imperialism” to me. The Cherokee Indians are giving money to the white man, not the other way around. Bet you don’t hear these kinds of stories very much. That wouldn’t fit in with the Left’s narrative that all minorities are oppressed by the white man and western civilization. Actually, minorities are doing pretty good in the United States.

      https://muskogeenow.com/cherokees-donate-half-a-million-dollars-to-muskogee-county-schools

      Cherokees donate half a million dollars to Muskogee County schools

  37. The only interesting thing is this pathetic climate kook’s thinly veiled (and poorly written) sales pitch on communism is her trial use of the *next*big*word* to describe global warming…errr climate disruption….errr climate change errr “the great climate transition” Ta daaaa! These arrogant ass hat pathetic cynical liars are using this deluded commie sorry excuse for an academic to trot out yet another marketing term to sell their religious obsession over CO2.

  38. As has been stated elsewhere, the whole CAGW movement is little more than another tool to attack capitalism.

  39. And yet, people around the world keep electing left-wing governments that adopt these type of ideas (whether they truly believe the ideas are good or simply useful for political purposes).

    Quit voting for them and only vote for right-leaning parties that understand how important economics and property rights are to our standard of living.

    It IS the only way to stop these simplistic policies from being implemented. Look at the world today and you’ll see all kinds of crazy policies that should have been laughed at by decision-makers in normal circumstances, are actually being adopted.

    Vote for common sense.

  40. read Ayn Rand’s “WeThe Living” this has already been tried.

    you may know it from it’s previous name ….COMMUNISM and the SOCIALISTS who claim to be helping us poor people are COMMUNISTS.

  41. More and more feminine ‘nurture and caring’ in the once mannly pursuit of climate science. Politics, too, is getting overrun by the ‘fairer sex’ and they bring a strong ‘want to look after you’ instinct. Oh I know the exceptions are there, but most of these were the early ones like Golda Meir, Thatcher, Bhutto… Having been raised by a strong mother and having a genius older sister and having ‘met’ Judith Curry, Janice Moore, Pamela Gray and others enjoining the fight for integrity and freedom I know there are de facto real liberated women still around. The net, however, is a scary bunch. They definitely bring a socialist collective bias to the table, also a once manly pursuit.

    I’m likely committing a felony here attacking a member of the ‘diversity,’ from which my type has been excluded.

  42. Elementary. Nomadic hunter-gatherers don’t fight for a better place to build a home. They fight for better hunting grounds.

    • Let’s take 7.5 billion people and make them hunter-gatherers again.

      First impact is the gangs and strongmen with the most guns run everything and millions are killed every month as these gangs fight it out and try to control populations.

      Secondly, every animal on Earth gets killed within a few months. Every piece of wood that can be burnt gets burnt within the first winter. Nice Earth now. No animals and no trees.

      Thirdly, world population falls back to several million and the only good places to live are where a few smart gangs reinstate capitalism and property rights and democracy.

      • Bill, I would love to share your optimism. To get the message across, we must delete “Thirdly”.

  43. TheConversation is strictly censored to enforce the climate alarmist viewpoint.

    Their “Community Standards” claim that they welcome disagreement expressed in constructive, on-topic, respectful comments. They say, “we will only remove comments that don’t violate these standards in exceptional circumstances.”

    Don’t believe it. Eight of my eleven comments on a May 31 climate change article were deleted by their moderators, even though all eight abided by their Community Standards. The reason was apparently that what I wrote cast doubt on various aspects of climate alarmism.

    I’ve sent numerous emails to eleven different people at TheConversation, over a period of six weeks, asking why my comments were deleted, without result. This is the closest thing I’ve gotten to a substantive reply:

    Date: Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:21 PM
    Subject: Re: comments removed by moderator

    Hi David,

    Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. When it comes to moderating climate change articles we’re especially strict about the links and websites that get used to verify information. We want comments to be constructive, and foster intelligent discussion – not add excessive noise, or push agendas. Furthermore, we’re not a platform where you can push your own website links at all, let alone repeatedly – it’s a part of our Community Standards to wean out misinformation and keep conversations on track.

    Have a squiz at this if you like: https://theconversation.com/cleaning-up-climate-comments-25914 and our community standards: https://theconversation.com/au/community-standards

    I hope that sheds some light on the matter,

    Molly

    I replied:

    Molly, what are you accusing me of?

    If you are contending that my eight deleted comments violated the Community Standards in any way, then please identify a specific example.

    Are you accusing me of posting “misinformation?” I did no such thing. Everything I posted is true, and verifiable. If you doubt any of it, I’d be happy to provide documentation.

    Some of my comments provided links to more extensive documentation on my web site, and/or from other reliable sources. There’s nothing in the Community Standards against that.

    Everything I posted was constructive, and on-topic, too.

    The only “agenda” I push is scientific accuracy.

    Everything I wrote was polite, too.

    That is in stark contrast to the comments of Messrs. Ben Marshall & Mike Hansen, who repeatedly fried off barrages of name-calling and personal insults. The Community Standards say that such comments will be removed. That obviously is not true. Their flagrant violations were ignored by the moderators, apparently because the agenda they’re pushing is agreed with by the moderators.

    Can you identify anything which I wrote, in any of my deleted comments, which was inaccurate, or impolite, or non-constructive, or off-topic, or which violated the Community Standards in any way?

    Please be specific.

    Let’s start with a short one:

    https://theconversation.com/global-stocktake-shows-the-43-greenhouse-gases-driving-global-warming-77796#comment_1303552

    David Etheridge wrote, “The absolute warming effect of each gas, per unit amount in the atmosphere, is mostly unchanged back in time.”

    Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “mostly.” The warming effect of CO2 is logarithmically diminishing.

    The warming effect of an additional 1 ppmv of CO2 now (with levels at about 405 ppmv) is only about 70% of the warming effect of an additional 1 ppmv of CO2 back in 1850, when outdoor CO2 levels averaged about 285 ppmv.

    Why was that comment removed?

    Dave

    My email was ignored, as were five follow-ups over the next five weeks.

      • You’re right, Rhoda R, and/or perhaps this one: “Thou shalt not critique our articles.”

        This is the first comment I posted on their article. I thought I was very gentle. I even started out by complimenting them. But they nevertheless deleted my comment (and 7 of the other 10 I posted):

        This is one of those “good news / bad news” comments.

        The good news is that at least the article links to the actual study, and the study isn’t paywalled! Too many “science articles” are written by “science communicators” who don’t understand what they are writing about, and don’t provide a link or even an unambiguous reference to the study they’re writing about.

        The other good news is that the data should be quite useful, to many researchers.

        The bad news is that this article makes several mistakes.
        .

        Article: “CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas in warming the planet…”

        This one’s a nit. The statement would have been true if the authors had included the qualifier, “non-condensing.” But that’s presumably what they meant.
        .

        Article: “…despite [CO2] being the weakest greenhouse gas per unit of mass.”

        “Despite” is exactly backwards. You see, the reason that additional CO2 has the least warming effect, by far, of any GHG is that it is already the most important non-condensing GHG, because there’s already so much of it in the atmosphere.

        There’s so much CO2 in the atmosphere that the main CO2 absorption band is already quite thoroughly saturated, and the additional warming effect is primary from wavelengths at the far fringes of that band. That’s why CO2 is the “weakest” in terms of the effect of additional emissions. If the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 were reversed, CO2 would be a powerful GHG and CH4 would be weakest (and Earth would be lifeless, of course).
        .

        Article: “…a large part [of CO2 emissions] effectively hangs around in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years after emission…”

        That’s wrong.

        In fact, if you read it with a properly skeptical (scientific!) mindset, it should raise an obvious red flag. The authors just said that they cannot estimate it even within an order of magnitude!

        Published estimates of the “residence time” or “recovery time” of anthropogenic CO2 are all over the ballpark. They are not consistent to even within an order of magnitude.

        The fundamental problem is that CO2 levels do not decay with a fixed half-life, like radioactive decay.

        CO2 in the atmosphere is fungible. Any given CO2 molecule is exchangeable with any other, for most purposes. We know from the decay of the “bomb spike” in C14 that individual CO2 molecules have an average residence time in the atmosphere of only a few years. Here’s a graph of the famous C14 “bomb spike:”

        But the duration of effect of CO2 emissions depends on how you account for it. With LIFO accounting, the CO2 “lifetime” is very short. (In fact, AR5 estimates that the biosphere and oceans remove about 55% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, each year.)

        With LILO accounting, favored by advocates for limiting CO2 emissions, it is much longer. That’s the basis for this article’s suspiciously fuzzy “hundreds or thousands of years” claim.

        If you’re interested in the effect of current/new emissions (which you should be!), LIFO accounting is correct, and LILO accounting is just plain wrong.

        To understand it, you need to understand the processes which affect CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Here are a few links which should help:
        http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#greening
        http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#coccolithophore
        http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#co2absorb
        http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#iceiron
        http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#rocks
        http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#evapotranspiration
        http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#co2watertemp
        http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#acidification

        There’s a pretty good discussion, with well-informed participants from both sides of the climate debate, here:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/24/co2-residence-time-said-to-be-40-years-not-1000-as-noaa-claims/
        .

        Article: “Research has demonstrated that this observed growth in greenhouse gases… and in fact [causes] more than the observed warming, because part of the effect is currently masked by atmospheric pollution (aerosols).”

        That AR5 claim is highly dubious. “Research has demonstrated” severely mischaracterizes the strength of the evidence for that claim. “Some researchers have argued” would be more accurate.

        The AMS (American Meteorological Society) just did another survey of American meteorologists. They found that only 15% of meteorologists now believe that more than 80% of the last fifty years’ warming is due to human activity. That makes AR5’s “more than 100%” claim very much on the fringe.

        Another 34% think 61-80% of the warming is due to human activity. That means a total of 15+34=49% believe that more than 60% of the last fifty years’ warming is due to human activity. Here’s an article about it:
        http://joannenova.com.au/2017/04/half-of-meteorologists-dont-think-human-emissions-are-major-cause-of-climate-change/

    • The Conversation isn’t a conversation, apparently.

      This is a pretty common Internet thing, The Inappropriate Name. If something is labeled “truth,” it’s pretty much always made up, and if it’s labeled “real,” it’s fake.

      • Good observation, Merovign. Many other examples of The Inappropriate Name come to mind: “Skeptical Science” (which tolerates precious little skepticism), Tamino’s Open Mind (which is even more close-minded than SkS), “Principia-Scientific” (which is completely unscientific), etc., etc.

        But the problem is not just on the Internet. The Greens passionately strive to prevent greening of planet Earth, Planned Parenthood is in the business of terminating parenthood by terminating young lives, 9-11 Truthers lie like rugs, Christian Science is neither Christian nor scientific, etc.

        We live in interesting Orwellian times.

      • It’s also well established lefty or тоталiтаяуаи nomenclature. “The Peoples’ Republic of…, Deutsche Democratische Republik – Merkel’s political training ground-, New Democratic Party and other protesteth too much usages.

    • Dave,
      I’ve had similar experiences with The Conversation. It has been my experience that while Mike Hansen is often arrogant and insulting, he has done his homework. However, I’ve been routinely insulted and even threatened by a T J Martin, and complained about it, and they have done nothing. So, yes, some commenters are more equal than others.

      • Mike Hansen is well-versed in climate activists’ talking points, but he doesn’t care much whether they are true. For example, he wrote:

        Dave Burton?
        I am sure it is totally coincidental,but you have the same name as that dude from the climate “skeptic” group NC-20 that tried to ban sea level rise in North Carolina.
        Stephen Colbert has a video mocking the move which I am sure you will enjoy.
        http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/colbert-sink-or-swim
        As funny as that is, if we put cherry picked observation points and psuedoscience to one side and return to the real world
        https://theconversation.com/sea-level-is-rising-fast-and-it-seems-to-be-speeding-up-39253

        I replied:

        Mike Hansen, nobody “tried to ban sea level rise in North Carolina.” The bill which comedian Stephen Colbert ridiculed did not resemble his description. It passed the NC General Assembly by lopsided bipartisan margins. In the NC Senate the vote was 40-to-1; nine of the “yes” votes were Democrats. The very liberal Democratic governor, who could have vetoed it, declined to do so, and it became law August 3, 2012.

        The moderators deleted both comments.

    • I wanted the folks at The Conversation to have the opportunity to respond, so a few days ago I sent the following email to/cc 21 people/addresses at theconversation.com. Thus far, none of them have either replied to me or posted anything here.

      Dear Ms. Glassey and Ms. Balinska,

      (Note: I’ve cc’d this to additional people at The Conversation.)

      Unlike The Conversation, I believe in open dialog. In that spirit, I’d like to draw your attention to the comments I’ve just posted about The Conversation, on the world’s top climate blog, here, in case you wish to respond:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/12/the-conversation-private-home-ownership-may-not-be-viable-because-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2550484

      Unlike The Conversation, WUWT welcomes polite, constructive comments from both sides of the climate debate.

      In my comments I warned WUWT readers that, “TheConversation is strictly censored to enforce the climate alarmist viewpoint.”

      Another reader confirmed that he’s “had similar experiences with The Conversation.”

      If you wish to explain or defend The Conversation’s censorship of conversations, or if you wish to defend the falsehoods on your “Community Standards” and “Who We Are” pages, feel free to respond there. WUWT generally keeps articles open for comments for about a week, so you have a few days left to respond.

      The Conversation sounds great, “on paper.” If The Conversation’s policy declarations were truthful, I think it would be a wonderful project.

      But much of the material on the “Community Standards” and “Who We Are” pages is untruthful. Here are some examples:Claim: “Our aim is to promote better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversation.”

      Reality: I like your Safire-esque declaration that you seek “better quality of public discourse,” while using a period where a comma belongs. But the claim is false. The Conversation actually works to prevent understanding of complex issues, by censoringpublic discourse and conversation, to prevent correction of hoary leftist myths.

      Claim: “We aim to help rebuild trust in journalism.”

      Reality: The Conversation destroys trust in its own journalism, by censoring conversations, promoting untruthful propaganda, and misrepresenting its policies.

      Claim: “All contributors must abide by our Community Standards policy.”

      Reality: Blatant violations of the Community Standards by leftists are routinely tolerated, and comments by conservatives are deleted even when they abide by those standards.

      Claim: “We believe in open access and the free-flow of information.”

      Reality: Information which challenges The Conversation’s editorial viewpoint is ruthlessly culled.

      Claim: “We’ll delete: personal attacks directed at anyone.”

      Reality: Insults, name-calling, and other personal attacks are welcomed on The Conversation, as long as they are directed toward conservatives.

      Claim: The Conversation demands that contributors: “Treat people with the respect you’d like to receive. Admit when you’re wrong. You’ll come across opinions you disagree with. That doesn’t make them invalid.”

      Reality: The Conversation does not respect of tolerate opinions not shared by their editors, no matter how well-supported.

      Claim: “As per our policy on removing content, we will only remove comments that don’t violate these standards in exceptional circumstances.”

      Reality: The Conversation takes a “slash and burn” approach to conservative comments, without regard to whether they abide by the The Conversation’s written standards.

      Claim: Constructive comments, backed up by evidence, “won’t be” deleted.

      Reality: That is the exact opposite of the truth.

      Dave

  44. the fellow who wrote the article for the guardian that is referenced belongs to a tribe in central british columbia. Their tribal website says they wrote a letter in history that stated their claim to title of land to the “exclusion of others” . I wonder if he has read it….”One fundamental principle of our traditional law thus laid out by Sk’elép thousands of years ago is that each nation collectively
    holds its respective homeland and its resources at the exclusion of outsiders.”…

  45. My comment to her and those who agree with her is, you first.
    I wonder what would happen if someone decide to ‘test the balance between public and private ownership of property’ at her place?
    I’m guessing we would hear the usual caterwauling about it being different when you talk about her stuff.

  46. I accepted a long time ago that if CAGW was real enough that governments decided appropriate (yet extreme) measures had to be taken, then the typical suburban living was simply not sustainable for people at my income level. The only affordable option would be to move to a downtown location where I could take advantage of things like public transportation and communal housing to reduce energy usage.

    Of course I don’t think that this would happen to me due to my age and the rate of climate change, but I will keep an eye out for a time to sell my large house with sizable yard and in ground pool before that happens. That way some other sucker will be stuck with the white elephant I call home. This way I can pass on whatever I can to my kids before I die and hopefully they will be able to survive while the others suffer the folly of their poor planning parents.

    This is what will happen if Gore, Klein and the rest of the prophets of doom get their way.

    • Yet the homes featured in commercials and home improvement shows are very often huge houses—4000 sq feet or more. You rarely see a small house. The new homes around town are also huge. I see no evidence that anyone has gotten the message about capitalism and sustainability that the warmists seem to want people to believe. The trend is bigger and bigger, except in NYC where they are trying to talk people into living in homes barely larger than a car.

      • Moderator—please delete my last comment. You’ll see why when you get to it.

        Reply: Not gonna try and unscramble that.~ctm

      • Yet the homes featured in commercials and home improvement shows are very often huge houses—4000 sq feet or more. You rarely see a small house. The new homes around town are also huge. I see no evidence that anyone has gotten the message about capitalism and sustainability that the warmists seem to want people to believe. The trend is bigger and bigger, except in NYC where they are trying to talk people into living in homes barely larger than a car.

    • Yet the homes featured in commercials and home improvement shows are very often huge houses—4000 sq feet or more. You rarely see a small house. The new homes around town are also huge. I see no evidence that anyone has gotten the message about capitalism and sustainability that the warmists seem to want people to believe. The trend is bigger and bigger, except in NYC where they are trying to talk people into living in homes barely larger than a car.

    • sustainability worked for a while but a true/accurate definition is difficult with respect to reality, so resilience needs to be in the mix.

  47. If I ever do get around to my Australian vacation, I guess I will have a place to stay for a few days. I hope Louise has a nice guest room and a well stocked fridge (food is property, right?).

    If no guest room, I’ll just take the couch. I hope it’s comfortable.

    If she already has someone on her couch, at least I’ll be able to use her bathroom while I am camping in her back yard.

  48. A “roaming right to reside”???? Sure come on by. I’ll show you my stationary right to defend.

    • O.K., I won’t vacation in your back yard … with the expectation of being able to use your shower.

  49. I’d like to send her a letter telling her how much I appreciated her insights and determination to personally practice what she preaches.
    Anybody have the current address of her recycle bin?

  50. Oh, private property rights will be perfectly fine for the nobles, lords, the ruling class, i.e. “The elite” but not, of course for the “serfs”. This entire AGW scam is designed to return the world population to a modern-day feudal system. The “modern serfs” will be able to be educated and earn a living – in order to maintain civilization and a “Royal” standard of living for the elites, but they will never be capable of acquiring independent wealth, as they will be “carbon-taxed” out of any possible savings or disposable income. And with socialized medicine like Europe has now or Obamacare (future government single-payer) the elites will control your healthcare, and ultimately how long you live once you become ill.

  51. This is great – it is becoming easier & easier for the masses to see that CAGW is just an excuse to push a socialist agenda. Articles like this will hasten CAGWs demise.

  52. Part of the UN’s agenda 21 is to end private property. In fact, agenda 21 is about a communist world government run by the UN. The global warming scam is the guise that it will be brought in under.

  53. Contempt isn’t really a strong enough word. I am beginning to see merit in reeducation through work with the people. Get your azz in gear Crabtree.

  54. Before lending an ear to university professors, always remember the adage: “If an idea is outlandish and/or asinine enough, it’s certain to be embraced by some branch of academia.”

  55. I always find comments about “first peoples” living sustainably, particularly in the context of Australia amusing.

    Firstly – about which “first peoples” are the talking? Australia had multiple waves of “first peoples” over several thousand years, each of which pushed out the previous “first peoples”. A little known fact is that Australia was first populated by pygmies (some of which were still alive in the 1940’s) and for which we have extensive photographic and scientific study. Read this article for much more detail:

    http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/

    Secondly, most distinctive hunting method of the later waves was to set fire to the entire bush and then kill the animals as they ran out. One consequence, of course, being to alter the flora to depend on fire for regeneration. Hardly a sustainable hunting method.

    One reason why aborigines gave up the land so easily was they did not perceive ownership of the land, rather the animals on it. The fights between European settlers and aborigines, such as they occurred were largely triggered when Europeans killed kangaroos or other native animals. It was the fauna they perceived they owned, not the land. In Tasmania when aborigines raided farms they killed the settlers and took damper, sugar and tobacco – and rarely killed or took the farm animals, or even the tools. The aborigines had not evolved an agrarian economy, they were nomadic, so there was nothing sustainable about their lifestyle.

Comments are closed.