Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new paper claims more shared development goals and less emphasis on wealth creation is the key to solving climate change.
Economic Equality Is Key to Solving Climate Change, Report Shows
By Jeremy Hodges
6 March 2018, 02:00 GMT+10
Economies need to reduce inequality and promote sustainable development for the world to avert the perils of runaway global warming, according to new research.
The risk of missing emissions targets increased dramatically under economic scenarios that emphasizes high inequality and growth powered by fossil fuels, according to research published Monday by a team of scientists in the peer-reviewed Nature Climate Change journal.
“Climate change is far from the only issue we as a society are concerned about” said Joeri Rogelj, the paper’s lead author and a research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis outside of Vienna. “We have to understand how these many goals can be achieved simultaneously. With this study, we show the enormous value of pursuing sustainable development for ambitious climate goals in line with the Paris Agreement,” he said.
…
The abstract of the paper;
The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview
This paper presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and a middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 500-1100 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO2 emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO2 to more than 120 GtCO2 per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: 1) the policy assumptions, 2) the socio-economic narrative, and 3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6 W/m2 differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectorial extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6).
Read more: http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13280/
The paper is a little coy about what they mean by “shared socioeconomic pathways”, but the following description of their favoured scenario caught my eye;
… SSP1 Sustainability – Taking the Green Road (Low challenges to mitigation and adaptation)
The world shifts gradually, but pervasively, toward a more sustainable path, emphasizing more inclusive development that respects perceived environmental boundaries. Management of the global commons slowly improves, educational and health investments accelerate the demographic transition, and the emphasis on economic growth shifts toward a broader emphasis on human well-being. Driven by an increasing commitment to achieving development goals, inequality is reduced both across and within countries. Consumption is oriented toward low material growth and lower resource and energy intensity. …
Read more: Same link as above
The paper has a point – there is no doubt if the world killed off prosperity and rapid economic growth, CO2 emissions would stop rising. If we all lived like people do in places like Cuba and Venezuela, places which have de-emphasised material concerns like financial security and having enough to eat, our global carbon footprint would be substantially reduced.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have always been a proponent of immigration to rural Africa. I think if we just managed to get the Alarmists to buy in and demonstrate their commitment to this, the rest of us would follow suit.
Growth comes in different forms. If policy directives stunt investment growth and productivity gains, the economy is misdirected back into a resource scavenging mode instead of resource efficiency. In other words inefficiency is promoted with lack of growth and wealth. The rewards and the means of attaining greater efficiency are held back by decree, mismanagement, or most often by corruption.
This article has a foolish title. The study is not about equality, it’s about lowering/avoiding inequality. Even so, I’ve found that people often just as foolishly equate “less inequality” with equality, socialism, communism or Marxism.
Those who are so vehemently disgusted by this proposal must think it a good, healthy thing for the top 1% of a population to make 40 times that of the bottom 90% or the top 0.01% to make 200 times that of the same. The U.S. has high poverty, infant mortality, homicide, and incarceration compared to most other developed nations. Personally, I wouldn’t mind if there were more equality of income in the U.S., but I’m still a capitalist.
Everything is in black and white around here. The faintest whiff of not being a gung-ho, anti-regulatory, anti-tax free-market capitalist (or if you don’t favor oligarchies in the developing world), and you’re automatically a commie or socialist.
U.S. income inequality:
“[I]f the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month….
“…Americans are not generally aware of the extent of inequality or recent trends.[32] There is a direct relationship between actual income inequality and the public’s views about the need to address the issue in most developed countries, but not in the U.S., where income inequality is larger but the concern is lower.[33] The U.S. was ranked the 6th from the last among 173 countries (4th percentile) on income equality measured by the Gini index.”
– Wikipedia
If you hate America so much why are you here? Venezuela could certainly use your level of self delusion for,,, well, something. Why don’t you toddle on down there and find out.
I love my country. That’s below the belt.
You’re doing exactly what I’m talking about. Black or white thinking.
And yet you hate America and spew your vitriolic hatred with every comment. Why are you here? Is it purely a function of your own self loathing? Straight out laziness, you just can’t be bothered to find somewhere you would be happy? Or is the root simply that NOTHING will ever make you happy? Is attempting to drag the rest of the world down into the pit of misery you “feel” your life is the only thing that gives your dreary, miserable existence meaning? I have known far too many leftists in too many countries to even entertain the notion you love anything, most especially yourself. That is really sad, and nobody can fix it except you.
Let me give you a small clue, humans are not causing the climate to change, humans can not stop the climate from changing. Reality is out here waiting for you, all you have to do is accept it. Tying yourself to lies is never going to make you happy.
Kristi, the NAFTA trade bill that was passed years ago had a net zero impact as scored at the time of the final vote. Do you think the losing half of that impact was equally divided across U.S. income groups? That’s not even getting to the fact that NAFTA was then used as an end run for all other countries to invest in Mexico and Canada in order to bypass U.S. workers, protections, and income attainment. It’s also not even getting to the question of who benefits and who loses from massive trade flows from China over those decades. I’m not picking sides here but merely pointing out the data elephant in the room.
Most of the factories that moved to Mexico, had already been scheduled to move to Asia.
Yes, some people lost their jobs, however everybody benefited from the lower prices that trade provided.
Everyone benefited from lower prices for goods but significant segments of jobs, skills, and rewards for experience vanished in relatively short order. The assumption of just-in-time human adjustment did not happen equally across income groups or at all in a lot of cases.
No economic advancement has ever benefited everyone equally, and none ever will.
Should we ban economic advancement because the benefits aren’t spread equally?
Kristi would argue that we should.
Sorry, I don’t know a thing about NAFTA. Where does NAFTA fit in? I don’t understand.
Wow. Just, wow.
She lives in Oz, boys, under the spell of the wizard(s). Reality elsewhere in the world has no place in her emotion-driven, Gaian ecumenism.
That wealth isn’t equal is neither a good thing or a bad thing. It is an inevitable thing, because wealth comes to those who work harder, work smarter, or have a skill that is highly in demand.
If you want to help the poor, teach them how not to be poor. 80 years of welfare spending has proven that you can’t help the poor by just giving them money.
If government were to seize every penny of wealth and divide it equally amongst the planets inhabitants, within 20 years, the people who are rich now, will be rich again, and the people who are poor now will be poor again. This is because most of income inequality boils down to life style choices.
When you were in school, did you study, or did you party. Did you do whatever it took to go to college?
Once you started working, did you show up on time, every day? Have you done what you can to learn new skills?
That’s how to get ahead, and most people can’t be bothered.
Ahh, did your mommy and daddy not give you anything? Here is a hint, when you die you leave your accumulated wealth to whoever you choose. Don’t like that? Tough.
[Snip. We’re just going to end this now. -mod]
If you look at something other than your red diapers, you would find that what you believe isn’t even close to true.
I live in South Africa (Ex-pat from the UK), where ‘inequality’ relates to skin colour, and is reinforced by crappy education (Worse under the ANC than the Nats). Talking to a couple of black colleagues some years ago, I was accused of being rich, because I was white. They could not believe me when I told them that my mother was a shop assistant, my father a commercial traveller, one grandmother a domestic maid, and my grandfathers a labourer and a sailor. “But you’re white, and thereby rich!”. I tried to hammer home one of the things that Nelson Mandela said – liberation is through education.
Rob Bradley: If I concede that some people inherited wealth, will you concede that some people earned wealth? Your statement is so, you know, “black and white”, and Kristi Silber thinks that’s bad.
Kristi,
Whereas I agree with you that sometimes dissent is not handled as well as it could/should be here, and in addition, it can be fairly acknowledged that discussions about inequality do not necessarily imply equality/marxism/communism…well, I still “vehemently” disagree with your basic premise.
“Inequality” is one of the rare topics that induces an immediate emotional response on my part. Your good intentions do not excuse your philosophical ignorance and apparent lack of global perspective. Furthermore, any discussion which tries to compare the “richest” with the “poorest” is bankrupt from the start and is predicated on several misconceptions.
First, freedom, true freedom, implies a higher high and a lower low than the alternative. There is a gap. It has always existed. And the degree or size of the gap is not the relevant point. The difference between rich societies and poor ones is the freedom to move between rich and poor. Again, the size of the gap, however you’re defining “rich” and “poor” that day, is not the point.
Secondly, economics is not a finite pie to be divvied up between all parties. One can easily infer, then, that simply because “the richer get richer” does not necessarily mean the “poor get poorer”. (At least, not in a capitalistic society which is free from government-created/protected monopolies.) It is simultaneously possible, and has been shown to occur repeatedly, that as the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. (Caveats apply, as with anything.)
Finally, let’s put things in perspective. Do you honestly believe that the poor in the U.S. are truly poor by any sort of global standard? Seriously? Please!
You want to help the lowest and the poorest? It’s exactly by reducing regulations that prohibit the free exchange of goods and allow people the most freedom possible (i.e. to take the product of their own labor, free from coercion or control, and trade it for that which they find valuable). This includes, by the way, not forcing communities to erect expensive alternatives to cheap energy…something which you seem to advocate for based on a precarious lack of real evidence for its need.
Focusing on how rich certain people are, or certain segments are, is nothing more than envy. And no amount of justification, however prettily worded or noble sounding, will change this.
So, sorry, not sorry. Your plea falls on completely deaf ears with me!
rip
Oh, Kristi, you incredible nit. The questions you pose!
Answer this question.
If I work at a job that requires a high degree of skill and occasionally requires extra hours, why should someone who does nothing but ask you if you want fries with your sandwich get the same wages as I do, or even a small percentage more?
The correct answer is: skilled labor is more desirable than unskilled labor, and is therefore worth a higher wage. That’s how that works, Kristi, whether you like it or not.
It’s the reason McDonald’s is replacing its counter people with kiosks where pushbutton menus are available and only two or three people are needed to do anything at all, and no skills are involved at any level higher than cleaning off tabletops.
It would be nice if you came down off your high horse occasionally. Most of us live in the real world, something that seems to escape you.
Would you like fries with that?
What advocates of wealth redistribution probably have never realized and probably don’t understand is that poverty is not exactly a problem per se, it is a SYMPTOM of a problem. The problem is that people are different and don’t all put the same amount of education, effort (or work) and intelligent thought into our lives. We all don’t have the same work ethic. We don’t all have the same skills like a pro athlete in MLB, in the NFL or NBA or talent like famous actors or singers in the entertainment industry. In the absence of a rare and valuable talent, we are likely to only get out of our lives what we put into it outside of a Marxist or Communist society.
Expecting redistribution of wealth to solve the inequality issue is a little bit like taking an over-the-counter medication for your cold or flu and expecting the medication to attack and kill the virus that causes your illness. It only alleviates the symptoms–it doesn’t address the problem. That is all that wealth redistribution does.
The problem for Marxist or Communist ideologists is that these ideologies have a history of failing to respect democratic political systems and individual human rights–and they still don’t respect them today in places like North Korea and Cuba. The democratic Western nations have made efforts to find a middle ground between free-market economies and one end and Marxism at the other end with their (sometimes very generous) social welfare safety nets while retaining a mostly free-market economy along with democratic institutions. Whether they are rewarding failure with such safety nets is still very much a matter of debate.
The authors of the paper posted above, as usual, attempt to sell the world Marxist thinking through the back door of environmentalism, sustainability and climate alarmism as though they all have some history of compatibility and are all just one big happy family of ideological thought. I suggest that the history of the Soviet Union and its East European satellites says otherwise, and China (as a society still ruled by Communists) still does today. From what I’ve read, the free-market economies in the developed West have far better environmental policies than China and other non-democracies do. The lack of environmental standards and land clearance for agriculture in the Developing World are what environmentalists should primarily be concentrating on rather than on what the the Trump Administration is doing.
I suggest that there is no simple, easy answer to wealth equality if one cares about democracy and human rights. The more that leftist thinkers want the former, the more of a threat it could be to the latter as the history of Communism has shown us. The middle ground that the Developed West has been pursuing is probably the best that humanity can do if we do not wish to live in an increasingly totalitarian society.
[The mods would like to point out that Kristi explicitly stated she was not (trying) to advocate for marxist/communist ideology. It feels like your post affirms her point that any discussion of inequality leads WUWT commenters to immediately begin talking about them. -mod]
Moderator: Now that I’ve given it some thought, you are probably right. I should not have mentioned Marxist/Communist ideology in response to Kristi’s comment. I apologize. She explicitly stated that she supports a free market economy.
I suppose that the extent and degree of generosity of a social safety net within a democratic society is more to the point here for those whom inequality is a serious social issue. I do have doubts that Kristi is willing to advocate for Marxism in response to inequality, and that is why I should not have mentioned it.
Again, my apologies.
CD and mods:
It’s interesting that we WUWT subscribers and commenters seem to be immediately going to the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Xi-ist (is that the right term?) models to explain the worldview and arguments from the human-origin global warmists. If you look at the record, the Marxists/etc. have a *terrible* record on conservation (see, for example, a detailed book on the subject, “The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union,” published about 30 years ago, or look at the deforestation of Laos under the communists or even travel to Beijing and take a 15-minute stroll outside, just as a few obvious examples).
I think there’s something much darker here. After some detailed investigation, I believe that there is a deep, abiding hatred of humanity behind this movement. It just seems to me that there is profound yearning for the extremists — and their “useful idiots” in the press, Hollywood and all the rest of the usual suspects — to return to a Paleolithic existence, where people were in harmony with nature, left a light footprint upon Mother Earth and died of some easily preventable disease by age 38.
Two popular culture examples: The motion picture “Day after Yesterday” (is that right? or was it “Day After Tomorrow?”) I just remember a ridiculous premise about a sudden onset of a mega-Ice Age, and at the end the survivors are dressed as Inuits wearing (*shudder*) fur coats, mushing off into the pure snow of the future and — getting eaten by polar bears? Probably. Then, there was the Nature Channel’s series, which can be best be described as “anti-humanist pornography”, titled “Life After Man. Ah, yes, Gaia returning, healing, overwhelming the evils of mankind.
That’s the way it looks to me, in any case.
Antipathy toward the rich is hard to sell. So they carp about inequality.
Ms Kristi is too low on the totem pole to know that when she talks about ‘inequality,’ she’s really just hating on the rich.
“Those who are so vehemently disgusted by this proposal must think it a good, healthy thing for the top 1% of a population to make 40 times that of the bottom 90% or the top 0.01% to make 200 times that of the same.”
Rilly? This is a thing?
“The U.S. has high poverty, infant mortality, homicide, and incarceration compared to most other developed nations.”
Lie much?
By this standard,Venezuela gets the award for the greatest contribution to solving climate change. Where are the useful idiots from Hollywood now?
Was it ever about anything else?
January2015 Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, November 13, 2010 interview [H/t Dr. Charles Battig]”…we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”
Peter Menzies in the Calgary Herald, Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister for the Liberal Party of Canada, said in 1998 that: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Equal outcomes, not equal Opportunity, is what the leftists want, but not for themselves, the elite. See Das Kapital.
It always amuses me when people are “shocked” by whatever doom-crier of the moment is exposed for the fraud they truly are, simply because these leftists ALWAYS come right out and say what it is they want to do from the start. Like the revelation Russia And Saudi Arabia are the primary financiers of the anti-fracking and anti-pipeline protestors, people are shocked, SHOCKED I say, that they are doing that. And yet they said they were doing it in the mid and late 1990s. They were on cnn and BBC and at Davos and gobs of other economic gatherings telling everyone they opposed US gas and oil development and were fighting against it. And yet now it is a shocking and Earth shattering revelation. Oy!
So we can expect our climate envoys to reduce their carbon footprint from elephant size to my and most people I know Cinderella size one they tell us we must reduce still further. I will not be holding my breath waiting for “The crappio” to come down off his high horse and get real.
Economic equality is childishly easy to produce – via taxation. confiscation, etc. – just make everybody poor – Voila!
HONEST AT LAST!
Sorry to get late into the conversation, but, you know, I was working hard hard all day to warm the heck out of the planet and trying to flood vertically challenged Pacific islands, so I didn’t get around to replying to the post until this afternoon.
Here are my two cents, for what it’s worth: Doesn’t it seem very interesting that the Warministas are finally, at last, coming out from behind cover and behind honest (for a certain value of “honest”) and actually displaying their real — really-real — goal behind this whole global cooling/global warming/climate change/oh-dear-God-we’re-all-going-to die agenda — and finally saying what’s always been behind this whole nonsense? As in “capitalism is evil, socialism is good” sort of thing?
I think that they are tipping their hand just a *bit* too early, but it shows their confidence in their belief that they have finally tipped the scale and have the majority on their side. The whole Cultural Revolution they are trying to engender is now so overt that it’s no longer a “discussion” but a true drawing a line in the ever-warming sand.
A long time ago and far away I learned a very great lesson in a certain organization (Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children, some called us): When the opposition gets all overconfident, that’s when some interesting things become possible.
All references to North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe and California are on spot.
Some of it, Bryan, has to do with NOT winning the US elections in 2016. Some of it also has to do with the currently floundering attempts to stop DTrump from continuing to do his job, and being scared silly by his most recent lawn dart about Xi jinPing’s attempt to become China’s ‘ruler for life’. That scared the heebie jeebies right out of them!
And then there is also that whole thing about religion and attempting to create a new Temple of Climate Worship, for people who have no religious leader (Obama’s gone now) but desperately need one. That’s kind of beginning to fade, too, because there are no immediate results that they can point to. When you try to create a faith-based religion out of whole cloth (e.g., Gaia worship), you have to have some “miracles” to point to and there aren’t any.
They were SO-O-O-O-O close, you see, to mowing down the opposition, but the attempt failed and now they’re floundering, trying to cover their losses, plug the leaks, stop the erosion before it goes further, etc. You get the drift.
We must be vigilant, nonetheless. There are many of them who can sneak in through gaps in the perimeter.
Sara,
Thank you for your answer, but with all due respect I believe they are *already* through the wire. It’s back to the fall-back position and hoping that enough of the 65,000,000 voters a year ago are going to be willing to put toes to the big orange line and just say “no” (to re-phase William F. Buckley some years ago).
I’m not quire there with John Derbershire – the author of “We’re Doomed” — but I’m not really positive about the future.
The best signal is that the best signal of the past week is that the Oscar television program was a signal disaster. That is part of the map that we should look at for the future of the Cultural Revolution.
Let’s just them, as you say, flounder and trip over their own statements.
No argument from me, Bryan. The reason for a large standing military is not to make war, but to prevent it. The reason to keep a vigilant, watchful eye on the perimeter, despite those who may sneak ‘inside the wire’ is to expose them for what they are – always in a reasonable way, of course.
WE can’t afford to take for granted that if they slack off, we won. I know better, and so do you. I also cook. 🙂
One of my favorite lessons from USA,IS,RC was to appear weak, disorganized and ready to collapse, draw them in and then hit the clacker and pop the claymores in their faces, figuratively speaking in this context, of course. DJT has been hittin’ the clacker on them for a year and they still keep rushing in. Too funny. Now the environwackadoddles are lining up to rush the wire and methinks they will not like the results. I will.
Are you okay?
Doing just fine, love watching leftards implode, and DJT is running the pressure up everyday. MAGA!
Hey, 2hotel9,
Remember the basic lesson: The Claymore has stamped on the front: FACE TO THE ENEMY. Use the clacker carefully, buddy. The gomers can easily step on their, um, Johnsons long before they get to the wire. Use the flares and call in support. It is much more effective that way.
Just saying, Mac.
The left has massively over played their hand, the backlash is just beginning. People are far more concerned about economics than climate change, and the endless caterwauling about the world ending with no actual end ever happening has undermined their position in the eyes of more and more people.
And yea, I know which side. As they pull back dragging their wounded you call in redleg, when the steel is done flying its mop up time. Sandinistas never could figure out to stay back, over played their hand and got burned over and over. Some deficiency in the leftist mind, they just don’t learn.
Ah, just saw, this comment did not fall where it should, was supposed to be a response to Bryan above. Gotta love wordpress! 😉
DC Cowboy, 2hotel9 is employing metaphorical prose, as is Bryan.
Personally, I like the broken wing maneuver sometimes seen in ground-nesting birds like some geese, quail and pheasants. The predator follows the seemingly injured bird away from the nestlings, which the bird doubles back along a hidden pathway.
Planned Parenthood and immigration reform (i.e. redistributive populations) are two more.
It is my hope that fewer people will believe our would-be masters are bound and determined to make socialism/communism work this time . . and more come to realize they are just liars, promising what they think suckers will believe of them.
Now, if only I could get the suckers who have believed them, and are bent on defeating them by arguing they really are bound and determined to make socialism/communism work this time, but will fail to do so, to realize that’s exactly what our would-be masters are counting on, perhaps my hope would not seem so in vain . .
“The risk of missing emissions targets increased dramatically under economic scenarios that emphasizes high inequality and growth powered by fossil fuels, according to research published Monday by a team of scientists in the peer-reviewed Nature Climate Change journal.”
Men not having the same capabilities, if they are free, they will not be equal, and if they are equal, then they are not free.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My interest in “global warming”
started in 1997
after 20 years of writing
an economics newsletter
as a hobby.
A war on fossil fuels could only be
bad news for economic growth,
… and I also worked in an industry highly
dependent on inexpensive fossil fuels.
It probably took me two days
to stop believing 100 years
average temperature forecasts.
I didn’t write my first climate change
article until 2007, when it became
obvious that the global warming
in the 1990s had stopped.
At first, global warming
seemed like a UN / Maurice Strong
plan to make the UN a “world government”
over energy use / climate change.
But national politicians soon realized
they could use climate alarmism to enlarge
their own powers — and just use the UN’s IPCC
as their “scientific back up”.
There is no doubt that Maurice Strong, and
others in the beginning, were socialists
who wanted a lot more government spending
as a percentage of GDP (just like all
socialists do).
After the collapse of Communism in USSR,
and eastern Europe, it was not easy to
“sell” bigger government / socialism.
Capitalists would counter by saying
no one wants the slower economic
growth, higher unemployment rate,
and more people living
on the goobermint dole,
that comes with socialism.
The fake “climate crisis”
created a new way
to “sell” socialism:
‘We in the government
need more powers
to save the Earth
for our children!’
And when capitalists complained about
slower economic growth
expected under socialism,
they could be told
that slower growth
= fewer CO2 emissions
= good news for the planet,
not bad news!
So the worst aspect of socialism —
the slower economic growth rate —
has been cleverly morphed
into (fake) good news
— slower growth will slow the
destruction of our planet from CO2 !
The CO2 crisis is all nonsense,
of course,
but it is a clever way to “sell”
slow growth socialism!
The not so funny part,
is the global warmunists,
at any time, could declare
that they have solved
the CO2 crisis … because
it’s just an imaginary “crisis”.
My climate change blog,
with over 15,000 page views so far
— common sense and simple science:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com