The Federalist: A Majority of Americans Believe OTHER People Should Make Climate Sacrifices

Green Pass
Nobody seems to mind, if a “Green” clocks up a lot of air miles.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to The Federalist, a majority of Americans believe climate action is a priority – as long as it doesn’t impact their lifestyle choices.

Americans Say They Care About Climate Change, But Don’t You Dare Ban Air Travel

Nowhere in the list of things that voters liked that should be done to cope with the ‘national emergency’ were measures that would affect their lifestyles or choices.

By Jonathan S. Tobin FEBRUARY 4, 2020

According to some polls, Americans generally agree with 17-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg that the threat of climate change is a national emergency. A survey taken by Yale and George Mason universities this past fall reported that 62 percent of registered voters would approve of a president declaring a national emergency to deal with global warming.

A majority of those polled said they approved of a laundry list of government actions designed to punish the fossil fuel industry and encourage other sources of energy as well as providing tax rebates to citizens who did things like erect solar panels on their homes or purchased energy-efficient vehicles.

But nowhere in the list of things that should be done to cope with the “national emergency” that voters liked were measures that would affect their lifestyles or choices.

So while Thunberg — Time magazine’s 2019 Person of the Year — continues to be covered by the mainstream media as a latter day Joan of Arc, there is little evidence that many people are actually seeking to follow her example. They may weep and cheer when she demonstrates contempt for the democratic process and excoriates her elders for failing to adopt her diktats without debate, as she has done at conferences at Davos and the United Nations.

But on actions that will supposedly save the planet from burning up within 18 months (or whatever the current consensus about the best date to use to scare people into declaring a national emergency happens to be), few Americans seem willing to be like Greta. That’s good news for the travel industry but bad news for those who take the global warming movement’s predictions of doom seriously.

Read more:

Setting aside the question of whether the survey result accurately reflects public opinion, this disconnect between belief and action reminds me of a conversation I had a long time ago with a Marxist.

He complained some people make too much money, that rich people should have to share their income, so everyone got an equal slice of the pie.

So I said “You make a more money than most people in Africa, more money than a lot of people in Australia. Why don’t you set an example, and give a share of your income to poor people?”

He replied “No. Every country has an appropriate level of income, what I earn is about the money everyone should earn in Australia”.

As far as I can tell this self centered attitude is as ubiquitous amongst climate believers as it is in leftist and Marxist groups.

I am not suggesting Americans who are concerned about climate change are all Marxists, but nobody in their right mind fights for a reduction in their personal living standards. It is always people higher up the ladder who are expected to make the biggest sacrifices. Those preaching climate action hardly ever think about those less fortunate than themselves, who think of the middle class climate activists themselves as a potential sacrifice.

Since most advocates of climate action genuinely believe they are already doing their bit, they usually utterly reject the idea they are climate hypocrites, even if they are woke celebrities who spend half their life flying about in a private jet.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 4, 2020 6:13 pm

“A Majority of Americans Believe OTHER People Should Make Climate Sacrifices”

Liberalism in action.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
February 5, 2020 9:37 am

A quick translation is that the people who believe in CAGW – i.e. progressives – want other people to make sacrifices. And it’s far from restricted to climate change – pretty much every issue.

Pure elitism.

Reply to  Joel Snider
February 6, 2020 5:40 am

My private jet is fine but your bonfire must be stopped…

Reply to  chaswarnertoo
February 6, 2020 7:48 am

And your lawn mower, and your efficient home heating, and your pickup truck, and…

Bill Powers
Reply to  MarkW
February 5, 2020 10:11 am

That a majority believes in the Government created Hobgoblin but don’t want to sacrifice is bad news for those of us that know the truth.

The Government is manufacturing, daily, via public schools and federally granted colleges, people who are too simple in their thinking to connect the dot between giving Government power and being required to sacrifice their own quality of life. Critical thinking skills are not being taught to students. Logic and reasoning have been thrown over for group think and speech codes.

The operative word for the Crony Capitalist Government is “Consensus” which equals Voting majority which is what they are striving to control at all times.

February 4, 2020 6:15 pm

they must be Chinese…..

February 4, 2020 6:16 pm

In a free country, poor people are poor mostly because of the choices they have made in their lives. The fact that other people made better choices had nothing to do with it.

Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2020 7:47 pm

What about the 10% of the population who are too stupid to make reasonable choices? link

Dennis K
Reply to  commieBob
February 4, 2020 8:59 pm

10%? I think not. Assuming a normal distribution, half the people are below average. Beware the power of large groups of stupid people.

Reply to  commieBob
February 4, 2020 9:03 pm

Most people who make stupid choices because they can, not because they are “too stupid”. I have know low IQ people who can take care of themselves. They make mistakes, but do not need government subsistance income. Over 20% of the US population gets government assistance, and my personal experience indicates MOST of those have addiction or just pure lazyness issues. They are HAPPY to live in poverty as long as they can do WHAT THEY WANT WHEN THEY WANT without anyone BOSSING THEM AROUND. Just reality.

We as a people will always take care of the truly needy. In the past Churches did that. Now the government does it, but also does too much for the NOT NEEDY. Churches had a limit on who they could help because of limited funds so used good judgement to determine who to help. Government has workers whose whole purpose is to expand their “reach”, i.e. their kingdoms. The bigger the kingdom, the more they can make. And BTW, since they are “ENTITLEMENTS” they get funded every year, regardless of how much is coming into the US treasury.

Also BTW: Don’t forget that Obama floated the removal of the tax deduction for charitable contributions from the tax code. Liberals are notorious for not donating to good causes. They primarily donate to activist causes, not to programs that help PEOPLE. They want the government to control all the money it can lay it’s grubby hands on, so everyone will be dependant on the government only.

Just sayen

Ian Random
Reply to  Drake
February 5, 2020 12:19 am

That’s probably why soup kitchens require work to weed out those types. There’s a Bible quote that Alfonzo Rachel recites something about let not the poor be comfortable in their poverty that I think expresses it the best.

Rod Evans
Reply to  commieBob
February 4, 2020 11:24 pm

That’s an easy one to answer Bob, allow them into the political sphere, and when they reach total incompetence elevate them into the House of Lords.

Reply to  commieBob
February 5, 2020 3:33 am

Stupid is not low intelligence. Stupidity is not ignorance. Stupidity is an act of the will.

Reply to  commieBob
February 5, 2020 7:27 am

It matters not why they make poor choices.

Reply to  commieBob
February 5, 2020 10:08 am

“What about the 10% of the population who are too stupid to make reasonable choices?”

They get elected to public office.

Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2020 8:08 pm

But I choose the easiest degree at the easiest school. Those engineers and doctors who worked their butts off while getting hard degrees should pay back my student loans for me . It’s just not fair that I have student loan debt and they don’t. Waa! Waa! Bernie! Save me!

Reply to  ironargonaut
February 5, 2020 7:29 am

I’ve dealt with people who honestly did not understand why showing up on time, every day, was such a big deal.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  MarkW
February 5, 2020 9:16 am

Ask any small to medium sized business owner what their most difficult labor related problem is and they will tell you that it’s just getting people to show up for work and be mostly on-time. Most owners will put up with under performing employees if they are reliable and prompt. I still find that kind of crazy; I have much greater expectations myself.

Russ Wood
Reply to  MarkW
February 6, 2020 7:39 am

In Harold Robbins’ novel “The Betsy”, about the car industry, one character resolved the problem of bad timekeeping of the newly-employed, was to give them each a cheap alarm clock.

February 4, 2020 6:19 pm

Well of course the pain should be borne by others. Discomfort is so medieval.

February 4, 2020 6:31 pm

I loved the bursar of Saint John’s College Oxford who when asked to seel and Fossil Fuel Shares that the College held, suggested instead that he would turn off the students’ gas heating in College. The students rejected that!!

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
February 5, 2020 10:13 am

Yeah. They felt it wasn’t a sufficiently “woke” response. I’m guessing he won’t be there long.

nw sage
February 4, 2020 6:32 pm

People have been trained to think that those who have money should be willing to give large portions to others – as decided by Governments or religious organizations. Implicit in this is the assumption that the total amount of money (wealth) is fixed – in isn’t. They never seem to realize that wealth is Not generated by the government but comes into existence each and every time a product or service is sold. Sell something people want – generate wealth. Money is merely a means to measure and exchange wealth for goods and services. Money IS issued and controlled by a government to provide a standard way of making these exchanges.

Geoff Sherringtoj
Reply to  nw sage
February 4, 2020 10:00 pm

You have it slightly wrong. New wealth is created from sources that did not exist before. A classic case is new mineral discoveries. Another comes from invention, like the smart phone.
A career in these foundational interests can be particularly rewarding when the result is success. Only when these foundation people succeed can there be goods to sell. The selling of services, like being a tourist guide, is not really economically valuable by comparison. Geoff S!

Reply to  Geoff Sherringtoj
February 5, 2020 7:32 am

If it wasn’t economically valuable, nobody who pay for it.
Services provide value to the person who pays for that service.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Geoff Sherringtoj
February 5, 2020 9:57 am

Still not quite right. New goods and services merely compete for existing dollars. Wealth is created by fractional reserve banking (FRB). If ten people put $1,000 dollars in the bank, the bank has $10,000 on both sides of the ledger. To make money, the bank has to lend those funds. If they lend only what was taken in, the maximum is $10,000 and no one can take money out of the bank. With FRB, the percentage of which is set by law or by the central bank, the bank may be required keep $2,000 on hand, but loan the rest at the inverse of the FRB rate, in this case, say 80%. So the bank can keep the $2,000 on hand and write loans up to the full $10,000 of deposits. Magically, total wealth has gone up $2,000.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 5, 2020 3:05 pm

Nope, still missed it. Without any other changes, all you have done is create inflation.

Try this: wealth is created by increased productivity. When you increase supply without increasing the cost per item produced, then you have created more wealth. And productivity can be increased by new inventions OR services. The cotton gin increased production, thus wealth. The creation of the assembly line did not require anything new, but organized the labor, increasing productivity and wealth. Car repair, a service that maintains the operation of a vehicle, can increase productivity, and wealth.

The very basic analysis is this: if five people make five loaves of bread, their wealth is one loaf apiece. If one of them developes a zero-cost procedure that uses leftover scraps, originally considered waste, to make one more loaf of bread, everyone’s wealth increases 20%.

Reply to  jtom
February 6, 2020 5:42 am

spot on.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 6, 2020 5:48 am

T’aint magic. That’s just inflation.

Bryan A
February 4, 2020 6:42 pm

The U.S. median income is around $32,000 per annum.
Global median income is around $2,100 U.S. per annum.
Global to 10% income level is less than the U.S. median.
If you are at or above the U.S. median income level, you are a 10%er globally.

Reply to  Bryan A
February 5, 2020 9:48 am

A statement that obfuscates the cost of living around the world globally.

Bryan A
Reply to  ATheoK
February 5, 2020 10:10 am

Not to lessen the difference in the apparent cost of living in other countries around the globe, just to point out that, before you start preaching income inequality within your country, consider what the UN is proposing regarding “Globalization and Income Redistribution” AND where you sit relative to the Global Mean income level

February 4, 2020 6:59 pm

The people most affected by climate change should take on the greatest burden of climate action, one would think. The Aussies for example.
What with all those AGW bushfires and all.

Reply to  chaamjamal
February 4, 2020 7:47 pm

Aussie bush fires this year appear to be less than many other years. so that would mean climate change is a good thing.

Reply to  Art
February 4, 2020 8:43 pm

Thank you Art

Reply to  chaamjamal
February 5, 2020 12:28 am

Our bush actually needs to burn chaamjaamal So that it can regenerate and bring along the next generation of plants. It has been doing this for rather a long time which is why it has developed the way it has. There is no evidence that Australia has heated more or less than the rest of the world – about a degree over the last 100 years or so . Moreover we have – unlike most other countries – met most of our Paris commitments , more fools us! The fires will inevitably burn but they have been worsened by sheer neglect on behalf of our state governments and councils because hazard reduction burns have not been done, fire trails have not been maintained and people have not been allowed to clear and fire proof their properties. I suggest there are some significant class actions possible against some of our governing classes here.

Reply to  Quilter52
February 5, 2020 1:23 am

Thank you Quilter for this excellent and brief summary. In the upside down world of climate goofiness the co2 emissions of control burns is a sinful thing.

Reply to  Quilter52
February 5, 2020 10:44 am

“Our bush actually needs to burn chaamjaamal”

Such hate against Chaam! Oh, you forgot a comma. 🙂

February 4, 2020 7:09 pm

Oh yes we all have to pay due homage to climate change like world peace and fluffy kittens. That means happily sticking your hand out for some free CF and subsequent LED globes, pink batts, remote power board shutoffs, water saving shower heads, door draught stoppers, solar FIT schemes, solar panel and battery subsidies. That’s what climate changing is all about but don’t whatever you do start talking about carbon taxing and how you can’t put a price on the climate and whatever it takes as you’re committing political suicide.

No just handouts and virtue signalling like this-
You figure you’re not going to be around in power then so grab the smug kudos of being seen to head in the PC direction and somebody else can decide if they want to can it when the time comes. It’s what we do to manage all the climate changers and their doomsday hysterics without being seen to pooh pooh world peace and fluffy kittens as that’s not a good look.

Moi make sacrifices and go without or pay more taxes for climate change? No that’s for the Gummint to jump on the Big Polluders and fix these things stoopids.

February 4, 2020 7:09 pm

Shifted or outsourced responsibility.

Reply to  n.n
February 4, 2020 7:39 pm

Delicious irony for the watermelons isn’t it. Lefties have been adept at convincing the punters that more Gummint is the answer to all their problems so run along and fix the climate then. Just have to jump on the nasty capitalist Big Polluders and run the show on solar and wind don’t you lefties?

CD in Wisconsin
February 4, 2020 7:23 pm

“…According to some polls, Americans generally agree with 17-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg that the threat of climate change is a national emergency…”

First of all, the majority (maybe all) of those polled are not scientists. They get the information from television or the internet. Most (maybe all) journalists and the vast majority of those on the internet are not scientists either. Polling Americans on this issue assumes they understand the science behind the climate change debate–something that a lot of scientists on the skeptics side will likely have a lot of trouble believing. But don’t try telling any of this to the pollsters.

Secondly, don’t look now, but several politicians in the Swedish parliament have nominated Greta Thunberg for the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, as she was last year. They are nothing if not persistent. I still have considerable difficulty equating what Greta does with the cause for world peace. Claiming that it does promote world peace requires a considerable stretch of the imagination, at least in my mind.

I guess when you’ve been canonized by the alarmist clique, there is no end to the glory which will be showered upon you.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 4, 2020 7:59 pm

You got something against the fluffiest of fluffy kittens like Greta? Shame on you and watch out you don’t go viral. Trust them it will all run on e-motion silly.

Reply to  observa
February 6, 2020 5:51 am

Gretin, the Doom Goblin, is in no way fluffy.

Rick C PE
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 5, 2020 6:58 am

Polls are just a means of measuring the effectiveness of propaganda and the gullibility of the people.

February 4, 2020 7:35 pm

You can get a poll to say anything you want. It’s all the questions you ask and how you ask them.

Gallup has an ongoing poll that asks people what they think is the nation’s most important problem. ‘Environment/Pollution/Climate change’ comes in around 4%. That means the vast majority of citizens don’t think climate change is a national emergency.

Interesting … Around the time President Trump came into office, around 40% of the population thought economic issues were the nation’s most important problem. Now, it’s 10%. IMHO, it’s a combination of Trump’s economic policies and cheap energy provided by fracking. If people can be persuaded to vote based on their improved economic outlook, Trump will be re-elected.

Joel O’Bryan
February 4, 2020 7:53 pm

”But nowhere in the list of things that should be done to cope with the “national emergency” that voters liked were measures that would affect their lifestyles or choices.”

I reality the exact opposite is happening. The voters are trying to be bypassed. The elitist Left hates our US constitutional republic framework.

The Green Slime billionaires and their elitist pals they put in power are spending amounts that are vast fortunes for you and me in order to put us into poverty and serfdom. Thaso that they don’t have to sacrifice their Lifestyles of the rich and famous.

Look at billionaire Michael Bloomberg. He gave Nancy Pelosi’s House Majority PAC $10million contribution on December 16th after the House Judiciary Committee passed 2 articles of impeachment on Trump and Pelosi scheduled a floor vote ensuring their passage.
Bloomberg spent $10 million on a 60 second Superbowl ad that no one remembers.
He and Tom Steyer and the Rockefeller bros throw out $10 million dollar chunks onto a fire/pit seemingly without batting an eyebrow, like it’s chump change.

Ask yourself: How much are they throwing at enviro NGOs hustling the climate scam? The answer of course is Hundreds of millions of dollars.
Because they are playing for hundreds of billion$, if not trillions of dollars, all fleeced from an impoverished middle class via skyrocketing energy costs from schemes they’re invested in.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 5, 2020 7:35 am

Bloomberg has been bankrolling various anti-gun groups for years.

John Minich
February 4, 2020 7:54 pm

I think I can see some room for compromise in air travel. From what I understand, for efficiency in aircraft propulsion, the advantage, for a given power output goes to the system that accelerates the greatest mass of air per unit of energy consumed to provide the needed thrust. Please excuse me for simplifying things a bit concerning fuel type. I’m used to thinking in terms of gallons (volume) rather than pounds (mass). Gasoline is a relatively light aviation fuel, so I’ll not use it. Diesel fuel and jet-A (a kerosene like distillate) are closer. There are diesel (compression ignition, no spark plugs) aircraft engines that drive propellers. Among turbine engines, there are turboprops (turbines driving propellers), and jets (straight jets, and low, medium, and high bypass turbofans). The bypass designation is based on the proportion air accelerated around the outside of the combustion core of the engine. The piston engine usually converts more of the fuel energy to power to turn the propeller to accelerate a greater mass of air per unit of energy, hence, more efficient. But decidedly limited on frontal area and cooling drag, and reliability at high power outputs. Turboprops are the next step down on efficiency with lower “compression ratios”, but with modern metals, can run at higher combustion temperatures and lower frontal area and cooling drag. the propeller still moves a lot of air per unit of energy. Currently, turboprops (Dornier 328(?), Bombardier dash8, Pilatus PC-12 and others) are considered (in commercial use) more economic, with similar gate to gate speeds, for flight distances up to about 500 miles or so. As for speed, Airbus has a cargo plane capable of about 500 miles per hour, the Bombardier dash 8-400, about 400 mph. Even the new high bypass turbofan jets have trouble matching the turboprop without going to higher altitudes than props can, but jets can go faster. The fastest turboprop I know of is the old Tupolov (sp.?) Tu-95 that could fly around 525-550 MPH. So, compromise on commercial flying by using turboprops?

Reply to  John Minich
February 4, 2020 9:26 pm


Reply to  John Minich
February 5, 2020 7:37 am

Let the airlines decide what is most economical. Keep government out of it.

Dennis K.
February 4, 2020 8:56 pm

This brings to mind Margaret Thatcher’s insightful observation that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. We’re always ready for someone else to make the sacrifice.

Reply to  Dennis K.
February 6, 2020 5:47 am

It’s not that liberals know nothing. It’s just that so much of what they think they know, just ain’t so.
R. Reagan .

February 4, 2020 9:16 pm

I don’t believe anyone should sacrifice anything I’m not willing to sacrifice myself. V8 turbos for all, unbounded access to air travel, free movement to the stores to buy beef, etc, etc.

My rights end where your’s begin. Nothing more complex than that. All of this is positive rights tyranny cloaked in the veil of environmentalist righteousness. Same as the medieval Lords said to the peasants: I f*** as I please, but you must remain chastened.

This movement must be stopped.

These people.. they need to strip naked, walk into the wilderness and live without any benefit of fossil fuels. When they re-emerge as savages, then may they preach to us about the errors of our ways.

Robert of Texas
February 4, 2020 9:28 pm

I absolutely think others should make climate choices! Those that think it is some kind of crisis should specifically give up all comforts and luxuries that have a carbon footprint.

It just amazes me how hypocritical people can be. I already recycle, knowing it is doing little good but I do it anyway. I compost. I live in a warmer house in the summer and a cooler house in the winter than I am really comfortable at. I conserve water as best I can, and I probably have one of the lowest “carbon footprints” of anyone you will likely meet – for example I drive less than 1,000 miles a year – refilling my Ford F-150 truck’s gas tank is an extremely rare event. Yeah, it gets around 20 MPG but I drive less than a 1,000 miles a year. (That doesn’t stop people from looking at horror at my wonderful truck though)

If people want to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, then stop using them. Just stop. Quit complaining and stop. No more plastics, gas burning engines, or using electricity from the grid. Just stop.

But no, they want ME to stop…not themselves. They are _____ (too busy, too important, too poor, too involved, too whatever – just fill in the blank). Well, I am not going to stop. I *like* all the benefits of a carbon based economy. Yeah, I support going to a nuclear based economy over time – once we get the technology right, but we are still going to need plastics, chemicals, and all the other things that fossil fuels provide us.

Hypocrites. I wish they would just all do their own part and shut the ____ up, and leave the rest of us alone.

Clay Sanborn
February 4, 2020 9:32 pm

Concern for the environment and concern for wealth are both misplaced. Even Jesus said we will always have the poor – Mark 14:7 “For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always”. Helping the poor as one can should be left to each person as his conscience requires, but we should not legislate (force) people to give money to the poor; in the long term that benefits no one. Instead of focusing on climate and wealth, we should all return our focus to Christ, whose return is imminent, and whose grace thru faith in Him gives us eternal life. Climate, wealth and everything else will instantly have no meaning on His return. Jesus will make all things new again, as they were supposed to be in the first place. Think about that.

February 4, 2020 9:39 pm
Ian Coleman
February 4, 2020 9:40 pm

I used to smoke until about twelve years ago. Let me tell you, when the elites take it into their heads to demonize something you like to do, they don’t fool around, and especially if the target group, as were smokers, is made up people in the lower income brackets. They just stomp you. And the people who do the stomping not only don’t smoke themselves, they don’t know anybody who does. You have two socially segregated groups, and the wealthier, more influential cohort has the power to punish and stigmatize the poorer. And they do. And they’re proud of it.

They can demonize older gas cars. Right now, seventy percent of cars on the road were bought used. This means that, whenever you read that electric cars are about to become competitive with gas cars, you’re reading nonsense. In Edmonton, where I live, you can buy a reliable, safety inspected, insurable gas car for about $3000, and drive it anywhere in Canada without any fear that you won’t be able to refuel it. Let’s see you find a used electric car for that price. If you could (and you can’t), it would be one of those useless clunkers that takes about twelve hours to charge, and has a range of less than a hundred miles.

The only way electric cars are going to get any market share in Canada is if gas cars are arbitrarily made more expensive. This can be done with heavy gas taxes and harassing taxes on the sale and operation of gas cars. The victims of these policies would be the less affluent drivers that the elites never meet in the day-to-day lives, and about whom they don’t care.

Reply to  Ian Coleman
February 5, 2020 1:36 am

“The only way electric cars are going to get any market share in Canada is if gas cars are arbitrarily made more expensive.”

The Green overlords are doing that now by stealth. They know direct carbon taxes begets yellow vest response so they implement ever more onerous emissions standards for ICE carmakers to drive them off the roads. That’s why VW took the extraordinary risk they did with gaming the emissions testing because they knew that consumers still want reasonable power and longevity out of their cars without expensive DPFs and Adblue along with CVT and DSG transmissions.

To give you reasonable power with ever tougher emissions controls they’ve had to turn to very high compression small capacity engines with high pressure direct injection along with bi-turbos at extreme limits of engineering and lubrication chemistry. Welcome to valve carboning with GDI engines and GPF necessary for them and cramming 10 and 12 speed gears into the same space with traditional transmissions.

They’ll go bang clunk big time early should you not understand what scrupulous attention to servicing and necessarily babying them requires now and hence the proliferation of recalls or class actions with any glitches. For the tech minded here’s an example of that and boggle at a couple of those figures mentioned in it-
Who needs a lazy old big cube one atmosphere V8 in their pickup eh?

February 4, 2020 10:41 pm

That 62 % strongly or somewhat support an emergency declaration worries me. Then again, the study comes from the climate propaganda dept.

February 4, 2020 10:49 pm

You can include the UK’s Prince Charles in this (I’m a Brit). The difference is, he doesn’t look for richer people to make sacrifices – there are too few compared to him – but for the rest of us lower down the ladder. He flew on a private jet to meet Greta in Davos. And what was his reponse to criticism? “I don’t choose how to travel, the UK Government does that for me”. But of course, he doesn’t need to make personal sacrificies, because he’s special. His work and travel needs are more important than everyone else’s. The rest of us only travel for self-indulgent fun.

Rod Evans
February 4, 2020 10:54 pm

“The long march through the institutions” continues.
Until we have stopped that destruction of freedom march, driven on and into the public places by those unaware and mostly innocent of their role, in the slow but steady destruction of society, we can throw all the science arguments. all the logic, and all our rational views at the marcher’s invented problems, but, it will make no difference.
The Frankfurt School, set the stage. Many have walked upon it, since it was first advanced in the 1930s. The social engineering project, was developed to be a multi generational concept. Here we are then, it is almost complete, three generation on.
It was described/defined as Cultural Marxism.
The institutions run by left of centre heads of department. tick.
The judiciary focused on left of centre policy. tick
The academics advance left of centre ideals or they do not make progress, tick
The media must always promote left of centre policy, tick
Poverty is virtue, it must be supported wealth is sin it must be distributed. tick
Capitalism will destroy the planet, capitalism must be stopped. tick
National identity is wrong, tick
Individualism is bad, collectivism is good. tick
Collective control by the state, of all factors of production, (or none) tick
The nation state must be destroyed, (think EU). tick
Collective control by the one universal state, (think UN). tick

The freedom and ability to shape our own destiny is becoming impossible, due to micro control of all facets of society. Life choices are being defined in ever greater detail, by the very authorities we fund, yet have no control over?
Removal of personal transport options, via notional Green policies takes freedom of choice away. It is yet another example of the reach the long marchers now have. Choice of how homes are heated or cooled is being removed. Access to reliable energy sources is being removed. The state ultimately the one state will decide who has power and for how long it is available.
The people of California are well down this dark road, (literally) with rolling power cuts becoming an accepted feature, of life in the richest state within the richest country in the world.
When Orwell wrote 1984 back in 1948, it was considered a work of fiction….but clearly not by everyone.
How much longer, will we allow this forced social re engineering to go on?

Reply to  Rod Evans
February 5, 2020 9:06 am

The problem with many people “defending” freedom of speech is that many have no idea what they are “defending” and would have accepted ANY level of censorship.

IOW to defend something you must expel from your ranks those who don’t wish to make any effort the defend the real thing. The Trump effect make a few phonies get away from the GOP: a phony “libertarian” is now an anti Trump “independent”. Others wanted to “primary” Trump, standing on God knows platform. Things are clearer and diversity to thoughts still exists: the GOP is not a robotic Trump following party and neither are Trump supporters at Fox News.

There are people who don’t put any meaningful content in words and concepts like “freedom” and “censorship”. There are probably the same people who use “systemic” as it was a thing applied to a single person and single event. And ironically the real case of systemic risk is the use of phony “systemic” test on a behavior. You can spot these brainwashed morons by their use of “you have freedom of speech but not freedom of consequences” for someone punished by authorities (like an so called “anti-vax” MD pretended from doing his job) and by applying “systemic” test on behavior that can’t have a systemic risk nature, but at most systematic faulty nature.

And they are EVERYWHERE. They are in the DOJ and FBI now. And everywhere in the media. Anyone who didn’t denounced the characterization of what Hillary Clinton did with her emails as “not systemic” is complicit of that generalized ineptness.

Now the question is not how you drain the swamp, it isn’t even how the FBI and DOJ can be rescued, it’s: are they worth rescuing? WHAT exactly can be saved?

February 5, 2020 12:15 am

“When Orwell wrote 1984 back in 1948, it was considered a work of fiction….but clearly not by everyone.”

It’s now being used as an instruction book !!

Vincent Causey
February 5, 2020 12:28 am

A good cure would be for the GND to be implemented with full force.

February 5, 2020 4:19 am

Socialism never applies to socialists, it only applies to the people socialists leach off of.

Reply to  David Middleton
February 5, 2020 7:54 am

IOW it’s a supremacism:

Rights for those in group A.
No rights for in group B.

We need to call out all these “ideologies”. The carbon neutral lifestyle is afforded by forcing poor people to abandon agriculture lands to plant trees.

We need to always call these “intellectual” what they are, supremacists.

Intelligentsia supremacists.

Reply to  niceguy
February 5, 2020 9:37 am

Now I think that Macron was not elected despite his obviously very limited intellect, but thanks to it. Macron is mostly a banking organizer. He organizes deals and gets funding for himself, from outside France, a transparently illegal deal (gift from Soros?).

Macron’s election, and “En Marche” (Forward!) is the revenge of extremely unintelligent (or neg-intelligent = negative intelligence) people (so called intelligentsia) after the victory of Donald Trump.

By giving victory to Macron, the French MSM said:

“We support the guy who doesn’t know how you can sell abroad, outside your currency zone (hypothetically, the French Franc zone) and pay your employees in the local currency. We support the guy who doesn’t know anything about criminality in dangerous areas, who doesn’t know where terrorists come from… or that they come as “migrants” [even when they actually have French nationality!]. We don’t care. We will lie for him. We make up stuff then contradict it, sometimes in the same paragraph (or same sentence) and literally call it “fact check” (in French: “fact check”).”

February 5, 2020 5:41 am

This is how the modern media molded mind works: Imagine a crisis and then have someone else pretend to fix it. Good gosh, friends.


February 5, 2020 6:06 am

Information control (aka fake news measures) means we say what is real news (or good enough news) and what is not.

Important notice: Getting stuff almost systematically wrong does not make into the determination of what is an unreliable source. Sources are unreliable per se (Russian sources, “populist” outlets, “extreme” right wing).

Mandatory tolerance (aka anti hate speech) means that we determine who can be publicly shamed and who cannot.

The fight against conspiracy theory allows us to define what is a credible evidence free accusation and which consistent theories are “flat Earth” (*) level crazy.

Gun control means that we should get to decide who gets protection by people with guns and who does not. (Those who get constant protection don’t have to be threatened or particularly vulnerable.)

It’s all about choosing for others.

(*) or “flat earth” cause then it isn’t a planet?

Reply to  niceguy
February 5, 2020 7:42 am

Re: fake news.

Just like the Fukushima Daiichi (PR) disaster was awful for the nuclear industry (esp. the French Areva), it was good news for the study of Pacific fishes as the uncontrolled experiment of releasing radioactive tracers in the Pacific gave surprising undeniable evidence about the amount of fish migration, US fake news gives me a small amount of tracing of the origin of info in French media: news in the MSM is now so fake but also more traceable with stuff you couldn’t make up.

Maxime “in-peach” Waters put pressure on Pelosi to push that circus on us.

It ultimately led to Alan Dershowitz saying that no foreign policy related impeachable act was established (or implied) about alleged President Trump conduct, incl. anything allegedly in Bolton’s book (*) … which gave us Dershowitz says that a President can commit any crime whatsoever as long as it’s in his mind in the public interesting (as it contributes to his reelection). Now there are levels of fake news, and there is such thing as “errors a distracted mind can commit”.

But evidently no amount of “distraction” can cause such utter nonsense: only willful, complete commitment to lying, or blindly copying a source utterly committed to lying.

And the French media, the experts, even the teachers specialists of US politics regularly invited to TV (esp. @CorentinSellin) propagated that utter nonsense.

So the French intelligentsia sources its infos from the channels that gave us “Creepy P.rn Lawyer will save us from evil Trump” propaganda.

Now we have almost radio-cesium level tracing of fake news.

(*) or was it about the foreign policy related acts by President Clinton, or by President Obama? I really can’t tell. They needed the defense that only “criminal like” (foreign policy) conduct is impeachable a lot more than President Trump.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  niceguy
February 5, 2020 10:09 am

Dershowitz did not say the president can do anything he wants without fear of legitimate impeachment. His point was that there has to be a real crime as the basis. There is no part of the U.S. Code that makes it illegal to thumb your nose at Congress, or put the arm on a foreign government to do what you want. The first is politics, the second is diplomacy. Plain and simple.

February 5, 2020 6:57 am

The best French leftists invention of all times was “la carte scolaire” (school map or school zoning?): you put your children in the local school. The local school is only for those who live in the zone. Like when banks (allegedly) gave credits based solely or mostly on addresses, but worse. (As the child grows older, the areas grow too. The 6 to 11 years old schools (“l’école”) areas are small and 16 to 18 years old school (the “lycée”) areas are larger.

So you have the guarantee that your children will only have to deal with the children of other people who live in the same exact area. The housing price in the area increases faster as immigrants come to other areas. As housing is unaffordable, public schools become more (implicitly) “select” and housing in the exact area is more valuable. Price increases are caused by un-affordability of housing. One of biggest taboo in the debate about housing, together with the insane norms for construction and renovation (you must configure all homes for the navigation of a wheelchair, which wastes huge free space).

[Note: France is a country of abjectly ignorant people, esp. economically. (Schools are controlled by the very far left.) People in commerce don’t get commerce. Those who do “promotions” don’t know why and for what purpose. They don’t always know they need to advertise those “promotions”. Most French people don’t understand price at an intellectual level not even those who sell goods and services. They do not too bad economically by imitating others who know what they are doing, but at the primeval cultural level.

[This is about bad French people are ignorant and can’t read: Marine Le Pen, “far right” French leader (actually she hates freedom of commerce and many of her points were those of communist leader George Marchais), who is an ignoramus, actually trashed (on all subjects, esp. the economy and finance) the pretend banker and pretend genius Macron during the only debate between the two. (Since the perspective of electing such less than ignoramus was unconscionable, all fact checkers concluded the exact opposite, the usual way fact checkers do their jobs. Reading the “fact checks” of course refutes the conclusion, as always.)]

Not even all real estate developers know the basic stuff in housing market! So you can ask some real estate developers to confirm what I just wrote a get the blank, unsettling AOC like eyes.]

Many people don’t know that major driver of housing in France. Even

So rich people came up with a way:

– to make housing more expensive
– to increase the value of their home a lot more than the average
– to deal less with immigrants
– to avoid the issues of people not speaking the same language at school
– to avoid culture clashes
while promoting a SOCIALIST IDEA.

Yes, the whole make rich richer and make their areas less “diverse” tool was promoted by the left.

Then they complain about the lack of diversity and high prices of course, and make laws to force towns to built low rent housing.

February 5, 2020 7:46 am

It’s exactly why I’ve been referring to this for years as Other People syndrome. That Guy should pay a tax. Someone Else needs to bear the burden. Never themselves.

February 5, 2020 9:46 am

Yes, shut it down starting with the Bay Area.

“Shut it down. Shut down all the garbage units on the detention level.”

February 5, 2020 9:50 am

“By Jonathan S. Tobin FEBRUARY 4, 2020
According to some polls, Americans generally agree with 17-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg…”

Another author starting off with an extremely vague strawman condition , allowing them to make all kinds of specious claims.

K. Hunter
February 5, 2020 8:21 pm

Imagine my surprise to learn that …“A Majority of Americans Believe OTHER People Should Make Climate Sacrifices”. Gee.

Rudolf Huber
February 8, 2020 4:05 pm

Not only in the US. I talk to a lot of people here on the street. The vast majority wants others to make changes. I also have the opportunity to discuss radical greens form time to time. They all are supremely well electrified and would not understand why they should give up their smartphones, their frequent party rides and their travel to Latin America in order to reconnect with their inner self. Let others to the stone-aging.

Johann Wundersamer
February 15, 2020 3:02 pm

Who needs air travel when there’s electric motorcycles with saddle bags and required accessories:

Verified by MonsterInsights