Quote of the day
"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."
Great quote. And here's the context. (Hat tip: Small Dead Animals)
It's from a British outlet, LTTXtra.
Carbon rationing predicted to deliver collapse in travel demand
Transport policy-makers should start preparing now for a dramatic reduction in motorised travel that will be brought about by carbon rationing, one of the country's leading environmental thinkers told LTT this week.
"Just start reading the runes because what's going to happen is the demand for road, rail and air travel is going to start falling away just as soon as we have rationing," says Mayer Hillman in an interview with the magazine.
Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.
"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."
A few questions suggest themselves about these planet saving measures that have "got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not". How can governments who implement rationing "against the will of the people" remain in power? Do they cancel elections? Why should the "people" be so wrong that they cannot be convinced otherwise? And if the "people" resist, how many of them may be killed to prevent the "planet" from dying? Inquiring minds want to know.
posted by wretchardthecat at 12/17/2007 04:38:00 PM
20 Comments:
These sort of monster loons could best help to save the planet by killing themselves first.
The hubris that is exhibited by those who are climate change alarmists is astonishing. Although they believe they are being proactive by imposing draconian restrictions that they assume will solve a poorly understood problem, in reality, they have a static world view. They believe that their time and place is so important that nothing will change.
It is a virtual certainty that within the next century (the time line that their guru, Al Gore, uses quite frequently), advanced technologies will make clean energy available across the globe and that the primitive and grossly inaccurate models of global climate will be replaced by more accurate models that demonstrate the folly of current climate change pseudo-science. It's even within the realm of possibility that any environmental damage that has been done might be undone by advancements as yet unknown. One hundred years is a very long time.
Let’s put it this way, I live a little over 4 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Even after considering climate alarmists hysterical claims, I don’t intend to buy a life boat just yet.
I would like to see the army that "they" could raise in order to impose this new world order on the "people". The contradictions of raising such an army boggle the mind.
Soflauthor, it's not about linear distance from the coast, it's about elevation above sea level.
Francine:
Soflauthor, it's not about linear distance from the coast, it's about elevation above sea level.
All true. According to my zoning records, I'm 3.5 feet above sea level. I'm certain Al Gore would advise me to be very, very worried.
The Laguna Beach Independent recently published a letter-to-the-editor that included:
“The present level of population density and carbon-based industrialization is producing an exponential increase in the average world wide temperature, which, if not dramatically reduced over the next decade will lead to an environmental disaster that human-kind is unlikely to survive.”
For all takers, I offered to bet that human-kind will exist in 2018. I thought this was quite clever since if I lost the bet, money would be the least of my problems.
But the Europeans need to do something. See Wall Street Journal December 3, 2007 Editorial An Inconvenient Reduction
During the Presidency of George W. Bush who has the better record regarding carbon dioxide emissions? The US who has not ratified the Kyoto Treaty or the European Union countries who have signed the Kyoto Treaty?
■ “U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide fell by 1.8% from 2005 to 2006.
■ “Output of all greenhouse gases was down 1.5% last year. All this while the American economy grew by 2.9%.”
■ “from 2000 to 2005, the U.S. outperformed Western Europe. Carbon emissions were up 3.8% in the so-called EU-15 during those years, versus 2.5% in the U.S.”
More evidence Wretchard of the Nobility (the Left) -- People (everyone else) divide that characterizes politics on the war against Islam, Global Warming, and everything else.
I want to fund and overfund NASA, Richard Branson and anyone else who is headed for the stars, so we can leave these nutsoids behind. I simply no longer believe that the planet is big enough for both me and bleeding heart liberals.
I just realized that global warming hysteria like this is merely another means for Europeans to annihilate themselves. In other words, European self hatred has gotten so strong that now there are Europeans who believe more in self-annihilation than freedom (democracy). The way this plays out with Global warming is that they want to expunge themselves and their affects from the planet. One way to do this is have too few babies to maintain their population. A second way is to invite their enemies of 1400 years to live among them and out-populate them. The third way now is to decline their economies using carbon credits. We in America need to keep our systems strong so that there will be a place to go when Europe starts collapsing.
Random Axess: We in America need to keep our systems strong so that there will be a place to go when Europe starts collapsing.
America has already been a place to go as Mexico collapses, and we want to keep them out. Now you want to open the doors to Europeans when they come calling? Is that a skin color thing or what? It can't be a purely cultural thing, since the predicted collapse of Europe will prove their collective wisdom is no better than that of Latin America.
Here's a good thread on this same topic on transterrestrial musings.
The Policy Studies Institute certainly has a creepily non-specific name.
Anyone here seen QUATERMASS II (aka ENEMY FROM SPACE)?
(In reality, when confronted by global warming arrogance like this I always ask myself - "will China accept this crap? Will India?" and the answer is "of course not." So why should anyone else?)
Apparently not from New Hampshire.
America has plenty of idiots who have already marked a dotted line on their necks labeled "Cut HERE."
James Lileks is credited in Gates of Vienna for alerting readers to a move by the Minneapolis municipal government announcing it will make interest-free financing available to people whose religious convictions will not allow them to enter into loans which impose interest fees.
Hey, years ago I was complaining, if I just had a bigger shop, and was a better mechanic, I'd build a rocket, and leave.
I ain't leaving. Put those assholes in the rockets and send them.
Scratch a green, expose a red...
Anyone who has read my comments here and elsewhere cannot find any of this surprising. Marxist regimes weren't deadly simply because they didn't like people who wouldn't obey. Go no further than it doesn't like people. It and its leaders have been nothing short of deliberately deadly to their own people. Mao may have been the most deadly, but Stalin was the most obvious.
The ideas fundamental to Marxism have always born the earmarks of the hatred of mankind in the ways it tried to kill the advancements of mankind.
Most criticiziers of the Greens have long called them watermelons, so how can any "news" such as this really be treated as a surprise? Because this writer is open about it?
He's not the first, and he's not the first Wretchard has reported upon in this blog. Sheesh!
This all in keeping with my long languishing thesis. That my thesis lacks thorough-going analytical demonstrations is because I am not up to doing it for a variety of reasons, mostly personal weaknesses.
But that shouldn't stop the more energetic and clear thinking of you from tying the Malthusian-belief-driven counter-enlightenment -- that predated Marx -- to all the mayhem that it and subsequent ideologies have wrought.
Postmodernist drivel is one thing; this current fear-mongering global warming hogwash, building itself up to overdrive, is quite another.
Only 10% of an iceberg can be seen above the waves. What lesser percentage of these open haters of humanity bear clear warning to the large numbers who lay hidden still? Is there a balance here? At what level will the number of openly hostile convince less than benign globalists that they might just get away with siezing power uber alles?
I really don't think they'll ever get so bold. Or if foolish enough, they will never succed.
But the mayhem that such thinkers have wrought in the past could very well portend a horrible future. Who and where are the leaders who can mount the counterforce to all this, this ... stupidity?
Clioman: Agreed, but when they were communists they claimed to like at least part of the human race (the "proletariat").
All, please consider viewing this informative one hour video:
The Global Warming Swindle.
This is the first scientific, fact-based refutation of MMGW (ManMade Global Warming that I have come across.
Note to wretchard: If this has not already been given coverage here at The Belmont Club, would you please think about giving it a separate article of its own?
Hat tip to exile over at The Gates of Vienna.
Post a Comment
<< Home