I just love Treehugger – just like I love CongressTwits AOC, Tlaib, Omar and Pressley. Just keep talking and talking, and talking some more. Pretty soon, they all end up either going off the deep end or proving my points for me. Either way, it is always a win-win-win for Free Market / Individual Liberty folks like us.
So on this post, IPCC Says We Have 12 Years to Cut Carbon by 45%. What does that look like?, we see that these eco-socialists have no problem with a Big Government that will force you to live THEIR Utopia. Or, at least, slag you to live their demanded lifestyle in order to get to their Heaven on Earth dystopia. The post lists out what that road must entail. Read it – it is both interesting and scary what the quoted writer takes as “normal” for everyone. If Brigette Gabriel is trying to warn America about what Political Islam is trying to do here, in which the Muslim Brotherhood has made it clear what they are doing, well, here’s what the Watermelon Environmentalists’ believe YOU must and WILL be enduring (and be JOYful doing it):
- Regular car-free, fly-free and work-free days to cut emissions (direct, immediate action)
- World fossil fuel-free days (We need many trials to experience what this looks like and where we need to be better prepared.)
- Free cycles for everyone and free secure cycle parking (This must be the mainstream go-to for personal journeys under 5 miles.)
- A hierarchy of energy use for the common good (where cooking, heating and hot showers are higher priorities for renewables than low occupancy, inefficient electric cars and data proliferation)
- De-carbonise heating, hot water and cooking ASAP. (Millions of green jobs urgently needed with appropriate training.)
- Free trees for every garden (on private land in the UK as well as mass planting on public land, since trees absorb carbon and are a critical part of climate action)
- Resident allotment permits for food growing on current wasteful resident parking spaces. (Perishable greens are high carbon because of the quantity that is degraded in transport. Food security is important, as is locally sourced produce needed to reduce road / air miles)
- A ban on advertising for planet-destroying consumerables (car adverts, meat and long distance flights / holidays)
- Concern about high energy use of tech promoted for per the mile road pricing (Telematics is a high energy user of data, not appropriate for a low carbon, low energy future. Energy use allowances would be far more effective at reducing car use. We need to address the cause, not the symptom.)
- Ban automation in motor vehicles. (Not safe or proven technology. No algorithmic transparency of accountability. It is a very high energy user; there are 100 computers on one Automated Vehicle, equivalent to boiling 3 electric kettles continuously, plus radar, sensors and cameras. Mostly designed for data harvesting and surveillance.)
- Carbon, energy and data allowances for everyone (Energy allowances will allow people to choose between a hot shower, downloading a Netflix boxset, or using a car to drive a few miles down the road.)Switch investment and jobs away from the car industry and road building to pinning solar to every roof possible ASAP. (The car industry is stranded assets and jobs whilst solar is an urgent imperative for a low energy, low carbon future.)
- Transparent, easily accessible carbon accounting at all levels of Government and Business (with indirect carbon from energy use recorded as well as direct carbon)
- Extend job centre plus travel discount to all public transport.
- Basic income (that is nothing to do with Artificial Intelligence but about reducing the working week to 3-4 days to cut energy use and for quality community and family life).
- Education on how to use ICT (Information and Communications Technology) that is not wasteful of energy. For instance, don’t travel via google maps. Plan your journey ahead or use a map. Borrow CDs and DVDs from libraries rather than Netflix and streaming.
- Producing software that is efficient means energy allowances must be applied. Current wasteful and lazy software is burning energy needlessly.
- Stopping data proliferation that is used for mass surveillance, data harvesting and selling us stuff we don’t need.
- No forced personal data on the Electoral Register (Democracy must be free of outside interference.)
- Algorithmic transparency and accountability
- Tax under-occupation of dwellings We could house the entire UK population again in the current unoccupied bedrooms. Make more efficient use of current housing stock through taxation. Cutting cement and steel emissions means a radical transformation in the way we build and maintain housing.
- Treat plastic as toxic waste. Stop producing the stuff. Man-made toxic plastic derivative textiles, too, i.e. acrylics, nylon, Spandex. Fleeces are one of the worst. No more Lycra cycling gear!Cycle-only streets and hire bikes at all train stations and bus interchanges.
- Licence pedicabs and apps like pedalmeapp and move to last mile delivery by cargo bike.
- Give every citizen the choice to live a carfree lifestyle with suitable infrastructure and financial incentives.
- Mass rewilding of roads to restore nature, biodiversity, carbon-absorbing tree cover and flood mitigation.
EU directive draft proposal:
- Every village, town and city in the European Union must have a walking and cycling network.
- Everyone must have the opportunity to walk and cycle safely going about their daily life.
- This must be backed up by an integrated, accessible and joined up Public Transport Network.
- Ban motor traffic from the core of every town, city and village.
So that’s quite the list. Frankly, though, this still doesn’t compare to AOC’s Green New Deal in intrusiveness and cost. Both, however, show the degree in which they are willing to flop the relationship of citizens to Government (albeit for different reasons; the above to “save GAIA”, the Green New Deal is intended to wipe out Capitalism (and, pretty much, America as we know it)).
Well, one of the denizens who is decidedly a hardcore environmentalist (who, I must admit, is walking his talk with his enviro-lifestyle and I have complemented him by VOLUNTARILY doing the stuff he believes must be done to stop the dreaded Climate Crisis (yep, new and updated name – Crisis!)) AND anti-capitalist. He’s also a believer that currency is one of the roots of our evils (he has yet, over the last couple of years, to tell us what his alternative is…). Like others, he hates our current economic system with passion that is white-hot:
Hi: There is a flaw in that a handful of people (Comparatively) control the world, and what they want is 4 or 5 billion people gone, and they will accomplish this anyway they can.
FACT: We have NO proactive population control.
FACT: Infinite expansion on a finite planet is not possible.
FACT: We have in totality surrendered the sum total of everything on this planet to currency.
FACT: Those with Wealth and Power (The handful) ALL, ALL, ALL through recorded history have NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER given it up willingly. They choose jumping out a window rather than yielding (I chose this wording because I could not actually express it in the real world way, would be censored).
SO, all this “pretty talk” sounds wonderful and is logically correct, but it will not happen without a “dirty job” ahead at the handful. As I wrote in my thoughts for the day, a long time ago:
“Mankind will not go, “the way of the dinosaur”, for lack of “the saving”
technologies, but for the inability to make money on it, i.e., Capitalism does not bring the best goods and services to market but the ones that make the most money.”
With that last line, he proves his anti-capitalism bona fides that rejects that millions upon billions of individual voluntary economic transactions can’t make the best decisions. I could not help but respond:
“Capitalism does not bring the best goods and services to market but the ones that make the most money.”
Yet, it is people, of their own free will, are “voting” with their dollars (et al) for what they want. Without that voluntary exchange, there are no “rich” people who simply have figured out what all those people really want. Thus, by definition, they are supplying “the best goods and services”.
It seems, however, you disagree with those that are voting otherwise to what you think is best as you wrote that line. It also should never be such a reason that government “must step in” because of some perceiving a market failure.
When you hear “market failure”, it generally is from those that will not or cannot accept that other people have different priorities about what is best for THEM. They really want a socialistic / communistic environment where THEY are the ones that do the planning for the rest of us; again, look at that long list from that London based writer of how she believe things should be. Always realize that to have all that, Government must intrude drastically, but I digress.
I did get a response – in which he set his own “trap”:
“Yet, it is people, of their own free will, are “voting” with their dollars (et al) for what they want. Without that voluntary exchange, there are no “rich” people who simply have figured out what all those people really want. Thus, by definition, they are supplying “the best goods and services”.
Sounds like a boiler plate cut and paste from a Theoretical Free Market Capitalism Class. Such is theory without practicality and to much narrowly selected causality and “soft” paper tigers, lacking a complete circle of truth.
Not that I should have to point this out, but you also assumed your conclusion.
In other words, he believes that there is no such thing as a Free Marketplace – it has never existed and never will. No truth to what I was trying to get across. If I can be called a Climate Crisis denier, then can I call him a Free Market Economy denier?
And then I proved him with an actual example of Free Market decision making – himself (emphasis mine here):
Other than taking a micro and a micro Econ classes back in college, I’d have nothing to cut and paste.
Let me ask you this – you had to buy all of your “stuff” to live carbon / energy free (either ready made or raw parts) from someone, right? They had it for a decent price (for you) in a reasonable time frame (for you) and within a distance you could either travel to pick it up or at a price (reasonable for you) to have it shipped to you.
You got what you wanted and made the decision that “stuff” had a higher value-added than the money you spent for it. Same by the folks who sold it to you – they valued your money more than the stuff they sold you.
That’s the basis of voluntary capitalism and you engaged in it of your free will.So how is that “without practicality” when you yourself provided me with the example?
Heh! He has, over time, proclaimed how he lives with his solar panels and other equipment that enables that “renewables” lifestyle but he consistently rails against the economic system that has provided those products necessary to do so. He failed to recognize that he was “voting with his dollars” in telling the Marketplace that he valued these products – giving input, simply by Price, that there are those that the Market should provide more of them.
I COULD say that I rubbed his face in it – there was no response back. I’m not sure, but can anyone think of how he COULD have responded after that? Not a rhetorical question – I am interested in what you think about that little exchange.
I’m also curious as to how y’all react to the above list – if there was a concerted effort by US based environmentalists to actually implement that list, what would you do?