The eco-Socialists at Treehugger are really at it again. And when you think it can’t get any more bizarre with the “equity” schtick (e.g, the Socialist norm of “equality of outcome” instead of the American norm of “equality of opportunity”), here comes this from Lloyd.
(emphasis mine):
How Can We Make 1.5 Degree Lifestyles Equitable?
It’s not just about individual action, but can be government policy.The 1.5 degree lifestyle is where people live their lives in a manner where the average per capita carbon emissions are consistent with keeping the climate heating below 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius)—a number that seems more like a dream every day. Treehugger has covered studies about it and I wrote a book about it. Most of the discussions are about personal behavior change (get a bike!) versus system change (100 oil companies are responsible!).
A new study from ZOE, the Institute for Future-Fit Economies, titled “Equitable 1.5 Degree Lifestyles: How Socially Fair Policies Can Support the Implementation of the European Green Deal” (PDF here), takes a different approach: It tries to outline policy pathways that encourage low-carbon living and discourage the high-fliers. The study notes:
“Climate change and socioeconomic inequality reinforce one another, with the effects of the former hitting the most vulnerable the hardest, including lower-income groups, while the rising consumption of “luxury goods” – goods for which demand increases proportionately larger than increases in income – by high-income groups contributes to the acceleration of climate change. Therefore, tackling unsustainable consumption patterns is at the heart of addressing this causality.”
As always, they do the Euphemism Two-Step in not coming right out and directly say what Hillary Clinton once did:
“We’re going to take things away from you” – Hillary Clinton, June 2004).
But it is exactly what that line meant. So, use “carbon usage” to attack successful people (who generally tend to be more wealthy). As both Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Nitwit keep saying (ok, AOC), billionaires are an assault on the rest of us – they shouldn’t even exist. Bernie used to say that about millionaires until he became one himself – now that word has been quietly dropped from his lexicon. But that reports makes it clearer:
“Stronger measures directed at the emissions of wealthier segments of the population in order to make 1.5-Degree Lifestyles equitable and acceptable. A useful tool in this context is to envision the lifestyles of European citizens flourishing within a consumption corridor that is shaped by a floor of minimum social consumption standards and an environmentally informed ceiling with maximum consumption standards.
Sorry, the ONLY way that it will be acceptable is if Government MAKES it acceptable in the idea that “other alternatives are NOT acceptable”. Nice to see that The Proper Role of Government will now be one that says how “well” you can live – but pretty much anything else will be fine. “Living Large” is not the report’s norm and is looking for it to be forced onto others. We’ll take stuff from you rich people in the top 10% (which is, pretty much, the “Developed World”) and if an American has 60% of the American average income, you are in that world 10%.
So yes, they are talking about doing this to YOU to lower YOU to the World’s lowest 10% (because money doesn’t grow on trees – er, Carbon. See how they’ve switched the goalposts from traditional Marxism / Communism? Different technique, same goal. Because of Carbon – the slithering of economic class warfare wrapped up in “Ecological Sustainability” – sorry folks, they’re all self-righteous King Canutes who believe that since man created this mess (no we didn’t), man can fix it (no, we can’t do that either).
Sidenote: or should I be using the term “a mammal with two arms, opposing thumbs, and two legs and that prefers a modern lifetyle” instead of “man”? I’m so confused. But they certainly can’t answer the question any more of “What is a woman?”, can they? But I digress…
Per usual, while a Post sets the stage, the more interesting stuff is in the Comment section and I’d urge you to go to the line and read the pablum for what it is. It starts out with stuff that the memes that “wealthy won’t voluntarily give up their stuff”. I consider that a true statement. And why SHOULD they (except the THers believe that is radically unfair in not “sharing with the rest of the Collective”. So just a tiny bit of a taste here for what will come later:
Bill: Just look at history for you answer. Wealth HAS NEVER given it up to any significant degree peacefully. FDR’s mild re-distribution caused a party support reversal and an undo that took approx 40-50 years.
Cluelessness is never a good look but it clearly shows the outlook for many of them: it should be NATURAL that stuff is taken and given to others. But he just can’t get passed the idea that most Americans see this as wrongness – it IS theft by legal means and the Democrat Party that did it got shunned and spanked; he objects to that. It’s sorta like when Transgenders get all bent out of shape and complain that straight people don’t want to date them – why do so date for a sham woman when you get the real thing? Ditto a Republican that moves Left to get votes and then is stunned when they lose to a real Democrat?
So I pointed it out to him:
Because people have this intense dislike of working hard for something only to have Government swoop in and take it away simply to give it to other people.
And watching those in Government making those decisions and carrying them out being exempt from that action.
So, they threw the bums / takers / thieves out. Make stupid decisions, get stupid consequences.
So one would have thought, spending 40 years in the wilderness (and it is HIGHLY doubtful that he realized the connection of the 40 years bit) would have taught them something that would have lasted for a lot longer time – have stupid policies, get stupid election results. And then came along Jimmy Carter. At least Clinton hid it better, but now we’ve had Obama and redistribution and Obama 2.0 in SloJoe trying the same thing. And this time, though not mentioned here but I ought to throw it into that Comment section just to muddy the waters, they’re after our kids.
