Warmist Monbiot: We Need To Stop Living Modern Lives To Solve ‘Climate Change’

Crazy George Monbiot attempts to couch this in “environmental” terms as a placeholder for his real Belief in anthropogenic climate change, and, he does have a few points regarding over-consumption, let’s be honest, but, at the end, it’s all about changing the whole system

Too right it’s Black Friday: our relentless consumption is trashing the planet

Everyone wants everything – how is that going to work? The promise of economic growth is that the poor can live like the rich and the rich can live like the oligarchs. But already we are bursting through the physical limits of the planet that sustains us. Climate breakdown, soil loss, the collapse of habitats and species, the sea of plastic, insectageddon: all are driven by rising consumption. The promise of private luxury for everyone cannot be met: neither the physical nor the ecological space exists. (snip)

With every generation, the baseline of normalised consumption shifts. Thirty years ago, it was ridiculous to buy bottled water, where tap water is clean and abundant. Today, worldwide, we use a million plastic bottles a minute.

Every Friday is a Black Friday, every Christmas a more garish festival of destruction. Among the snow saunas, portable watermelon coolers and smartphones for dogs with which we are urged to fill our lives, my #extremecivilisation prize now goes to the PancakeBot: a 3D batter printer that allows you to eat the Mona Lisa, the Taj Mahal, or your dog’s bottom every morning. In practice, it will clog up your kitchen for a week until you decide you don’t have room for it. For junk like this, we’re trashing the living planet, and our own prospects of survival. Everything must go.

He kinda has a point, right? Interestingly, his Warmists brethren are pretty bad at practicing what they preach

The ancillary promise is that, through green consumerism, we can reconcile perpetual growth with planetary survival. But a series of research papers reveal there is no significant difference between the ecological footprints of people who care and people who don’t. One recent article, published in the journal Environment and Behaviour, says those who identify themselves as conscious consumers use more energy and carbon than those who do not.

Well, now, that’s a heck of thing, isn’t it? That “green” consumers are hypocrites. Regardless, Monbiot attempts to go to blame “the Rich”, whom he apparently believes are middle class and up, if we read on. They’re bad, because they recycle and stuff, then take fossil fueled flights for vacations. What he recommends is decoupling, which, in practical terms, means killing off growth

A global growth rate of 3% means that the size of the world economy doubles every 24 years. This is why environmental crises are accelerating at such a rate. Yet the plan is to ensure that it doubles and doubles again, and keeps doubling in perpetuity. In seeking to defend the living world from the maelstrom of destruction, we might believe we are fighting corporations and governments and the general foolishness of humankind. But they are all proxies for the real issue: perpetual growth on a planet that is not growing.

It’s always interesting when Warmists trot down the road to doing away with any form of capitalism for their cult, even as they beat around the bush to say it.

Green consumerism, material decoupling, sustainable growth: all are illusions, designed to justify an economic model that is driving us to catastrophe. The current system, based on private luxury and public squalor, will immiserate us all: under this model, luxury and deprivation are one beast with two heads.

We need a different system, rooted not in economic abstractions but in physical realities, that establish the parameters by which we judge its health. We need to build a world in which growth is unnecessary, a world of private sufficiency and public luxury. And we must do it before catastrophe forces our hand.

If you read that last link, it is all about government being in charge. They build the swimming pools and such for the public to use. There would be no private ones. But, oh, they would all be controlled by “communities”. Basically, this is all an outshoot of Marxist theory. They do not care about the environment nor ‘climate change’: they’re merely excuses to initiate a far left economic system with government control.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Warmist Monbiot: We Need To Stop Living Modern Lives To Solve ‘Climate Change’”

  1. rotterdam says:

    A global growth rate of 3% means that the size of the world economy doubles every 24 years.

    This is not even accurate. The worlds population in 1950 was 2.56 billion. In 1990 it was 5.22 billion. So it took 4o years to doubles not 24. Additionally the world growth rates are indeed slowing down. In 2010 it was 6.85 billion.

    by 2050 it is projected by serious organizations to be 9.3 billion not 17 billion based upon the estimate used in this projection linked in this article.

    His link is a rule used in investing. Not actually statistics run by any organization. See this is the kind of fake news that people scream their heads off. Hes talking about a simple rule of investing. Take the number of 72 and divide it by your interest rate and you will get the number of years it takes to double your money.

    • McGehee says:

      Monbiot is clearly an idiot, and here he proves it by equating population growth with economic growth, as if everyone contributes wealth at the same rate, and never dies.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Rather than calling Mr. Monbiot names, why not address whether or not our economics of consumption and waste, based on a financial system that only rewards mindless “growth” will allow human culture to survive into the 22nd Century?

    The belief that our Earth is an open system with infinite resources and an infinite ability to rebound from pollution is clearly untrue. Estimates are that the human population will be approx 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100. Commenter Rotterdam suggest that the human population could be cut in half by 2050, which seems very unlikely short a catastrophe such as a massive asteroid strike or an eruption of a yuge caldera.

    Adding 30% more humans to the demands on Earth will further stress our limited resources – fresh water, arable land, energy resources, etc…

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      Sounds like a great idea. Let us know how it works out for you and your family.

    • Rotterdam says:

      Your solution sounds pretty totalitarian to me. How are you going to tell people to quit consuming? They cant have. They must go without.

      Explanation please. Mankind will not survive as we currently know it by the 22nd century. The clear cutting of the rainforest will ensure world wide drought for at least a 1000 years while the few acres of it left manage to repopulate itself over this time frame.

  3. Rotterdam says:

    an infinite ability to rebound from pollution is clearly untrue

    This is infinitely inaccurate. The world has recovered from pollution on a world ending event several times over.

    • Jeffery says:

      You’re right, of course. While a runaway greenhouse effect will end all life on Earth, in tens of thousands or a million years things might return to the days when life originated.

  4. Martin says:

    Going Green has never been easier! Ditch the fossil fuels and commute on an electric rideable.

  5. Jl says:

    Oh J, such total BS. “While runaway greenhouse effect will end all life on earth.” Again, absolutely no proof of that.

Pirate's Cove