To Stop ‘Climate Change’, Billionaires Need To Give Up Their Money Or Something

And, really, change the entire economic system for the world. Because this all about science, folks

A scientist who predicted a ‘Hothouse Earth’ says the world’s billionaires need to give up their money to save us

This week, one of authors of that bleak “hothouse” report has co-authored a new one that models how the world and its people may fare in the coming decades. In brief, ecologist Johan Rockström, who directs the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Stockholm, thinks there might be a way to cut global emissions while eliminating poverty and hunger and keeping the world cool enough to sustain future generations.

“This is actually quite uplifting,” Rockström recently told a crowd at the TED Conference New York Headquarters, before the report came out.

But the plan requires enormous shifts in the way we do everything, from how we distribute money to the ways we grow our food.

Here’s his 5 part “plan”

  • Cut global greenhouse-gas emissions in half every decade, starting in 2020 (which will require Government force)
  • Increase food chain system efficiency, from soil to table, by 1% every year (only Government force can make this happen)
  • Investing more in education, health, and family planning (which would require massive government taxation, and, by family planning, they mean abortions and not allowing certain people to breed. As for health? It’s about government controlling people)

What of the other 2?

3. Fundamentally shift the way we create new wealth and prosperity

“We’re quite clever at short-term lifting people out of poverty,” Rockström told Business Insider. But there’s a hidden cost in our current models of economic development: “the wealth that we’ve created in countries like the US, or my own home country Sweden, has occurred at the expense of the climate system,” he said.

In other words, something other than capitalism. Say, a government run economic system? Warmists often do not want to truly spell it out.

4. Ensure the richest 10% of people on Earth don’t hold on to more than 40% of its wealth

Rockström’s plan also demands a dramatic reshuffling of the world’s cash. More taxes on top earners could pay for better infrastructure, while improvements in wages would be a welcome bump for middle class workers, many of whom haven’t seen their pay go up much since the 1970s. Some of that shared money would also get used for healthcare, while other funds could go to education and investments in more sustainable buildings and cities around the world.

Currently, the top 1% of people own nearly half of the world’s household wealth. According to Credit Suisse’s 2018 global wealth report, “the richest decile (top 10% of adults) owns 85% of global wealth, and the top percentile alone accounts for almost half of all household wealth (47%).” This is especially true in the US, which has more members of the 1% than any other country. Credit Suisse defines membership in the top 10% as having $93,170 or more in net assets, while the top 1% has $871,320.

So, this has what to do with ‘climate change’? It’s a tenuous link being manufactured, and simply exposes that this is all about far left political beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less.

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

One Response to “To Stop ‘Climate Change’, Billionaires Need To Give Up Their Money Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    Of course, the article didn’t quite flesh out things:

    Credit Suisse defines membership in the top 10% as having $93,170 or more in net assets, while the top 1% has $871,320.

    If you own your home in the United States, you are almost certain to have over $93,170 in net assets. If you own your home and have a couple of cars in places like Taxachusetts or New York or the Pyrite State, you are pushing, if not over, $871,320 in assets, though having mortgage liability might lower net assets significantly. (I own my property outright, and tend to ignore mortgages as liabilities, though they are.)

    We were watching Beach Hunters on HGTV Sunday, and they were featuring a home search in Hampton, Virginia, where we used to live. Just for giggles, my younger daughter checked on our home there, the one we bought for $89,500 in 1991. Zillow currently values it at $196,000, and it was in a cookie-cutter neighborhood, maybe a half-step up from a ‘starter’ home.

    Even with the depressed property values in eastern Kentucky, my net worth is in six figures, and I’m retired.

    This insane proposal is not just an attack on the top producers, but on the working class in the industrialized nations. A policeman married to a nurse, certainly a working class couple, is going to have an income in the low six-figure range; two public school teachers with just five years seniority are going to have an income around $100,000, working only ten months out of the year.

    This isn’t just a proposal to strip ‘billionaires’ of their wealth, but to do so to the majority of people in the non-shithole countries.

Pirate's Cove