Sunday, December 14, 2014

Climate Justice, explained

So all this Global Warming "Climate Justice" brouhaha means precisely what?  Remember, when they say it's not about the money, it's about the principle - it's about the money:
Lima, Peru – "We are people who want to tell the truth about the climate crisis, and the truth is that we are on track to a climate disaster," asserted Alex Rafalowicz at a Friends of the Earth (FOE) press conference at the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on Monday. So how does FOE think the world gets off the track? By demanding that rich countries fork over their "climate fair shares." What's fair? It's only fair that by 2030 the rich countries cut their carbon dioxide emissions around 80 percent and pay poor countries more than $1 trillion annually to cut theirs.
A cool Trillion a year and reducing emissions by 80% - which by necessity will tank the economy and cut standards of living by 50%.  And so we see the meaning of "justice" as Margaret Thatcher had said: they don't care if poor people stay poor as long as the rich are made poor. Of course, the standard of living in this scenario would not drop for the swells who make up the staff of Friends Of The Earth and their friends.

Sheesh.  I remember when the Left once presumed to agitate for the working classes, rather than agitate to immiserate them.  Marx would have kicked sand in their faces on the Socialist beach,


Anonymous said...

"It's about the Money"

It always has been. Kyoto was a massive wealth transfer scheme fully funded by the USA. When the USA didn't sign up, the whole system of selling carbon credits collapsed. The original scheme was to make the USA buy all that worthless paper and the rest of the world sell it to us.

Archer said...

"I remember when the Left once presumed to agitate for the working classes, rather than agitate to immiserate them."

Small point of correction: the Left doesn't agitate to immiserate the working class; they agitate to immiserate the wealthy and managerial classes (a.k.a. the entrepreneurs and employers). That the working classes will be worse off is an acceptable side effect.

Margaret Thatcher had these cretins' number, and nailed it in that speech.