Next, prominent Canadian Green David Suzuki
says that nothing is more important than the environment and that we
need to lower our standard of living. You need to judge your standard
of living by “quality of life, your relationships with other people and
your community,” Suzuki says. Stores filled with food, record longevity
and wealth are an “illusion,” he asserts, because we’re using up our
children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance.
of Maryland ecological economist Herman Daly claims that we’ve passed
the point where economic growth provides benefits and that we need to
“transform our economy from a forward-moving aeroplane to a hovering
helicopter,” but that such a “steady-state” economy “doesn’t have to
mean freezing in the dark under a communist tyranny.” In trying to
explain his latter comment, he says that “Most of the changes could be
applied gradually, in mid-air,” by which he apparently means replacing
the income tax with a tax on goods to “encourage people to use them
sparingly.” Although he acknowledges that this regressive policy would
hurt the poor, he says taxes could be used to provide welfare.
Gustave Speth — Yale University dean, co-founder of the Natural
Resources Defense Council and former adviser to President Jimmy Carter
— says that green values stand no chance against market capitalism. Economic growth “creates barriers
to dealing with real problems,” he says. While we need to spend more
money on social services and environmental protection, he is “not
advocating state socialism," he claims, but rather a “non-socialist
alternative to today’s capitalism,” whatever that means.
Simms of London’s New Economics Foundation describes as "disingenuous"
the argument that global economic growth is needed to eradicate
poverty. He says that “we have to overcome knee-jerk rejection of the
‘R’ word — redistribution” and that we need a “Green New Deal” that
controls capital and raises taxes to create environmental jobs.
George of the Amsterdam-based Transnational Institute advocates
developing a World War II-type mentality toward life including
rationing, “victory” or home gardens and the government run by wealthy
elites who would work for a salary of $1 per year.
Metropolitan University “environmental philosopher” Kate Soper says
that the tourist industry, food service industry, dating services and
gyms are evidence that we need to shift to a less work-intensive
economy. “Of course, we would have to “sacrifice some conveniences and
pleasures: creature comforts such as regular steaks, hot tubs, luxury
cosmetics and easy foreign travel,” she says, but “human ingenuity will
surely contrive a range of more eco-friendly excitements.”
missing from the New Scientist compilation of Green-think, of course,
are essays from Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx and, perhaps, Al Gore.
Malthus, a prominent 19th century economist, famously predicted that a
geometrically expanding human population would outpace the
arithmetically expanding food supply. Unable to foresee the
improvements in agricultural technology, he turned out to be entirely
Karl Marx could have chimed in with
his communist slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need” — where the government gets to determine what
your needs are. As implemented in the Soviet Union and Communist China,
Marxism resulted in the starvation and murder of perhaps more than 100
million people and the political and social repression of the survivors.
Gore could have contributed an essay reassuring Green elites that none
of this wealth redistribution and standard of living contraction would
affect those who, like him, can already afford home indoor heated pools or those who can could afford to spend $65,000 and three weeks jetting around the world with the World Wildlife Fund.
New Scientist essays reveal how the Greens aim to eviscerate life as we
know it. They want to take us from 200 years of “more-bigger-better” to
a future of “less-smaller-worse.” Won’t happen, you say?
Barack Obama leading in the polls, one of his advisers recently issued
an ultimatum to Congress regulate carbon dioxide emissions in 18
months, or an Obama EPA will do it unilaterally. And then there’s
Obama’s famous colloquy with “Joe the Plumber,” where he said he was
for redistributing the wealth. And let’s not forget Obama’s comment in
May that “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep
our homes on 72 degrees at all times…”
has said he’s for economic growth, yet he’s willing to force-feed us
Green policies that would crush it. And as it turns out, that’s what
the Greens are really after in the first place.