When Enviro Worldviews Collide Headlong into the Facts
(cross-posted from LifeInGreenLand)
I read a lot of environmental news, and a lot of environmental opinion. Much of that is based on the ‘solutions’ to climate change. Many, if not most, in the movement favor:
- Huge, centrally-planned government and regulatory mandates
- Degrowth of the population, or population stabilization at a minimum
- Reduction in economic production/consumerism – especially in developed nations
- Urbanization or consolidation of people into city centers where vehicle traffic gives way to feet and mass transit
So I find it funny when the people most commonly arguing for less economic activity make their arguments in economic terms. But as I mentioned recently, there is a concerted attempt to blame climate change for everything. Those two arguments collide in a big way this week.
It seems a new study indicates that, were it not for climate change, our global GDP would be much higher and people wouldn’t be dying.
The problem, of course, is that if our economic production was higher, and more people were consuming, then the issue of climate change would be exacerbated.
The movement, it seems, would be better served by letting the economy collapse and people die. It would fit nicely with their goals for solving the issue.
It’s very difficult to make an argument that getting global climate change under control will lead to more economic activity and more people living longer lives when the solutions you propose are for less economic activity and fewer people living longer lives.
The rank hypocrisy of their approach is baffling, yet the media continually give them a pass.