|
Post by M. Hawbaker on Sept 7, 2019 14:47:09 GMT
Mario Loyola from National Review had an interesting opinion piece this morning on the real motives behind the liberal climate change agenda:
What Motivates Democrats: Stopping Climate Change, or Ending Capitalism?
Part of what makes the climate debate so difficult to engage is the diversity of motives. Wide-ranging proposals to stop climate change usually have several motives, and not all of them are related to climate. Some proposals — such as the Green New Deal — are so sweeping and socialistic that one can reasonably wonder if climate is even the principal motive.
One question leading climate activists should be asked is this: “If the planet suddenly started cooling rapidly, would you be in favor of increasing carbon emissions to keep the planet warm?” This admittedly annoying question is meant only to highlight a simple point. Environmentalists’ concerns over global warming fit nicely with their general anti-capitalist bias. But if there were a conflict between the two priorities and they had to choose one, which would they choose?
Some environmentalists would probably increase carbon emissions, or embrace some other kind of geo-engineering, to stave off an ice age. But many — or most — would say that nature should be allowed to take its natural course, and what humans need to do is stop mucking around with it. These environmentalists would presumably be okay with global warming if the cause were natural as opposed to anthropogenic.
|
|
|
Post by barb43 on Sept 7, 2019 20:52:21 GMT
It is such an ignorant idea, to want to end capitalism - I can't understand that at all. I expect it's the primary, underlying #1 agenda item, however.
|
|