Only a
totalitarian New World Order can save us now says Naomi Klein
By
James Delingpole
No Logo author
Naomi Klein has a solution to climate change and it goes like this: punitive
taxation; massive wealth re-distribution; the abolition of free trade and free
markets; a state-enforced end to to the "cult of shopping"; the whole
to be supervised by a New World Order of selfless illuminati (who presumably
resemble Naomi Klein).
If it weren't
so scary it would almost be funny, the way the leftie Canadian activist on the
basis of no evidence whatsoever declares that the time has come to strip the
human race of all its hard-won freedoms in order to save the planet from a
non-existent problem. Unfortunately, Klein means it and her audience takes her
seriously. Just read the first comment below her screed:
I can't say
enough good things about this article. It's a manifesto for the next 100 years.
Corporate capitalism is doomed by the immutable fact of finite resources; it
will require planning and sharing to sustain civilization in the future, which
is heretical thinking in the boardrooms of elite capitalists.
O-K. And the
rationale for doing all this stuff would be what, exactly, Naomi? Some new
devastating proof you've managed to unearth, perhaps, showing once and for all
that the measurements are wrong and global warming didn't stop in 1998? A
dazzling refutation of Svensmark's cosmic ray theory? Surprising new data
showing that, contrary to the false consciousness promoted by the running dog
lackey capitalist pigs who write our history books, totalitarian planning
regimes of the kind you advocate in fact brought nothing but bounty, happiness
and environmental loveliness to Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Mao's
China, Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il Sung's North Korea?
Nope. All
Naomi can manage by way of justification is this:
Before I go
any further, let me be absolutely clear: as 97 percent of the world’s climate
scientists attest, the Heartlanders are completely wrong about the science. The
heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil
fuels are already causing temperatures to increase. If we are not on a
radically different energy path by the end of this decade, we are in for a
world of pain.
Er, Naomi.
Here are some things you should know before you type out your next
eco-fascistic horror rant. 1. That "97 per cent" figure: it's kind of
an urban myth. 2. The heat-trapping gas and fossil fuel theory: it's at best
moot, not least because the "feedbacks" – as you'd know if you'd
bothered to do a scintilla of research – are still so ill-understood. 3. the "radically different energy
path" bit: Says who? And on what evidence? 4. "a world of pain".
Right. And you'll have done a cost benefit analysis here will you? You can show
us that the freedom-destroying, economy-ruining totalitarianism you advocate
will a) make the blindest bit of difference to global mean temperatures and b)
cause less pain than a world where it's ever so slightly warmer and where
people are free to shop without jackbooted Canadian eco-activists stamping up
and down shrieking: "Das ist Verboten!"?
I
don't think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment