Everyone to Become Equally PoorIn the United States, carbon emissions have been declining steadily for the last couple of decades. We made great strides in more efficient drilling, clean coal power, and more efficient “everything” from cars to refrigerators. However, while the United States has dramatically improved its footprint, countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions. To wit:
“Even if emissions in rich countries go to zero very soon, climate change is set to worsen as poorer countries increase their emissions.”
So, what is the solution? Equality in emissions, of course.
“Poor countries could develop up to a certain level of prosperity and then stop; rich countries could develop down to that level and then stop. Thus, climate catastrophe could get averted, all while making the world’s poor more prosperous.”
To save the climate, the suggestion is the capitalist engine must get “geared down” to equate with less prosperous countries and regions of the world.
A Transfer of WealthThere is little argument from anyone that taking care of our planet is, and should continue to be, a significant priority. But electric vehicles, battery technology, and solar and wind farms are not the solution. However, they are a wealth transfer mechanism from the middle class, who buy the products, to the wealthy who create and promote them.
Here are some examples.
The transition to electric cars made Elon Musk a billionaire but did little to solve the climate issue.
These are just a few of many examples of how the “climate change” narrative is getting used to transfer wealth from low and middle-class households to the wealthy. Of course, this transfer of wealth is decades in the making but has reached the point where the “serfs” realize what is happening.
Gaslighting Americans Into SocialismThe “climate change” message didn’t come from the middle class but from the political class and the wealthy elite who benefit from it the most. As noted, the math to fix the problem is quite simple; you have to be willing to accept a lower standard of living than you have today with less freedom.
“We propose policies like a living wage, a maximum income ratio, wealth taxes, etc., to accomplish this,” writes Piper. “Given all of this, the language of poverty gets it wrong: longer-lasting products, living wages, shorter working weeks, better access to public services, and affordable housing. We are calling for the opposite of poverty. Yes, industries like SUVs and fast fashion would decline, but that doesn’t mean poverty. We can replace them with public transportation and longer-lasting fashion, thus meeting everyone’s needs.”
- The population downgrades to a lower standard of living, and;
- It does nothing to solve wealth inequality.
The only thing that socialism does succeed at well is increasing the elite’s wealth. As is always the case, those in power want to ensure they remain in power.
That is until the population eventually revolts.