Scary Spice
Tell me what you want, what you really, really want.
Every once in awhile, the naked hatred for humanity that characterizes hard-core global warming advocates pokes through all the pseudo-scientific nonsense and obfuscatory jargon to reveal itself in its unvarnished form.
Mayer Hillman is senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute. He’s a certified town planner who hates cars. He’s written a number of books, including the ever-so-humble How We Can Save The Planet.
According to the official Amazon.com review, the book illustrates why “government must take the lead” to impose a “radical rationing scheme.”
As you might expect, Mayer Hillman knows what’s best for you. Coming from a climate change doomsayer who believes in government solutions, that’s not particularly unusual.
What is unusual is that, in addition to the usual “climate change is the biggest problem ever to face humanity … blah, blah, blah …” and “we’re at a tipping point and must act now … blah, blah, blah …” rhetoric, Hillman seems to have skipped the part of the manual which says you’re not supposed to reveal the final goal of the climate change movement: the attempt to secure carte blanche political power under the guise of protecting “nature.”
According to one London paper, “Hillman says carbon rationing is the only [?!] way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people. [double ?!] (Exclamations of incredulity are mine.)
Lest you think what Hillman was saying was misunderstood, here is the actual quote from the Man Who Would Be Carbon King:
“When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.”
Just because it’s not 1984, doesn’t mean George Orwell wasn’t right.
global warming, climate change, Mayer Hillman knows what’s best for you, How To Save The Planet - A handbook for politicians and power-lusters, Policy Studies Institute,
January 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I have been trying to verbalize what bothers me about how the left is addressing global warming, considering I am something of a leftist. I think you just said it- that global warming prevents itself as an enormous power grab for people who want governmental control.
But there is still the question of how to act quickly in a way that makes an impact when the average person is still not sure if global warming isn’t a hoax.
As a proponent of voluntary carbon reductions (i.e. CRAGs) I am not sure how to address this problem. I know voluntary measures alone will not get us the reductions needed to stabilize the climate.
If you have an idea, let me know.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Shannon,
I applaud your commitment to voluntary carbon reductions. Even more so, I applaud your resistance to government officials deciding that it’s okay for reductions to be voluntary except when they decide it should be mandatory.
My own opinion is that the there is no particular need to act quickly (and, in fact, to do so will likely cause more harm than good) since a) the science surrounding climate change is so complex and not well understood and b)there are likely to be as many benefits as there are detriments to a warmer planet.
I understand we could probably debate the science surrounding those two points all day long.
On a lighter note, before we go charging off trying to implement massive displacements in the world’s economy and/or climate, we should ask what would be considered the “right” temperature for the Earth? I can’t get 5 people in my office to agree on what the thermostat should be set at, so I imagine the debate on this would take years.
How much variation are we going to allow before we act again? If the planet cools by half a degree are we going to refund money for all the taxes/fees/”market” incentives put in place? Or will we put in place new “incentives” to heat up the planet?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, do we really want the people that are responsible for the Post Office, the sorry state of education, health care, the war in Iraq, Amtrak, FEMA and a host of other debacles to be in charge of something as big and as complex as world economics and global climate?
My challenge to all the politicians who say they have the answer and know exactly what to do about this would be: “Show me you can handle some little stuff first without totally screwing it up, then I might trust you with something bigger.
Politicians couldn’t even handle a flood in New Orleans, a fire in California or counting votes in Florida - micromanaging weather for the entire planet is, IMHO, so far beyond these guys it would be like giving a bazooka to a monkey….sure he’d have a blast playing with it, but there’s potential to do real damage.