Damien Grant
The worst type of tyranny is that done for our benefit. If the beatings are ‘‘for our own good’’ rather than for the pleasure of those administering the cane, there is no respite. Bend over please, this will hurt me more than you.
This month’s climate summit in Poland ended with a commitment to ongoing monitoring and reporting on national carbon emissions; with a focus on reducing those emissions. Which, if climate change was only about climate change, I’d be more inclined to get on board.
Unfortunately, there has been a merging of environmental and other political agendas. In his submission to cabinet in July, Climate Change minister James Shaw stated openly that, ‘‘we are committed to a transition to a net-zero emissions economy that is just and inclusive’’, rather than just being ‘‘committed to a net-zero emissions economy’’.
He continued, ‘‘The transition will require significant economic transformation’’.
And this, dear readers, is the problem. Shaw and his comrades have a vision of a different economic model, one that sane people have tunnelled under barbed wire fences to escape. Alas, the sacrifice required to achieve this gender-fluid post-colonial paradise requires a reversal of most of the economic gains of the last 50 years.
It requires direct or indirect state control of the means of production, intrusive regulation and ultimately a vastly reduced living standard. Giving up air conditioning to achieve gender and racial equality is a tough sell. Thankfully the threat of mass extinctions and the disappearance of the Maldives is a more compelling argument.
The production of carbon, from the methane produced from cows through to the human byproduct of a good curry, is endemic. Changing the economy to reduce this will require a brutal realignment of industry, not merely a bit of tinkering with grass types for the dairy industry.
Now. There are some sacrifices I may be willing to make to reduce the risk of a three percent rise in global temperature but I am not going to sacrifice a can of baked beans to advance a political agenda I find repugnant.
It seems to me that Shaw and his ilk want to use the economic and social engineering required to reduce carbon emissions to also achieve their other political aspirations. This is a mistake. It leaves people like me, who believe in anthropomorphic global warming, unwilling to support the changes necessary to reduce carbon emissions.
If the Greens want us to support their environmental agenda they need to de-link it from their socialist one.
The sacrifice required to achieve this genderfluid post-colonial paradise requires a reversal of most of the economic gains of the last 50 years.