According to an article at the UK Telegraph, a global warming scientist is calling for World War II-style rationing and an end to economic growth in rich countries for a period of 20 years.
Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research wrote that rationing and zero growth was necessary to “reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow.” The Telegraph quoted Anderson:
“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.
Among the changes Anderson suggested:
- Limiting electricity so people are forced to stay cold.
- Buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long flights or gas-guzzling vehicles
- Turn off the lights.
- Limit food from far-off places.
- Using public transportation
- Wearing sweaters in winter
Anderson admitted people would not easily be persuaded to make drastic cuts in their lifestyles, and made the ridiculous claim that halting growth would not adversely affect the economy.
According to the Telegraph, he said,
“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”
194 countries are meeting in Cancun to try and make a global “climate change” deal legally binding while working to “get countries to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 relative to 1990 levels.”
For years, environmental alarmists have raised the specter of armageddon to push their agenda. The very people now screaming about global warming once claimed the planet was on the brink of an ice age.
The solutions presented then are eerily similar to those presented today – less freedom, less economic growth, and more intrusive government.
Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, says there are far better ways to address the issue than limiting economic growth and the use of fossil fuels.
In an op-ed posted at USA Today, Lomborg argues:
Fortunately, there is a way out of this impasse. Instead of trying to solve global warming by making fossil fuels cost more, why not concentrate on making the green alternatives cost less? If we could make solar and wind and other green energy technologies competitive with coal and oil, no one would have to be compelled to do anything — everyone would switch over in a heartbeat.
But the issue really isn’t about making other technologies available and affordable. It really is about controlling people and cutting rich nations – like the United States and Great Britain – down to size.