Beating Climate Change, The Mahdi Manner

Mbunting we will go, Mbunting we will go…..

Hearteningly, we know it can be done – our parents and grandparents managed it in the second world war. This useful analogy, explored by Andrew Simms in his book Ecological Debt, demonstrates the critical role of government. In the early 1940s, a dramatic drop in household consumption was achieved – not by relying on the good intentions of individuals (and their ability to act on that coffee-stained pamphlet), but by the government orchestrating a massive propaganda exercise combined with a rationing system and a luxury tax. This will be the stuff of 21st-century politics – something that, right now, all the main political parties are much too scared to admit.

Rationing, planners, naught, naughty household consumption. You can actually hear her licking her lips at the prospect of this, can\’t you?

One note:

time poverty (a much overlooked aspect of environmental sustainability is how much time it requires)

Ooooh, I don\’t think it\’s been over looked. I know of at least one person who has pointed out that recycling costs us more in time alone than the amount saved by recycling.

7 thoughts on “Beating Climate Change, The Mahdi Manner”

  1. I just went through the comments over there on the true costs of recycling – wow! The crowd isn’t getting the point, at all. If we’re going to force young people to stay in school anyway, perhaps we should also make economics mandatory for all – much as that pains my libertarian streak.

  2. I read through the comments… It looks like a lot of the lefties and eco-fundamentalists are positively creaming their Y-Fronts at the thought of so many new things for the state to control!

  3. Give us a break. I don’t buy Lomborg and I think the planet is in danger of frying. That doesn’t make me an eco fundamentalist, nor a lefty, nor a fan of enhanced state control. In fact I struggle to see where politics comes into it at all. You either take it seriously or you don’t, and if you do, it’s hard to see how we can get very far without government intervention.

    It’s all very well relying on the market to pull a techno-fix out of the hat – in fact it would be great if it did — but what if the market fails? Then we are up a creek without a paddle.

    Tim adds: Politics does come into it: yes, agreed, markets can fail. But so can governments. So far the big ideas have been less landfill, more recycling (which emits more gases), more biofuels (which emit more gasses) and dinky windmills (which emit more gases). Doesn’t bode well for the value of Govt intervention, does it?

  4. Stupid Bunting: of course household consumption fell during the war. That’s because the economy had been shifted into massively expensive things like building thousands of bombers to rain destruction on the enemy. Has the silly cow never heard of the old adage about guns and butter?

  5. “the planet’s in danger of frying”…? Not even the IPCC believe that – if you actually bother to read their report.

    As for “lefties”, who was it said recently that “Green is the new Red”.?

  6. “time poverty (a much overlooked aspect of environmental sustainability is how much time it requires)”

    Try spending all f*cking day in a queue to buy bread. Does she actually think about what she writes at all?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *