Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Green means poor and greener means poorer


The Centre for Cities reports on how economic misery is saving the planet - at least in terms of reducing those pesky carbon emissions:

Between 2005 and 2010, total CO2 emissions in the UK fell 10 percent, with the most dramatic shifts coming since the recession began in 2008. Industrial emissions, which account for 44 percent of all UK CO2 emissions, fell 15 percent since 2005.

And to illustrate this, the writers cite Middlesborough - where of course they closed down steel plants and chemical works. With the result that:

However, the vast majority of the reduction in CO2 emissions came from industrial decline. Anecdotally, the closure of major manufacturing plants like Corus Steel in 2010 and Croda Chemicals would have had a large impact on the emissions of the city. Overall, employment in manufacturing fell in Middlesbrough by roughly 20 percent since the onset of the recession.

Saving the planet comes at the expense of human misery. The losers aren't the better off but those on the margins, poorer people. The whole point and purpose of green economics is to make us poorer - and that means more of that human misery. Just as Oxfam wants poor Africans to stay as poor Africans, the green movement believes economic growth is wrong - and this means poor people staying poor, or worse getting poorer.

These greens should be driven from the land.


1 comment:

Leg-iron said...

These greens should be driven from the land.

You're too kind. I'd replace 'from' with 'under'.