Naomi Klein: ‘If You Take Climate Change Seriously, You Have to Throw Out the Free-Market Playbook’

Comrade Klein on the politics of alarmism.

Klein says in an interview:

…You can set up carbon markets, consumer markets, and just pretend, but if you want to get serious about climate change, really serious, in line with the science, and you want to meet targets like 80 percent emissions cuts by midcentury in the developed world, then you need to be intervening strongly in the economy, and you can’t do it all with carbon markets and offsetting. You have to really seriously regulate corporations and invest in the public sector. And we need to build public transport systems and light rail and affordable housing along transit lines to lower emissions. The market is not going to step up to this challenge. We must do more: rebuild levees and bridges and the public sphere, because we saw in Katrina what happens when weak infrastructure clashes with heavy weather—it’s catastrophe. These climate deniers aren’t crazy—their worldview is under threat. If you take climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the free-market playbook

Read the entire interview.

9 thoughts on “Naomi Klein: ‘If You Take Climate Change Seriously, You Have to Throw Out the Free-Market Playbook’”

  1. Dude, the term Science is used by highly functioning bimbos like the word God is used by the now historical oddity religious prole moron. It’s just a way to be a part of a hive mind. That’s how bimbos evolved to survive in this world. Nerds that actually do “science” and technology don’t need to drop memes like bimbos dropping names.

  2. She is wrong. It requires individual behaviour change not legislation. Law changes do not change behaviour. if they did then there would be no drug or alcohol addiction. InScotland we are concentrating on encouraging small , incremental, changes in personal behaviour to reduce carbon emmissions with two targets (2020 and 2050). At the same time we are moving towards renewable energy. We already had a lot of this through hydro electricity and are expanding wind and wave power generation. Combined with this is the funding of adaptation projects to help developing countries adapt to climate change by growing other crops or putting in water storage facilities (in places like Peru where mountain people have traditionally relied on snow and glacier melt for water). All of these small changes are the best that we can do. There will be no large scale reductions of carbon by major western economies and in that respect the game is over.

    One point I would make to those in Europe who are of the political right: if you are concerned at all about immigration into europe then you need to be concerned about climate change. if something is not done to prevent the effects of it then large parts of the African population are going to end up migrating to Europe. I think that is something that right wing Euro skeptic climate change deniers (the two positions go hand in hand) have failed to grasp. Its a particular problem for the UK because we speak English and English is a widely spoken second language in Africa so we are obvious first choice for anyone wishing to move, with France in second place for similar reasons.

  3. If everyone has to live and work withing walking distance of the railroad, I suspect that there will be a great re allocation of land or property values that will more damaging to the nation than anything since the Civil War. The middle class will be further pressured into non existence. The one percent, knowing the location of all future construction along the ideal ways to work, will do quite well as choices decline in the perfect Utopia. Speculation will be a snap since the evirogeeks will demand all routes be fully vetted. No train has ever outperformed economically or physically a four lane highway in throughput per unit of time. Only a few trains actually pay for their own cost. The rest remain in service because of cars paying their way. Cargo on trains barely manages 20 miles per hour on average. These people can only manage imaginary Lego cities and should not be trusted any further than that. Make them buy their own Legos.

  4. I am still trying to figure out what the word ” science ” means to these people. They keep saying we can’t argue or deny the “science”. Or the “science” is settled. It is becoming ( well for some time now ) a disturbing use of the term but I can’t quite come up with what it equates to…at least in how they are using it. I tried the word ” faith ” in it’s place but that is not quite right. Anybody else got any ideas?

    The repeat the word ” science” like it is gospel. But science is an investigation and a search for facts. Maybe that’s it. They mean the “gospel”. The word science = gospel to warmers.
    I am rambling a bit and in a stream of ideas on this …so take it for what it is worth.
    Yeah because stating everything as science and those who don’t believe the science makes no sense. What is to believe. Nobody talks about a chemical reaction as a “science”. If I say I don’t agree that CO2 will cause acidification of the ocean I am not arguing the science…I am arguing the facts. Science is the process not the answer. They use the word as an all encompassing noun.

  5. Naomi Klein is a HS Grad. She doesn’t even have a bachelor of fine arts degree. She is the idiot wife of idiot socialist Avi Lewis who was so destroyed in an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali that he was fired from CBC and took a job with Al Jazeera. His father is Stephen Lewis who is a self loathing Jew who supports Islamic causes his mother is Michelle Landseberg who has never met an anti-western cause she didnt like.
    A collection of useless tits who have – not one of them – ever made a dollar from honest work – unless working for a socialist newspaper counts.

  6. Too true Dude. Watermellons will eventually reveal themselves. They can’t help it.

  7. ” in line with the science…”

    Junk science that is. From what I’ve read across the net on this, it points clearly to the conclusion that even if people are contributing to warming the amount is less than the noise factor in the data. Add up all the warming gases from people and compare that to Mother Nature. If you got rid of all people the entire change wouldn’t amount to a couple percent. One ‘extra’ volcanic event would even the score. Science… something this clown knows nothing about, at least publically.

  8. That about sums it up. As a skeptic we can point to this as the end goal we were always aware of.

    Sad really. They say we are hiding our agenda from big oil when in fact their true agenda has been hiding this whole time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.