Admitted: Sustainable Development = Marxism

The New Statesman’s John Gray makes the admission.

From Gray’s interview with James “Gaia” Lovelock, “sustainable development” means “global redistribution of power and wealth”:

… Like nearly all economists, most greens insist that Malthus was wrong. The problem, they say, lies in the resource intensity of the western way of life; what we need to counter this is a global redistribution of power and wealth. I am not sure if Lovelock shares my view that this is an entirely utopian prospect, but he is clear that sustainable development – the current mantra – cannot deal with the challenges posed by a rising population…

About these ads

6 responses to “Admitted: Sustainable Development = Marxism

  1. Tee hee hee hee hee. The places with the greates redistribution of wealth are starving and freezing! You need resource intensity to even get clean water and sewage treatment, let alone sterile supplies in medical facilities or to take a bath when you feel the need of one.
    Actually, the greens seem to think Malthus was overly generous.

  2. Free trade and property rights will deliver abundance to the world.

    So it must be stopped.

  3. The crazy wealth transfer during the Kyoto protocol is the biggest argument against Marxism and centrally planned economies. The Japanese have one of the most energy efficient economies for GDP output of any of the industrialized nations. Unfortunately, they became very efficient in the 1980’s after the oil shock. Eastern European economies in the Warsaw Pact nations, were very inefficient and by shutting down most of their inefficient industries after the collapse of the Soviet system in the early1990’s saw huge reductions in fossil fuel use. The Kyoto protocol, set up in 1997, chose a 1990 baseline year and unified Germany was able to take advantage of the shut-downs in east Germany to its advantage regarding carbon allowances. But for precocious Japan who went efficient too soon, they had to buy carbon credits from the very inefficient, centrally planned eastern European countries. Kyoto was supposed to reward the efficient and penalize the inefficient. It did exactly the opposite by taking advantage of the inefficient history of centrally planned economies and penalizing the most energy efficient (and carbon efficient for that matter) industrialized economies in the world.

    • “The crazy wealth transfer during the Kyoto protocol …” I have the idea that wealth was vaporized rather than transferred.

      • It vaporized from Japan but the condensed in the Ukraine from carbon credits they were selling.

      • Oh, I almost forgot, about 40% of the carbon credits went to destroy a bi-product of refrigeration production in China. I think destroying the bi-product got so valuable, they started to make more of ti.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s