Maybe Vox should explain this to Rachel Maddow, Barack Obama, Al Gore, and so many of the other uber-rich liberals
The best way to reduce your personal carbon emissions: don't be rich https://t.co/p35Dgk357d
— Vox (@voxdotcom) July 24, 2017
This Voxplanation is actually looking at that study that yammers on about having one fewer child, and, just like good little Progressives, it’s time to blame the rich in a manner that really doesn’t accord with one would get from the headline
The rich, in other words, are the ones that should be getting hassled about their choices. For most working schmoes, this kind of moralizing of lifestyle is as pointless as it is off-putting. (snip)
The very ones whose choices matter most seem least inclined to cut back on consumption. I mean, maybe you could persuade the developed-world wealthy to voluntarily downsize their lifestyles, but … have you met the developed-world wealthy? That doesn’t sound like them. (snip)
Discussing the role of individual choices in climate change without discussing income inequality is a mug’s game. It smears the responsibility evenly over everyone, when the responsibility ought to be concentrated where the emissions are concentrated: among the wealthy. And the only way to get at the individual consumptive choices of the wealthy, in any meaningful way, is through policy.
There’s quite a bit more rich people bashing, particularly from the Progressive POV, but, interestingly, they actually have a point. Especially when we apply this to rich ‘climate change’ believers, like Leo Dicaprio, Tom Steyer, all the ones who show up at the UN IPCC meetings, and so forth. The ones who are on TV getting paid millions a year and yammer on about ‘climate change’, yet refuse to modify their own behavior.
But, then, this isn’t about doing anything but instituting bigger and more controlling government.
Can anyone find out how much the top brass who run/own Vox earn each year? I’d bet there would be more than a few surprises in that revelation.
If all of the climaphobic wealthy ad one less child, soon the country would be free of wealthy liberals, as most of them have either none or one child anyway.
Of course, they were headed toward zero children anyway, given their infatuation with things that stifle procreation: homosexuality and ‘transgenderism.’ There’s a certain schadenfreude I get when I picture all of the wealthy liberals paying school taxes to educate the children of conservatives.