Global Warming Panacea – Worldwide Depression
April 28, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
Lorrie Goldstein has some suggestions for the Globe and the Star:
(5) “Good news” stories about the bright side of runaway fuel, food and energy prices. For example, when they get high enough that people stop their discretionary spending, thus leading to a recession, thus dramatically lowering greenhouse gas emissions the way that great environmental leader, Russia, did, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 — meaning we, too, will now have billions of dollars worth of “hot air” to sell to other countries under the Kyoto accord.
That pretty much nails it. Want to fight global warming? Send the world into recession… or better yet, depression. That will curb emissions and save the planet. Perfect.
(Yes, I know global warming prophets don’t actually recommend economic depression as a tool for fighting climate change, but it sure would work, wouldn’t it? And food shortages coupled with skyrocketing transportation costs will get us there in a hurry.)
Hat tip to Kate.
Beautifully put! Thanks for giving this article exposure here Shane. Cancelled my subscrip to the Red Star months ago and was able to go off medication completely as a result. LOL.
“Send the world into recession… or better yet, depression. That will curb emissions and save the planet.”
Actually, people stop following rules and regulations when they are hungry and cold…The environment would suffer tremendously if a 21st Century spoiled North America was ever to contemplate a not so unlikely DEPRESSION…May God have mercy on us if it ever comes to that.
May I ask a serious and respectful question about your intentions with this blog?
I understand you are under no obligation to respond to anything, or to answer anyone. That is absolutely your right.
But the fact that you’re running a blog with comments suggests that you are seeking SOME kind of dialogue on the issues you raise.
The Politic is developing a reputation for being a site where the primary posters run away from discussion once issues or arguments they can’t deal with are raised. More annoying, Matthew has accused me of running away from discussions, when I’ve actually been seeking his response on threads for weeks now. That’s hypocrisy.
If your intent is to run an echo chamber, you would do us all a favour by letting us know you’re not really interested in discussion.
What is it, guys? I’ve been trying to discuss different topics with civility, and you keep ducking out. What do you want your contributors to do?