But unlike the elite before them this new elite have kind hearts. Their philanthropic, they'll protect the fisheries and save the polar bears. They'll save the planet alright but at what cost? Oh. Yes. There is always a price and this new elite are out in the open about taking liberties away. Freedom of movement? That's sooo 19th century. This is the crisis-age, if you move more then you produce more CO2, which means you'll be taxed more. Do you see the rationalization? CO2 causes global warming and you are a walking CO2 emissionary so you cause global warming. You, your SUV and your hot dog. You caused this climate hell on Earth, and you're going to pay for it! You think living on this planet is free? Think again. Want a child? Cough up some dough. Want to travel and see the world? Pay a new CO2 tax to the state. But don't worry, please, your money will go towards saving the planet. Your doing a good thing, you're contributing to your species survival. You're an honorary citizen for paying your taxes. But the rest of you living under the radar--you're sucking at the system, you are not paying your fair share, you are law-breakers, not freedom lovers. You are evil. You need to excluded from society. Go, live in your hut, we have you cornered and we will use our weaponary if we have to. You think you can live sustainably and self-sufficiently without the help of the state? How dare you. Who do you think you are? You NEED us. Without us, you will DIE. So come and join our flock you black sheeps, you devious little satans. You rebels. Do you know what we do with rebels? You don't wanna know so don't piss us off and be good little citizens, join the global community. All is well here.
As for the elite? Well, the science on private jets emitting CO2 is not conclusive, so, uh,.. yeah.
Below is a small excerpt from an enlightening article by Patrick Hayes:
See the rest.The British Library’s first discussion of the New Year Taking Liberties series was entitled ‘Can we save the planet yet keep our freedoms?’, but showed scant appreciation of the ‘struggle for Britain’s freedoms and rights. Rather than ‘hinting’ the process of people advancing their freedoms is currently being reversed - as observed by Mick Hume in his review of the Taking Liberties exhibition (1) - the discussion was instead a showcase for individuals actively advocating the restriction of people’s freedoms. Where there was any debate, it was about not about protect liberties, but how best to take them away.
Of course you don’t actually say ‘restrict freedoms’, as panellist Ken Livingstone pointed out - referring in his introduction to the congestion charge when he was mayor of London – you need to spin it differently by claiming something like, ‘we will introduce a pricing mechanism’. That way you can apparently get people as far to the right as Milton Friedman to agree with your proposals.
It was obvious from the outset this was no debate about ‘Freedom v Environmentalism?’ as billed: it had already been decided that freedoms had to go. The chair, writer and broadcaster Dr Gabriel Walker, nailed her colours to the mast from the beginning. It used to be fashionable, Dr Walker tells us, for the environmentalist movement to claim we need to, ‘live back in the Stone Age and destroy capitalism’. Now, however, it’s more fashionable expect new technology to allow us to ‘stay as we are.’ The ‘truth’, Walker tells us before even introducing the speakers, is ‘somewhere in-between’. So maybe a small regression to the Middle Ages?!
Livingstone was not the only one who appeared bitter he was no longer enjoying endless media coverage. As Dr Walker pointed out, until the credit crunch started stealing them away last September, climate change was in the headlines ‘all the time’. She was eager to point out that climate change is no minor flash-in-the-pan fear-mongering stunt. Unlike the Y2K bug, it’s ‘not going away’. And if you think the credit crunch is bad, then just wait for the impending ‘climate crunch’. According to Livingstone, the ‘emergency’ is so great, if we don’t act there will only be a few million humans eking out a ‘marginal existence’ by the end of the century.
The reaction of governments to the current economic crisis was a source of optimism to some of the panellists. As Simon Retallack, Associate Director and Head of the Climate Change Team at the Institute for Public Policy Research, pointed out, if governments can throw trillions at the financial markets, then they can also do it come the climate crunch. This, Retallack told us, is about ensuring the planet remains habitable. As a result, ‘if there was ever a case for restricting liberties, it would be precisely on these circumstances to ensure the survival of the human race’.
