Many people in the global warming movement have lost their minds. For example, we have seen that Al Gore and James Hansen predict 82-feet rise in the sea level. There's a huge competition between these folks.
George Monbiot wants to promote his new book "Heat: how to stop the planet from burning" so he doesn't want to stay behind. Instead, he wants to remain the number 1 "moonbat" as some people outside his movement call him. What can he do to achieve this non-trivial goal and beat his tough competition?
Well, some crazy politicians have been talking about a 80% reduction of CO2 by 2050 and similar kinds of silliness. The "moonbat" easily beats them. How? He simply wants
Whether CO2 reductions will be easy or not will undoubtedly depend on technological progress. For example, thermonuclear fusion - something that not only Monbiot considers unlikely by 2030 - could help to produce all energy using this new source. But even with thermonuclear fusion, Monbiot's goal can't be realized unless the mankind is exterminated. Why?
For example, about 20% of the greenhouse emissions is associated with farm animals. If he really wants to reduce the CO2 emissions by more than 90%, his previous "modest" figure, all people must become vegetarians, among other things. Moonbat will have to convince six billion people to become vegetarians. I, for one, would definitely prefer to become a consumer of meat that used to be classified as homo sapiens (before the sapienity was carefully re-evaluated) and to hunt wild animals like Moonbat himself. I suspect I am not the only one who considers the right of six billion people to eat meat more important than the life of a lunatic.
All industry and traffic will have to be converted to a new kind of energy that either doesn't exist today or looks economically or socially unacceptable. Agriculture, transportation, and industry represent significant fractions of the greenhouse emissions and the basic nature of all of them will have to be radically changed. That won't be enough because even breathing and BBQs produce carbon dioxide. These processes will have to be banned, too, much like alcohol fermentation, cement production, and dozens of other processes.
Monbiot wants to introduce egalitarian carbon rationing for all people on the Earth. In the fast comments, several people explain how brutal this idea is, even in comparison with rationing that existed in various war and post-war periods. Monbiot doesn't plan to return us to the Iron Age or the Bronze Age because people were using fire to refine metals but directly to the Stone Age.
How is this nearly complete destruction of our civilization justified? Well, those people think that this radical step will lead to a flat Earth's climate (thanks, moptop). Of course it won't because many other natural phenomena will be changing the climate by comparable or greater amounts than the man-made sources above. But those activists simply don't care: the flat Earth's climate is their ultimate moral and religious value.
In comparison with ideas from people like Moonbat, the plans of the former German chancellor in the 1930s were modest suggestions for a subtle reorganization of some details of the human society. And believe me, I don't use this comparison too often.
Mark Lynas offers a very different analogy: global warming skeptics are just like the advocates of slavery and blacks are just like fossil fuels. Well, in reality, the end of slavery didn't lead to an economical collapse because the same work could have been done and was done by people covered by new, more dynamical job contracts. Elimination of fossil fuels is analogous to extermination of all blacks and everyone else who could work with muscles, rather than the end of slavery. Mark Lynas should try to use his brain and design his analogies more accurately.
And that's the memo.