Global Warming, The Moral Equivalent Of War

In April 1977, under the dark cloud of the energy crisis, President Jimmy Carter told the nation that the difficult effort needed to move beyond the shortages and high prices of that era “will be the moral equivalent of war.” Carter didn’t directly recommend rationing, but it’s clear he wanted Americans to make sacrifices. Nearly a half century later, there’s another “crisis” that requires sacrifice: We must save ourselves from global warming.

“World War II-style rationing,” reports PhysOrg, “could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions, according to new research from the University of Leeds.”

It’s not the first time climate alarmists have argued that rationing resources is an important weapon in the war to defeat global warming. In some cases, it’s rationing carbon dioxide, which would mean less of everything, since our economy runs on CO2-emitting fossil fuels. But there have also been appeals to ration food, meat in particular, and consumer goods.

In a passage that is as revealing as it is revolting, the paper, published last week, argues that carbon rationing would “allow people to receive an equitable portion of resources based on their needs, therefore sharing out the effort to protect the planet.”

Was one of the researchers reading Karl Marx – “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – leading him to subliminally insert the “based on their needs” principle into the paper?

Or are the authors just outright Marxists?

The latter isn’t a leap. The “fight” against global warming has the earmarks of Marxist thought, in which the individual members of society are expected to surrender themselves to the common good, as defined of course by the regime’s rulers.

The core thinking in the paper is also perfectly aligned along the axis of malice with the World Economic Forum elites, who have said the future is a promised land in which we will own nothing and be happy about it. Yes, those wretches who want us to eat bugs.

It might be a surprise to the paper’s authors, but there is and always will be rationing. It’s just not the rationing they prefer.

Markets allocate goods and services in an efficient and just way when left alone by government. Exchanges are voluntary, and though consumers are king, transactions in free markets benefit all parties involved.

Any other method of allocation relies on politics, which are tainted by favoritism, incompetence, bias, gross inefficiencies, cronyism, power, and just plain meanness. Government rationing also worsens the scarcity of resources while allocation by private markets promotes innovation and growth.

Control of resources is exactly what the elites, the world ruling class, the establishment, want. It’s their objective to place themselves in the position of deciding who gets what and when they get it. Remember, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal was not about saving the climate, but rather it was conceived as a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing,” according to the New York congresswoman’s former chief of staff.

The war is not against global warming. That’s a ruse. It’s a crusade against mostly free Western economies, the affluent middle classes they’ve produced, as well as the poor who are struggling to reach the next level.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board