Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
22. Naomi Klein made the same point (from a slightly different angle) three years ago...
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:19 AM
Jun 2014

She explained how acknowledging climate change forces people on the right to alter their fundamental worldview.

Well, it would mean upending the whole free trade agenda, because it would mean that we would have to localize our economies, because we have the most energy-inefficient trade system that you could imagine. And this is the legacy of the free trade era. So, this has been a signature policy of the right, pushing globalization and free trade. That would have to be reversed.

You would have to deal with inequality
. You would have to redistribute wealth, because this is a crisis that was created in the North, and the effects are being felt in the South. So, on the most basic, basic, "you broke it, you bought it," polluter pays, you would have to redistribute wealth, which is also against their ideology.

You would have to regulate corporations
. You simply would have to. I mean, any serious climate action has to intervene in the economy. You would have to subsidize renewable energy, which also breaks their worldview.

You would have to have a really strong United Nations, because individual countries can’t do this alone. You absolutely have to have a strong international architecture.

So when you go through this, you see, it challenges everything that they believe in.


Source: Democracy Now, March 9, 2011

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Brilliant piece. k&r for exposure. n/t Laelth Jun 2014 #1
Delusions Die Hard cantbeserious Jun 2014 #2
K&R rosesaylavee Jun 2014 #3
It will indeed involve large monetary losses - bread_and_roses Jun 2014 #4
And that's because Krugman himself IS a capitalist..... socialist_n_TN Jun 2014 #8
I don't know if these anti science/anti fact people are proud to be stupid or just plain stupid Botany Jun 2014 #5
Excellent. However, only having read the OP I do have a comment. rhett o rick Jun 2014 #6
I don't often agree with a Keynesian capitalist like Krugman........ socialist_n_TN Jun 2014 #7
Krugman seems to miss something from a few years ago.... Leme Jun 2014 #9
I heard some of those "scientists" were TV weathermen. tclambert Jun 2014 #11
And some were economists, truebluegreen Jun 2014 #12
Yeah, they were scientists of a sort Leme Jun 2014 #14
I disagree that those people were "scientists." truebluegreen Jun 2014 #15
that's the point Leme Jun 2014 #18
OMG you reminded me, my X-boss signed that letter tea and oranges Jun 2014 #16
I usually agree with Krugman, but not this time. tclambert Jun 2014 #10
I think that you may be onto something. drm604 Jun 2014 #19
It's Obvious - And The Denialist Poster Boy Is Marco Rubio - IGNORANT and PROUD OF IT ! stuartsdesk1 Jun 2014 #13
disagree. that ayn randian wet dreaming is not that potent. the problem is talk radio, which certainot Jun 2014 #17
RW Christian Dominionists too ErikJ Jun 2014 #20
This is not the first time the world has been fooled randr Jun 2014 #21
Naomi Klein made the same point (from a slightly different angle) three years ago... RufusTFirefly Jun 2014 #22
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»KRUGMAN:...think about gl...»Reply #22