Environmentalism isn’t actually about the environment, but about creating an a purported existential threat that requires totalitarian control of the population, even if it means harming the population for the sake of “Gaia”… or the holy doctrine of “equity”.
“‘Well, if we just thought like that it would be very convenient, wouldn’t it?’ Thunberg said. She continued, ‘Rather we need to see the holistic perspective. How can we…? If we take for example India, how could we expect India to take action when the developed countries who have actually promised to lead the way won’t do that?
“‘If we take into account the global aspect of equity I mean there are many, many people around the world who need to be able to raise their standard of living and if we who live in high-income countries aren’t able to take a few steps back in order to let other people raise their living standards then that just doesn’t make any sense.
“‘And of course those countries definitely need to take their responsibility as well. And that’s why we need global cooperation. Countries won’t take action when there is no global cooperation. If the U.S. for example, which is the biggest emitter in history, won’t take action then how can we expect other countries to do that? Taking action ourselves is also a guarantee that…I mean, it would be a snowball effect most likely. If one country does something then other countries will follow. If no country does something then no one will follow.’”
Note the assumption here: By having more advanced countries destroy their economy and intentionally retard themselves, then and only then can other countries advance, and by doing so everyone will be able to “go green” together and immanentize the ecological eschaton. This is the crux of “equity”.
But this clever scheme of theirs ignores the fact that you do not create wealth by destroying wealth creators, and those wealth creators are the one who also create environmentally friendly alternatives to the dirty emissions of places like China, which now produces more carbon dioxide emissions than the entire developed world together. It also ignores the fact that wealth is not a zero-sum game, and while the gap would be smaller between developed and developing nations, all nations would be worse off from the developed world’s economic collapse.
This argument sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It has also been debunked over thirty years ago:
This “equity” obsession can only be understood as an article of faith that a utopia will spontaneously pop into existence if this mythical “equity” is actually achieved… no matter how many people have to suffer for it.