Because in France ecofascism is becoming the #1 religion thanks to leftist propaganda. Government uses that to increase taxes.
> Emissions associated with consumption by governments, capital and international transport are therefore excluded. The proportion of total consumption emissions attributed to the lifestyle consumption of individuals varies by country, but globally accounts for around 64% of the total.
> Oxfam’s estimates should only be considered indicative of the orders of magnitude, but also as conservative...
The report also says that women are hit harder by climate change than men and disparages "carbon baron billionaires". Petroleum companies aren't growing faster than the rest of the economy, so it's unclear what argument they're actually making.
Such blatant misrepresentation and pandering caused me to lose trust in Oxfam.
1. https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...
> Around 50% of these emissions meanwhile can be attributed to the 10% richest of people around the world, who have average carbon footprints 11 times as high as the poorest half of the population, and 60 times as high as the poorest 10%. The average footprint of the richest 1% of people globally could be 175 times that of the poorest 10%.
1. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/?...
2. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/?...
Personal wealth does not correlate with any sort of "value" you have personally created.
The more wealth you have the easier it is to provide value to other people. That's known as capital investment, and it's how wealth begets more wealth.
Or they could just spend all that wealth they've saved on themselves. People inclined to do that generally don't become wealthy in the first place, however, barring abnormal circumstances such as winning the lottery. A habit of frivolous, conspicuous consumption is a good way to ensure that you don't stay wealthy for long.
There are people who see the enforcement of the green agenda in these terms, like this: you can't speak publicly against it, you can't act openly against it, and it gets forced on the economy through the power of the state.
I personally think that such a view is a bit of a exaggeration. But we should remember that the danger of fascism is always around the corner, in the groupthink and in the enforcement of One True Way in anything.
By this, I suppose you mean that, if you do it, you will get some angry answers in your direction, but, is that not true about anything deserving to talk about?
It works in the other direction too: I have heard pretty harsh insults against ecologist (yeah, sometimes they are even called fascists).
>>"[..] and it gets forced on the economy through the power of she state."
Yes, but all economic organization is forced through the power of the state, starting by property rights. So, nothing new there.
Yes, a state is an instiute of enforcement, violent if needed. Nothing new here indeed. People just tend to see enforcement of ideas they like as good, and of the ideas they don't like, as evil. Nothing new here either.
I just tried to explain the train of thought that may have led to the original (flagged) comment.