Tag: socialists

Claim: Large Scale Wealth Redistribution is Required to Tackle Climate Change

The core idea—”just take money from billionaires”—oversimplifies how wealth, capital, incentives, and economic dynamics actually function. It’s a common framing in reports like the one from the World Inequality Lab, but real-world evidence shows significant practical problems with aggressive annual wealth taxes (e.g., 20% on billionaires) or 90% top marginal income rates as primary tools for funding massive global redistribution.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… the share of global wealth held by the poorest … would rise from just 2 percent today to 30 percent, while the proportion held by billionaires would fall …”

Could tackling climate change and levelling inequality go hand in hand?

The world can raise income, reduce inequality and limit global warming, according to an ambitious roadmap presented this week by economists in France. Making the case for a radical transformation of economies and lifestyles, they call on rich countries to slow growth, phase out fossil fuels and tax the wealthiest to help poorer countries fund development and mitigate the effects of climate change. 

Issued on: 06/06/2026 – 06:56
By: RFI

Published on Thursday by the World Inequality Lab, the Global Justice Report presents a vision of a fairer world built within the planet’s limits.

…

Under the plan, the share of global wealth held by the poorest half of the world’s population would rise from just 2 percent today to 30 percent, while the proportion held by billionaires would fall dramatically.

…

The report also calls for a reduction in working hours in wealthier regions, alongside efforts to equalise incomes both within and between countries.

According to its authors, this would mean near-zero per capita growth in richer economies, while poorer regions would grow faster to close the gap.

Taxing the rich

To finance the transition, the economists propose the creation of a “global justice fund”, initially funded through steep taxes on the wealthiest individuals – up to 20 percent annually on billionaires’ fortunes and income tax rates of up to 90 percent.

…Read more: https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260606-could-tackling-climate-change-and-levelling-inequality-go-hand-in-hand

The full report is available here.

Socialists like the global justice project and world inequality council have no idea how money works.

Taking money off billionaires wouldn’t redistribute wealth, it would destroy the wealth. Money only has value because billionaires hold some of it, and use that money to create the goods and services which give money its value.

Poor people and countries are not poor because of circumstances, they are poor because of the bad choices they make. Giving broken nations money without fixing the problems which caused those nations to fail doesn’t lift their income, it just destroys the value of that money.

There are plenty of example of nations which started making better choices and thrived, like the Asian tiger economies Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, at least until the Chinese started throwing their weight around. There are nations which started making poor choices and fell or are busy falling, such as Australia, New Zealand, Britain and Europe. And there are nations which are caught in the borderlands between prosperity and ruin, depending on which direction they choose next. None of this has anything to do with wealth redistribution between nations.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The core idea—”just take money from billionaires”—oversimplifies how wealth, capital, incentives, and economic dynamics actually function.

It’s a common framing in reports like the one from the World Inequality Lab, but real-world evidence shows significant practical problems with aggressive annual wealth taxes (e.g., 20% on billionaires) or 90% top marginal income rates as primary tools for funding massive global redistribution.

Billionaire net worth is mostly illiquid capital—ownership stakes in companies (stocks, equity in startups/tech/firms), not stacks of cash. This wealth:

Represents past value creation (innovation, scaling businesses that employ millions and serve billions).

Gets reinvested into productive assets: R&D, factories, infrastructure, employee compensation via equity, new ventures. High savings/investment rates at the top channel resources into capital formation.

Fluctuates with markets; taxing unrealized gains or annual wealth can force asset sales, disrupt operations, or reduce future investment.

Confiscating or heavily taxing this doesn’t magically create equivalent sustainable income/wealth for others without affecting the underlying productive capacity. Historical attempts at very high rates often led to avoidance, evasion, capital flight, and lower reported income bases.

A “Global Justice Fund” at >10% of world GDP would be enormous (~$10+ trillion/year today). Funding it primarily via wealth/income taxes on the rich assumes static wealth creation, minimal evasion, perfect global coordination (unlikely amid US-China tensions, etc.), and effective spending in recipient countries (governance quality varies widely; aid effectiveness has mixed track records).

Labour To Limit Parking Spaces on New Homes

Socialists have long wanted to take away our cars. I remember as long ago as the 1970s them arguing for this.

A crowded parking lot filled with various cars, with houses and greenery visible in the background.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

Socialists have long wanted to take away our cars. I remember as long ago as the 1970s them arguing for this.

To them, the ability to travel where and when you want is not compatible with the sort of state control of our lives that they yearn for.

Making EVs mandatory was another step on this long planned path, given that they are impractical for drivers with no off street parking. Now it seems they are opening another front in their war on motorists.

From the Telegraph:

Headline from an article discussing plans to limit parking spaces for new homes, with emphasis on the impact on motorists.

Labour to step up war on motorists by limiting bays on housing developments

Sir Keir Starmer is starting a crackdown on parking spaces in a fresh “war on motorists”.

Under plans published by the Government, councils will be required to impose sweeping parking restrictions limiting the number of spaces on new housing developments without any justification.

The move aims to discourage car use in favour of greener alternatives such as using public transport, walking or cycling.

But critics warn that the policy will squeeze drivers and lead to “parking misery” in the latest move targeting motorists in the name of net zero.

Campaigners say the plans could backfire as a shortage of off-road spaces for cars could force drivers to resort to “illegal and dangerous” parking practices.

Richard Holden MP, shadow transport secretary, said: “Labour have ripped up the rulebook that protected families from parking misery and replaced it with a green light for councils to squeeze drivers – [it means] blocked pavements, congested roads, and tickets through the post.

“This is how the war on drivers works. Motorists aren’t the problem. Once again, they’re the revenue stream.”

Full story here.

Although decisions will be made by local councils, we know that many are fully behind the socialist, state planning agenda.

To stop Spanish Floods, should we add more solar panels or more dams?

More than 219 people have drowned and another 80 are still missing after the devastating floods in Valencia, Spain. The UN expert climate scientists say that shutting coal plants and building windmills is the best way to stop floods.

Matt Ridley is wondering if removing 133 dams had anything to do with it, or if perhaps they should have built the big dam that was approved in 2001 but stopped by the Socialists in 2004

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

@PGuillermoSerra

Oh the Dilemma?

More than 219 people have drowned and another 80 are still missing after the devastating floods in Valencia, Spain. The UN expert climate scientists say that shutting coal plants and building windmills is the best way to stop floods.

Matt Ridley is wondering if removing 133 dams had anything to do with it, or if perhaps they should have built the big dam that was approved in 2001 but stopped by the Socialists in 2004:

Dam shame: what really caused Valencia’s floods?

Matt Ridley, The Spectator

… Valencia had a similarly terrible flood in 1957, in which 81 people died, long before climate change became the go-to excuse for any bad weather. After that flood, to prevent a recurrence, the Spanish government built a string of dams in the hills to hold back water and diverted the Turia river away from the city. For more than six decades the system worked well. Why did it fail this year? Because the unusually warm sea made for an unusually bad storm, say some. Yet charts of rainfall in Spain show no trend towards a higher frequency of more extreme downpours…

Indeed, 24 hour torrential rainfall records back to 1940 don’t sing the Climate Change song. Since 1982 human emissions of CO2 have grown from a cumulative total of 640 billion tons up to 1,800 billion tons and it hasn’t made the slightest difference to downpours.

That’s a 280% increase in man-made CO2 and there’s nothing to show for it.

Graph by Jose Gefaell.

Matt Ridley points to the enthusiastic dam removal programs the EU has been ordering:

In the past few years, the Spanish government has been removing dams at a furious rate. Under a European Union programme to encourage the restoration of rivers to their wild state for the benefit of fish migration, Spain set about dismantling barriers of all kinds. In 2021 it got rid of 108 dams and weirs; in 2022, another 133. That year, according to Dam Removal Europe, a coalition of seven green pressure groups, it was Europe’s proud league champion at dismantling them…

The billionaire’s ski club called the WEF brags about how many dams they have removed: The removal of dams in Europe is reviving rivers and boosting biodiversity

The BBC was touting the environmental wonders of dam removal in Europe only 6 months ago:

They not only cause biodiversity loss, impacting fish and microorganisms, but also prevent nutrients and sediments from flowing downstream, hindering fisheries and the livelihoods that depend on them.

Research now shows that at least 1.2 million instream obstacles block river flows in 36 European countries, with about 68% less than 2m (6.6ft) in height. “Even barriers as small as 20cm (8in) may impact or delay the movement of some organisms,” says Carlos Garcia de Leaniz professor in Aquatic Biosciences at Swansea University and coordinator of Amber, a project that created the first atlas of European river barriers.

Some dams are sacred though — no bureaucrat is going to get rid of a hydro-dam. They stop floods by reducing human CO2 emissions which may in a thousand years, slightly reduce world temperatures in such a way as to change jet-streams, and maybe possibly, lessen the intensity of downfalls. Screw the fish eh?

Acknowledging that dams have a detrimental effect on ecosystems doesn’t mean denying hydropower’s benefits in supplying energy, however. “Absolutely nobody is proposing to blow up or remove barriers which are in use,” clarifies Garcia de Leaniz…

But as Matt Ridley notes, the Cheste dam was “was specifically designed to prevent flooding, to ‘regulate the flows coming from the upper basin of the Poyo and Pozalet ravines’.” It was abandoned in 2004. “Could it have saved Valencia?” he wonders, pointing out that “the city of Aragon was saved last month by a dam built by the emperor Augustus.”

In the tragedy of the Spanish flood, an ancient Roman dam saves the city of Aragon 

Built nearly 2,000 years ago by Emperor Augustus, the 34-meter dam prevented destruction and loss in the region

This is the tallest surviving Roman dam in the world! pic.twitter.com/Xqz8IPtzYd

— Mambo Italiano (@mamboitaliano__) November 4, 2024

Mann Tweets Study Claiming Climate Deniers Are Misogynist Authoritarians

Michael Mann introduce new absurd pseudo- studies.

From Watts Up With That?

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Mann beclowning himself promoting absurd studies – but I guess that is nothing new.

The study abstract;

Misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change

Nitasha Kaul, Tom Buchanan
First published: 18 May 2023

Abstract

Globally, democratic politics are under attack from Electorally Legitimated Misogynist Authoritarian (ELMA) leaders who successfully use misogyny as a political strategy and present environmental concern in feminine and inferior terms. The ascendancy of such projects raise questions involving socioeconomic structures, political communication, and the psychological underpinnings of people’s attitudes. We offer misogyny, conceptualized in a specific way – not simply as hatred or disgust for women, but as a way of accessing a gendered hierarchy whereby that which is labeled “feminine” is perceived as inferior, devalued, and amenable to be attacked – as a relevant transmission mechanism in how ELMAs like Trump may connect with public opinion by systematically investigating the interplay between misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change in the context of the United States. Using a survey methodology (N = 314) and up-to-date questionnaires, we provide a concrete empirical underpinning for recent analytical and theoretical work on the complexity of misogyny. We analyze how misogynist and authoritarian attitudes correlate with climate change, adding to the literature on opposition to climate change policy. An additional exploratory aspect of our study concerning US voter preferences clearly indicates that Trump supporters are more misogynist, more authoritarian, and less concerned with the environment.

And so, it is 100% clear that there is this toxic package or bundle of right-wing ideology, nationalism, exceptionalism, racism, sexism, anti-immigrantism, and anti-climate-change that goes with it. That is what drives many of them.

[Katharine Hayhoe, interviewed by Bjork-James & Barla, 2021, p. 389]

Gender is a game-changer, like the Archimedean fulcrum, with the potential to shift economic logics from profit-exploiting systems of injustice to functional praxes of life-affirming care for ecosystems, human others, and planetary co-habitants.

[Glazebrook, 2015, p. 126]

Sustainability is considered to be a ‘feminine’ project.

Climate change is a man-made problem and must have a feminist solution.

[Mary Robinson, in Allen et al., 2019]

Read more: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/asap.12347

The study authors have a problem with climate skeptics “targeting” female leaders like AOC and Greta, arguing the motivation is misogyny.

… The most upfront manifestation of this is the ways in which outspoken female advocates of addressing climate change in substantive ways are targeted. Gelin (2019) referred to the “gender reactionaries to climate-denialism” with reference to the attack on figures such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg.  …Read more: same link as above

The study is based on a sample of 400 people, whom after deleting a bunch of answers was whittled down to 314. They claim most of the discarded answers had zero variation on answers – but given the in my opinion poor quality questions, the lack of variation could have been an artefact of the survey rather than a conspiracy to rig the result.

The study authors draw inferences based on their misogyny theory, like blaming Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 on sexism amplified by climate denial.

The authors redefine “misogyny” as being something other than hatred and / or disdain for women – crypto misogyny? – which makes you wonder why they tried to shoehorn everything into the label “misogyny”, instead of using a different word. “… We depart from the typical understanding of misogyny as hatred and disgust toward women by men, it is far from straightforward in how it functions as part of psycho-political processes. …“.

My favourite paragraph though is this one;

… In a similar vein, Stanley et al. (2019), in their 5-year cross-lagged analysis of the influence of SDO and RWA on environmentalism conclude that, “the relationship between ideology and environmentalism across time could be explained by a third variable. Specifically, it is possible that something related both to ideological and environmental attitudes could drive changes in each variable independently, hence explaining the apparent causal relations” (p. 7). They invite future research to explore the potentially causal nature of the ideology-environmentalism association. We surmise that misogyny could be that third variable. …Read more: same link as above

If there is such a hidden third variable, why do the authors automatically assume the hidden variable is affecting the judgement of climate skeptics? Why are they so sure they are the objective party?

Because there is a much more obvious candidate for a hidden variable which biases belief in climate change: enthusiastic political support for socialism.

Is it a coincidence that most climate activists (though not all) also seem to have very left wing political views?

Why is climate activism be so attractive to socialists?

A fervent communist who used to be a friend once explained to me it doesn’t matter if climate science is wrong, because restraining capitalism with more regulation is socially desirable, even if the climate science rationale for advancing green restraints on capitalism turns out to be wrong.

I don’t think my former friend was deliberately lying about his climate beliefs, but in my opinion my former friend pretty much admitted he had no incentive to rigorously review the supporting evidence for his climate alarmism.

Left wing biases clouding the judgement of climate alarmists might also explain why most greens reject nuclear energy. Nuclear energy should be the obvious zero carbon compromise – a scalable zero carbon energy solution which the Right would accept.

We have unequivocal proof nuclear is affordable and safe, once you cut the red tape – France decarbonised most of their electricity generation with affordable nuclear power in the 1970s. Yet greens consistently choose endless political conflict instead of accepting a viable nuclear powered path to reducing CO2 emissions. They choose endless energy stalemate instead of embracing a solution to their alleged climate crisis which would leave Capitalism intact.