This is the conclusion of American demographer and “blue-collar Democrat” Joel Kotkin, who has highlighted that the supposedly well-intentioned green policies being adopted across the West come at enormous expense to the working- and middle-classes.
As Kotkin wrote in ‘Spiked’ earlier this year, “extreme climate measures have driven the loss of traditional blue-collar jobs in manufacturing, construction and energy, while other environmental regulations have boosted housing prices.”
Kotkin’s thesis is that the West is on the road to serfdom. Rather than maintaining our capitalist societies where a large, asset-owning middle-class underpin a stable democratic system, we are becoming stratified feudal societies.
Home and small business ownership are declining, especially among the young and the less well-off, a group of technocratic elites are establishing themselves as permanent rulers in the apparatus of the administrative state, and corporate oligarchs are coming to dominate both the economy and broader society.
This transition has been occurring for some time, but it has been accelerated by the COVID-19-inspired lockdowns and the zeal with which Western governments have thoughtlessly adopted net-zero emissions targets.
Both play out as an aggressive form of reverse Robin Hood asset stripping, taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
But beyond the slogan “technology not taxes,” the Australian people do not know how the government plans on achieving its newfound ambition.
The UK Treasury, by contrast, recently released a Net-zero Review report (pdf) which provides some detail of how the UK government expects to reach net-zero.
The report includes a surprisingly honest admission from the bureaucracy: “The costs and benefits of the transition to a net-zero economy will ultimately pass through to households through a range of different channels.”
It includes a helpful chart that shows that, regardless of the specific policy or mechanism, the costs of net-zero will always fall on households, that is, everyday mums, dads, and workers.
This insight is evident to many but is too often obfuscated.
The slogan “technology not taxes” is not only meaningless but deceptive too. The range of taxpayer-funded schemes means higher taxes. Subsidising certain kinds of energy, electric cars, or solar panels means higher taxes. Requiring businesses to adopt technology they otherwise wouldn’t mean higher prices and less choice—effectively a tax by stealth.
No comments:
Post a Comment