Read Between the Lines

There you have it. We have our solution to climate change. It turns out it's all the fault of our beloved economy. This year global greenhouse gas emissions will drop by 3% due to the global recession. So it follows that in order to save ourselves, other sentient beings and ensure the continuation of life on earth we need to drop the economy. Yes that same economy that we are reminded about every day like parishioners in the pews.

It's strange but the linked article doesn't even raise this point. I wonder why that would be? Doesn't my analysis make sense and provide us with the simplest solution to our biggest problem? It surely makes more sense than the smoke and space mirrors that are being suggested today. So instead of dumping the economy as any logical and sane person would, the article suggests: "We need an energy and environment revolution. Business as usual would increase temperatures by 6C. To hold emissions to 450ppm [parts per million], we need in the region of 18 nuclear power stations, 17,000 turbines, 100 concentrated solar power stations and 16 carbon capture and storage plants to be built every year until 2030".

Huh? So we need to feed the economy that's the cause of these emissions in order to get these emissions under control. We need to build more stuff, crank out more plastic, pour more concrete and build a whole new fleet of vehicles to save ourselves? What?

Why can't we learn the simplest lessons? What is our fucking problem?