Hello, I’m Daisy Cousens.
Welcome to This Week in Social Justice.
INTRO
This week’s biggest and baddest social justice
fails include Prince
Harry, Meghan Markle, and the hypocrisy of
elite climate change
aficionados, why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
is making fun of middle
America and the electoral college, and depending
on how long I feel
like talking about the first two topics, we
may even get time for a
bonus topic.
So!
Let’s get started.
But, while I have your attention, if you like
this video, pretty please
share it for me.
YouTube is no longer recommending independent
content creators, so if you like this and
other videos of mine and
think other people would like them too, then
please smash that
share button, I would really appreciate it.
Okay, here we go!
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have attracted
allegations of
hypocrisy over their apparent penchant for
travelling in private jets.
The royal pair have both been outspoken advocates
for radical
climate change action in recent times, which
is why many many
eyebrows were firmly raised when it was revealed
that they took
four trips on private jets in just eleven
days.
The first was a trip to the glamourous party
island of Ibiza on August
6th to celebrate Meghan’s 38 th birthday,
and the second was a trip to
Nice to stay at Elton John’s private villa,
from which the royal couple
arrived back last Sunday.
Bear in mind, private jets emit more tons
of carbon dioxide per
person than your average commercial flight.
Their first trip is
estimated to have generated about six times
more carbon dioxide
per person than a scheduled flight.
The second trip generated an
estimated seven times more emissions per person.
As such, it seems a little bit rich that Meghan
and Harry are positing
themselves as climate change warriors for
good.
And trust me, there
is nothing that normal people are more done
with than rich famous
people who possess a do as I say, not as I
do attitude.
So what does this lack of leadership by example
from the Duke and
Duchess of Sussex entail?
Well, in the case of Prince Harry, he
recently did an interview with climate activist
Dr Jane Goodall for the
September issue of British Vogue, in which
he revealed he and
Meghan did not plan on having more than two
children, because to
do so would apparently be bad for the planet.
Meghan was guest editor of that edition of
Vogue, and picked teen
climate superstar campaigner Great Thunberg
to be on the front
cover as one of Meghan’s chosen “forces
for change”.
Prince Harry
also spoke last year in Sydney during the
Invictus games at the
Australian Geographic Society Awards on the
dangers of climate
change, spurring viewers on in their quest
to save the planet B ROLL
He also attended a very interesting event
at the end of July this year
at the famous Verdura Resort in Sicily, known
as “Google summer
camp”.
The A-listers only three-day congregation
is organised by
Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin,
and the guest list
included, as well as Prince Harry, former
President Barack Obama,
Leonardo DiCaprio, and Katy Perry to name
a few.
All attended this
annual deluxe climate chat brimful of enthusiasm
at the prospect of
saving the world.
However, it seems that, like Prince Harry
and Meghan Markle, these
global elites have a little trouble practicing
what they preach.
The
Italian press reported that 114 private jets
were expected to show up
to the resort, which would have projected
100,000 tons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere.
Along with the gas guzzling private jets were
a number of gas
guzzling private yachts.
As for Prince Harry, although he gave an
impassioned speech to VIPs and power-brokers,
barefoot for
emphasis, it was claimed Google paid for his
flights and a helicopter
to the resort, where he is alleged to have
stayed on one of these gas-
guzzling luxury super-yachts.
Wow.
See why there are so many eyebrows raising
further and further at
the the super-rich and their somewhat chequered
climate change
activism, shall we say?
But, to be fair, we can’t ignore Elton John’s
defence of the royals at their use of a private
jet to travel to and
from his villa.
In an Instagram post, he implored the press
to stop the attacks on
Meghan and Harry, because he had offered them
the jet because of
their security needs, and he had made the
appropriate payment to
Carbon Footprint, which is a company that
allows you to proverbially
offset your carbon emissions, thus making
their trip “carbon
neutral”.
Hmm.
So, what is this carbon offsetting of which
Sir Elton speaks?
Well,
companies like carbon footprint calculate
people’s carbon usage,
then allow them to make a monetary contribution
to a program that
will somehow negate it.
These programs can be things like
reforestation, renewable energy, and so on.
Sounds like a good solution for the carbon
conscious, right?
And
surely a way to negate Harry and Meghan’s
apparent hypocrisy.
However, there are many issues with carbon
offsetting.
According to
Roger Tyers, a research fellow at the University
of Southampton, the
idea that you can fly “carbon neutral”
is very misleading.
That is, a
plane that flies today emits carbon today.
It’s very hard to know how
fast an offset can remove that amount of carbon
from the
atmosphere.
In addition, the process of carbon offsetting
is notoriously
complicated.
There is no agreement on how much carbon dioxide
a
journey may emit, there’s confusion about
what process can most
effectively reduce emissions, and an inflated
amount of choices of
where you can direct your money.
There’s also a lot of cynicism about the
principle itself, because
airlines, airports and big corporations use
offsetting to sell more
flights or get permission to grow even further.
And yes, while some
people argue quite reasonably that carbon
offsetting is better than
nothing, others disagree, saying it simply
allows frequent flyers to
assuage their guilt, and that the aviation
industry to continue to
grow as result.
This sneakily backhands in the long term the
idea of carbon
offsetting in the first place.
So, while we should appreciate the
thought, it seems Elton John’s excuse doesn’t
quite cut the mustard
for two people who are so hell bent on flexing
their climate change
muscles on such a large and self-righteous
scale.
The other problem with carbon offsetting is
that it requires
disposable income, sometimes quite a lot depending
on your carbon
footprint.
While that may be okay for high income earners,
people
on a middle class income with mouths to feed
and bills to pay are
certainly not going to be thinking about carbon
offsetting or green
energy or any of that stuff the elites keep
insisting the little people
engage in while sneering at them when they
don’t.
That’s the problem with so many radical
climate change activists,
famous or not.
They actually have the funds to live the emissions
free lifestyle they tout.
Your average Joe or Jolene just can’t do
that.
Climate change activists tend be from the
“progressive” class, who,
according to a 2018 study of America’s political
landscape called
Hidden Tribes, are most likely to be earning
a salary of $100,000 USD
or more.
As such, they can afford the higher power
prices that come with
renewable energy.
They can afford to have their incomes slashed
in
half by taxes and not lose any quality of
life.
And for those young
people who are part of the climate alarmist
ranks, they’re more
often than not university students who collect
government benefits
and expect to be taken care of by the state
anyway.
Or, in the case of say Greta Thunberg and
her adolescent-led climate
movement, children and teenagers whose parents
feed them and
pay the bills.
None of these activists have any concept of
the real
world, and the ramifications of large-scale
climate change activism.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New
Deal are a good
example of that ignorance.
As the gilet jeune, or yellow vests protestors
in France said of
Macron and his cronies when they proposed
a fuel tax, the elites are
thinking about the end of the world, whereas
the yellow vests and
those they represent are thinking about the
end of the month.
Huge,
huge social justice fail for Prince Harry,
Meghan markle, and the rest
of the climate-change enthusiast elites.
Speaking of Alexandria Ocasio “Red” Cortez,
she has once again
proved she’s learnt nothing from the Democrats
losing the 2016
election by her latest rallying against middle
America via the
electoral college.
In an Instagram story on August 20th , she
filmed her
journey as she travelled in a gas guzzling
car through empty fields, in
which she offered some interesting commentary
She followed up this sarcastic little video
by posting that the
electoral college is a scam, citing an article
from the Intelligencer
entitled, ‘Here’s Every Defense of the
Electoral College — and Why
They’re All Wrong’.
Finally, and in true Red Cortez style, she
somehow made the existence of the electoral
college an issue of
racism
“The Electoral College has a racial injustice
breakdown.
Due to
severe racial disparities in certain states,
the electoral college
effectively weighs white voters over voters
of color, as opposed to a
“one person, one vote” system where all
our votes are counted
equally.”
*Sigh*.
Okay, so we all know what’s really going
on here.
The reason
Red Cortez and so many other Democrats have
repeatedly argued
the electoral college be eliminated is because
they lost the 2016
election because of it.
That is, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote,
so the most votes via
the population, but Donald Trump won the whole
thing because he
won the electoral college.
That is, while he got less votes population
wise, more states went Red than Blue.
And as each state gets a
certain amount of electoral college votes
based on population, that’s
what got him over the finish line.
So, I guarantee you that if Hillary Clinton
had won in 2016 by losing
the popular vote but winning the electoral
college, the Democrats
would be praising the electoral college to
the skies.
This has nothing
to do with them trying to make the system
fairer.
On the contrary; the purpose of the electoral
college, as least, this is
my understanding of it, is to protect the
interests of smaller, less
populated states from getting drowned out
repeatedly by the issues
of the more densely populated coastal states.
In that respect, and in a country like the
USA which has a population
of 325 million people, which is a lot, the
electoral makes perfect
sense.
And yes, I would be saying that if the Democrats
had won in
2016 because of it.
I am nothing if not fair.
The thing is, if the
president was decided by the popular vote
alone, the Democrats
would like win every single election, because
those densely
populated coastal states tend to lean reliably
left.
As such, it is very clear that Red Cortez
and all the rest of them don’t
actually care about a fair vote, or democracy,
or representing
everyone’s interests.
They just care about power, and are willing
to
do anything to obtain it.
Enormous social justice fail right here.
Bonus topic!
We have a bonus topic this week.
In what is essentially
a rebuke of social justice TV host, journalist,
and noted leftist Piers
Morgan has launched an astonishingly blunt
yet insightful
condemnation of the modern left.
During an interview with former
gun laws debate opponent Ben Shapiro for Turning
Point UK, dear
Piers had
this
to say.
Wow wow wow.
I think we all knew that Piers, as an old-fashioned
leftie and a friend of Donald Trump pre presidency
was fed up with
the social justice brigade, but I didn’t
realise he felt this strongly
about.
So, this is less of a social justice fail,
and more of a social
justice indictment by a man who, despite his
flaws, is remarkably
based for a media man.
Piers Morgan, you done good.
