I think there's a subtle mashing of three arguments/premises here. Firstly, whether or not there is an environmental emergency, secondly, whether forcing people

I think there's a subtle mashing of three arguments/premises here. Firstly, whether or not there is an environmental emergency, secondly, whether forcing people to respond to it is appropriate, and last, whether the use of force constitutes totalitarianism. I don't believe JP actually is interested in discussing the role of 'force' (which he equivocates to 'totalitarianism', but equivalent to any government interference in freedoms) in response to problems as I think if we accept the premise of a massive problem that humans are geared to perpetuate (say, insider trading or collusion between companies), we recognize that the only available option is to use 'force'. As a thought exercise, if we accept the hypothetical premise that there is an environmental disaster of some kind that we as a race have sleepwalked into, and that the 1% has insufficient interest in averting, and that we have very little time to try to mitigate - if we accept those terms for a hypothetical premise for a moment - I would be interested in how JP would propose a society tackle such a situation. Humans are not perfectly logical operators acting in their best interests and charting an optimal long term future through time and space - the tragedy of the commons is well documented proof of this. We're averse to change; most animals are, so if they do not see or feel a problem, or if they don't have an emotional investment in something, they won't care about it. Equipped with this fact and our aforementioned hypothetical, the options available to a hypothetical environmental fascist are to allow things to burn such that the majority of humans clamor for change (undesirable), to try sell the majority of the Earth's people an emotional investment in the Earth and the hypothetical problem, or to force people to do the right thing via a curtailing of their rights. So, lastly, I would ask, given such terms, is option three so unreasonable? Ported to a real issue: would JP counsel investors to start a global marketing campaign about the evils of insider trading and collusion rather than have governments worldwide outlaw and punish such practices? I don't think he would die on that hill. Therefore, I consider this headline to be cheap and intended to muddy the waters by stoking fears, where what we actually have here is plain-jane denial there there is an environmental disaster playing out.