Creating a recession to reduce greenhouse gases? Say what?

This sounds like something that would freak out even the most diehard conspiracy theorists, tin-hattery taken to the nth degree.

But, according to an article in the Telegraph (yeah, the British press), the way to reduce greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, the culprit-du-jour of global warming), is to trash the economy.

... a new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said these targets are inadequate to keep global warming below two degrees C above pre-industrial levels. The report says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous tipping point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020 ... this would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned recession" ... Kevin Anderson, director of the research body, said the building of new airports, petrol cars and dirty coal-fired power stations will have to be halted in the UK until new technology provides an alternative to burning fossil fuels. "To meet [Government] targets of not exceeding two degrees C, there would have to be a moratorium on airport expansion, stringent measures on the type of vehicle being used and a rapid transition to low carbon technology," he said ...

Do I believe this? No, though I can't say anything surprises me any more. And, while our own efforts to "fix" environmental problems through legislation do aggravate our financial woes, it takes some gigantic leaps in logic to say environmentalists have an interest in creating a recession or have the power to do so.

Although I consider climate change to be a real issue (though not nearly as big as Al Gore says), a big part of environmental reform is in "selling" it ... and creating a recession is not the way to sell anything.

You tell me: Is there validity in what Kevin Anderson says, or is there something in the air over there? Are a clean environment and a sound economy mutually exclusive terms? Use the comments section for input.