Were you duped into buying a car because it was advertised as being big, powerful, or sexy? Not to worry: Plans have been around for a long time to ensure that’ll never happen again:

John P. Holdren, the White House science adviser to President Barack Obama, wrote in a book he co-authored with population control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich that “ways must be found to control advertising” and that possible means for doing so would be banning utility companies from promoting increased use of energy and prohibiting “references to size, power or sexual potency” in automobile advertising.

“Advertising now functions in large part to keep the economy growing by creating demand for a wide variety of often useless, dangerous or environmentally destructive products,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.

“Its most dangerous abuses might be halted immediately by legislative action,” they said. “For instance, it could be made illegal for any utility to advertise in such a way as to promote greater demand for power. Also references to size, power or sexual potency (direct or implied) could be banned from automobile advertising. Certainly, every effort should be made to expunge from advertising the idea that the quality of life is closely related to the rate at which new products are purchased or energy is consumed.” — Terence P. Jeffrey, “Obama Adviser: ‘References to Size, Power or Sexual Potency … Could Be Banned From Automobile Advertising'”, CNS News, March 2, 2012

There used to be “a tiger in your tank,” according to one ad from the ’70s — but that would be unacceptable phraseology these days, according to the president’s current science adviser.

Green “de-development” — the summum bonum of envirowackos everywhere — could be made to work, but it requires a three-pronged attack:

“Halting population growth must be done, but that alone would not be enough,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote in HUMAN ECOLOGY. “Stabilizing or reducing the per capita consumption of resources in the United States is necessary, but not sufficient. Attempts to reduce technology’s impact on the environment are essential, but ultimately will be futile if population and affluence grow unchecked.

“Clearly,” they concluded, “if there is to be any chance of success, simultaneous attacks must be mounted on all the components of the problem. Such a coordinated effort may be unlikely, but nothing less will do the job.” — Terence P. Jeffrey, ibid.

In case you just missed them, de-development’s three prongs are “halting population growth” (i.e., birth control), “stabilizing or reducing the per capita consumption of resources” (through, e.g., high gasoline prices), and reducing “technology’s impact on the environment” (by, e.g., closing oil, coal, and nuclear powerplants and “replacing” them with wind turbines, solar cells, and the like).

This plan has been gestating for nearly five decades, but the people who can bring it forth now control the levers of power — and there’s every indication they intend to go through with it.