1984: Thread

[grarpamp]

CLIMATE LOCKDOWN: All Travel Must Be On Foot, and you must wear belch
and fart recycling masks along the way.

Is A "Climate Lockdown" On The Horizon?

https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/10/is-a-climate-lockdown-on-the-horizon/
https://off-guardian.org/2021/04/23/climate-is-the-new-covid/
https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/Panorama/Articles/Avoiding-a-climate-lockdown
https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/Our-members/Members
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Syndicate
https://www.project-syndicate.org/about
https://www.dumptheguardian.com/world/2021/jun/04/end-destruction-of-nature-to-stop-future-pandemics-say-scientists
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/coronavirus-and-climate-change/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSMDa3hwUEc
https://www.statista.com/chart/25001/g7-money-spent-on-fossil-fuels-and-green-energy/

If and when the powers-that-be decide to move on from their pandemic
narrative, lockdowns won’t be going anywhere. Instead it looks like
they’ll be rebranded as “climate lockdowns”, and either enforced or
simply held threateningly over the public’s head.

At least, according to an article written by an employee of the WHO,
and published by a mega-coporate think-tank.

Let’s dive right in.
THE REPORT’S AUTHOR AND BACKERS

The report, titled “Avoiding a climate lockdown”, was written by
Mariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics at University College
London, and head of something called the Council on the Economics of
Health for All, a division of the World Health Organization.

It was first published in October 2020 by Project Syndicate, a
non-profit media organization that is (predictably) funded through
grants from the Open society Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, and many, many others.

After that, it was picked up and republished by the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which describes itself as
“a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working
together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world.”.

The WBCSD’s membership is essentially every major company in the
world, including Chevron, BP, Bayer, Walmart, Google and Microsoft.
Over 200 members totalling well over 8 TRILLION dollars in annual
revenue.

In short: an economist who works for the WHO has written a report
concerning “climate lockdowns”, which has been published by both a
Gates+Soros backed NGO AND a group representing almost every bank, oil
company and tech giant on the planet.

Whatever it says, it clearly has the approval of the people who run the world.
WHAT DOES IT SAY?

The text of the report itself is actually quite craftily constructed.
It doesn’t outright argue for climate lockdowns, but instead discusses
ways “we” can prevent them.

    As COVID-19 spread […] governments introduced lockdowns in order
to prevent a public-health emergency from spinning out of control. In
the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again –
this time to tackle a climate emergency […] To avoid such a scenario,
we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism
differently.

This cleverly creates a veneer of arguing against them, whilst
actually pushing the a priori assumptions that any so-called “climate
lockdowns” would a) be necessary and b) be effective. Neither of which
has ever been established.

Another thing the report assumes is some kind of causal link between
the environment and the “pandemic”:

    COVID-19 is itself a consequence of environmental degradation

I wrote an article, back in April, exploring the media’s persistent
attempts to link the Covid19 “pandemic” with climate change. Everybody
from the Guardian to the Harvard School of Public Health is taking the
same position – “The root cause of pandemics [is] the destruction of
nature”:

    The razing of forests and hunting of wildlife is increasingly
bringing animals and the microbes they harbour into contact with
people and livestock.

There is never any scientific evidence cited to support this position.
Rather, it is a fact-free scare-line used to try and force a mental
connection in the public, between visceral self-preservation (fear of
disease) and concern for the environment. It is as transparent as it
is weak.
“CLIMATE LOCKDOWNS”

So, what exactly is a “climate lockdown”? And what would it entail?

The author is pretty clear:

    Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit
private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme
energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop
drilling.

There you have it. A “climate lockdown” means no more red meat, the
government setting limits on how and when people use their private
vehicles and further (unspecified) “extreme energy-saving measures”.
It would likely include previously suggested bans on air travel, too.

All in all, it is potentially far more strict than the “public health
policy” we’ve all endured for the last year.

As for forcing fossil fuel companies to stop drilling, that is
drenched in the sort of ignorance of practicality that only exists in
the academic world. Supposing we can switch to entirely rely on
renewables for energy, we still wouldn’t be able to stop drilling for
fossil fuels.

Oil isn’t just used as fuel, it’s also needed to lubricate engines and
manufacture chemicals and plastics. Plastics used in the manufacture
of wind turbines and solar panels, for example.

Coal isn’t just needed for power stations, but also to make steel.
Steel which is vital to pretty much everything humans do in the modern
world.

It reminds me of a Victoria Wood sketch from the 1980s, where an
upper-middle class woman remarks, upon meeting a coal miner, “I
suppose we don’t really need coal, now we’ve got electricity.”

A lot of post-fossil utopian ideas are sold this way, to people who
are comfortably removed from the way the world actually works. This
mirrors the supposed “recovery” the environment experienced during
lockdown, a mythic creation selling a silver lining of house arrest to
people who think that because they’re having their annual budget
meetings over Zoom, somehow China stopped manufacturing 900 million
tonnes of steel a year, and the US military doesn’t produce more
pollution than 140 different countries combined.

The question, really, is why would an NGO backed by – among others –
Shell, BP and Chevron, possibly want to suggest a ban on drilling for
fossil fuel? But that’s a discussion for another time.
AVOIDING A “CLIMATE LOCKDOWN”

So, the “climate lockdown” is a mix of dystopian social control, and
impractical nonsense likely designed to sell an agenda. But don’t
worry, we don’t have to do this. There is a way to avoid these extreme
measures, the author says so:

    To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures
and do capitalism differently […] Addressing this triple crisis
requires reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy
systems toward a green economic transformation […] Far more is needed
to achieve a green and sustainable recovery […] we want to transform
the future of work, transit, and energy use.

“Overhaul”? “reorienting”? “transformation”?

Seems like we’re looking at a new-built society. A “reset”, if you
will, and given the desired scope, you could even call it a “great
reset”, I suppose.

Except, of course, the Great Reset is just a wild “conspiracy theory”.
The elite doesn’t want a Great Reset, even if they keep saying they
do…

…they just want a massive wholesale “transformation” of our social,
financial, governmental and energy sectors.

They want you to own nothing and be happy. Or else.

Because that’s the oddest thing about this particular article, whereas
most fear-porn public programming at least attempts subtlety, there is
very definitely an overtly threatening tone to this piece [emphasis
added]:

    we are approaching a tipping point on climate change, when
protecting the future of civilization will require dramatic
interventions […] One way or the other, radical change is inevitable;
our task is to ensure that we achieve the change we want – while we
still have the choice.

The whole article is not an argument, so much as an ultimatum. A gun
held to the public’s collective head. “Obviously we don’t want to lock
you up inside your homes, force you to eat processed soy cubes and
take away your cars,” they’re telling us, “but we might have to, if
you don’t take our advice.”

Will there be “climate lockdowns” in the future? I wouldn’t be
surprised. But right now – rather than being seriously mooted – they
are fulfilling a different role. A frightening hypothetical – A threat
used to bully the public into accepting the hardline globalist reforms
that make up the “great reset”.