The climate change boondoggle acts as a mechanism for all kinds of social, economic and political changes that could greatly diminish the freedom and financial survival of the average person.
As the world witnessed with the covid pandemic, global institutions working with governments and corporations are happy to hype up false threats and inspire public hysteria if they think they can use that rising fear to whittle away our individual rights. The hype over “greenhouse emissions” is no exception.
The vast majority of climate and carbon policies appear to be aimed at the west, and this is one of the reasons why we know the claims behind them are fake. China alone accounts for around 32% of all global carbon emissions, with the US accounting for only 14% and the EU accounting for around 8%. Yet, think-tanks like the World Economic Forum and globalist havens like the UN are hyperfocused on the US and Europe while China does as it pleases.
Why? Perhaps because the Chinese population is already well under control and there is no need to use climate fear as a weapon to subdue them? In any case, the greenhouse gas issue is superfluous because there is zero evidence of a causation relationship between carbon emissions and global warming. Even the evidence of correlation is highly suspect. And, if you ask any climate alarmist where there is proof of the “climate crisis” they always rant about, they will predictably point to normal weather events (or wildfires) which have been common since human records started.
We have been hearing a lot lately about efforts to diminish or ban natural gas stoves in the US, to throttle agricultural production in Europe and to restrict meat in the public diet, but the most pervasive carbon restrictions are planned for cars and private transportation. The WEF has recently published a blueprint for reducing individual car ownership by 75% by the year 2050.
The white paper, titled 'Benchmarking the Transition to Sustainable Urban Mobility' establishes various guidelines for shifting the majority of the human population over to mass transportation within compact “smart cities.” The WEF also suggests that over 70% of all people will have to live in these smart cities by 2050 – Currently, 45% of the world lives in rural areas, requiring another 15% of the population to be forced into cities in the next couple decades. Not only that, but 2nd and 3rd tier cities would have to be combined into single homogenized networks. In other words, megacities.
The WEF transportation agenda demands that out of over 2 billion car owners, 1.5 billion people will lose the option of personal transportation. That would leave only 500 million people in the world with the “privilege” of owning a vehicle.
Also keep in mind that the UN also wants net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which means no more gas powered vehicles in the next 25 years.
The WEF paper is awash in meaningless buzzwords covering “equity and inclusion” rhetoric as well as “sustainable development goals” and “stakeholder capitalism” terminology. Reading between the lines is necessary to understand the implications.
To summarize, transportation reduction is an extension of something called Shared, Electric and Automated Mobility (SEAM) Governance Framework, as well as net zero urban planning initiatives. By taking away people's cars, this forces the populace into smaller and smaller areas where mass transportation is available. These extremely concentrated population regions will be digitally connected and monitored by AI, with unprecedented surveillance measures and the government ability to centralize and dictate public movements, public power usage, public access to food and even public behavior.
All of this is sold as a trade off for Utopian convenience and security, when in reality it means the end of freedom as we know it. China has been acting as a beta test country for these measures, with the some of the largest smart city designs and surveillance grids in the world.
We know that the goal of deconstructing private transport is to herd people into increasingly more compact and oppressive cities, but how would a reduction of car ownership of this scale be accomplished?
Through a series of carbon regulations and inflation in prices. Carbon taxes will be used to make purchasing and maintaining a gas vehicle untenable, and inflation in prices of electric vehicles will mean only the wealthy class will be able to buy them. In this way, the establishment can argue that they “never banned cars,” they just created the economic conditions that forced most of the population to abandon personal ownership.
Once we examine net zero projects as a whole entity instead of just the pieces and parts, it becomes clear that these plans have nothing to do with saving the environment and the planet and everything to do with centralization of power.
