A Saturday Short

Climate - The Advocacy for Socialism

In relating to a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) article on an extremely-limited carbon existence, Mark Jeftovic of Bombthrower Media writes, “If you read between the lines we see the implications of this. It basically means that an ultra-low carbon lifestyle has to be brought about through systemic change, government policy, and massively expanded public services – or said differently, increasing dependence on The State”.

The entire BBC commentary revolves around forfeiting what the CO2-conscious author considers excessive. For example, the average American generates 14.67 metric tonnes (MT) of CO2 while a Canadian averages a slightly higher amount at 15.47 (MT) which I suspect is indicative of a colder winter climate, even while air conditioning is substantially more impactful in the USA.

This is the accompanying individual CO2 chart for the International Group of Seven (G7) countries from The Global Economy:

France as usual emits less CO2 than any other because 75% of their electrical energy is derived from nuclear plants.

While the article embraces an arbitrary value of individual reduction to keep the world from going over the proverbial 1.5°C mark to 2 annual tonnes, it also talks about estimates from a German think tank suggesting that by 2040, each person worldwide must live on 1.4 tonnes of CO2e and by 2050, just 0.7 tonnes of CO2e. The lowercase “e” behind the CO2 indicates metric tonnes (1.1023 tons or 2204.6 pounds) and was invented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The main ingredients in living a life devoid of more than 80% of your current personal carbon dioxide discharge would be the elimination of a personal vehicle, procurement of green energy only, a total plant-based diet, recycling, and a reduction or avoidance of air travel.

The BBC article cites that based on the German think tank study above, a London-based activist Rosalind Readhead attempted to live on 1 tonne of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year. She alleges, "That report meant so much to me because I finally had a scientific foundation on which to do a project such as the one-tonne project.”

My advice for Ms. Readhead would have been when the foundation and basis for a personal carbon dioxide reduction are created out of an unproven and politically motivated fantasy, it seems deficient and defective to base other works or endeavors on that science.

We are constantly asked to believe the “experts”, “trust the science”, and get on board with the agenda. Many, as this article shows, know and acknowledge the proven lies around COVID which placed significant doubt and suspicion towards mistrust of government as well as political hypnotherapy - this was not quite what the rulers intended.

The entire article smells of the advocacy for socialism.