The culture-destroying left is continuing to use the institute of science to push their ideological agenda of population reduction and control under the phony guise of ‘combatting climate change.’
The latest effort is a new “study” claiming that World War II-style rationing (but only for the West, of course) of meat and fossil fuels is in order to ensure the planet’s climate doesn’t wipe us all out.
“In this paper, we argue that rationing has been neglected as a policy option for mitigating climate change. There is a broad scientific consensus that avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change requires a rapid reduction in global emissions,” says an abstract of the study.
“We argue that rationing could help states reduce emissions rapidly and fairly. Our arguments in this paper draw on economic analysis and historical research into rationing in the UK during (and after) the two world wars, highlighting success stories and correcting misconceptions. However, although the empirical details play an important role, the paper is primarily based on philosophical and ethical argument and policy analysis, particularly highlighting the normative assumptions behind policy choices,” the abstract continues.
It goes on to say:
This paper argues that rationing has been neglected as a climate change mitigation policy option. Indeed, it may be that it is not merely neglected, but is considered by many to be an unpalatable option. Raj Patel has suggested that ‘rationing is about as acceptable a topic of conversation as hemorrhoids’ (Patel, quoted in (Cox, Citation2013, back cover)). In this paper, however, we argue that rationing could plausibly play an important role in an effective and fair means of reducing emissions and is therefore worthy of serious consideration.
One of few authors to explicitly propose the adoption of rationing to mitigate climate change is the historian Mark Roodhouse. In his discussion of wartime rationing, Mark Roodhouse explains that ‘in 1939 and 1940 the government rejected proposals to rely upon increased taxation to cut consumption because the impact of tax rises would be slow and inequitable’ (Roodhouse, Citation2007).
This quote highlights the fact that, as well as being fairer than taxes, Roodhouse considers rationing to be more effective in achieving results quickly. Writing about climate change in particular, Roodhouse concludes that rationing would be more effective than a carbon tax if a government wanted ‘to reduce carbon emissions quickly and dramatically’.
A rationing scheme could also have broader applications, the researchers state.
“The concept of rationing could help, not only in the mitigation of climate change,” said joint lead author Dr. Nathan Wood, “but also in reference to a variety of other social and political issues – such as the current energy crisis.”
“The cost of living crisis has shown what happens when scarcity drives up prices, with energy prices rising steeply and leaving vulnerable groups unable to pay their bills. Currently, those living in energy poverty cannot use anywhere near their fair share of energy supply, whereas the richest in society are free to use as much energy as they can afford,” he added, according to Science Daily.
While currently just a research study, its significance could escalate rapidly as we approach 2030, a pivotal year for the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Accords. It is apparent that the world will not fulfill its obligations, and this could amplify the importance of the study.
There are already efforts underway to curb individual mobility and consumption, and more such initiatives are likely to follow. The concept of “15-minute cities” has faced significant criticism around the world, with pilot tests due to be conducted in Oxford, which has also generated controversy.
Starting from 2024, the Oxford City Council plans to divide the city into six distinct “neighborhoods,” and heavily restrict car travel between them. Unauthorized travel will result in fines. Oxford residents can apply for special permits, which will allow them to drive into other neighborhoods for up to 100 days per year. Beyond that, they will need to rely on public transportation, cycling, or walking to move between neighborhoods.
The left doesn’t build societies and cultures; it tears them down so that people can be enslaved. We deserve what we get if we allow this to happen.