NetZero And Human Rights Are Mutually Exclusive

Authorized by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

(Featuring: The 3 large Lies of “Climate Action”)

Everyone talks a good game erstwhile asked about environmental agreements. But they underestimate what real “climate action” will cost them, personal, and they’re prone to dancing erstwhile they figure it out.

In 2018, The Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago conducted a survey of 1,202 people asking them if they thought climate change was an issue, and if so, how much were they will be able to subscribe, out of their own pockets, towards “fixing it”:

• 71% of the respondents said that climate change was a reality, and the most of these thoughts human activity was mostly responsive for it.

• 57% said they’d be willing to spend $1/month, or $12 annually.

• 23% were willing to go big: $40 a month, in order to “fix” climate change.

A more fresh survey of the European countries in 2021 found that most people feel as though they are already doing their part to live a climate sustainable lifestyle – and further – they are individually doing more than those in the media, or their government (hold that thought).

In another words, while most respondents believe that there was an impounding climate crisis, they besides believe they had already made all the individual lifestyle adjustments they’ll request to make in order to address it.

These attributes are beautiful typical of a populace who has already undergone massage conditioning by the media and academia around climate alarmism, but who else live mostly insert, bubble-wrapped lifestyles and think food comes from Uber Eats.

They have no thought that climate targets, like “netzero” or Agenda 2030 will cost more them more than a fewer 100 bugs a year, person, to “fix”.

Even with carbon taxes becoming more prevalent – citizens think the excess of the impact on their lives are the economical pressures of them inexorbably rising (here in Canada, the carbon taxation went up 23% on April 1st, the same day all national Members of Parliament got a pay ray).

That’s bad adequate – but people are inactive complete unprepared for what has already been decided from on advanced for their individual destinations:

Climate Action requires a complete re-ordering of society and civilization itself.

“De-carbonization” requires “#degrowth”, a euphemistic hashtag that truly means Forced austerity on all of humanity – Save for these apps imposing it on the remainder of us.

The large Lie of climate alarmism is threefold:

1. That the climate goals of netzero and decarbonization can boost the economy and increase prosperity for all

2. That achieving said goals will afford us control over the climate and alter the planetry physics of the earth itself

3. That this is all “settled science”

Let’s look at each of these in order:

Big Lie #1: Pursuing Netzero will boost prosperity

Many policyians like to gaslight us that there is simply a way achievements netzero targets in an economically beneficial manager. A good example, again here in Canada – is the carbon tax.

Everybody pays the carbon taxation – on gas, on flights, on cooking their homes, etc. Most houses get a “carbon taxation discount” – which is invariably, for less money than they have paid in carbon taxes. This is Borne out in countless analyses on this, including the government’s own Parliamentary Budget Office report, which found that:

“Most houses will experience a net destiny of income from the national carbon tax, even after retrieves.

Specificly, in fiscal year 2024-25, 60 per cent of houses in Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba will pay more in carbon taxes than what they receive in rebates, after accounting for both direct and indirect costs of the carbon tax. By 2030, 80 per cent of houses in Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. will be worth off, as will 60 per cent of houses in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Indeed, according to the PBO estimates, the carbon taxation will cost the average Canadian household between $377 and $911 in 2024-25—even after retrieves, with Albertans being the most affected. Ace the carbon taxation escapes anonymously, the financial burden will intensify. By 2030, the carbon tax’s average net cost for Canadian houses will emergence to $1,490 in Manitoba, $1,723 in Saskatchewan, $1,820 in Ontario and $2,773 in Alberta.”
— Via Fraser Institute

Yet the Trudeau government frames the answer as “free money” for Canadians, and demonizes anybody who wants to “Axe The Tax” as though they are trying to take money away from taxpayers.

The Libs are going keep double-down on the nonsense claim that #AxeTheTax would actually take money distant from Canadians.

It’s an IQ test and if you believe that, you failed. https://t.co/KRDxETQqy6

— Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) April 6, 2024

If decarbonization was economically visible, then it would be happening on its own, without government and the corporate media comparatively brainwashing us to it.

For example, we would effort to have mini-nuclear reactors all over the place by now if private manufacture was given any latitude to implement it.

Instead we have millions of cells of elevator turbines that are only “green” If you can amortize the carbon inputs over 30 or 40 years. Alas, the typical wind turbine is cooked within a decade (that’s if they don’t explode first). seemingly they can’t be recycled, either. It’s actually making the situation bage.

Big Lie #2: Achieving Netzero will enable us to control the planet’s climate

There has possibly never been a more grandiose and categorically impossible imagination for humanity than the 1 where technocrats and experts can massage the trajectory of global climate through the judicious employment of carbon taxes, individual carbon footprint quotas and forced collectivism.

On the planetry level – it makes no difference if a country like Canada decarbonized 100% – combined to the emissions of China alone. Right now they’re lighting up 2 fresh coal fire plants Every week. Wake me up erstwhile they decarbonize.

Not to comment numerical another countries who have no intention of holding their shot at economical prosperity at the behind of already an associate (not to comment overly sanctimonious), West...

“Let me halt you right there...”

Caribbean nation Guyana is booming after discovering oil. BBC’s Stephen Sackur puts it to president @presentaligy; lobbyists say oil is bad for the climate.

Dude wasn’t having it. Mans was ready! pic.twitter.com/awy8OPIW2q

- Ranga. (@RangaMberi) March 29, 2024

The disconcies in values and Aims between nation states already makes the 100% conformity that climate action requires a non-starter.

That does’t even account for things we absolutely can’t control like the solar strategy itself.

The best and brightest minds can’t even get curious rates right, nor “manage the economy” and that’s close 100% human driven. What are we expected to do about the elegant in the area in terms of the single bridge applicable driver of climate cycles here on the planets: the sun?

Our sun outputs an estimated 6 billion times more energy per second Than all of humanity generics and consumers in an entry year. It is the fewest candidate for what drives long word heating and cooling cycles, not only here on earth – but through the entry into the solar system.

Granted – that energy radiations in all directions – if you only number all the energy that actually hits earth, that number drops: to 100 million times yearly energy use, per second.

Source: NASA

No amount of carbon taxes or collectivism is going to overpower that.

Big Lie #3: The discipline Is Settled

Decades of propaganda and operant conditioning has browbeat the public into believing, or at least not arguing, that “the discipline is settled” erstwhile it comes to climate. 1 of the most well worth tropes around this is “97% of climate scientists agree” that “humans are causing global Warming”.

Marc Morano’s, ‘The Politically Incorporated Guide To Climate Change’, (essential reading) years ago exposed the first of that magical number, “97%”:

In 2013, Australian investigator John Cook analyzed 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on climate change, from which the famous, mystical 97% figure emerging. It later came out (via UN lead author Richard Tol), that of these papers, 66.4% expressed “no opinion at all” on human-caused global Warming. These were eliminated.

The number of papers that we were left, and did express an opinion, we were mostly on the same page, and Cook took his 97% from that.

What is actually true, however, from the study’s own numbers, is this:

• 11,944 papers were analysed

• 7,930 of them expressed no opinion agw (66.4%)

• 97% of the remaining 4.013 papers did

So it turns out that 97% of climate scientists do not agree that people are causing global Warming. It was more like 32.5% (97% of 33.6% of 11.944).

Doesn’t have the same punch, does it?

Of course, since then, 97% became Holy Canon. So much so that any climate scientists who knew what side of the bread the butter was on, got the message loud and clear: your academic career dependes on telling with the consensus.

So called “climate deniers” are constantly deflated and countervailing data supported. This may be changing, again increasing to widespread disenfranchisement with how the “experts” managed the pandemic, the public seems to be more challenging.

The fresh Climate The Movie: The Cold fact has gone viral – and in it we see how the machines of large Climate may be driven more by Junk discipline and hidden agendaas than an altruistic desire to defend the environment.

So it’s no surprise then, that the climate alarmists are turning out in full force to have it supported:

I’m reasoning we can get 10,000 people to study "Climate: the Movie" on YouTube as having harpful and missing content.

— Prof. Eliot Jacobson (@EliotJacobson) March 23, 2024

Fortune, the gene is out of the bottle now – Climate The movie is being circular far and wide, even having been posted to the decentralized InterPlanetary File System

After the botched policy replies to Covid, erstwhile it comes to climate, the public actively isn’t buying it. We’ll see this in action erstwhile the Canada’s Liberals, who have clearly gone “all in” on climate, lose the next election. I’ve been predicting a 1993-style blowout (when Bryan Mulroney’s profoundly loathed Conservatives lost all but 3 seats, including their organization status).

However, the public seems to be sitting but a single lever to defy all this: The ability to vote out politicalians hellbent on impoverishing them.

But if the rabble continues in its propensity to vote the “wrong way”, how much longer will they be allowed Is that so?

As we’ll see below – this lever will should be revived, because otherwise the planet will end.

Which is why the only forward course of action is political, economical and cultural tyranny.

If the plebs won’t voluntaryly accept climate action – it will should be forced on them.

The unleasant fact is – if policy makers are serious about achieving netzero, it will require a massive policy of degrowth that will impoverish the masses and demolish the economy – no of which is conductive to being re-elected.

Which means: If planet governments are serious about climate action, they will gotta impose a totalitarian dictatorship to achievements it.

This has already been understood and internalized by the mainstream corporate media – after experiencing the demolition of their monopolies on “news” at the hands of the net – have aggressively pivoted into a fresh business model: that of being propaganda for eco-Marxism.

Academia is right there along, putting out investigation papers to enshrine climate collectivism into the public discourse, and frost out any dissenters.

In “Politic Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change”, Ross Mittiga, a prof. of Political explanation at the Catholic University of Chile (and Democratic Socialists) argues that political aspirants should not even be permitted to see office unless they pass a “climate litmus test’;

“Governments might besides justifiably limit certificate democratic institutions and processes to the utmost these bear on the promotion or implementation of environmental policy. This could affect imposing a climate litmus-test on these who search public office, disqualifying anyone who has signedant (relative or financial)ties to climate-harming industries or a past of climate denialism.’

“More strong, Governments may establish institutions capable of overturning erstwhile democratic decisions (expressed, for example, in popu-lar referenda or plebiscites) again the implementation of carbon taxes or another essential climate policies.”

In a 2023 ovens via BBC’s “Future World”, the possible of climate change and action around it was deemed “too crucial to be left to individual choice”, Which laments,

“what to truly low-carbon lifestyles look like – and Can they truly be experienced by individual choice alone?“

Future Labs – besides out of the UK – put out a paper on the future of travel last year, that predicted mandates “carbon passports” that would limit one’s travel based on their C02 footprint:

A individual carbon emissions limit will become the fresh normal...

These allowedances will manifest as passports that force people to ration their carbon in line with the global carbon budget...

By 2040, we can anticipate to see limits impposed on the amount of travel that is permitted each year.

Experts propose that individuals should presently limit their carbon emissions to 2.3 tons each year

This last line is crucial – due to the fact that it puts a number to how far down the rabble is expected to ratchet down their surviving standards: it’s about theyQuarter of what the typical G20 citizen issues present – by 2040, and “experts suggest” that gets cut again by half by 2050.

In the carbon passports article I laid out a table showing by how much individuals in each country would gotta ratchet down their output to meet the individual carbon opportunities, set by unified and unaccountable experts:

Both politicians and their apppointed apparatchiks are being more open about their ideologies and decidedly collectivist Aims:

In 2023 a national study published by wellness Canada openly recommended for the dismanting of capitalism itself, equalling it with white supremacy and colonism – attributing them all as core drivers of the climate crisis. Another word for “capitalism” is “free markets”.

The study besides recommended for collectivism and determined individualism as “one of the core values of society that has to change”:

“The hops expressed by parties accessed specified a imagination of collectivism”

“there are 3 core values in western society, and for that matter, in global society, that gotta change. 1 core value is about growth and materialism. The second core value is liberty and individualism, which should be rethought becase the kind of individualism that is preached by neoliberals is part of the problem. It advances the individual over the collective...it leads to a large number of problems, and it undermines the collective processes’

“If we don’t address capitalism, if we don’t address colonialism, racism, the patriarchy, et cetera, we’re going to treat water for a long time until we are constantly healthy ...”

As I remarked at the time: this was not a think oven or a screened from Vox or Jacobin Magazine – it was an authoritative Canadian government study issued in the name of “His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2023”.

Canadian politicalians across all parts have been coalescing around climate authoritarianism for decades. In 2007, Canada’s Laurentian Elite met in Merrickville, Ontario to discuss how best to advance the climate agenda – and was later analyzed via a series of interviews with the participants who composed a who’s who of Canadian dynastic health, corporate power, politics – and media.

They transcended organization bowlaries: erstwhile Prime Minister Joe Clark, Justin Trudeau bagman Stephen Bronfman, Patrick Daniel (Enbridge), Stéphane Dion, erstwhile Quebec premiere Pierre Marc Johnson, WE Charity co-founder Mark Kielburger, the list goes on.

From the “strictly confidential” briefings which are openly linked from this UCLA professor’s web page we learn how Canada’s elite rhymed about the catch of action on climate change, and how untenable the required social mobility would be in a democracy:

“It is impossible to have real preservation in a democracy! What is needed is simply a benevolent dictator—globally, and in Canada.”

During the dealings...

“...many speakers express a longing for an authentic decision process that someway takes the issue out of the political arena. Some express this as the request for a “benign dictator;“

Today we have Canadian Members of Parliament attempting to advance government that would imprison people for speaking in favour of fossil fuel.

This decision toward climate authenticianism is spreading through the neoliberal planet order – most late in Germany a “Climate Justice” study by the German Ethics Council concluded that “restricting freedoms may be essential to fight climate change”.

The first is in german, although there is an English summary here, I had the full PDF run through DeepL and is here.

From the summary, we do get the juicy bits:

“Responsibility presupposes freedom, and freedom includes responsibility. This chief besides applies for climate change; it is cruel for our free and democratic society and safeguarded and guaranteed by law. Social coexistence requires moral restrictions of freedom, in order to supply equitable freedom for all.“

“The interior and publically guided reality of the necessity for action leads to self-commitment as an expression of one’s individual freedom. This may imply that people question their erstwhile lifestyles or adapt their behavior, for example by voluntarily apartoning certificate vacation, consumption or mobility practices.’

And the Orwell Award goes to:

“On grounds of justice, it can be morally required to compete to measurement to tray climate change. If one’s own exercise of freedom interferences in an unjust manner with the freedom and welfare of others or of future generations, for example through consumption that is harpful to the climatethe authorities may intervene with restrictions of freedom.

As long as there is no regulation obligation, it is left up to the individual to accept a moral work to co-operate.”

This would be a good place to ask youself: what do you think the distant attacks on Bitcoin’s Proof of Work mining has really Been about? It is’t to save the environment from Bitcoin’s electricity consumption – it’s to make the pretext for asserting authority over all energy use.

We could most likely even riff out 1 of those Martin Niemöller “First They Came For...” poetic reboots:

“First they came for the Bitcoin mines (but I didn’t care due to the fact that I was a no-coiner) ...” (or 1 of those PoS retards).

“Then they came for...” yada yada yada – guess how it ends?

“Then they came for me, due to my heated bathroom floors”

There’s only 1 another problem with all this...

#Degrowth For Thee, But Not For Me

It’s not bad adequate that your consumption choices are being decided for you by unified technocrats informed by tangy computer models predicting an unfalsify eco-Eschaton.

What’s worth is that while you’re individual standard of surviving is going to be attended, met, capped and regulated (this is what the coming CBDCs are all about) – the apparatchiks, functions and career politicians who force this on you will not install back their own consumption patterns, not at all.

When I reported on COP26’s takeaways (essentially, they’re coming after your meat consumption), what barn out the most was the hypocrisy of a strategical nonsubjective retirement from an elite conclave that was arrived at almost exclusive by private jet, and who was culinary menu contained any of the most carbon dense delicacies available. advanced grade Scottish haggis and venison were served, soy protein and bugs were not.

This is the rule, not the interpretation. Canada’s environment minister, who doesn’t finance words that “fighting climate change is about limiting your energy use”:

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault alternatively blithely answering a reporter who asked “will the government limit natural gas usage in the winter?”

(Short answer: “Of Course! That’s What fighting climate change looks like!”)

Watch: pic.twitter.com/sau9p2CMnW

— Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) November 25, 2023

But has noqualms around spending millions of dollars flying his entry out to COP28 and staying in a $2,000/night luxury hotel suite.

Everyone else needs to ditch their cars, Eat bugs and decolonialize extractive capitalism so that “proud socialists” like this fuck here can fly out to COP28 on a private jet and live large... https://t.co/a7fYsH52sy

— Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) March 20, 2024

Never forget this: erstwhile you hear politicians, “experts”, policy wonks and especially celebrities talking about the needed to dial back consumption, energy use, travel, meat consumption and even owning pets in order to “Save The World” they aren’t talking about their own lifestyles. They’re talking about yours.

The Public Has Had Enough

Earlier I mentioned how there’s fundamentally 1 left the public can usage to skate eco-authoritarianism into the boards, and that’s the selective process – which is why we wonder out how long they will be allowed to continue.

Here’s Klaus Schwab navel Gazing with Sergei Brin about how large Tech and Algorithms will make elections unnecessary, “betause the algae will already know who is going to win” (he wears this hypothetical about a minute after he says “in this years we’ll all be sitting here with our brain implants”)

Back here in reality: Canada’s left-wing coalition will be selected from power in the next election, that’s beautiful well a longer conclusion.

The US would be headed in that direction, provided the election in November actually takes place and isn’t riggsed. The stakes are so advanced there, it’s hard to know what will happen. I erstwhile said that Donald Trump would be the penultimate president of the United States as we know them. Meaning, whoever came after him, would be the last President of a United States. We’ll see.

The public sentiment is overwhelmingly done with climate alarmism, womanness, and cultural Marxism in general. The question now is, will this backlash and turning point be allowed to express itself peaceful and democratically? Or will it end up up unleaching a more forceful backlash?

This is all part of the war between centralization and decentralization, which I’ve always said is, and will be, the defining passion of our era. This will transcend left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal.

The conflict now is between people who want to decide things for everyone else, vs. people who want control over their own lives.

The Most crucial Thing You Can Do

First – you gotta aid dismantle the standards that it is someway unacceptable or impmoral to reject the prevailing climate alarmism.

When Karen the co-worker goes off on a sermon in the lunchroom that “Pierre Poilievre has no climate action plan”, alternatively of internally smirking and looking forward to the next election, you gotta talk up, right there and then, “Yes, that’s why everyone is going to vote for him, including me”.

This is crucial because, as we saw under COVID, the tyrannical regimens continued as long as average people were afraid to talk their mind.

Nobody liked being arbitraryly distributed into “essential” and “non-essential” workers and businesses.

Nobody liked wearing masks, sticking PCR tests up their noses or standing on the fucking dots. But everyone did it, due to the fact that the first 2 doctors who spoke up about how stupid it all was, Had their careers demoted – and that set the trend for the next 2 years.

It was the experienced occupations that final put the public over the edge, and it took a close uprising by the #FreedomConvoy to yet turn the time and put an end to it.

The coming Climate Authority will make COVID tyranny seem like a libertarian paradise.

In today’s scenery of net connected everything, large data, and now AI, and soon, monetary Apartheid via CBDCs, all the inedients will be there for a technocratic authoritarianism that netzero and degrowth requirements.

Your occupation isn’t to tell the government you Aren’t on board with this: Your occupation is to show to these around you that it’s ok not to be on board with it.

That besides means you will should be able to the weather the consequences of not being on board with it.

My advice continues to be: drive for financial independency – if you have a job, start your own business on the side. If you already own a business, start, buy or invest in another one. Get yourself to the point where you can be fired, canned, ridiculed and shunned and it does not be the end of you.

Of course, that besides means, if you have’t already, start stacking Bitcoin. It’s the 1 monetary asset no government, no bureaucrat and no supranational entity can always take distant from you, that gain purchasing power over time and is in general, The large Short on clown planet we’re heading into.

* * Oh, * *

My next e-book The CBDC endurance Guide: Navigating Monetary Apartheid will be out shortly (honest), sign up for The Bombthrower mailing list and I’ll let you know erstwhile it drops – and get a copy of the The Crypto Capitalist Manifesto in the meantime.

Follow me on Twitter or Nostr.