Published in the journal Ethics, Policy and Environment, the study argues that states can help reduce their greenhouse gas emissions rapidly and fairly by rationing all resources, i.e., gasoline, energy, and food.
In addition to carbon taxes, policymakers could also promote carbon trading schemes to allow those with means to trade pollution credits to obtain more resources. In other words, the poor will be most restricted under the scheme while the rich are allowed to do whatever they want.
The researchers are based within the University of Leeds' Interdisciplinary Ethics Applied Center, Sustainability Research Institute and School of History. Lead author Dr. Nathan Wood, now a Postdoctoral Fellow at Utrecht University's Fair Energy Consortium, had this to say:
"The concept of rationing could help, not only in the mitigation of climate change, but also in reference to a variety of other social and political issues – such as the current energy crisis."
(Related: Last fall, France announced refinery strikes and gas rationing in response to the collapsing energy supply chain.)
Are you willing to starve for the climate?
During WWII, food rationing was compulsory. People had no choice but to abide by the government's rules concerning scarce resources, which was sold to the masses under the guise of promoting "equality."
There were also price controls on certain goods that aimed to keep key resources "affordable," which supposedly resulted in malnutrition going down during the war "despite the shortages."
The key difference is that WWII was an actual crisis while global warming is fake, stemming from serious mental illness. This means that selling a rationing scheme today will be a whole lot harder, something the climate cultists fully admit.
"There is a limit to how much we can emit if we are to reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change," said Dr. Rob Lawlor, the study's joint lead author. "In this sense, the scarcity is very real."
Wood further added the following:
"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."
The authors admit that their true goal is to punish the "biggest polluters," which they see as the oil, gas, and petrol industries, as well as long-haul flights and chemical-intensive farming.
They never mention the "green" scourge, which involves heavy mining in Africa to dredge up lithium and other chemicals for electric vehicle (EV) batteries, as one example. Green energy also relies on child slave labor, which the paper does not mention.
"Many have proposed carbon allowances and carbon cards before," Lawlor added.
"What is new (or old, taking inspiration from World War II) is the idea that the allowances should not be tradable. Another feature of World War II-style rationing is that price controls on rationed goods would prevent prices from rising with increased demand, benefitting those with the least money."
Wood agrees that petrol should be rationed, which in turn would encourage "greater use of, and investment in, low-carbon public transport, such as railways and local trams."
In the comments, someone wrote that all of this is part of the budding one-world government taking over the world.
"Science invents the means to overcome all the natural barriers to over population, creating all sorts of new problems, and yet these people want to use more science, even though it created the very problems they are trying to solve with dictatorship and communism and rationing," this person added.
The latest news about the climate cult and its anti-freedom agenda can be found at Climate.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
