Democrats Push WEF’s ‘Climate Lockdowns’ to Fight ‘Global Warming’

Democrats are quietly pushing the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) plans to lock members of the public in their homes under so-called “climate lockdowns” to “save the planet” from “global warming.”

Many Americans are only now beginning to realize the devastating impacts that Covid lockdowns had on our society.

Businesses are still struggling to recover and children are trying to catch up with missed learning opportunities.

But what if the pandemic was just a trial run for more drastic restrictions and lockdowns related to climate change?

After decades of arguing that the world is at a tipping point due to the alleged “climate crisis,” Democrats may try to enact restrictions to stop perceived global warming at an order of magnitude larger than the COVID-19 measures imposed during the height of the pandemic.

Considering the pandemic’s ability to bring out authoritarian streaks in our leaders, this should be worrying for most Americans.

Some claim that “climate change” is the “greatest health crisis of our time.”

Microsoft co-founder and pandemic enthusiast Bill Gates agrees it could be worse than Covid.

Some unelected bureaucrats are already laying the foundation for climate-related restrictions.

For example, states such as New York and California have moved to ban the use of fossil fuel-powered vehicleslawnmowers, and stoves.

Democrats in Minnesota are even pushing for jail time for those caught using gas-powered gardening tools, as Slay News reported.

A combination of efforts could build, perhaps coercing mass support for draconian regulations and soft environmental lockdowns over the next decade.

For many young people and city dwellers who don’t drive regularly, cut grass, or individually heat their homes, such actions to curb energy use may seem like no-brainers.

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Whether it’s a liberal U.S. president or some party apparatchik abroad, the restrictions will be packaged in some panacea-like a scaled-down Green New Deal.

There likely would be sweeteners.

For example, perhaps your student loan could be eligible for dismissal if you voluntarily give up going to the office or owning a car.

What, exactly, might environmental restrictions mean for ordinary Americans?

Short flights could be banned, as France has done to “fight climate change.”

A carbon tax could be levied on travel, an idea championed by the WEF and United Nations (UN) that is being increasingly pushed by Democrats and globalists.

Some measures may be imposed through involuntary changes, such as a four-day school week.

Such a change likely would be difficult for families working traditional schedules, but this hurdle will be framed as being for “the greater good” of the climate.

A four-day mandatory workweek could do the same for families whose kids attend schools with traditional schedules.

Local governments and utilities might limit access to power.

A Colorado utility recently came under fire for changing its customers’ thermostats without their knowledge, and the same happened in Texas during extreme heat.

Restrictions on gasoline cars could lead to a de facto rationing regime similar to that during the 1973 oil embargo.

If you’re old enough, you’ll have bad memories of being able to purchase fuel only on certain days.

But a climate lockdown will not be an all-hands-on-deck event, such as with the start of the pandemic.

Those on the political Left and in the administrative state know that hitting Americans with one regulation, or tax, or ban at a time may not spark a sharp reaction.

Rather than mandating that you can’t leave your house, for example, you may slowly notice over several years that your work and personal habits have been restricted one step at a time.

Many of the changes produced by the Covid lockdowns have made Americans more accustomed to severe measures.

Earlier this month, a New York City school switched from in-person classes to remote learning in order to house migrants during severe weather, as Slay News reported.

Yet there are many reasons why such a restriction is a bad idea: Learning outcomes during the pandemic were disastrous, especially for younger students.

Test scores, basic fundamentals, socialization, and behavioral issues all became worse because teachers’ unions and Democrat policymakers insisted that schools had to close during Covid.

In some cases, these closures were lasting into 2022.

When a precedent is set, the genie is out of the bottle.

Schools could institute remote learning instead of a snow day or for a “climate day.”

Once there is a model for institutions to scrap tradition for electronic facsimiles, the building blocks of a new lockdown are in place.

At the same time, the pandemic shifted the American workforce significantly.

In 2019, just 5% of Americans worked from home.

Two years later, the figure had tripled.

It would be relatively easy to require much of the white-collar workforce simply to stay at home to prevent environmental impacts.

After all, the thinking goes, cutting back just one day of commuting to an office can cut your carbon footprint, and working from home may reduce carbon emissions by more than half.

There likely would be some workers and young people who would willingly go along with environmental lockdowns.

Many people got to work remotely or received unemployment checks during COVID lockdowns, and now may prefer remote work.

Make no mistake, the Left will make climate shutdowns sound alluring.

And people will flood social media to virtue signal about how it’s “saving the planet.”

Despite these ideas clearly being the enemy of freedom, they are all supported and pushed by Democrats.

Of course, the Democrats and their allies in the corporate media will insist that the idea of climate lockdowns is just “misinformation” or a “right-wing conspiracy theory.”

However, the WEF and its members are openly gloating about the “advantages” of enforcing such attacks on liberty.

As Slay News reported, the daughter of WEF founder Klaus Schwab declared that tyrannical restrictions during the Covid pandemic served as a precursor to coming “climate lockdowns.”

According to Nicole Schwab, Covid was a “tremendous opportunity” to test how the public would comply with authoritarian measures that could be used to usher in the WEF’s “Great Reset” agenda.

The WEF’s promotion of the “climate crisis” narrative seeks to “create a change that is not incremental…to position nature at the core of the economy,” according to the younger Schwab.

As Slay News reported in 2022, the WEF announced that COVID-19 pandemic-related lockdowns have proved that “billions of citizens across the world” would comply with global restrictions on freedoms for the sake of “climate change.”

In an article published by the WEF, the organization lauds how “billions” of people complied with Covid “restrictions.”

To paraphrase what may have been Karl Marx’s only cogent pronouncement, history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce.

The lockdowns of 2020 were ham-fisted efforts by both well-meaning and malicious politicians to grapple with the surprise of the first global pandemic in a century.

But the next round of restrictions may be planned with icy precision and little thought about their practical effects.

These will be framed however Democrat policymakers need them to be.

Those who resist the “Great Reset” may be labeled “anti-government extremists” for not simply accepting the “New Order” and rolling over.

READ MORE – WEF Mastermind: ‘Human Rights Are Fiction, Just Like God’

SHARE:
Advertise with Slay News
join telegram

READERS' POLL

Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Subscribe
Notify of
18
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x