Governments around the world are being urged to introduce World War II-style rationing of meat and fuel to tackle the alleged “climate crisis.”
Academics from the University of Leeds, England have conducted a new study to determine whether such rationing would help fight “climate change.”
According to the study, the rationing of various commodities, including fuel and meat, would help to create a “rapid reduction in global emissions.”
The researchers looked at proposed plans to place individual limits on the public’s “carbon emissions.”
Green agenda activists such as Bill Gates have been pushing “carbon tax” schemes that would place a limit on people’s carbon emissions and would automatically take money from a person’s bank account if they exceed their own individual limit.
However, the authors of the study believe a blanket rationing scheme would be more “equitable” than individual allowances.
The researchers argue that, unlike carbon taxes and carbon-credit schemes, rationing would not allow the rich to “buy their way out”.
A rationing scheme could also have broader applications, the researchers claim.
“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,” says joint lead author Dr Nathan Wood.
“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,” he adds.
“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 researchers suggested using Britain’s WWII-era rationing as inspiration for “climate rationing.”
During the Second World War, severe restrictions on the consumption of a wide range of commodities and resources were imposed to aid the war effort.
In Britain, rationing outlived the war and only came to an end eight years later, in 1953.
One of the issues noted by the researchers, however, is getting the public to go along with the plan.
The modern world is not conducive to a sense of deprivation or urgency about scarce resources, the academics warn.
Dr Rob Lawlor, joint lead author, said: “There is a limit to how much we can emit if we are to reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change.
“In this sense, the scarcity is very real.”
The researchers suggest that rationing could be regulated through the use of a carbon allowance, using “carbon cards” that function like bank cards but track and limit the usage of all commodities.
Or, alternatively, the government could simply ration particular goods, such as flights, fuel, and meat.
Rationing, they claim, could speed up the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and sustainable lifestyles and infrastructure.
Rationing gas, for instance, might drive government investment in low-carbon methods of transport, such as rail and tram systems.
Price controls on rationed goods would also “prevent prices from rising with increased demand, benefiting those with the least money,” they say, in an almost total negation of the entire basis of market economics, and endorsement of state control of resources.
Governments are coming under increasing pressure from the green agenda lobby, especially as we near 2030.
2030 has become a key date for the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Accords.
It is already clear that the world will not achieve these unattainable green agenda goals.
Nations across the world have been introducing new schemes to limit personal mobility and consumption, and there will surely be more to come.
Recent proposals for so-called “15-minute cities” have drawn widespread criticism across the world.
In cities such as Oxford, UK, pilot tests are already due to take place.
From 2024, Oxford will be divided into a series of six separate “neighbourhoods” by the local council.
Car travel between the zones will be heavily restricted and subject to fines if “unauthorised.”
If residents of the city wish to drive into other neighbourhoods they will need to apply for special permits.
Those permits will allow for up to 100 days of travel between the zones per year.
Otherwise, they must use public transport, bike or walk in order to move from one neighbourhood to another.
At the same time, the anxiety and catastrophism about the effects of climate change are being increased.
At this year’s World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in Davos last month, “climate migration” was one of the main topics on the agenda.
Former Vice President Al Gore gave an angry speech where he claimed the West would soon be overwhelmed by 1.5 billion migrants fleeing the effects of climate change.
Gore argued, without evidence, that “global warming” will make it impossible for individual nations to govern themselves normally.
Some, such as WEF-approved author Gaia Vince, are claiming that we must encourage these migrants to come here right now, to minimise their suffering.
There is also alarm about the prospect of private geoengineering.
The concerns come after an American startup, Make Sunsets, announced it had released helium balloons containing reactive gas in an attempt to cool the Earth.
A number of pilot releases took place in Mexico in April last year.
Although the Mexican government has now moved to prevent further releases within its territory, Make Sunsets has vowed to continue with its crowdfunded project, and the technology it used is cheap and readily available, virtually guaranteeing that other groups will try to emulate it, with unknown consequences for the environment.
Meanwhile, radical billionaire George Soros recently backed Bill Gates in calling for sunlight to be blocked in an effort to cool the planet.
As Slay News reported, Soros promoted a technology that forms thick layers of clouds in the atmosphere to deflect heat and light from the Sun.