IMF Advocates for Economy-Strangling Carbon Limitations, Surpassing COVID-19 Lockdowns in Impact; More Economic Ravage Imminent Over Alleged Fictitious Peril
ZeroHedge's Take on The Phantom "Climate Lockdown": A Dystopian Nightmare, Not a Climate Solution
In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic frenzy, some strategists saw an opportunity to push a controversial, dystopian agenda: climate lockdowns – pre-planned disruptions to global economic activity aimed at mitigating climate change.
Globalists Baring Their Teeth
Mariana Mazzucato, a World Economic Forum "Agenda Contributor," was amongst those championing this draconian idea in 2020: "Under a 'climate lockdown,' governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling." Thankfully, the notion of extending pandemic lockdowns into climate lockdowns generated a public uproar, causing the establishment media to "fact check" the issue, labeling it as a mere "conspiracy theory." But as we now know, they were not telling the truth.
Covid Lockdowns, A Preview of Things to Come
Just like the never-proven Covid virus, the goal of most restrictions during the pandemic was not to protect the populace but to acclimate us to a growing list of violations of our basic freedoms. Indeed, organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have suggested that restrictions on economic activity and carbon emissions would have to be far greater than those enforced during the pandemic in order to reach their stated goal of less than a 1.5°C temperature increase.
Carbon Taxes: The New Weapon of Mass Control
Instead of blunt measures like lockdowns, the IMF and fellow globalists propose implementing massive carbon taxes to slow economic activity. In essence, carbon taxes could function like oppressive interest rate increases used by central banks, leading to energy shortages, food shortages, heavy job losses, and total collapse.
Net Zero: A Utopian Fantasy or Devastating Reality?
The IMF and other globalist organizations demand that all nations must achieve a net zero carbon goal by 2030 to avoid what they call the "climate cliff." This precipice is supposedly a point where Earth warms by more than 1.5°C, causing a domino effect leading to environmental catastrophe. However, there isn't a shred of evidence to support this catastrophic claim.
Empty Claims with Dangerous Consequences
The real motivation behind carbon controls and taxes seems to have far more to do with redistributing wealth from developed nations to developing ones. The true objective is centralizing the control of national wealth and individual liberties, and institutions like the IMF would love to be at the forefront of this wealth management empire.
Sources:
- ZeroHedge
- Activist Post
Note: The claims about the "climate cliff" are not supported by credible, scientific evidence. Most climate scientists agree that the relationship between human activities and global warming remains uncertain and complex. Furthermore, achieving a net zero carbon goal by 2030 without substantial technological advancements and changes in human behavior seems unrealistic and could lead to significant economic and social disruptions.
- Articles questioning the truth behind the claim of a "climate cliff" and its potential catastrophic effects can be found on sources like ZeroHedge and Activist Post.
- The concept of climate lockdowns, which involves limiting private-vehicle use, banning consumption of red meat, and imposing extreme energy-saving measures, was proposed by some strategists, but it was not a climate solution as depicted; instead, it was a dystopian nightmare.
- Solutions to climate change, such as imposing massive carbon taxes, could have far-reaching impacts on finance and business, potentially leading to energy shortages, food shortages, job losses, and economic collapse.
- In the discourse of general-news and politics, the push for net zero carbon goals by 2030 is seen as an aim to redistribute wealth and centralize control of national wealth and individual liberties, rather than a genuine concern for health and the environment.
