Climate Change and the End of Free Choice! By James Reed

So just suppose for the sake of argument that we were to accept the basic premises of climate change alarmism, that the planet is doomed without radical carbon reduction programs. Ok, don't panic, this is all a thought experiment to show absurdity!Now, we have all read discussions about the elimination of conventional farming and fossil fuels, but for amusement, let us focus upon the low-carbon lifestyles people must adopt as a moral imperative adopt. Of course, this will just be for people in the West, while China and India will be free to build coal-powered everything to their hearts' content, but we ignore that because they are not White, and such thoughts by Whites are very "racist."

So, what is to done to "save the planet"? Ultra-low carbon life styles will involve ditching all cars even electric, as the electric ones have a carbon footprint in manufacturing. Cars are out, but no worry, one lives in 15-minute prisons, sorry, cities, and walk everywhere. Use of IT and AI uses a lot of electricity, so throw them too. And along with that, meat, because cows fart. Maybe one meal a day of some sort of plant-base gunk; protein is over-rated anyway! Also, one does not want to risk any reproduction, which is now the exclusive task of Third World migrants, so living alone is mandatory. No cheating on this one!

That is probably just a start of what is needed for the Greenies' low-carbon lifestyle. And at the end of the day, would it do anything to reduce carbon emissions? Yes, of course; it will eliminate US, because WE are the carbon that globo commos seek to eliminate!

https://bombthrower.com/bbc-climate-change-too-important-to-be-left-to-personal-choice/

"A recent piece in BBC's "Future World" series on its surface celebrates someone who choose to live an "ultra low carbon lifestyle". They made a conscious and individual decision to bring their own personal carbon footprint down below 2 metric tonnes per year.

Throughout the developed world, per capita carbon output ranges from 4.46 (France) to Canada being the highest at 15.43.

The article talks about the personal challenges around living an ultra-low carbon lifestyle. According to the piece, 2 tonnes/year is also about half the output of a single gas powered car in the US, so the first step for any Americans (or Canadians) wanting to do this, they would have to start by ditching their cars.

Other behaviours which move the needle would be: eating a plant based diet, buying green energy and forgoing one transatlantic round-trip per year.

In terms of what level of personal CO2 emissions gets the job done "for the climate", estimates vary. While the 2 tonne number was somewhat arbitrary, there are other climate focused think tanks that feel the number has to be 1.4 tonnes of C02 per person by 2040 and 0.7 by 2050.

Going back to Canada's "excessive" carbon footprint – if we look at a metric that really means anything – total CO2 output – Canada is basically a rounding error to the world's largest emitter, China.

At an average annual temperature at -4 to -5 celsius, Canada is also the coldest G7 nation. So perhaps we can forgive the Canucks for not wanting to freeze to death – even if it means emitting Co2 for heat. Also worth noting that far more humans are killed each year from being cold (17.7 million per year, on average) than from being too warm (2.2 million per year), roughly 8X.

While the overall timbre of the piece lauds the story's protagonist (a communications officer at a climate non-profit) over her decision to make this lifestyle choice, sprinkled throughout are casual, back-handed references at where all this is going:

The ultra-low carbon lifestyle isn't just for the eco-minded, it has to be for everybody. Or it isn't going to work ("work" being defined as controlling the planet's climate decades out).

"what do truly low-carbon lifestyles look like – and can they really be achieved by personal choice alone?" the article laments.

Well if the answer is "no" then that means the ultra-low CO2 lifestyle has to be for everybody. How we do that is a matter of "both individual and systems change". By systems change is meant that

"with the right policies, infrastructure and technology in place to enable changes to our lifestyles and behaviour, we can reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions substantially by 2050…

In richer countries, this means moving towards a far lower carbon lifestyle for most people. But the changes to get there aren't necessarily painful or even negative. For example, research has shown that good public services enable higher wellbeing at lower energy use."

If you read between the lines we see the implications of this. It basically means that an ultra-low carbon lifestyle has to be brought about through systemic change, government policy and massively expanded public services – or said differently, increasing dependence on The State.

Private infrastructure – like cars – will have to become a thing of the past:

One major change would be to change how we move around. Akenji envisions a combination of public transport alongside micro-mobility systems (such as electric scooters and drones) which make it efficient and effective for people to reach it. Private cars, with their huge emissions and often empty seats, would largely be a thing of the past, he says, and car parks converted to green public spaces where people go to play, relax or do exercise."