Climate Change Fanaticism Brainwashing By James Reed
The British government has set out on a huge brainwashing program to train people into accepting a zero net emissions society, because of the alleged climate crisis. No, the elites will still have their rich food and meats, and travel the world in their private jets. It is the general public who are targeted, with restrictions of diet, especially meat, and transport. At present, rising fuel and food costs are doing this. But, there are other horrors as well, such as the proposal to reduce medical services such as the amount of anaesthesia used in operations for the plebs. Have no doubt that the elites, even low-level feeders such as movie and music stars, undergoing plastic surgery, will get the full dose.
It can all be summed up that the price of “saving the planet,” a smoke screen if there ever was one, is the elimination of people like you and me; if the vax does not get us, climate change policies might.
“The United Kingdom has launched a new program to manipulate and goad people into accepting “a net zero society” as the solution to so-called “climate change.”
The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), as it is called, was launched by the UK government in 2021 and eventually taken over by Nesta, a self-described independent charity focused on innovation. Nesta recently put out a “guide” outlining some of the techniques that are being used to psychologically provoke the general public into accepting a new normal to fight global warming.
Greenhouse gas emissions, the report states, are evil and must be done away with by the government. One way to do this is by launching a “nudge unit” to corral the human herd into embracing a future filled with green fascism and the loss of all freedoms, which we are told destroy the planet.
The stated purpose of the nudge unit is to brainwash people into living shackled lives for fear that if they don’t, the planet will melt, the oceans will rise, and everyone will die from the polar ice caps turning into water.
“These choices concern and consume people’s everyday lives: what they wear, what and how much they eat, how they travel to work, whether that job is ‘climate-friendly,’ how they travel just in general and where to, for example, for a vacation,” explains Reclaim the Net.
“These are all examples of what the report aims to affect from the behavioral perspective, and clearly, the ‘solution’ is to actively push citizens toward ‘social transformation’.”
Net zero means zero freedoms
The report also mentions trying to redirect people’s behaviors through their smartphone apps by reminding them, as one example, to order less takeout food because the packaging pollutes the earth.
A “net zero society” also means that people will have to eat far less food – and especially far less meat. So, the nudge unit might inform a user via his or her smartphone that ordering a smaller portion of “plant-based” items as opposed to real food is optimal for stopping climate change.
Social media influencers also play a role in this as they can instruct their followers about how to adopt more “green behaviors” that are environmentally friendly. A celebrity, for instance, might avoid flying on her private jet for a day and instead film herself riding a bike to the store to show her followers what “saving the planet” looks like.
Individual car ownership is a no-no in the net zero society of the future, and the BIT report addresses this as well with a case study about a new “Mobility as a Service” app that is designed to encourage people to take public transportation or to just not leave their homes all that often in order to minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
Another case study included in the report discusses “encouraging” dining establishment customers to order smaller portions of “sustainable” food items as defined by the globalists.
One concept is to create a “sustainable food easy” app that “gives many opportunities to provide timely substitution prompts, or encourage personalized goals and tips linked to product filters and ranking.”
Some of the listed partners for these case study interventions include HMG, the French government, the Crown Prince Court of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the World Wildlife Forum, Unilever, Tesco, Sky, Gumtree, and Cogo, among others.”
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-02-07-global-warming-cult-less-anesthesia-save-planet.html
“Giving patients who are undergoing invasive surgery anesthesia to quell their pain is bad for the planet, according to the cult of climate change.
New research presented by Dr. Mohamed Fayed at the recent annual conference of the American Society of Anesthesiologists claims that delivering one hour of surgical anesthesia to a patient is the equivalent of driving a car 470 miles in terms of “greenhouse gas” emissions.
In order to save the planet from global warming, Fayed stated, “lowering the flow of anesthetic gas” to patients is critical. Sure, they will be in a lot more pain, but at least Fayed will no longer have to worry about the polar ice caps melting and possibly flooding his yard.
“Global warming is affecting our daily life more and more, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become crucial,” Fayed is quoted as saying.
“No matter how small each effect is, it will add up. As anesthesiologists, we can contribute significantly to this cause by making little changes in our daily practice – such as lowering the flow of anesthetic gas – without affecting patient care.”
Treating cancer patients is also harming the planet, claims separate study
According to Fayed, patient care will not suffer in any way by reducing the use of anesthesia during surgery. Patients need to suffer through the pain, he suggested, because up to 0.1 percent of the world’s carbon emissions come from anesthesia – and he considers this to be too high.
Treating cancer patients is also contributing to global warming, suggested another study published in the American Cancer Society Journal back in 2020:
“To date, no studies have estimated the carbon footprint of cancer care,” an excerpt from that study reads.
“The energy expenditure associated with operating cancer treatment facilities and medical devices, as well as the manufacturing, packaging, and shipment of devices and pharmaceuticals, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions in cancer care … Some cancer treatment facilities have begun to consider their own carbon footprint and started a process to achieve carbon neutrality.”
In other words, saving lives is simply too taxing on the planet and must end immediately or else the “boiling” oceans, as Al Gore calls them, will rise and drown us all.
As for the anesthesia issue, Henry Ford Health is already making changes to its regimen by axing the drug desflurane from all operating rooms. The group claims that desflurane produces the most significant carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and thus cannot be allowed for any further use.
To our readers: Would you feel confident receiving care at a place like Henry Ford Health that is more concerned about the climate than with your wellbeing? Would you trust its doctors and nurses to take proper care of you in this context?
The same goes for cancer centers that are more concerned about being “green” than with curing you. Some hospitals are claiming that the robotics and other advanced equipment used to treat cancers use too much energy and are thus too “polluting” to continue using.
One doctor’s “solution” to this problem is to permanently switch to “telemedicine,” which was popularized during the covid scamdemic as a way to “stop the spread.” By treating patients virtually as opposed to in real life, cancer doctors can make their practices more “green” and “environmentally friendly.”
“Here is a question for the American Cancer Society: If you need cancer treatment, would you go to a cancer treatment center that was worried about its carbon footprint? Or one that was worried about delivering the best possible modern care possible?” asks Climate Depot’s Marc Morano.
Comments