A "Green Sabbath" & Climate Lockdowns/Gross Green Austerity

Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
I searched "climate lockdown" and this thread came up...

British cities want to limit driving of a personal vehicle outside of their "zone" to 100 days a year (with a permit, if no permit not at all).
Each violation will result in a small fine (so the wealthy can feel free to continue driving around, i suppose).


The new traffic reduction scheme called “traffic filters” to help reduce traffic congestion, enhance pedestrian safety, and help address climate change, according to Truth About Cars.
...
However, the idea includes dividing Oxford into six zones in which residents cannot drive to certain areas without the right documentation.

If this plan moves through, a barrier will separate the six zones of Oxford and limit the freedom of its residents. Seven days a week, 12 hours a day, between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm, or face a £70 ($85) fine.

The target plan will be in the summer of 2023.
...
All residents will be forced to register their car with the council. Number plate recognition cameras set up in the city will MONITOR how many times you leave your zone.

In fact, private cars will be banned altogether from crossing between the zones unless you buy a permit which will allow you a maximum of 100 crossings per year! Oh, how generous.

Those without a permit or if you drive between the zones after having reached your limit of 100 crossings, you will be fined £70 per crossing.
...
This is all being done in the name of climate change, aiming to stop people to take ”unnecessary” journeys and force people to walk or take the bus instead.

These climate zones will turn Oxford into a ”15-minute city”, with the plan being to force people to walk in order to access local shops and services.

Did you see that, the ”15-minute city” thing? I am going to let you guess where that idea comes from…

It comes from none other than the World Economic Forum. They literally talked about this in their Sustainable Development Summit 2021.
 

redqueen

Superstar
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
5,953
Hope this is on topic it was the best I found by
search

this is gonna be a dark winter for many Peoples
and everyone is gonna feel it in on lower end of
the 99%

 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
However, Mittiga’s own description speaks for itself. He says that COVID-19 clearly resulted in “severe restrictions on rights of free movement, association, religious practice, and even speech,” all of which “are authoritarian in nature, though, I would argue, they have often been nonetheless legitimate.”

Mittiga then explains that governments that failed to take authoritarian steps to mitigate the threat of COVID are perceived as “less legitimate. (Think here of the Trump or Bolsonaro governments.)”

“I believe the same is true with respect to climate change,” Mittiga explains. “Those governments which are able but unwilling to confront the climate crisis -- which poses one of the greatest threats to safety and security we have ever faced -- are, for that reason, less legitimate.”
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722

"For civil libertarians across the political spectrum, from left to right, a “climate emergency” should be a focus of concern.

Even environmentalists who may instinctively and understandably support the idea should be worried about the potential for the authoritarian model of “emergency” governance that arose during COVID-19 to overtake climate policy.

One can believe in protecting and preserving the planet, as I do, while insisting on environmental policies that are consistent with democracy, civil liberties and human rights.

Elements of the left and right should be coming together to reject demands that we sacrifice democratic norms, rights and freedoms for flimsy promises of safety from political and economic elites who seek to exploit a crisis — a cynical ploy that COVID-19 thoroughly exposed.

Recall that it was President Trump who issued a COVID-19 “national emergency” declaration on March 13, 2020. This was accompanied by “public health emergency” orders at the federal and state levels, and by the World Health Organization (WHO), which unleashed an intense phase of lockdowns and a tsunami of health-and-safety rules and restrictions — many imposed on the public in circumvention of the normal democratic process.

Before that, I might have supported a “climate emergency” without a second thought. Now, after three years of lockdowns, mandates, censorship and other heavy-handed policies, the trust is gone.

The leaders pushing for a new emergency who have failed to repudiate the abuses of the last one — even those with the purest of intentions regarding the environment — have lost credibility.

Many others feel the same way. We need to know exactly what a “climate emergency” really means.

So what would an official “climate emergency” look like?

Just like the “COVID-19 emergency,” it would be far-reaching, with potentially dramatic effects on the economy and society. Emergency measures may even cause serious harm to the environment — while failing to meaningfully address climate change.

Even if you tend to pay attention to climate-related issues, the implications of a “climate emergency” may surprise you.

How a ‘climate emergency’ could infringe on civil liberties and human rights

How worried should we be that a “climate emergency” intended to “rapidly transform” our entire society by 2050 — which would be the 80th national emergency in U.S. history — might gradually expand in scope to infringe on basic civil liberties and human rights?

A 2018 article in The Atlantic, “The Alarming Scope of the President’s Emergency Powers,” warned of nightmarish scenarios that could ensue if President Trump abused his emergency powers.

“The moment the president declares a ‘national emergency’ — a decision that is entirely within his discretion — he is able to set aside many of the legal limits on his authority,” the article warned. “The president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts,” and much more.

We can certainly hope that a “climate emergency” would not morph into such a dangerous scenario. Historically, most national emergency declarations have been benign.

Yet the “COVID-19 emergency” initiated on Trump’s watch and carried on by Biden has unfortunately set a new and troubling authoritarian precedent that cannot be ignored.

Nowhere is that precedent more apparent than in the lingering notion of “locking down” the population.

In October 2020, University College of London economics professor Mariana Mazzucato, who chairs an economics council for the WHO, published an article expressly raising the possibility of “climate lockdowns” to address a “climate emergency.”

 
Top