n sheer dollars, it rivals the military industrial complex, and second only to central banking. Trillions frittered away on green billionaires and their army of useful idiots who glue themselves to highways.
What is the Climate Endgame?
Recently the United Nations released a new report demanding $150 trillion -- that's with a capital T -- to combat the imaginary climate crisis.
In a video on the report I ventured that “climate” has been one of the most successful taxpayer fleecings in American history, pimping global cooling then global warming then climate change and now “climate crisis.”
In sheer dollars, it rivals the military industrial complex, and second only to central banking. Trillions frittered away on green billionaires and their army of useful idiots who glue themselves to highways.
Alas, it's not just the 150 trillion. There's always been a more sinister angle to the environmental movement. Indeed, 50 years ago Czech physicist Petr Beckmann coined the term "watermelon" to describe the movement -- green on the outside, deep Marxist red on the inside.
We can see this political agenda in how media treats environmental issues. Anything the left dislikes has a sin-soaked carbon footprint that must be eliminated, but anything the left likes gets a pass.
For example, the past few years we've seen mainstream press attacking the carbon footprints of bar-b-cues, air conditioning, recreational shooting or even camping, college football, especially tailgating at college football — which is something no self-respecting college Marxist would do.
Meanwhile, burning dozens of cities for racialist Marxism, or hundreds of private jets flying cross-Atlantic to environmental conferences apparently have no carbon footprint. It's magic.
Alas, joke or no, they're now taking this to the next level: In Europe they're floating digital identities that could be used to impose a carbon allowance. Beyond which you'd have to buy credits. So the riff-raff stays in their pods, the rich still get to park their yachts off Monte Carlo.
Commenter Eva Vlaardingerbroek labeled this, correctly, as “Neo-Feudalism.” Climate austerity for the poor, yachts and private jets for the nobles.
You will take the bus and you will be happy.
Alas, it's one thing to keep the poor in their place, but the next step is slashing humanity's standard of living altogether.
After all, we are all sinners in the eyes of St Greta.
How poor will we get? Major UK consultancy Future Laboratories issued a report calling for carbon allowances of just 2.3 tons per year. Which is the carbon emissions of a single round-trip cross-Atlantic flight.
Now that would do wonders for keeping out the riff-raff: you can fly or you can eat. Unless you've got the dosh -- or the ideological blessing -- to buy your indulgences.
2.3 tons is interesting because it's roughly 7 times less than the average American -- and 5 times less than the average European, who are poorer because their politicians are stupid
So what would 7 times less carbon look like? Well, carbon lines up almost perfect with GDP, so easy: we'd be 7 times poorer. In other words, a standard of living between Cuba and Botswana.
Of course, at that point we pray they do not further alter the deal and take us all the way to climate paradises like Somalia or Papua New Guinea.
The good news is the watermelons are overplaying their cards. 150 trillion to buy our way to Botswana isn't really a winning platform.
Alas, the bad news is our left-wing media is brainwashed so deep, they'll do everything they can to hide the trap until we're deep inside.
Voters are losing their enthusiasm for climate. But that swamp isn’t draining fast enough to take the wind out of their sails. Not yet, anyway.
Sign up for free to get weekly articles on the economy and freedom.
Also check out the weekly podcast rounding up all the week’s videos in a single 30 minute podcast.
Originally published on profstonge.com
