A recent report by a pair of think tanks who are partners of the globalist roundtable World Economic Forum says that municipal governments, specifically cities, should quickly impose a series of “interventions” on residents’ ability to purchase clothing, enjoy private transportation, eat food, and take flights, all to save the world from greenhouse gas emissions.
The Future Of Urban Consumption In a 1.5°c World was published by the Arup Group in connection with the C40 Cities consortium and select researchers from the UK’s Leeds University.
In the preamble, as C40 declares the 68-page missive a “pioneering piece of thought leadership,” the group specifically calls on both mayors and “city leadership” to “be even more entrepreneurial, creating and shaping markets and engaging in sectors that may not previously have been considered,” for the purposes of “achieving a radical, and rapid, shift in consumption patterns.”
The verbiage is notable, as city mayors and municipal governments were arguably the leading vanguard of the installation of social credit policies similar to those in Communist China and measures such as vaccine passports and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic.
City leaders have also been the driving force behind the so-called 15 Minute Cities freedom of movement and freedom of transportation lockdown schemes installed in the United Kingdom and other western locales, policies which also emulate the Chinese Communist Party’s system of social management.
C40 Cities is a consortium of 96 mayors from cities such as Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco, and an official organization listed on the WEF’s website.
MORE ON THE LOOMING THREAT OF CLIMATE LOCKDOWNS
- Smart Metering Effective in California Water Rationing Compliance, UChicago Study Finds
- Ireland Runs Oil and Electricity Shortage Wargame With Lockdowns, Fuel Control
- UK Government Prepares for Winter Blackouts, Natural Gas Rationing
In the report, C40 states that cities are responsible for the majority of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and that the attempts to reduce global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius require residents to have their consumption curbed by centrally dictated policy.
“In this case, the impact we are considering is the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from urban consumption of building materials, food, clothing & textiles, private transport, electronics & household appliances, as well as private aviation travel,” the group states.
On the About Us section of the group’s website, they state that membership in the consortium requires officials in a region to demonstrate they can adequately emulate the party line, “C40 member cities earn their membership through action…C40’s most distinguishing feature is that it operates on performance-based requirements, not membership fees.”
“C40’s Leadership Standards set the minimum requirements for all member cities and ensure the integrity of C40 as a network of climate leaders,” the statement adds.
In a preamble added by former Arup Group Chairman Greg Hodkinson, the organization states, “Urban residents, myself included, drive greenhouse gas emissions through consuming goods and services. It is now clear that action to reduce consumption will be necessary as part of the global effort to mitigate climate change.”
The Arup Group is listed as an official partner of the World Economic Forum on its website. In June of 2022, Arup penned an article published on the WEF website advocating for “smart city governance” that was focused on “protecting citizens in smart cities” by using an Internet of Things approach to help cities “combat crime, reduce pollution, decrease traffic congestion, improve disaster preparedness and more.”
“Smart Cities” and “Internet of Things” surveillance is also a method used by the CCP to maintain both “stability” and the regime’s power, manifest through panopticon-style surveillance systems such as the Sharp Eyes project.
Negligible climate benefits
The focus of the report is on analysis that states that in order to attempt to keep global warming at the 1.5 degree celsius threshold, the “average per capita impact of urban consumption” must be reduced by 50 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.
The only way these extreme goals can be reached is by radically revolutionizing the modern human living condition.
The problem, the report claims, is that as of 2017, the major cities incorporated into the C40 consortium account for 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the report notes that the cities themselves only account for 15 percent of their “consumption-based emissions,” with the other 25 percent being attributed to production and manufacturing that occurs in “rest of the world” and 60 percent in the “rest of the nation” for products sold and used inside of cities.
Electricity generation, combustion caused by vehicle transportation, and the manufacturing sector were saddled with 80 percent of the emissions burden, according to the report’s analysis.
The biggest culprit of alleged greenhouse pollution was also the wealthy cities in North America, Oceania, and Asia where the average GDP per capita was calculated at $60,000.
Six categories are specifically targeted by the paper for “consumption interventions”:
- Buildings and Infrastructure
- Private Transport
- Clothing and Textiles
- Electronics and Appliances
“The consumption interventions will require significant changes to consumer patterns and individual behaviours as well as usher in structural changes across entire supply chains and industries,” the authors state.
The most dystopian “interventions” the organizations would like city governments to dictate on residents are in the food, clothing, aviation, and travel categories.
For food, the report says an “ambitious” target for consumption is to reduce meat and dairy consumption to zero by 2030, while somehow managing to retain a 2,500 calorie per day consumption rate.
It stands to reason that the method used to maintain caloric intake in the absence of the meat and dairy industries will be through feeding the masses insects, a current worldwide push by the globalist initiative running as a pilot project in some UK schools.
The aim is also to reduce household food waste to 0 and supply chain factory food waste by 75 percent over the same period of time.
It’s also wished to limit the number of clothes a person is allowed to purchase over the course of a year. The report states that a “progressive” target is 8 pieces of clothing over a 12 month period, with the “ambitious” target being just 3.
Most notably is that their “ambitious” target for C40 cities is to reduce the number of private vehicles by 2030 to literally 0. The “progressive” target is to reduce them to 190 per 1,000 people.
According to website Nationmaster, based on the most recent 2014 data, the United States average is 797 cars per 1,000 people.
Notable countries that currently have 190 cars per 1,000 people or less are Jamaica, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Turkey.
When it comes to air travel, the groups believe that citizens should be limited to one air flight every two years in a “progressive” scenario, and one air flight every three in their “ambitious” scenario.
Authors attempt to paint these sweeping changes to the private lives and rights of citizens in a positive and revolutionary light.
“Eating less red meat and more vegetables and fruits could prevent annually 160,000 deaths associated with diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes and stroke in C40 cities,” they wrote.
When it came to eliminating the right to private transport, they stated, “By reducing vehicle ownership, 170 million m2 of on-street parking could be released back to the public realm in C40 cities, providing enough space for 2.5 million trees and 25,000 km of cycle lanes.”
“By buying fewer new clothes and textiles, residents in all C40 cities could collectively save $93 billion in one year,” authors lauded.
They continued, “Reducing flights and adopting sustainable aviation fuels could collectively avoid $70 million in damages from air pollution that would impact human health, buildings, infrastructure and agricultural production.”