Absolute Zero: "All remaining airports close" ... "All shipping declines to zero"


CLpsY8L.png


14 U.S. Cities Sign WEF Treaty To Ban Meat, Diary, Private Cars by 2030
https://www.planet-today.com/2023/08/14-us-cities-sign-wef-treaty-to-ban.html
Planet Today (20 August 2023)

The WEF-infiltrated U.S. cities have formed a coalition called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group” (C40).

The C40 has established a “target” to meet the WEF’s radical depopulation goals by the year 2030.

The C40 Cities have agreed that their residents will be forced to comply with the following list of unconstitutional rules:

  • “0 kg [of] meat consumption”
  • “0 kg [of] dairy consumption”
  • “3 new clothing items per person per year”
  • “0 private vehicles” owned
  • “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person”
Slaynews.com reports: The C40 Cities’ dystopian goals can be found in its “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report.

The report was published in 2019 and reemphasized in 2023.

The organization is headed and largely funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Nearly 100 cities across the world make up the organization.

The American city members of C40 include:

  • Austin
  • Boston
  • Chicago
  • Houston
  • Los Angeles
  • Miami
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • Philadelphia
  • Phoenix
  • Portland
  • San Francisco
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Seattle
Media coverage of C40 Cities’ goals has been relatively sparse.

However, the few media personalities and news outlets who have discussed it have reportedly been heavily attacked by the corporate “fact-checkers.”

In a “fact check” aimed at conservative commentator Glenn Beck, AFP Fact Check claimed that the banning of meat and dairy and limits on air travel and clothing consumption were actually “not policy recommendations.”

AFP quotes a paragraph from the original “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which reads:

“This report does not advocate for the wholesale adoption of these more ambitious targets in C40 cities; rather, they are included to provide a set of reference points that cities, and other actors, can reflect on when considering different emission-reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.”

But this paragraph, likely included in the report as a liability in the case of pushback, seems to directly contradict the meaning of “target,” which in this context can be defined as a “desired goal.”

The target of eliminating meat, dairy, and private vehicles by 2030 is “based on a future vision of resource-efficient production and extensive changes in consumer choices,” the report notes — something its authors clearly hope to bring about.

If these were not their goals, they would not have labeled them “ambitious targets.”

The “fact-checker’s” insistence that C40 Cities’ explicitly stated climate goals are somehow insincere is even more unconvincing, given that we are watching them start to unfold right now.

This year, in lockstep with C40 Cities’ 2030 aims, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that the city will place caps on the amount of meat and dairy served by city institutions, such as schools and prisons.

Meanwhile, the U.K. has banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles after 2030, and France has banned short-haul flights “to cut carbon emissions.”

In 2020, the World Economic Forum (which promotes C40 Cities on its website) introduced “The Great Reset,” which seeks to use the Covid pandemic as a point from which to launch a global reset of society to supposedly combat climate change.

This reset, however, has far more to do with social control than it does with the climate.

If globalist leaders truly cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be chartering private jets or owning massive, energy-consuming mansions on the coast in California, which, by climate fanatics’ own calculation, will soon be underwater.

As the WEF plainly stated in a 2016 promotional video, by 2030 “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

Right now, hedge funds and private billionaires are buying up residential homes and farmland all over the world.

At the same time, unrealistic zero-emissions policies are impoverishing Westerners and annihilating the middle class, which is fueling reliance on centralized government.

Such intentional steps backward also, ironically, harm the earth because wealthier nations are proven to have cleaner environments and put less strain on natural resources.

Climate activists are also advocating for “climate lockdowns,” in the same way there were Covid lockdowns.

Ideas floated for a climate lockdown have ranged from shuttering people in their homes and restricting air travel to providing a Universal Basic Income and introducing a maximum income level.

Climate dystopianism doesn’t end there. WEF-linked “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao has proposed the idea of scientists genetically modifying humans to be allergic to meat, as Slay News reported.

Liao has also discussed shrinking the physical size of humans via eugenics or hormone injections so they consume fewer resources.

All of these policy proposals appear even more unreasonable and illogical when we actually evaluate the data.

According to the International Disaster Database, deaths related to extreme heat, floods, storms, and droughts have plummeted as C02 emissions have risen.

The fossil fuel economy has provided billions of people with heating, air conditioning, weather warning systems, mass irrigation, and durable buildings.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to limit carbon emissions.

Environmentally friendly nuclear energy, which is safe and more reliable than wind and solar energy, is a great way to wean our society off of our reliance on fossil fuels.

The globalist climate activists, however, oppose nuclear energy, further undermining their supposedly good intentions.

Ultimately, the climate coalition’s goals are inherently anti-human. People generally need meat and the protein it provides to flourish.

Banning meat and dairy, restricting calories, genetically altering the human body, and impoverishing the masses will hurt the planet and people.

More likely than not, it will do more than hurt people — it will kill many of them.


LINKS:

 
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/LPMisesCaucus/status/1693746677436317795
CLpsY8L.png


14 U.S. Cities Sign WEF Treaty To Ban Meat, Diary, Private Cars by 2030
https://www.planet-today.com/2023/08/14-us-cities-sign-wef-treaty-to-ban.html
Planet Today (20 August 2023)

The WEF-infiltrated U.S. cities have formed a coalition called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group” (C40).

The C40 has established a “target” to meet the WEF’s radical depopulation goals by the year 2030.

The C40 Cities have agreed that their residents will be forced to comply with the following list of unconstitutional rules:

  • “0 kg [of] meat consumption”
  • “0 kg [of] dairy consumption”
  • “3 new clothing items per person per year”
  • “0 private vehicles” owned
  • “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person”
Slaynews.com reports: The C40 Cities’ dystopian goals can be found in its “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report.

The report was published in 2019 and reemphasized in 2023.

The organization is headed and largely funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Nearly 100 cities across the world make up the organization.

The American city members of C40 include:

  • Austin
  • Boston
  • Chicago
  • Houston
  • Los Angeles
  • Miami
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • Philadelphia
  • Phoenix
  • Portland
  • San Francisco
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Seattle
Media coverage of C40 Cities’ goals has been relatively sparse.

However, the few media personalities and news outlets who have discussed it have reportedly been heavily attacked by the corporate “fact-checkers.”

In a “fact check” aimed at conservative commentator Glenn Beck, AFP Fact Check claimed that the banning of meat and dairy and limits on air travel and clothing consumption were actually “not policy recommendations.”

AFP quotes a paragraph from the original “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which reads:

“This report does not advocate for the wholesale adoption of these more ambitious targets in C40 cities; rather, they are included to provide a set of reference points that cities, and other actors, can reflect on when considering different emission-reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.”

But this paragraph, likely included in the report as a liability in the case of pushback, seems to directly contradict the meaning of “target,” which in this context can be defined as a “desired goal.”

The target of eliminating meat, dairy, and private vehicles by 2030 is “based on a future vision of resource-efficient production and extensive changes in consumer choices,” the report notes — something its authors clearly hope to bring about.

If these were not their goals, they would not have labeled them “ambitious targets.”

The “fact-checker’s” insistence that C40 Cities’ explicitly stated climate goals are somehow insincere is even more unconvincing, given that we are watching them start to unfold right now.

This year, in lockstep with C40 Cities’ 2030 aims, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that the city will place caps on the amount of meat and dairy served by city institutions, such as schools and prisons.

Meanwhile, the U.K. has banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles after 2030, and France has banned short-haul flights “to cut carbon emissions.”

In 2020, the World Economic Forum (which promotes C40 Cities on its website) introduced “The Great Reset,” which seeks to use the Covid pandemic as a point from which to launch a global reset of society to supposedly combat climate change.

This reset, however, has far more to do with social control than it does with the climate.

If globalist leaders truly cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be chartering private jets or owning massive, energy-consuming mansions on the coast in California, which, by climate fanatics’ own calculation, will soon be underwater.

As the WEF plainly stated in a 2016 promotional video, by 2030 “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

Right now, hedge funds and private billionaires are buying up residential homes and farmland all over the world.

At the same time, unrealistic zero-emissions policies are impoverishing Westerners and annihilating the middle class, which is fueling reliance on centralized government.

Such intentional steps backward also, ironically, harm the earth because wealthier nations are proven to have cleaner environments and put less strain on natural resources.

Climate activists are also advocating for “climate lockdowns,” in the same way there were Covid lockdowns.

Ideas floated for a climate lockdown have ranged from shuttering people in their homes and restricting air travel to providing a Universal Basic Income and introducing a maximum income level.

Climate dystopianism doesn’t end there. WEF-linked “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao has proposed the idea of scientists genetically modifying humans to be allergic to meat, as Slay News reported.

Liao has also discussed shrinking the physical size of humans via eugenics or hormone injections so they consume fewer resources.

All of these policy proposals appear even more unreasonable and illogical when we actually evaluate the data.

According to the International Disaster Database, deaths related to extreme heat, floods, storms, and droughts have plummeted as C02 emissions have risen.

The fossil fuel economy has provided billions of people with heating, air conditioning, weather warning systems, mass irrigation, and durable buildings.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to limit carbon emissions.

Environmentally friendly nuclear energy, which is safe and more reliable than wind and solar energy, is a great way to wean our society off of our reliance on fossil fuels.

The globalist climate activists, however, oppose nuclear energy, further undermining their supposedly good intentions.

Ultimately, the climate coalition’s goals are inherently anti-human. People generally need meat and the protein it provides to flourish.

Banning meat and dairy, restricting calories, genetically altering the human body, and impoverishing the masses will hurt the planet and people.

More likely than not, it will do more than hurt people — it will kill many of them.


LINKS:



That should be fun. If it makes it to my town I’ll be sure to get right on all of that.
 
Environmentally friendly nuclear energy, which is safe and more reliable than wind and solar energy, is a great way to wean our society off of our reliance on fossil fuels.

The globalist climate activists, however, oppose nuclear energy, further undermining their supposedly good intentions.

Good information in this thread, but after looking into nuclear:

Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially compensate the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $15 billion (as of 2021) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate.

In 1978, the Act survived a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group (see below). The Act was last renewed in 2005 for a 20-year period.

.
.

Criticisms

The Price-Anderson Act has been criticized by various think tanks and environmental organizations, including Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace International, Public Citizen and the Cato Institute. Public Citizen has been particularly critical of Price-Anderson; it claims that the Act understates the risks inherent in atomic power, does not require reactors to carry adequate insurance, and would therefore result in taxpayers footing most of the bill for a catastrophic accident. An analysis by economists Heyes and Heyes (1998) places the value of the government insurance subsidy at $2.3 million per reactor-year, or $237 million annually. In 2008 the Congressional Budget Office estimated the value of the subsidy at only $600,000 per reactor per year, or less than one percent of the levelized cost for new nuclear capacity. All such calculations are controversial, as they rely on the difficult assessment of extrapolating what the "true" probabilities are of a catastrophic event at the extreme cost brackets. Due to the structure of the liability immunities, as the number of nuclear plants in operation is reduced, the public liability in case of an accident goes up. However going in the other direction, the Nuclear Waste Fund was/is used to transfer $750 million in fee revenues each year from utilities to the Government and this is hard currency, unlike the conceptual insurance/indemnity Act.

The Price-Anderson Act has been used as an example of corporate welfare by Ralph Nader.

Price-Anderson has been criticized by many of these groups due to a portion of the Act that indemnifies Department of Energy and private contractors from nuclear incidents even in cases of gross negligence and willful misconduct (although criminal penalties would still apply). "No other government agency provides this level of taxpayer indemnification to non-government personnel". The Energy Department counters those critics by saying that the distinction is irrelevant, since the damage to the public would be the same.

These beyond-insurance costs for worst-case scenarios are not unique to nuclear power, as hydroelectric power plants are similarly not fully insured against a catastrophic event such as the Banqiao Dam disaster, or large dam failures in general. As private insurers base dam insurance premiums on limited scenarios, major disaster insurance in this sector is likewise provided by the Government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
 
https://twitter.com/XVanFleet/status/1695249091192664454
Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute on the "climate" agenda:

"Back in 1993, we identified 'global warming' as the mother of all environmental scare tactics…..Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings...If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels..that’s 80/90% of all the energy...if you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world."
 
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1755486841845727590
"Once we get to true Net Zero, the temperatures will stop going up almost immediately."

Climate doomsday preacher, Al Gore—who has amassed a net worth of $300m through climate fearmongering—speaking from the WEF's recent Davos summit.

"And if we stay at Net Zero, half of the human-caused greenhouse gas pollution will fall out of the atmosphere in as little as 25 to 30 years."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frU1WylTRUs

[...]
 

CLpsY8L.png


14 U.S. Cities Sign WEF Treaty To Ban Meat, Diary, Private Cars by 2030
https://www.planet-today.com/2023/08/14-us-cities-sign-wef-treaty-to-ban.html
Planet Today (20 August 2023)

The WEF-infiltrated U.S. cities have formed a coalition called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group” (C40).

The C40 has established a “target” to meet the WEF’s radical depopulation goals by the year 2030.

[...]


"All remaining airports close" ...

 
Last edited:
..
A little background for, well, basically everyone but Anti Federalist: The U.S. is down to four major railroads, plus two Canadian railways, each with a major U.S. component. CSX and Norfolk Southern operate in the eastern half of the country. CSX recently endured a period being run by corporate raiders who gutted the system to the point where they couldn't serve all their customers any more. This was good for Norfolk Southern, which picked up most of that business.

Now raiders are after NS. It's amazing how many of these prospective board members sent by Ancora are ex-governors.

With Norfolk Southern Corp.'s annual meeting just days away, NS and Ancora Holdings Group LLC each have appealed to shareholders for their support of the companies’ respective plans in a proxy fight for the future of NS' executive and board leadership.

Since February, NS board and company leaders have been locked in a battle with Ancora — a major NS shareholder — over Ancora’s proposed overhaul of the railroad's board and the ouster of its President and CEO Alan Shaw. Under Ancora’s plan, Shaw would be replaced by former UPS executive Jim Barber, while former CSX executive Jamie Boychuk would become the new chief operating officer...

https://www.progressiverailroading....-final-push-for-May-9-shareholder-vote--71847
 
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1978458244096925732

This is a very BIG deal, so let me break it down.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN body regulating maritime transport, will vote this Friday to finalize their “net zero framework” for shipping across the board.

Beginning in 2028, all ships will need to switch to “cleaner” (defined as less carbon-intensive) fuels or pay high fines. Specifically, companies will be required to pay $380 USD for every ton of carbon dioxide (CO₂) or CO₂ equivalent emitted above a fixed threshold with an additional $100 fine on emissions above a stricter limit.

And, that “tax” will then be passed down to consumers.

As I have said before, “carbon pricing” is just a wealth redistribution scam.

I agree with @RonDeSantis
. All funding to the UN by the U.S. needs to be withheld.

 
The big difference is that you mean it....

DeSantos does not.

I think DeSantis means it. He is the first presidential candidate and first governor to call for the US to leave the UN. This is a big political risk for him.
 
I think DeSantis means it. He is the first presidential candidate and first governor to call for the US to leave the UN. This is a big political risk for him.
Before that would ever happen, deSantos would receive guidance from a certain1% instructing him that their control of our UN membership will not be infringed.

deSantos's mouth is firmly attached to their rectums.
 
Back
Top