From “slaynews.com”
The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Net Zero” agenda is actually a plot to destroy the food supply and eliminate the working class, a new report has warned.
An investigation by the Institute for Community Studies (ICS) found that unelected globalists at the WEF and United Nations (UN) are using “climate change” fears to seize control of the masses.
While establishing the UN as a single-world government to tackle “global warming,” the WEF is seeking to destroy the food supply as we know it and replace traditionally farmed meat and dairy with products for mass public consumption that are controlled by globalists.
In recent years, WEF elites have been attempting to demonize farming through fearmongering about “global warming.”
WEF members, such as Democrat President Joe Biden’s outgoing “climate czar” John Kerry, insist that traditional farming can be shut down and replaced because it fails to comply with “Net Zero” goals.
By banning meat and dairy products, globalists such as the WEF and Bill Gates (America’s largest farmland owner) can fill these large gaps in the food supply with their own manmade products.
In recent years, Gates has been busy promoting his lab-grown “meat” products that allow fake “beef” and “chicken” to be produced in factories without the need for livestock and farms.
The WEF, meanwhile, is pushing the meat and dairy products to be banned to “fight climate change.”
According to the WEF, the solution is to replace meat with insect-based “foods.”
A report from the ICS, titled “Our Journey to Net Zero,” concluded that the WEF is pushing “Net Zero” to “make the poor poorer, and push struggling communities further into deprivation and exclusion.”
The ICS report shows that the transition to Net Zero will cause a rise in unemployment, as carbon-intensive industries are forcibly restructured.
As a result, food will become limited and more expensive.
Meat and dairy products will become a luxury only the wealthy can enjoy while the general public will be forced to consume manmade processed “foods.”
The report warns that the “eco-friendly” changes that the public will be forced to make, such as insulating our homes or switching to electric cars, will be extremely difficult “for low-income households.”
The ICS concludes that the poorest 40 percent of households are at risk of “falling into transition poverty.”
As shocking as this statistic is, the report is no rant.
A team of researchers from ICS, Trinity College Dublin, and the universities of Leeds and York have thoroughly reviewed the policy changes and instruments – subsidies, taxation, and so on – most likely to prove effective in reducing emissions of CO2.
And they have concluded that these Net Zero measures will push down living standards for a lot of people in the United States and other Western nations.
Meanwhile, nations such as Communist China, which get a free pass on green agenda policies, won’t be affected by the “Net Zero” changes and their economies will be free to thrive.
Essentially, the general effect of Net Zero is similar to that of regressive taxation.
Just as a tax that is the same for everyone will most hurt those who earn the least, Net Zero policies mete out more pain to those who are least well-off.
This won’t just affect the very poorest though.
As the ICS warns, even “middle-income households that were not previously experiencing financial precarity” might struggle.
The report also highlights the other depredations brought about by Net Zero.
For instance, the added cost and difficulty of car travel will reduce people’s leisure opportunities.
The report certainly pulls no punches about the downsides of Net Zero.
But it does not challenge the green transition itself.
It instead calls for a “just” transition to ease the socio-economic pain caused – a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.
The report even complains that the disadvantages brought about by Net Zero policies are being exploited “by those who are against the transition to Net Zero.”
Mentioning populist opposition to anti-car schemes like low-emission zones and low-traffic neighborhoods, it says that some activists are “provoking political flashpoints and civic revolts concerning ‘rights and freedoms’.”
To get around such opposition, the report calls for more popular participation in Net Zero policymaking.
The transition, it says, can be “managed more fairly with the voice and participation of the households and communities it affects.”
Yet in the context of a report exposing the terrible privations Net Zero will visit on society, this call for greater participation rings hollow.
It sounds like an attempt to mobilize the poor for their own impoverishment.
In truth, Net Zero will be an immiserating objective, no matter how it’s dressed up.
We are sleepwalking towards economic and social disaster.
It’s high time we wake up.