CARBON CREDITS: the WEF's overt Great Reset Agenda for 2030 has a new article -- ‘My Carbon’: An approach for inclusive and sustainable cities
For the people that think Carbon Credits is a 'conspiracy theory'
If you haven’t read my previous articles on the Great Reset, here they are:
16 INDISPUTABLE Facts about the Great Reset/Agenda 2030 'Conspiracy Theory' & TRANSLATING the Agenda 2030 SDG's (Sustainable Development Goals).
The World Economic Forum, through their Sustainable Development Impact meetings, recently published an article addressing ideas for minimizing individual carbon footprints , aka “My Carbon” initiatives.
Now, when we discuss the ‘conspiracy theory’ that they want to introduce ‘Carbon Credits’ to each individual’s Digital ID & Digital Currency & even the Chinese style Social Credit System, most people think that it all sounds too crazy; I will continue to share indisputable facts about the Agenda and their intentions. For now, let’s discuss the Carbon Credits idea and the recent article by the WEF which demonstrates that it is indeed an avenue they wish to pursue.
When people speak of Carbon Credits they are discussing the idea that:
Each person/business will have a certain number of carbon credits or carbon allowances that work like permission slips to emit carbons. That is, each person will only be allowed to emit a certain amount of carbon per a pre-determined threshold in a given time frame; for example, 1 tonne CO2/month. Perhaps they will be able to trade, purchase, or earn more carbon credits, or certain behaviours or status markers will grant them higher allowances; it is not absolutely defined yet. It is safe to bet that good behaviour—socially accepted virtue signals — and compliance(blind obedience) may maintain or earn more credits while socially unacceptable behaviour and non-compliance may punish a person, limiting or taking away carbon emission allowances. This will be similar to how it works in prisons when one gains the Warden’s, or guard’s, favour vs when they get on their bad side.
“To give an idea of the average carbon emissions of a North American individual, according to carboncredits.com,“The average American generates 16 tons of CO2e a year through driving, shopping, using electricity and gas at home, and generally going through the motions of everyday life.” - www.carboncredits.com
The WEF, the UN, their puppet institutions and useful idiots will often speak of a their goal being a “Net Zero Future” and they will never mention all of the things that they intend to limit, conrol , and take away.
Preaching to the Choir Sidenote: Did you know that all life on earth is carbon-based? Everything that lives on earth is carbon-based and participates in the carbon-cycle. Carbon dioxide in the air is “breathed in”by plants, which add the energy of sunlight (photosynthesis) to make proteins, carbohydrates, and fats. When we(animals) eat this energy, we store it, and then by living, and moving, we are using up that energy — we are then completing the carbon-cycle by “breathing out” carbon dioxide. If you thought they demonized your exhalation with COVID-19, “y’aint seen nothing yet.”
.
Back to it…Now some questions might pop into our minds:
How will the allotment of carbon credits be determined? Who will allot them?
Will it be equal for everyone or are some people to be considered more equal than others?
How will they incentivize people? Can tracking, monitoring, and limiting these credits be used as a mechanism to incentivize, or do they plan on placing controls to regulate behaviour?
If the mere act of being alive is carbon emitting, what does that say about the value of our lives?
There are many many important questions to consider on the topic.
To be fair, the recent article by the WEF does not plainly mention forcing or coercing people. The UN and WEF are very good, like all Marxists, at hiding their intentions with language, using vague concepts with emotionally charged triggers, and also by not mentioning the topics that hurt their goals and hoping that people don’t notice — and censoring those questions altogether. For example, in this recent “My Carbon” article, they don’t even bring up the adoption of the practice, or whether they think it will become generally accepted — they simply mention economic incentives. In case you haven’t learned in the past couple of years, words like incentivize and persuade ( under Marxist frameworks) have danced on a huge thick grey line with the concept of coercion. There sure were a lot of incentives to get people to participate in the world’s largest mass experimental human trials. There were some actual incentives such as free beer, free burgers, and lottery tickets, and there were punishments that they labelled incentives. They wouldn’t force you to get vaccinated, they’d just ostracize you, segregate you from society and limit your rights if you didn’t.
“It’s your choice whether or not you want to get vaccinated — but if you choose not to; you’re a selfish, racist, misogynist, extremist that takes up space and should not be tolerated. We’re going to make it so that: you’ll lose your job(without pay), you can’t go to school, you can’t go to any restaurants or stores or movie theatres, you’ll get less healthcare, potentially lose custody of your children, and you can’t travel, etc… but it’s your choice. You’re choosing not to be allowed to do any of those things.”
Some notable segments of the WEF article are the first three touch points:
While transport and buildings are the major drivers for emissions in cities, the share of individual emissions is significant.
Personal carbon allowance programs have had limited success due to a lack of awareness and fair mechanism for tracking emissions.
Yet there have been major developments in recent years that could help realise "My Carbon" initiatives
So right there, in those three points, they have stated:
“Individual emissions” are significant
The need to focus on each individual person as significant source of carbon emissions. Obviously this is something they wish to address; it’s the focus of the article.
Note: that they will never acknowledge that all life on earth is carbon based, because the narrative of limiting “life/lives/living” doesn’t sell as well as virtue signalling to '“limit your carbon footprint”, “My Carbon”, “sustainable living”, “climate change”, or “slavery”, etc..
“Personal Carbon Allowance Programs” — Carbon Credits — are a real thing, the concept and agenda exists. It is not a conspiracy theory they are discussing it.
And, with “limited success due to lack of awareness and fair mechanism of tracking”
the limited success is only due to a lack of awareness and effective tracking; there is no mention of red tape, politics, laws, whether or not society would even agree with this and if people would voluntarily adopt it. They don’t discuss it at all.
Nothing mentioned about the ETHICS of attempting to control an individual’s carbon emissions — life.. Is it moral to create a mechanism that determines how much a person may essentially live and consume? Keep in mind that something as simple as exercising creates more carbon emissions than sitting on your couch, because you use more oxygen and create more carbon dioxide when you’re expending more energy. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of energy expenditure. Food consumption, gas consumption, heat, electricity, air conditioning, etc… are all to be limited. They do not mention the ethics of wanting to control these things because they hope to implement these controls regardless of whether or not people agree. They do not care. To them, it is unethical to resist their plans because they are the self-anointed rulers. They do not care about your individual rights, they don’t respect them and they want to eliminate them, all in the name of the collective, the greater good — for social justice.
Nor do they mention the political obstacles in attempting to create a society that controls what each individual may or may not do because they already control most of the necessary politicians in many countries and they plan on creating their own laws to be governed by the UN — no more sovereign nation states. The national sovereign will fall to globalism, directed by a one world government. The UN is to give ‘guidelines’ that the rest of the world follows.
Things have changed over the recent years that could help realize the ‘My Carbon’ initiatives aka carbon credits. These recent developments are:
The general acceptance of a utilitarian attitude and the submission of individual rights (for the benefit of the society). The COVID-19 pandemic normalized the hegemonic view that rights should be given up in the name of “the greater good.” “A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world. There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility.”
“Fourth Industrial Revolution technology breakthroughs – Advances in emerging technologies like AI, blockchain and digitization can enable tracking personal carbon emissions, raise awareness and also provide individual advisories on lower carbon and ethical choices for consumption of product and services…There have been major advances in smart home technologies, transport choices with carbon implications, the roll-out of smart meters in providing individual choices to reduce their energy-related emissions, the development of new personalized apps to account for personal emissions, and better personal choices for food and consumption-related emissions.”
“Raised awareness and ownership for nature and environment.” Basically, the indoctrination, misinformation, disinformation, censorship, and propaganda over the last few decades which have all been promoting the planned climate alarmism narrative has paid dividends. The majority of the population has been programmed.
“The three trends provide strong evidence towards enabling a social movement for “My Carbon” initiatives by enabling public-private partnerships to help curate this program. It is suggested to drive a three-way approach to shape this movement.” (Note: Public/Private Partnerships to help curate the programs — mandates that businesses implement, not ‘laws’ — similar to the COVID-19 vaccination mandates implemented by businesses and institutions etc…)
The above graphic is from the article and it poses many questions for us to ask:
“Increased costs for carbon-intensive activities and goods.” So do you mean that you will tax consumers and producers and make certain carbon emitting goods and services more expensive?
‘Economic incentives to reduce demand and improve efficiency.” If that is not what was meant in the first point, then what other “incentives’ are you thinking of? Will there be similar “incentives” that were involved with the vax; ie, coercion, limitation of rights and freedoms?
“Raised visibility of personal carbon footprints.” Do you mean more monitoring and more surveillance? Less privacy?
“Raised awareness of personal carbon limits to sustain the transition to a net-zero society.” So you’re overtly admitting that there will be limits? And that the goal is net-zero?
“New definition of fair share of personal emissions.” Who will create this definition? Who will define what is “fair”?
“Setting of acceptable levels of personal emissions.” Again, who defines what is acceptable? What will be the consequences of exceeding the acceptable levels of personal emissions? Etc..
So yes, a Carbon Credit system — sorry, “The ‘My Carbon’ Initiative” — is a major part of the Great Reset/Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals plan. They overtly target individual carbon emissions as a significant factor for achieving Net Zero Emissions. They hope to track and monitor carbon footprints — this is mass surveillance and control, this is infringing on your privacy. They hope to make carbon emitting activities and goods more expensive; and they hope to find other economic incentives to reduce demand. They will determine and set an allowance for people’s carbon emissions. They have no mention of the ethical implications of pushing this worldwide so we can only assume that they feel justified and that they are expecting this to be implemented whether we like it or not.
Thank you for reading and learning that Carbon Credits is certainly not a ‘conspiracy theory’ but an overt part of the same overt Great Reset/Agenda 2030 that for some reason many people still don’t want to acknowledge. If I missed anything, or you’d like me to write about anything in particular, please comment below. Also, please subscribe if you haven’t already, and certainly share.