“Experts suggest” your standard of living be reduced by over 85%
A report on the future of travel and tourism, co-authored by a travel agency called Intrepid Travel and The Future Labs Institute, posits a future deeply impacted by climate change and restrictions on tourist travel to combat it.
“A Sustainable Future for Travel”, warns of “travel extinction”, where some areas suffer such radical climate change that all tourism there ceases, and “personal carbon allowances” that will restrict how often one is permitted travel.
From the report (pardon the length, emphasis added):
“Carbon Passports
A personal carbon emissions limit will become the new normal as policy and people’s values drive an era of great change.
As demonstrated by a worldwide tourism boom, the frequency at which we can fly is once again seemingly unlimited.
Conscience and budgets permitting, we feel free to hop on planes from one place to the next. But this will change. ‘On our current trajectory, we can expect a pushback against the frequency with which individuals can travel, with carbon passports set to change the tourism landscape,’ says Raymond [Martin Raymond, Future Laboratories co-founder]
Personal carbon allowances could help curb carbon emissions and lower travel’s overall footprint.
These allowances will manifest as passports that force people to ration their carbon in line with the global carbon budget, which is 750bn tonnes until 2050.
By 2040, we can expect to see limitations imposed on the amount of travel that is permitted each year.
Experts suggest that individuals should currently limit their carbon emissions to 2.3 tonnes each year – the equivalent of taking a round-trip from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. However, the average carbon footprint in the US is 16 tonnes per person per year, 15 tonnes in Australia and 11.7 tonnes in the UK. This is in stark contrast to where we may find ourselves in the future, with 2040’s travellers forced to forgo the horizon-expanding experiences so readily embraced by today’s tourists”
For all practical purposes, your carbon emissions will line up with your energy usage, give or take a relatively narrow band of efficiencies (unless we have some kind of clean energy breakthrough, and the only viable one we have, nuclear, is not considered clean energy by the climate cult).
Said differently: Your standard of living is your energy usage. Reducing a society’s energy usage is the same as reducing its living standards.
With this in mind, let’s look at the numbers cited by the Sustainable Future for Travel report:
“Experts suggest that individuals should currently limit their carbon emissions to 2.3 tonnes each year.”
The table below lays out exactly how much the standard of living for the residents of each country will have to be reduced in order to meet the recommended carbon quota set by unelected experts. This is the level of “degrowth” it will take to satisfy the objectives of climate alarmists relying on unfalsifiable premises, arbitrary computer models, and who are deliberately ignoring and suppressing countervailing data.
How serious are our leaders and policymakers about reducing the citizenry’s living standards by upwards of 85%?
Here is Canada’s Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, rather blithely confirming that the government will limit natural gas usage in order to fight climate change:
Reporter: There will be limitations on how much natural gas you can use in the winter?
Guilbeault: Yes, absolutely, that’s what fighting climate change looks like.
Full clip:
Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault rather blithely answering a reporter who asked “will the government limit natural gas usage in the winter?”
(Short answer: “Of Course! That’s What fighting climate change looks like!”)
Watch: pic.twitter.com/sau9p2CMnW
— Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) November 25, 2023
Why are we talking about carbon passports in the section on Central Bank Digital Currencies?
(Today’s post is an excerpt from the “Eye on Evilcoin” section of this month’s Bitcoin Capitalist macro overview).
Because we think CBDCs will invariably launch as, or morph into, personal carbon footprint quotas.
Right now, what we call “the fiat money system” uses debt for money. That’s no longer sustainable, so what we’re expecting is an attempt to switch what we loosely identify as “money”, away from symbolic tokens backed by debt, to social credit scores, backed by personal carbon footprint quotas.
In the future, what we loosely identify as 'money' will switch from being symbolic tokens backed by debt, to social credit scores, backed by personal carbon footprint quotas. Share on XExpanding on this theme, probably, is another report from Future Labs on “Neo-Collectivism”, which may give us a hint at how the policymakers of late stage globalism will seek to preempt free markets and universal human rights with a “we’re all in this together” retread of what is essentially, communism:
“Society is facing a mass re-organisation. United by values of empathy and community, consumers are shunning individualism in favour of alliances that are decentralising industries and redistributing power at scale”
LS:N Global and Future Laboratories seem like a wannabe World Economic Forum. Lots of pronouns on the “Team” page, and leaning heavily into that euphemistic WEF-speak that makes technocratic communism sound benign and fashionable.
I ended up shelling out £265 to by the Neo-Collectivist Megatrend report (a 40 page PDF) and what I found in there was along the lines of what one might expect, but it was alarming all the same.
In the next post to this one, we’ll dive into it and find out just how the “Zalpha Generation” is poised to usher us into an era of Systemic Endemic Socialism.
My forthcoming ebook The CBDC Survival Guide will give you the tools and the knowledge to navigate coming era of Monetary Apartheid. Bombthrower subscribers will get free when it drops, sign up today.
If you’re curious about The Bitcoin Capitalist Letter I will be closing it off to new subscribers soon. I explain why to Bombthrower subscribers.
Follow me on Nostr, or Twitter.
This just in, public recommends reduction in experts by 85%. Gallows being erected at every light post on Constitution Avenue.
I wonder what sort of loophole the 'special' people will have to be able to fly around like they do now, as part of their notable pump of those 'averages'
How many countries will have their own new Bastille Day over such an attempt?
Hmmm, and the City of Toronto is asking the feds to use one(or more) of the local Armouries to house the homeless, because nothing bad can come of that.
We Texians will not bow down to these "experts" well will give them a belly full of lead.
The site has the correct address…somebody should throw a bomb at you and blow up your miserable, pathetic ass!!!!
Lol. Ok bootlicker.
"the only viable one we have, nuclear, is not considered clean energy by the climate cult"
A Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, has stated that he is now in favour of nuclear energy, and the new generation of climate activists are arguing with Greenpeace to change their stance, in spite that it's very much their foundational principle.
Of course, I do appreciate that it's far, far easier for the American Republican Party to bully a non-profit than to own up to the shady deals that Ronald Reagan and his clique made with evangelical churches back in the day in Colorado Springs. Namely, that after the oil crisis, it was obvious that one day oil was likely to get fought about, and there was this little issue that the biggest oil field in the world is right next to Mecca, but that could be dealt with because Jerusalem is not far away, either. So in case of Holy War, the evangelicals could help fight fire with fire. And in the meantime, the American military had plenty of secrets that believers needed to get distracted from. And if the war ended up being not over oil but over uranium with Russia, well, in Russia they were communist unbelievers, so it would all work out one way or the other.
It's easier to make a small nonprofit switch beliefs than to make a big party give up on power, right? Pity that in order to not give up on power, they had to give up on just about all their beliefs. And climate change denial is the one they cling on to the most, in spite that it's flying in the face of 19th-century physics. Seems like the whole energy issue is just a little bit too close to their preferred end-time scenario and the dirty little secrets they keep around it.
New Member Here…just getting on mailing list.
You’re in.
When I see Bill Gates give up his five mansions and his $75 million yacht and live in a simple normal house, then maybe I’ll look into the carbon reduction issue for credibility. Right now he and others pushing this climate extinction agenda to control personal freedoms are blatant hypocrites based on their self indulgent lifestyles while they tell others to restrict how they live.
End Time Messenger,World Predictions Smart AI The Days of Noah and Lot https://cherubimq.github.io/github.io/