Climate activists oppose air travel and seek to restrict freedom of movement.
A recent study conducted by the research firm Consumer Science and Analytics Institute revealed that 41 percent of French citizens are in favor of limiting individuals to only four flights in their lifetime due to concerns about climate change. Even more alarming, 59 percent of 18-24-year-olds in France support this extreme restriction on air travel.
These statistics reflect a global trend of demonizing and restricting freedom of movement. France has already banned domestic flights that are less than two and a half hours long, and now the entire European Union is considering adopting a similar ban on short-haul air travel.
The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, an international climate organization consisting of nearly one hundred cities worldwide (including 14 American cities), aims to limit air travel to one short-haul flight every three years per person by 2030.
However, if C40 Cities achieves its goal, even this limited air travel will be eliminated. With C40 cities representing about one 12th of the global population, implementing this restriction would result in a significant reduction in the air industry’s emissions. This would effectively cripple the air industry, which has already struggled to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic.
The United Nations (UN) has an even more ambitious plan to ban all flights that do not use sustainable aviation fuels by 2050. However, sustainable aviation fuels are currently not scalable and prohibitively expensive. This goal would lead to the closure of many airlines and make air travel accessible only to the wealthy.
Increasing the cost of air travel is not an unintended consequence of climate policies; it is a deliberate strategy. Climate activists like Eric Holthaus argue that cheap air travel is incompatible with a sustainable planet.
It is clear that climate activists have a broader agenda beyond air travel. They are also targeting private vehicles. Countries like the U.K. and California have plans to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles, and there is a push to transition to electric vehicles (EVs). However, EVs rely on batteries that require environmentally damaging mining practices. The combination of high EV prices, carbon taxes, and restrictions on gas stations will make vehicle ownership unattainable for many.
Climate fanatics are not just after gas-powered vehicles; they want to eliminate all privately owned vehicles. The goal is to transition to “shared mobility” and reduce carbon emissions. This would severely limit individual autonomy and freedom of movement.
Furthermore, the concept of “15-minute smart cities” is gaining traction. These cities aim to provide all necessary amenities within a 15-minute walk, eliminating the need for private vehicles. However, this convenience comes at the cost of surveillance and control over people’s movements. The implementation of sophisticated surveillance technology raises concerns about privacy and freedom.
It is evident that these climate policies are not solely about the environment; they are about power. The ruling class, including government officials, billionaires, and corporate leaders, exploit crises to consolidate their power and exert control over the population. This pattern of using fear to justify authoritarian measures can be seen throughout history.
Censorship plays a crucial role in maintaining the illusion of consensus and suppressing dissenting voices. Climate activists and organizations like the United Nations actively engage in censorship to control the narrative and manipulate public opinion. Scientists who challenge the prevailing climate narrative are silenced and marginalized.
It is essential to challenge the lies and spread the truth to protect our freedoms. Climate policies should be based on sound data and scientific debate, not on the agenda of a select few. Only by exposing the truth can we resist the tyranny of those who seek to control us.
rnrn
What are the potential drawbacks of relying solely on public transportation, walking, or cycling in an ideal world?
Transportation. In their ideal world, everyone would rely solely on public transportation, walking, or cycling. This would severely limit personal freedom and mobility, as individuals would be forced to adhere to fixed schedules and routes.
The push to restrict air travel and ban gas-powered vehicles is based on the premise that these activities contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. While it is true that the transportation sector is a major contributor to emissions, it is important to consider the broader context.
Firstly, the focus on air travel is disproportionate. According to the International Energy Agency, aviation accounts for only about 2% of global CO2 emissions. Targeting air travel alone will not solve the climate crisis. Moreover, technological advancements in aviation, such as more fuel-efficient planes and the development of sustainable aviation fuels, are already underway.
Secondly, the demonization of gas-powered vehicles overlooks the fact that they have played a crucial role in global economic development and personal mobility. For many people, private vehicles are a necessity, especially in areas with limited public transportation options. Electric vehicles may be a viable alternative, but they come with their own challenges, such as the reliance on rare-earth minerals and the lack of charging infrastructure.
Instead of imposing extreme restrictions on air travel and private transportation, it would be more productive to focus on developing sustainable alternatives and supporting technological innovations. This includes investing in cleaner fuels for aviation, expanding public transportation networks, and incentivizing the adoption of electric vehicles.
Furthermore, efforts to address climate change should not come at the expense of personal freedom and economic prosperity. Climate policies should be balanced and consider the needs and realities of different societies. Blanket bans and restrictions only serve to alienate and burden the average citizen, while the wealthy and privileged continue to have access to these conveniences.
In conclusion, the recent trend of demonizing and restricting air travel and private vehicles as a solution to climate change is misguided. It is important to consider the broader context and explore sustainable alternatives. Extremist measures will only lead to unintended consequences and further inequality. A balanced approach that takes into account both environmental concerns and individual freedoms is essential for a sustainable and equitable future.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...