Izabella Kaminska, formerly the Editor of the FT’s Alphaville and now the Editor of the Blind Spot, has flagged up an alarming passage in a document published in January 2021 by Deutsche Bank Research entitled ‘What we must do to Rebuild’. Eric Heyman has written the section about the tough choices the EU must face it if’s to meet its goal of achieving ‘climate neutrality’ by 2050 – Net Zero, in other words – and says the following:
The impact of the current climate policy on people’s everyday lives is still quite abstract and acceptable for many households. Climate policy comes in the form of higher taxes and fees on energy, which make heating and mobility more expensive. Some countries have set minimum energy efficiency standards for buildings or similar rules in other areas. However, climate policy does not determine our lives. We take key consumption decisions, for example whether we travel at all, how much we travel and which means of transport we use, whether we live in a large house or a small apartment and how we heat our homes, how many electronic devices we have and how intensely we use them or how much meat and exotic fruit we eat. These decisions tend to be made on the basis of our income, not on climate considerations.
If we really want to achieve climate neutrality, we need to change our behaviour in all these areas of life. This is simply because there are
no adequate cost-effective technologies yet to allow us to maintain our living standards in a carbon-neutral way. That means that carbon prices will have to rise considerably in order to nudge people to change their behaviour. Another (or perhaps supplementary) option is to tighten regulatory law considerably. I know that “eco-dictatorship” is a nasty word. But we may have to ask ourselves the question whether and to what extent we may be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship (in the form of regulatory law) in order to move towards climate neutrality.
When he says we have to “ask ourselves… whether and to what extent we may be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship” I don’t think he has a Net Zero referendum in mind. Rather, by ‘ourselves’ he means the EU’s ruling class. It has to ask itself whether it’s willing to pass laws forcing the EU’s population to modify its behaviour to meet the 2050 ‘climate neutrality’ target, regardless of whether it has a democratic mandate to do so or not.
I suppose we should be grateful that at least Heyman hasn’t tried to sugar coat this. It should be clear what “eco-dictatorship” means, even to those most reluctant to accept that Net Zero zealots have little love for democracy.
Stop Press: Izabella Kaminska has interviewed the neo-Malthusian Turkish-American economist Nourel Roubini for the Blind Spot podcast. In his book Megathreats: The Ten Trends that Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them he argues that individual freedoms will have to be sacrificed if we’re to contain another pandemic or avoid a climate catastrophe.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Have you noticed how all these b’stards who think there are too many people on the planet haven’t yet volunteered to leave.?
Yeah, doubt he’s living on spuds grown in his back garden and clothes woven from whatever grows locally.
C- nts! Soz .
Bring it on. Let him run his mouth. These tossers may yet undo themselves by their sheer arrogance.
They’ve kept it pretty well hidden so far, but the day will come when the majority wakes up to this and what it all means. You can’t fool all the people, all the time…
“no adequate cost-effective technologies yet”. If he replaced “yet” with “ever” he might have more support.
He’d have more support from us, not from the people who are going to make loads and loads of wonga from the inadequate and far from cost-effective technologies they are trying to force on us.
Well there is that fusion breakthrough….
A German invoking the Nazi dictatorship to create an Eco Fascist Totalitarianism over a rounding error plant food trace chemical necessary for life, 95% emitted by Gaia.
Shocking (not). The Nazis were the first Green Fascists weren’t they.
Have a look at the other article detailling how climate loonism is financed by (left-wing) US billionaires. These also have the current German ruling caste in their pockets, much to our (me and quite a few fellow Germans) chagrin. Seems the people who saved the world from evil fascism weren’t the kind of kind saviours they made everyone else believe. Maybe time to update some prejudices here and there.
Never fear. In seventy years our grandchildren will put a random secretary-typist on trial, she’ll get a lap on the wrist and everything will be tickety-boo again.
The irony is totally lost on them, it seems.
Eric Heyman, of course, knows what is best for everyone. As does Roubini.
They consider themselves the clever ones, who know what is best. Those who disagree with them aren’t clever. They’re stupid and need to be told what to do. For their own good mind you.
Eco-dictatorship is a nasty word – it ain’t the word I’m worried about, moron, it’s the actual dictatorship. And no, it is not a price any of us *has* to pay and it is not up to a German bank, parroting a German-led EU, to dictate to us. If Germany were as clever as it thinks, it would not be on the hook under Target2 for some 900 billion euros that southern Europe cannot ever repay. There is no doubt in my mind that some of this eco-nonsense and economic destruction is in part based on a change in plan – the euro could not make southern Europe richer, so now they’re trying for the more simple approach of evening things out by making northern Europe poorer. This will happen through economic destruction, raging inflation and transfers of ‘eco’ taxes from the industrialised north to Brussels, who will then buy favours in the south. After all, no skin off the nose of the Snowballs and Napoleons in Brussels who is rich or poor in Europe, as long as the pigs’ pockets are filled.
If individual freedoms have to be sacrificed, let us start with those who preach it – every EU commissioner can live on the minimum wage and pay tax, no 1800 euro p/m cost-of-living increases for them. No chauffeur-driven limos or private jets – on their bikes. All meetings from now on via computer.
Besides the outrageous suggestion that a handful of people should demand that other people give up their freedoms and lives (the latter is coming, Canada is already gearing up to get rid of the ill and the elderly), these morons cannot even fathom the possibility that they might be wrong – and then what? What if, after making sufficient sacrifices to the Climate Gods, we still do not stop climate change? What if we reach ‘climate neutrality’ and – oh nooooo – the seas still keep rising, the temperature keeps getting hotter? As with corona, we will have spent billions upon billions placing all our eggs in one basket and achieving absolutely nothing, nada, zero, zilch. I am not saying I actually agree with the climate alarmism, this is food for thought for those who do actually believe in it – what if all the measures you take completely fail (you know, like zero covid and the safe and effective vaccine have completely failed), what is your plan B?
I must add, I despise the manipulative phrasing he uses, PM Rutte does it all the time – we must ask ourselves how much dictatorship we are willing to accept. You can ask yourself how much of a fascist criminal you wish to be and why you have no shame, trying to coerce and manipulate people into something you (are paid to) believe in.
And no, it is not a price any of us *has* to pay and it is not up to a German bank, parroting a German-led EU, to dictate to us. If Germany were as clever as it thinks, it would not be on the hook under Target2 for some 900 billion euros that southern Europe cannot ever repay.
The EU grew out of a project of Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schumann to intertwine the French and German steel and coal industries to a degree that would render a future German revanche war against France impossible forever. If Germany was leading what you believe it leads, it would not be on the hook to … etc as both together don’t really make sense. But then, why ever update one’s prejudices when it’s so nice to keep getting shafted while fighting the traditional windmills one likes to fight most …
I largely agree with your post Jane but there is no “climate emergency,” these phrases are simply the covers for depopulation, coercion and control much as the C1984 was the starting gun.
Now that the covid scam has crumbled, the climate scam is being dusted off again. I thought we had left it behind a decade ago, when it seemed that everything[1] was caused by “global warming”, which is what it was called before it started cooling, and so had to be called “climate change” at the start of research funding applications. The parallels between how the two are being managed are increasingly apparent: alarm the population by incremental nudging into believing that natural phenomena are being caused by human behaviour, offer an expensive ineffective remedy, suppress dissent and raise taxes. The startling thing as that in the UK we (not just Oxford councillors and academics) seem to want ever more of it. These psyops are remarkably effective, especially when co-ordinated with media manipulation.
[1] https://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Indeed. Even a “benevolent” dictatorship is still a dictatorship, just like a gilded cage is still a cage. You can put lipstick on a pig, and it’s still gonna be a pig.
Well said,,
And who made him the new god of climate control implementation ? Tosser
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that climate policies are environmental policies anymore. We redistribute the worlds wealth via climate policy”—–Edenhoffer IPCC, some years ago. Many ordinary people busy with work and family life will see what is on the 6 o’clock News and assume there is a “climate emergency” because that is what the 6 o’clock News is telling them. They don’t have the time to investigate every issue, and they assume that investigative journalists are doing that for them. Nope they are not. ———-Unless you come to a site like this or GB News eg then mainstream media are simply compliant activists who question NOTHING. But if something is really about science, then you question everything. So as Edenhoffer said above there is this “illusion” that this is all about the environment, the climate and the planet——–Nope. It isn’t
According to the person posting as Mogawi GBN has just run a screaming headline about the Dangerous(!!1) New(!!2) Chinese(!!3) COVID Variant(!!4) which is a danger to everyone (according to the US state department). Hence, one can safely count them out here.
Almost, but you can call me ”Mogs”. Meanwhile, I’m still staggered by this German disaster graph. It’s the incredible stark contrast that does it. There is no way that any sane and cognitively intact person could possibly look at this and declare ”climate change!”
https://palexander.substack.com/p/germany-and-the-impact-of-mass-vaccination
Correct.
I’m sick of listening to these deluded, sociopathic alarmists who believe we should all live in fear of the same imaginary demons as they do. If they think the world’s population should be reduced then let them lead by example. I’d happily donate to any crowdfund to help them buy the pills.
BTW, if that’s a photo of the woman she could have at least shaved first
The UK is just as bad, stop harping on about the EU being the only baddie in that regard.
And that under Conservative governments!
They have all drunk the Kool-Aid.
Which is why debate or voting is futile to bring about change again.
Only bankruptcy and a total collapse or a revolution can change things back to normal/sanity again.
My money is on the former, and their ‘après nous le deluge’ spending habits suggest that theirs is on it too.
That WEFer Roubini is in on it is helpful though.
He has been the most costly economist to investors who listened to him for the last 3 decades.
The epitome of the broken clock that is right twice a day.
Read carefully. It is already in UN Agenda 2030, which is embedded in our institutions.
Of course eco = dictatorship.
It is impossible to try and ‘Protect the Planet’ without first suppressing then ultimately eradicating human beings, because they require to ‘Exploit the Planet’ to exist (with the most vulnerable, young, disabled, sick, elderly etc at the head of this queue).
And this has nothing to do with top down conspiratorial agendas, environmentalism is a widely held misanthropic and inherently tyrannical ideology of the same type as Puritanism, Marxism, Fascism etc (indeed there are strong cross-overs between all these creeds).
Deutsche Bank should change their name to Douche Bank.
The EU has plenty of experience of dictatorships so it’s hardly surprising they’re planning another one.
Jean-Claude Juncker: “We know what we must do …. we just don’t know how to get re-elected once we’ve done it.”
So they don’t bother with elections.
It’s all nonsense!!
“The idea of ‘man-made climate change’ is described with the hypothesis called the greenhouse effect.
It is the greenhouse effect that describes how increased saturation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should increase the temperature at the Earth’s surface.
The greenhouse effect is thus the basis for calling ‘climate change’ man-made. The IPCC’s report from 2013, chapter 1, page 126, “The Physical Science Basis” describes the greenhouse effect as follows:
It is claimed by the IPCC that downward heat radiation (The downward directed component of this LWR) from the atmosphere adds heat to the lower atmospheric layers and to the Earth’s surface.
This is the basic principle of the greenhouse effect as described by the IPCC. The greenhouse effect is the basic science (The Physical Science Basis) in the IPCC’s computer climate models.
It is indisputable that sunlight is converted into infrared heat (LWR) at the Earth’s surface and that this heat is transferred to the atmosphere.
But the claim that heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface, where it came from, reveals a misunderstanding of heat as a concept.
The claim is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat transfer always takes place from hot to cold:
A substance cannot heat its own heat source ..”
Full article ..