As world government progresses, we as a citizenry act almost like stunned cattle, unable to mount any viable resistance. For decades, we have ignored the initiatives of the U.N., treating it as it demands to be treated, as a noble rescue agency that delivers food and blankets. Criticism is sharply limited, as is analysis. The shouting from Alex Jones and Glenn Beck is treated as madness.
We never see the U.N. on the ground, as it were, in Africa where it is almost a quasi-government. There, it acts like no other cultural institution, which is to say with complete impunity and zero oversight by any independent body with power to yank its funding.
And, because of our quiescence, its methodology — act without permission or impunity — is advancing on the developed world. Behind the scrim of the media which treats anything from the U.N. the way fundamentalists do Bible verses, every sovereign state is setting aside one-third of its land mass to be managed under rules crafted by the U.N., handed down like a Papal bull. There will be no local control, no state control, no national control once this has been completed. Equally, since the U.N. claims sovereignty over the oceans, dutiful Canada is setting aside 30 percent of its waters.
Hey, we’re “peacekeepers.”
There is no organized resistance to any of this. As a result, here we are at C40 cities, “a global network of mayors of the world’s leading cities that are united in action to confront the climate crisis.” The mayors of C40 cities, which include Seattle, New York, and Toronto, have vowed to reduce food emissions by 33 percent by 2030. All the food that the city provides to schools, government cafeterias, caterers, etc., will be tracked and monitored, with a view to “emission reduction.” This goes along with other reductions ending in the following:
By the year 2030 of “0 kg [of] meat consumption,” “0 kg [of] dairy consumption,” “3 new clothing items per person per year,” “0 private vehicles” owned, and “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.”
There is flexibility within these ambitious goals, so don’t panic yet. But if you must, here is the full document:
Last month the Mayor of New York, in an almost comical routine, was forced to deny that his new city-wide food program was going to track meat consumption, whereupon, a few weeks later, after the news cycle was forgotten, stated that yes, indeed, meat was bad for the climate and they planned to cut “food emissions” by 33 percent. The fact that meat and dairy create the most emissions is not mentioned in the PR, but is in the initial report.
This is an almost perfect example of information management. An initiative is announced, it is greeted with paranoia, the “fact-checkers” go to work denying the initiative ever existed, and a month later, the initiative is fact. It’s pretty clever behaviorism, and based on the 24-hour news cycle, counting on the fact that people will have forgotten. We don’t. We just feel unease. This too, is deliberate.
A few weeks ago, the apparent forced introduction of mNRA vaccines into cattle and pork burned through the internet, which required another climbdown, which stated that it was not a “requirement” that ranchers use mNRA. Various boutique operations sent out disclaimers saying they would never ever use mNRA on their animals, Politifact had fun driving back and forth across the “conspiracy theory,” and for the umpteenth time mocking the Trogs in flyover country who were “afraid” about what’s in their bacon.
Don’t worry, it’s perfectly safe.
The more “thoughtful” outfits, like Canada’s CBC, sent an actual reporter to a Guelph”s School of Agriculture and discussed mNRA thoughtfully with a professor who opined, as they do, that mNRA was a very good idea, that it had been researched thoroughly as had all vaccines, and it was important to counter the “misinformation” that had flared during the Covid vaccines. But:
There haven’t been studies on the side effects of humans eating animals that have been vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, Sharif said, but there’s no evidence to show that there would be any.
So when the journal Pork Business announces that mNRA vaccines will not be present in food, they are asserting this based on… a negative argument?
Never mind! In fact, the mNRA vaccine for pork and beef is, in fact, “a good thing,” “researched widely,” so it would almost certainly be used in industrial cattle and pig farming, because who wants an entire herd getting Covid and falling over? One’s bank and insurance company would object. Plus, there is no evidence to show that there are side effects that would impact humans. Over two-thirds of the U.S. is farmed by industrial farmers, so inevitably mNRA vaccines would be used in two-thirds of cattle and pigs.
My head hurts. It’s meant to hurt. I’m meant to say, “Owwwww, I’m going to stop thinking now and watch TV programming.” Instead, let’s unpack. First, C40 cities will approve, acquire, and manage food delivery to all government entities that feed people: government cafeterias, caterers, school lunches, university food provision and so on. It will nottrack meat and dairy consumption but it will reduce emissions by 33 percent by 2030, without tracking.
Let’s reword. It will track, but it will not reduce meat consumption, but it will reduce emissions, even though meat and dairy are responsible for most emissions. That is what fact-checking is. Sophistry.
Finally, all that conspiracy stuff about three new clothing items a year and one 1,500 mile trip every three years? Never mind:
This report does not advocate for the wholesale adoption of these more ambitious targets in C40 cities; rather, they are included to provide a set of reference points that cities, and other actors, can reflect on when considering different emission-reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.
I need a forelock to tug.
Elizabeth Nickson is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Originally appeared here.
