UK government report on 'behavioural changes' needed to achieve Net Zero in 2050 - staggering.

Hi ATS,

I've been focused mainly on CBDCs & how their implementation will spell the absolute end of freedom around the world. The CBDC is designed to generate a matrix of control which measures & regulates the handling of minor fiscal actions from the working & middle classes. This is a key aspect of the Agenda 2030 goals, many of which are being rolled out for trials in the UK & elsewhere in Europe & around the world as we speak. What most in the world have not yet realised is that CBDCs will be rolled out at the same time as '15 minute cities' become the norm rather than alleged cultural experiments to benefit the climate, which allegedly is suffering some sort of emergency (newsflash - it isn't).

Furthermore, a new report has been generated & is reported by the Expose website, a news site which came to prominence in the Alternative community around 2020, when the COVID plandemic was unfolding - they were amongst the first to properly gather real data & interpret it well, providing buckets of reference links for truth seekers to dig through. With the announcement, presentation & interpretation of this latest report, they have once again done a fantastic job at spreading truth to all those able to receive it (in the spiritual sense, not the internet sense).

The report announces several recommendations from supposed boffins at Oxford University & Imperial College London, which will be utterly crippling to the UK citizens. A few examples include:

1. All UK airports, with the exception of Heathrow, Glasgow & Belfast will have to close completely by 2029, with all onward journeys to be completed by rail... Bear in mind that in France, Macron has already banned all domestic flights. If you'd told someone back in 1993 that we'd all be forced to give up air travel for the sake of the environment, allegedly having some sort of crisis - even though the data does not bear out that allegation whatsoever.

2. All three remaining airports in the UK must then also close entirely, between 2030 & 2035, it seems. We are thus being undemocratically forced to abandon an entire indusrty which gives us the greatest of human liberties ever won before the 20th century - the freedom to move around the world as we see fit, if we have the money to do so. Clearly the WEF weren't kidding when they came up with the idea of confining us to 15 minute cities. Never being allowed to travel abroad or throughout the interior by plane ever again. We will be entirely prevented, except we take a long-duration cruise ship (taking two or three weeks off work, or more) from visiting far-flung destinations for our holidays, or to see family.

3. We are to be stopped, by law, from doing anything that might produce emissions, such as the consumption of beef or lamb meat. We will be forced - by artificial inflation of prices - to reduce our consumption of these meats by 50% by 2029. By 2049 beef & lamb will be phased out completely, all food imports must enter by train rather than by air or ship. Again, this is forced, it is undemocratic, it is downright criminal to force farmers to cull their herds & shut down their multi-generational farms, because sustaining the business has become an impossibility due to artificially inflated costs & tyrannical government regulations. This is already happening in Holland. They also want to pull a Sri Lanka on us & ban all artificial fertiliser - doing the exact same thing in Sri Lanka two years ago led to an economic crash & recession of immense magnitude, generating riots & famine throughout the nation ever since then. That was directly ordered by the World Economic Forum, and you know for a fact that they had a hand in tailoring these newest reports being handed to our government.

4. Construction of new buildings must be halted by 2050...!!!!!!!

They genuinely intend to prevent any new buildings being put up in the United Kingdom after the year 2050. The only ones then allowed to build will be the government. Property values will go through the roof, so anyone receiving UBI through Central Bank Digital Currencies will find themselves perpetually priced out of owning property, though savvy landlords will potentially become overnight millionaire & billionaire tycoons. The new generations will find themselves stuck in perpetual rented accommodation, the whole nation will be ripped asunder by the action, which will tie in very nicely with repossessing houses & setting up CBDC UBI schemes.

There is even more at the linked article, I fully recommend reading it & the site in general to stay abreast of everything that's going on in CLOWN_WORLD these days. I foresee trouble ahead, and it's all going to link back around into CBDCs as a 'matrix of total domination' when they are implemented & the mission creep begins, as the red line begins shuffling ever closer to our collective sense of which hill we are prepared to die on.

God Bless,



FITO.

Here's a little excerpt from the article, dated 12th April 2023.

The authors of the report state the key messages are as follows –

In addition to reducing our energy demand, delivering zero emissions with today’s technologies requires the phasing out of flying, shipping, lamb and beef, blast-furnace steel and cement.

They also state this on jobs and location –

There are two key implications for how we live our lives: first, buildings will become much more expensive because the restrictions on building which generate substantial scarcities; second, transport will become much more expensive because the limits on air travel will generate excess demand for other forms of transport.

Those who are starting secondary school now, in 2019, will be 43 in 2050. Thinking about what education is appropriate for a very different set of industries is a key question. Should we still be training airplane pilots? Or aeronautical engineers?

And they state this on implementation of the requirements –

The changes in behaviour to achieve Absolute Zero are clearly substantial. In principle, these changes could be induced through changing prices and thus providing clear incentives for behaviour to change. The alternative is that the government prohibits certain types of behaviour and regulates on production processes.

You may be wondering how on earth they are going to get the support of the public in shutting the airports and stopping the consumption of beef and lamb?

Well, we could argue they are already well on their way to ensuring the closure of many airports thanks to the draconian laws that the British people have been living under since March 2020 in the name of protecting the NHS and saving lives.

Is it just a coincidence that four months after the release of the report, the UK Government brought in the coronavirus act and implemented a national lockdown which has decimated the travel industry? A quick read through the report certainly suggests the real reason for lockdown may have been so that the Government can meet its legal commitment to reduce emissions.

They will get the support just as they got the support for implementing ridiculous, draconian laws under the guise of stopping the spread of Covid-19. Laws which have decimated small business, taken away our freedoms, and created what will be the greatest health crisis to have ever been due to turning the NHS into the National Covid Service and then the National Vaccination Service.

They managed all the above through psychological manipulation and coercion. That is not an opinion, it is fact, and it is all documented in official UK Government documents which you can read here, and here.

And they are going to use the exact same tactics to ensure you allow all airports to close and never eat beef or lamb again, this is what the ‘Absolute Zero’ report recommends the UK Government implements to achieve their legally required targets –

Social norms and individual behaviours

There is a misalignment between the scale of actions recommended by government (e.g. energy conservation) and those most commonly performed by individuals (e.g. recycling). Actions which can have a big effect, such as better insulation in houses and not flying, are being ignored in favour of small, high profile actions, such as not using plastic straws. This is enabling individuals to feel satisfied that they are ‘doing their bit’ without actually making the lifestyle changes required to meet the zero emissions target. If large scale social change is to be successful a new approach is needed.

Whilst the thought of society taking radical, meaningful steps to meet zero emission targets could be criticised for being idealistic, we can learn from historical cultural changes. Not long ago, smoking cigarettes was encouraged and considered to be acceptable in public spaces that children frequented, drink-driving was practiced with such regularity that it killed 1000 people per year in the UK, and discrimination based on sexual orientation was written into law. These behaviours now seem reprehensible, showing society is capable acknowledging the negative consequences of certain behaviours and socially outlawing their practice. Focus should therefore be centred on expediting the evolution of new social norms with confidence that change can happen.

Evidence from behavioural science, and the long experience in public health of changing behaviours around smoking and alcohol, shows that information alone is not enough to change behaviour. To make the types of changes described in this report, we will have to think more broadly on the economic and physical contexts in which designers, engineers and members of the public make decisions that determine carbon emissions.

At the same time, clear, accurate and transparent information on problems and the efficacy of proposed solutions is essential for maintaining public support for policy interventions. The phrasing of communication is also important. Messages framed about fear and climate crisis have been found to be ineffective at motivating change.

The longevity of the challenge of reducing emissions, and the lack of immediate or even apparent consequences of small individual actions mean it is challenging to link to them to the large-scale climate crisis. This allows individuals to make decisions which contrast with their desire to reduce emissions.

Scientific description is not always the most effective means of communication, and language used to promote zero emissions should no longer focus on an ‘ecofriendly’ and ‘green’ lexicon, but rather candid descriptions of actions that appeal to human fulfilment. Evidence from time-use studies shows that human fulfilment does not strictly depend on using energy – the activities we enjoy the most are the ones with the lowest energy requirements.

Consumers can be satisfied in a zero emissions landscape.

But they will also get the support they need by conditioning and indoctrinating your children in schools –

‘Starting with the difficult decisions, an educational setting should provide a timeline for actions to be taken by humanity in order to ensure that we hit our carbon reduction targets by 2050. By working backwards from 2050, and sequentially working out the order and timing in which key mitigation actions need to be taken, a roadmap for the necessary restraint can be established.

Across the secondary school system, this roadmap is essential in eliciting the questions which will inevitably come from the school children. This will enable an exploration of real change in the mind sets of those who will need to embrace change more than ever before later in their lives.

Huge questions will emerge, such as: will internal-combustion engines disappear, will aeroplanes disappear, will meat and-dairy agriculture disappear, and will we need to stop building things? By empowering school children to realise that asking the huge questions is appropriate, we will enable change to be embraced through education.

All of this will be done to allegedly reduce carbon emissions due to the alleged danger of global warming..


EXPOSE website report: All UK Airports must close within the next 10 years, beef and lamb will be banned, and construction of new buildings will cease in the name of “Climate Change” according to Government Report

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

No thanks....

Let them eat bugs. I am having Beef and Bacon.

LOL


THIS fits perfectly in today's world:

So basically they need to make everyone a slave.

They want to enforce communism on the world.

It's that simple.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Excellent thread, bro.

CBDC coupled with DIgital ID will take care of anything we used to value as freedom.

Things are moving quickly...

God Bless ya FITO

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I will first post as a moderator, because the matter I want to comment on is in the thread "form" only.

Your posted second page contains an unruly quote. I think it's too long. I understand the point of providing the material, but it need trimming. You must allow your source to 'provide ' the information they authored, if only to be fair to the body of their work. Also, a long quote like that gets crimped into a smaller space making it a chore to read.

--------------------------------

Now... with that out of the way... as a member, I would like to comment on the topic...

I call to your attention that I am not a citizen of the U.K. You might find my approach or questions obtuse or ignorant... I assure the ignorance is real... no sarcasm or double entendre intended.

When I see these kinds of "contracted reports" it gets a bit tiresome. Not because they don't matter, not because they are not indicative of the intent of those proclaiming mandates on your fellow citizens... but because they represent cowardice to me.

It's the cowardice of the government, or rather, those who stand in the halls of government, in your place, under your authority, representing you.

Why is a think-tank, or university, or a 'global' group making these kinds of assertions about the governance and control of your nation? Did you ask them to do this? It is a question I find myself repeating as I listen to the inane self-serving drivel coming from globalist organizations that proclaim what you will eat, where you will go, what you can no longer do, or must do from now on. Who ARE these people? When you voted them in place did you not know them? Or, as I suspect, these are "appointees" and 'contracted' technocrats you never had the opportunity to vet?

The report itself contains NO indication of government authorship... this is not their work. Is it cowardice that makes the proclamatory decrees "sort of" "like" "as if" the government itself says this? Does the government really 'back' this, but wants someone else to deliver the plan so you wont hate them? Will they deign to discuss this? Or will they simply "comply" as they seem to with the WEF or the WHO? Will your government not acknowledge that this is THE UK government's plan? Or at least admit whose plan this is? They are willing to spend 'your' money to pay for them... don't you get to know? Or is it irrelevant to the citizens?

I noticed this:

The authors of this report are funded by the UK government
to support businesses and governments (national and
regional) to develop a future Industrial Strategy that’s
compatible with Zero Emissions. To do that, we have to
anticipate how we’ll make future goods and buildings, and
also think about what performance we want from them.

Notice the phrase "... anticipate how we'll make future goods and buidlings ..."

Does this not indicate that in the considerations of the future they have already decided (no more buildings for you?)

Did you all really get to 'decide' this? Who is making this plan? Surely you can't have held this option in the arena of public debate? Did I miss that?

I suppose its possible that the citizens of the UK see this as 'the way to go.' But that reality must be 'hidden' from my news sources (poor though they may seem.)

Is it not possible that this is just another hubris-filled attempt to make authoritative and official-sounding proclamations to rattle the population, and set the ground work for 'concessions and compromises?' (The cynic in me wonders exactly 'who' is postured to exploit those hypothetical compromises and concessions, since it is all 'anticipated.')

And what about this "Key Message?"

Key Message: We are legally committed to reducing the UK’s emissions to zero by 2050, and there
isn’t time to do this by deploying technologies that don’t yet operate at scale. We need a public
discussion about the changes required and how to convert them into a great Industrial Strategy.

Who exactly is "legally committed" to reducing the UK's emissions? The university that authored this document? The "group" that will 'execute' this so-called plan? You? Have you become "legally committed" to something by virtue of someone else's utterances?

Anyway... no offense intended... just some ignorant American questions...

We won't need any of that. Conformity, Parroting, and Obligations is all they need from us to keep us in line. It's not clown world btw, that would make you a clown too. If you have to rebel so much, why not focus that on good production instead. I guess it's what makes them differ from us. They do the talking while most people here whine like babies.

a reply to: Maxmars

You really are working this quite hard, aren't you.

a reply to: TonyS

I know, I know... maybe too much then. I apologize.

It just irks me that the UK press is, in many ways, like our press. They parrot the wrong people and posture as if you (the reader/citizen) are being told "how it is" and also that "you, and everyone else, agrees." Reports like this should have died out in the 1950's.

"Hey everybody, we know everything, and we're super smart... this is the plan... now... GO!" As if the mere citizen were a non-entity.

Sorry everyone... I guess I was being too forceful with my questions.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

TPTB just have to force it upon us citizens and we will have no choice but to chance our behaviours. Plain and simple.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

The UN has been pushing for the government to control all property for like 50 years because according to them private property ownership leads to "inequality". So I don't think there will be very wealthy private landlords. The "very wealthy" people now who are not "elites" connected to the new world government they want to form will lose everything they have. The run of the mill billionaires, Gates, Musk, Bezos are going to be the first ones they target because they have more to take in order to foster "equality". Equality to the UN does not mean everyone lives as we do in America or other developed countries. It means balance between extremes. So somewhere in between the poorest country, which right now is Burundi and the wealthiest country. Think about that.

Nowadays, they have their "8 predictions for the world in 2030" yes, by just 2030, the UN predicts that:

1. Products will have become services. “I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes,” writes Danish MP Ida Auken. Shopping is a distant memory in the city of 2030, whose inhabitants have cracked clean energy and borrow what they need on demand. It sounds utopian, until she mentions that her every move is tracked and outside the city live swathes of discontents, the ultimate depiction of a society split in two.

2. There is a global price on carbon. China took the lead in 2017 with a market for trading the right to emit a tonne of CO2, setting the world on a path towards a single carbon price and a powerful incentive to ditch fossil fuels, predicts Jane Burston, Head of Climate and Environment at the UK’s National Physical Laboratory. Europe, meanwhile, found itself at the centre of the trade in cheap, efficient solar panels, as prices for renewables fell sharply.

3. US dominance is over. We have a handful of global powers. Nation states will have staged a comeback, writes Robert Muggah, Research Director at the Igarapé Institute. Instead of a single force, a handful of countries – the U.S., Russia, China, Germany, India and Japan chief among them – show semi-imperial tendencies. However, at the same time, the role of the state is threatened by trends including the rise of cities and the spread of online identities.

4. Farewell hospital, hello home-spital. Technology will have further disrupted disease, writes Melanie Walker, a medical doctor and World Bank advisor. The hospital as we know it will be on its way out, with fewer accidents thanks to self-driving cars and great strides in preventive and personalised medicine. Scalpels and organ donors are out, tiny robotic tubes and bio-printed organs are in.

5. We are eating much less meat. Rather like our grandparents, we will treat meat as a treat rather than a staple, writes Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology at the University of Leeds, UK. It won’t be big agriculture or little artisan producers that win, but rather a combination of the two, with convenience food redesigned to be healthier and less harmful to the environment.

6. Today’s Syrian refugees, 2030’s CEOs.Highly educated Syrian refugees will have come of age by 2030, making the case for the economic integration of those who have been forced to flee conflict. The world needs to be better prepared for populations on the move, writes Lorna Solis, Founder and CEO of the NGO Blue Rose Compass, as climate change will have displaced 1 billion people.

7. The values that built the West will have been tested to breaking point. We forget the checks and balances that bolster our democracies at our peril, writes Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch.

8. “By the 2030s, we'll be ready to move humans toward the Red Planet.” What’s more, once we get there, we’ll probably discover evidence of alien life, writes Ellen Stofan, Chief Scientist at NASA. Big science will help us to answer big questions about life on earth, as well as opening up practical applications for space technology.

www.weforum.org...

Of course, this article is from 2016 so who knows what will actually happen, I doubt we will be on Mars by 2030. I doubt people will just love the idea of not owning anything. I think there is a flaw in the logic there because who wants to borrow a toothbrush or other personal things? Like..I'm a germaphobe. There is not enough laundry sanitizer in the world to get me to wear someone else's used clothes call me whatever you want. What about the underwear? Is that borrowed too? Who wants to give up their property they worked for? The governments will have to take it, right?

a reply to: Maxmars

I think it has something to do with the Paris Agreement. Did UK sign it?

To keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C  – as called for in the Paris Agreement – emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.

www.un.org...

Or maybe part of the Glasgow pact? I think it is just assumed to be a given that governments will go along with very extreme measures to stop "climate change" because as they say, we only get one planet and they really seem to be pushing the climate change stuff right now. Not that I agree that most of climate change is even man-made, and I don't think "net zero" is the same as "absolute zero".

So, this report is over three years old and was designed to spur debate around the implications for absolute net-zero with current technologies. Interesting, that the UK FIRES initiative is helping to inform wider industrial strategy.

Don't panic. It's not law!

a reply to: Maxmars

Who exactly is "legally committed" to reducing the UK's emissions? The university that authored this document? The "group" that will 'execute' this so-called plan? You? Have you become "legally committed" to something by virtue of someone else's utterances?

Since our Conservative government signed up to the ridiculous UN Paris Climate change agreement in 2015 we are legally committed as a Nation , but of course it's we the people who suffer the consequences of their expensive virtue signaling .

To tackle climate change and its negative impacts, world leaders at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris reached a breakthrough on 12 December 2015: the historic Paris Agreement.

The Agreement sets long-term goals to guide all nations:

substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees Celsius while pursuing efforts to limit the increase even further to 1.5 degrees; review countries’ commitments every five years; provide financing to developing countries to mitigate climate change, strengthen resilience and enhance abilities to adapt to climate impacts.
The Agreement is a legally binding international treaty. It entered into force on 4 November 2016. Today, 194 Parties (193 States plus the European Union) have joined the Paris Agreement.

The Agreement includes commitments from all countries to reduce their emissions and work together to adapt to the impacts of climate change,and calls on countries to strengthen their commitments over time. The Agreement provides a pathway for developed nations to assist developing nations in their climate mitigation and adaptation efforts while creating a framework for the transparent monitoring and reporting of countries’ climate goals.
www.un.org...

It's a National disaster just waiting to happen , the agreement not climate change.

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: TonyS

I know, I know... maybe too much then. I apologize.

It just irks me that the UK press is, in many ways, like our press. They parrot the wrong people and posture as if you (the reader/citizen) are being told "how it is" and also that "you, and everyone else, agrees." Reports like this should have died out in the 1950's.

"Hey everybody, we know everything, and we're super smart... this is the plan... now... GO!" As if the mere citizen were a non-entity.

Sorry everyone... I guess I was being too forceful with my questions.

Not at all.

You're absolutely spot on with your assertions.

For me, it feels like they are just Steamrolling along, wondering how much we will take before we finally crack.

a reply to: Maxmars

Well, it sounds as if much of your criticism was correct.

As a side note. The move to electric cars sounds great, but the environmental and human consequences of lithium mining, and the mining of dependent materials like cobalt, is quietly ignored by the Great and the Good.

It's a ridiculous situation we are creating, that by us feel good and "environmental", we are destroying the ecology and people in other places. Out of sight is - in this situation - is definitely out of mind. It shows a moral deficiency of the environmental lobby, that they allow this to happen.

And me, an environmentalist and conservationist.

originally posted by: Maxmars


It just irks me that the UK press is, in many ways, like our press.
.

Aye Mate, they are all the same.

Like the think tanks, all with the same purpose to lend "credibility"
to otherwise outlandish ideas and policies.

Like the un elected policy makers we have here in The USA.

Like DARPA and DOD, Liike the CIA and other aplphabet soups.

We have no idea what is coming, until it is ready to hit and then
it is too late. Honestly, did you ever think you would see the day
when credit scores will be based on think tanks policy papers
rather than financial responsibility and a good record?

We are here Max.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Air travel does not have to end, just switch over to carbon-neutral operations


Bring back airships, at least as an interim option. New technologies could allow for clean generation of electric airships.


Worked for Germany for years before trans-oceanic aircraft were developed.


Ultimately, improved battery technology will be developed enough to allow electric airplanes to re-fill the skies.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I still meet people from time to time, who still think all this is conspiracy theory! LOL.... i feel for these sheep!