Tag Archives: energy rationing

Holding On To Our Freedom By A Thread

Posted on by

On Monday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted the following headline:

Is THIS the key to tackling climate change? Scientists claim World War II-style RATIONING of petrol, energy and meat could help countries slash their carbon emissions ‘rapidly and fairly’

Does anyone really believe that the quest to end our carbon emissions will be fair? Let’s start with private jets–it’s much less damaging to the environment to let people travel in airplanes that hold more than five or six people–sort of like mass transit only in the air. Are we going to limit the size of people’s houses–how many square feet do the Obamas and Bidens have? Should they be forced to take in people to average out their square footage? Don’t hold your breath.

The article reports:

Climate change could be tackled with the help of a World War II-style rationing of petrol, meat and the energy people use in their homes, UK scientists say.

They claim that this would help countries to slash their greenhouse gas emissions ‘rapidly and fairly’.

Researchers from the University of Leeds also said that governments could restrict the number of long-haul flights people make in a year or ‘limit the amount of petrol one can buy in a month’.

A population that can’t travel anywhere is much easier to control.

The article notes:

In much the same way as during World War Two, the researchers argue that carbon rationing would allow people to receive an equal portion of resources based on their needs, therefore sharing out the effort to protect the planet.

Lead author Dr Nathan Wood, who is now a postdoctoral fellow at Utrecht University’s Fair Energy Consortium, said: ‘The concept of rationing could help, not only in the mitigation of climate change, but also in reference to a variety of other social and political issues – such as the current energy crisis.’

The researchers add: ‘Rationing is often seen as unattractive, and therefore not a viable option for policy-makers. 

‘It is important to highlight the fact that this was not the case for many of those who had experienced rationing. 

‘It is important to emphasise the difference between rationing itself and the scarcity that rationing was a response to. 

‘Of course, people did welcome the end of rationing, but they were really celebrating the end of scarcity, and celebrating the fact that rationing was no longer necessary.’

I had not realized how far down the road to socialism we actually are.

Green Energy Policies Have Consequences

Posted on by

On Friday, PJ Media posted an article about the Swiss government’s winter plans for the Swiss people.

The article reports:

The alpine country — one of the wealthiest in the world — will severely restrict electric vehicles from its roads, according to a Daily Mail report. If the country runs out of power, EVs won’t be allowed out for anything but “essential” travel.

But the restrictions don’t end there.

The contingency plan calls for three levels of energy rationing.

Under the least extreme, most buildings would be limited to 20C (68F) and “people will be asked to limit their washing machines to a maximum of 40C [104F].”

Under the mid-tier, retail stores could find their hours reduced by two each shopping day, many buildings would have their heat limited to 19C (66F), and nightclubs wouldn’t be allowed any heat at all — although given the other restrictions, that point might be moot.

Sports stadiums? Closed. Movie theaters, too.

But the Swiss might not find much relief at home, either. Should the worst come to pass, gaming consoles and streaming services like Netflix will go on the verboten list.

The Swiss generate nearly two-thirds of their energy from hydroelectric sources that produce very little electricity during the winter months when the water is locked up as snow and ice.

Most of the remaining third of their power is produced by nuclear.

Maybe, given that their country is in the friggin’ Alps, they should have switched that ratio around, but no. Instead, the government has decided to eliminate nuclear power altogether.

The question I have after read this is, “Will the people who made these rules be subject to them?” There seems to be a pattern in many countries (including America) that the rules for the average citizen are very different that the rules for the ruling class. As the ruling class tells Americans to reduce their carbon footprint, they travel the globe in private jets. If climate change were truly an emergency (which I believe it is not), shouldn’t we all be required to make equal sacrifices? The fact that we are not all making equal sacrifices should be a clue that there may be something other than climate change at work.