During the pandemic, public health was quick to institute numerous restrictions on our lives – restrictions that their own prior published research said did not work at all, only worked at the start of a pandemic, or worked, but only minimally.

  • Being unemployed, locked up at home was not sustainable (note – some like to say, “but it was only 2 weeks”. FALSE. In my state it was 3 to almost 5 months depending on county.)
  • Shutting “non-essential” businesses indefinitely was not sustainable.
  • Shutting “non-life threatening” health care was not sustainable.
  • Closing schools indefinitely was not sustainable.
  • Wearing a proper high-quality mask, properly, 24 x 7, for the rest of your life is not sustainable. (All the studies found that cloth masks never worked, surgical masks were near useless, and N95s has some benefits, when used properly, and replaced properly. But since no one wears an N95 mask 24 x 7 and at home, the protocol has “leakage” – eventually everyone will have Covid-19. The only end to a pandemic is immunity.) Masks were mandated in my state from June of 2020 to February of 2022 (except for a couple of months), and are still mandated in health care offices, vision offices, mental health counseling offices as of October 2022.

Yet – just look on Twitter – there are scores of “experts” implying they will wear a mask 24 x 7 forever, will not again go to an indoor restaurant or theater, or will not travel on airline flights again. For the rest of their lives. For most of us, that is not sustainable.

Ultimately, as of the summer of 2022, the CDC estimated over 80% of the population had had Covid-19 – implying that all the “mitigations” at best, delayed, but did not prevent or end the pandemic.

There is little evidence what we did had much effect. There is little evidence non-pharmaceutical tools prevented illness and death (but possibly delayed it by a little). What we had was hand waving and a culture of “let’s pretend this will work”.

But the costs were enormous – today, our economy is collapsing, children’s education was ruined, and many people lost their businesses or jobs – and never got them back. 57% of American’s polled by Rasmussen think we are headed into a 1930s style Great Depression now.

Now, let’s turn our attention to the environment – which like public health’s sole focus on Covid and ignoring everything else – is focused exclusively on carbon emissions – and nothing else.

The technocratic and climate change activist community tell us how we are to live our lives, for the rest of eternity (while they ignore their own guidelines and continue as always because they are elite).

As the mother of Izzy Cook said, “She also lives a low carbon lifestyle: she’s vegetarian, uses public transport, and buys second-hand.”

And this is what they propose for us:

  • The end of flying; if you must fly you must apply to the government for permission and only for “approved” purposes
  • Eat vegetarian exclusively
  • Walk or ride a bike
  • Use public transport, powered by green power sources
  • Live in dense, urban cities in multi-unit housing
  • Convert all power to electricity derived from solar PV or wind (we do not yet have an effective way of storing wind or solar PV sourced power)
  • Or, as was said in the 1970s after the OPEC oil embargo: “Let them freeze in the dark”

Is this the life you wish to live?

  • I ate vegetarian for two months this summer – until I encountered 5 symptoms of protein deficiency and had to resume eating some meat once or twice per week. For me, that approach was not sustainable.
  • Two doctors have told me not to ride a bike again due to my history of six traumatic brain injuries, including a 5″ long skull fracture. The effects of TBI are thought to be cumulative – and another one, even mild, could have unexpectedly bad outcomes.
  • My small town has no public transport except a bus running to some outlying cities.
  • Does everyone want to live in dense, multi-unit housing? Do you see any problems with this in the U.S.?
  • Should we be prohibited from traveling? (Or at least made to pay such high extra fees that travel becomes de facto banned? Should we be required to apply to the government for permission to fly, and then, only for approved reasons?)

The climate activist community is going down the same path as failed public health did – ordering us to engage in what will be non-sustainable lifestyles, lowering the global standard of living. This is not a path to success – and it is likely to have as much effectiveness at controlling the climate as public health had in controlling Covid-19 (which is to say, zero effectiveness).

But this is indeed what they are proposing – the Speaker of the British House of Commons said:

Sir Lindsay Hoyle told a gathering of counterparts from some of the world’s most powerful countries that the pandemic shows people are prepared to accept limitations on their lifestyles – if they recognise it is for the greater good.

He was surprised by the willingness of millions of people to wear masks and accept new rules, and said the urgent response the world has shown to deal with Covid-19 should now be harnessed to address climate change.

Speaker of British House of Commons suggests Covid lockdowns were a dry run for climate lockdowns – Coldstreams

They intend to turn our lives over to the technocratic elite to tell us what we can do, when we can do it, and how we can do it.

Sustainable solutions are those the public is willing to embrace, long term.

  • These may include replacing ICE vehicles with EVs – which will need to be affordably priced, with range and charging rates that meet consumer needs, with widespread availability of charging networks. Today it would be impossible to take my Scamp 16 (tiny trailer) to campgrounds near here as there is no charging infrastructure available for recharging an EV tow vehicle.
  • These may include adoption of solar PV and battery storage systems (at the home or business, or grid scale).
  • These may include the use of hydrogen-powered vehicles (with the caveat that hydrogen has low energy density relative to gasoline).
  • Most carbon emissions come from the generation of electricity (via burning coal, oil or natural gas). This assumes we are can generate and/or store electricity derived from other sources.
  • Improvements in business and residential energy efficiency – notably how we heat water (typically the largest energy consumer in my house), and insulation. Storing a tank of electrically heated hot water is quite inefficient.

But telling or ordering people where to live, what to eat, and how they will be permitted to travel are non-starters – and ordering them to pursue restrictive life styles – are non-starters.

Real solutions are sustainable and embraced. Solutions that cost more, deliver less – or deliver nothing – will not work. But alas, as shown by public health, this is the mindset of the technocratic elite – they don’t care that their solutions (which they personally ignore) are neither effective nor sustainable. Yet the climate activist community is headed down the same path – with the climate activist community ignoring their own rules, because they are special and more important than you or I.

UPDATE

Bill Gates: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less. “The only real solution, Gates said, is to innovate better and cheaper alternatives.”

Exactly. (I wrote the above post days before BillG said this. My post was written in advance and scheduled for later posting – as many of my posts are done that way.)

By EdwardM