This report from the University of California suggests that climate lockdowns are the goal – lots fewer cars, moving everyone to dense urban apartments, and traveling by bike and public transit.
The current dominant strategy for the sector— replacing ICE vehicles with EVs without decreasing car
ownership and use—is likely incompatible with keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees.1
This is pie-in-the-sky thinking- there are no resources to suddenly condense the towns and cities of our very large country into this model. Their proposal is not sustainable in any way and is based on Ehrlich/Malthusian thinking that has been thoroughly debunked.
But they add a twist, saying their proposal is not about the climate but instead:
Ultimately, climate, transit, and Indigenous justice can be aligned. Doing so requires an ambitious rethinking of the energy transition that emphasizes benefits for communities and ecosystems most impacted by the climate crisis. In order to achieve a just future, the movement for climate justice must present a united front against profit-driven extraction.
The goal seems to be a socialist or communist utopia ruled by technocratic elite. A larger version of what was done during Covid.
That perhaps goes with Speaker of British House of Commons suggests Covid lockdowns were a dry run for climate lockdowns – Coldstreams
And: Is Warsaw about to ration travel, meat, and dairy? (rmx.news): “A report commissioned for the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group has proposed radical reductions in the consumption of meat [and dairy] and the amount of travel its citizens should undertake”, limiting air travel to once every two years, and eliminating two thirds of all privately owned vehicles.
Of course, the fact checkers say these are conspiracy theories.
There’s a quote on the Internet from a former IPCC co-chair suggesting the goal is wealth distribution. As best I can tell, the quote, however, is a misinterpretation of a 2010 interview, conducted in German. What he said was that reducing carbon emissions changes the demand for various natural resources (such as oil and coal) and that in turn changes who has valuable assets and who does not. In a world where oil and coal are no longer desired, the countries and producers of those commodities will be less well-off and countries with other commodities, such as Lithium, will be better off. This has a side effect of changing the distribution of wealth.
The above is my interpretation – I have not found a reliable source for the exact words shown in this graphic and I suspect it is a summary of the above without context, or an intentional misquote.
