Green Agenda aka The Long Con

Yup, the long con. Years in the making.
Long Con A scam in which the scammer takes a long period of time (usually weeks, months or longer) to defraud the victim, by first slowly gaining their trust.

The rip off is in plain sight. It’s not hidden except to the willfully blind

Telegraph via The push for net zero has become a handy excuse to rip us off

Though the article is still obfuscating The rip off and oppression of the green agenda is undeniable!

Elected politicians may claim that the goal of “saving the planet” can be achieved without permanently damaging the prosperity of their populations, but even they accept that in the short and medium term, the comforts and freedoms to which the developed world has grown accustomed will be made prohibitively expensive, if not banned outright.

If the accumulation of private wealth and increased disposable income are now bad things, then we – every individual and organ of society – must accept a vow of poverty and self-denial.

This imperative is now being enforced by energy companies. Increased gas and electricity prices are not purely a consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Charges to private households and businesses are also going up in the name of reducing carbon emissions, with no apparent need for explanation or justification. With what seems to be total impunity, suppliers are imposing costs on consumers who have no recourse in law or through the democratic accountability of their government.

If making everybody poorer has become a social virtue, what is the moral status of the profits from these enormously increased charges? Are they some sort of reward to the energy suppliers for making their products prohibitively expensive (having nothing to do with so called human caused ‘climate change )

Private profiteering and energy rationing that hits the poorest disproportionately

But the energy companies may actually have a more plausible defence for their pricing explosion than those involved in the great war against the car.

But the policies being introduced to discourage (or effectively prohibit) car use are bizarrely incoherent, and the money-making opportunities that they present are being so openly exploited that they insult public intelligence.

The instance of this that has grabbed most attention has been the mayor of London’s attempt to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) charge to the outermost fringes of London’s leafy suburbs on the edge of the green belt. Using outlandish claims that traffic pollution in these areas is causing thousands of deaths a year, Sadiq Khan is proposing to make life impossibly expensive for the small businesses and tradesmen who rely on diesel vans to provide their services. But more to the point, he – which is to say his mayoral operation – would increase his revenue very substantially with this gratuitous tax. It seems so grotesquely obvious that money is the motivating force behind the move, that the outer London boroughs, which have been granted a judicial review of the policy, are very likely to win their case.
But if reducing car use is now incumbent on all local authorities, how to explain the insistence by borough councils that car parks at outer London Tube stations be shut down?

Losing the car parks makes that arrangement impossible. What it does do is allow councils to develop the parking sites into blocks of flats that produce far more council-tax revenue.

Councils are now employing private firms to enforce street parking restrictions that seem designed to make the everyday functions of shopping, transporting children or doing business – the activities that constitute modern life – as difficult as possible. Often, these hired enforcers are in peculiarly protected positions, and almost impossible to hold accountable. But their freewheeling tactics produce massive amounts of revenue – and this is all about making money

Who is going to put a stop to this Wild West of limitless charging and penalising? The old political assumptions in which the Left sought to protect the poor and the Right promoted individual self-improvement have been abandoned in the face of a “climate emergency” that has reduced all the parties to consensual impotence.

We as individuals are going to have to put a stop to this mass exploitation. You. Me. Together, we have end our own exploitation.

4 replies on “Green Agenda aka The Long Con”

Bravo Penny,
The “Long Con” of the green agenda is insidious because it seems so appealing to well meaning ‘liberals’. Alternative energy sources are not better for the environment. The green agenda is anti-humanist and intended to trap the vast majority of lower income people in the industrialized ‘west’ and the entirety of the ‘global south’ in tightly controlled population service enclaves while the ultra rich, deluded by the thought dreams of the WEF types, believe they will have exclusive rights to the usage of fossil fuels, land ownership and travel.

Thank You Mark!
Glad you didn’t accuse me of being in the employ of big oil- Yes, I used to get that quite often.
And I used to always say big oil/big energy was going to make the biggest profit from this scam. And the true believers refused to accept that obvious reality.

Many years ago, I believed as well, but there was a bunch of information that came across my computer screen and when I started digging into it- OMG! I was played.

We’d always been environmentally friendly people- cripes we have our own garden for many years (decades, actually) we compost our food waste and process much of our own food. Now I understand why we got ‘sucked’ in to the hoax.

For the record- Its been cooler for many years now. When you spend time outside, gardening, walking, foraging stuff like that you notice.

Looking back the ’80’s were a lot warmer then the past two decades.

“Climate change” is said to be causing more serious floods and droughts. I am not aware of any scientific study that claims to prove it.
On the other hand, however, there is a scientific study that took place over at least a sixty-two period that demonstrated that declining soil fertility leads to increasingly damaging floods and droughts as well as soil erosion. In a comparison study of two plots growing corn, one plot received an annual application of barnyard manure while the other plot received nothing. Crops remove some of the ability of soil to produce protein. The annual application of manure was sufficient to maintain the fertility to one plot while in the other plot the soil fertility was allowed to decline. In the latter plot, over time, more water was running off this plot with less water soaking in compared to the manured plot. In addition, the water easily moved the soil making it subject to erosion. Storing water in the soil is much better than storing it in a reservoir.

“Storing water in the soil is much better than storing it in a reservoir.”

Yes, indeed!
Hi Gary, I was wondering if you were still around?
I was thinking about soil health as I watched a bird (grackle) pluck a fat worm out of our raised garden beds yesterday morning. Robins have also been helping themselves to the worms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: