Despite their “research” indicating that their “climate goals” only can be achieved by forcing people to love their subservience to government austerity orders, a group at the University of Leeds, UK, want to usher in the lightless future.
Just for you.
In order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, Americans will have to cut their energy use by more than 90 percent and families of four should live in housing no larger than 640 square feet. That's at least according to a team of European researchers led by University of Leeds sustainability researcher Jefim Vogel.
Sure is a good thing the government-subsidized University of Leeds is leading the way on this.
Don’t bother trying to visit and ask them, because, well, such travel might use too much fuel, and that can’t be allowed by our Climate Overlords.
In their new study, ‘Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use,’ in Global Environmental Change, they calculate that public transportation should account for most travel. Travel should, in any case, be limited to between 3,000 to 10,000 miles per person annually.
So, okay, maybe one trip to Leeds. But don’t expect to visit the family for Christmas if you fly to England. Got it?
Vogel and his colleagues set themselves the goal of figuring out how to ‘provide sufficient need satisfaction at much lower, ecologically sustainable levels of energy use.’
What’s curious about that is the absolute political conceit.
This assumes that rulers can play the role of your “provider” of “needs satisfaction” rather than YOU DEFINING YOUR NEEDS AND SATISFACTION.
As always, the stark difference between the force of the polis and the choice and efficiency-creating competition of the market come to the fore. The only way to determine “satisfaction” worldwide is by leaving people alone to determine it for themselves and to direct their money where they desire.
But don’t tell Vogel and the gang.
Referencing earlier sustainability studies they argue that human needs are sufficiently satisfied when each person has access to the energy equivalent of 7,500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per capita. That is about how much energy the average Bolivian uses. Currently, Americans use about 80,000 kWh annually per capita. With respect to transportation and physical mobility, the average person would be limited to using the energy equivalent of 16–40 gallons of gasoline per year. People are assumed to take one short-to medium-haul airplane trip every three years or so.
These austerity rules are reminiscent of command-and-control China during Mao’s Great Leap Forward or Soviet Russia when Lenin started his first “Five Year Plan,” both of which led to the destruction of private property rights, the end of market price signals, the destruction of competition, deprivation, authoritarian policing, and mass starvation.
Which seems to be what Vogel and the team might see in their Climate Crystal Ball:
In addition, food consumption per capita would vary depending on age and other conditions, but the average would be 2,100 calories per day. While just over 10 percent of the world's people are unfortunately still undernourished, the Food and Agriculture Organization reports that the daily global average food supply now stands at just under 3,000 calories per person.
But, at least you can look stylish in your government-controlled threads.
Each individual is allocated a new clothing allowance of nine pounds per year, and clothes may be washed 20 times annually. The good news is that everyone over age 10 is permitted a mobile phone and each household can have a laptop.
Of course, if they’d look at the history of markets, they’d see that competition drives providers to make all of these things for less, to use fewer resources, decrease costs, and allow more bounty for all.
But collectivists don’t acknowledge the market process, partly because the market process acknowledges the sovereignty of the individual and mutual respect.
By its nature, the state does not respect individual rights.
And on what are their “scientific” conclusions based?
How do Vogel and his colleagues arrive at their conclusions? First, they assert that "globally, large reductions in energy use are required to limit global warming to 1.5°C." The 1.5°C temperature increase limit they cite derives from the 2015 Paris Agreement in which signatories agreed to hold ‘the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.’
Many Americans correctly cite the fact that the Paris Agreement is not a treaty and has no bearing on U.S. statutes. But Joe Biden and many other leftists are quite interested in instituting provisions of the “agreement” through Executive mandates instituted in unconstitutional Executive Branch bureaus.
The key is that, even if this were constitutional, it is immoral, aggressive, and unacceptable. The Leeds predicate for the “needed changes” is faulty, based on politicized so-called “science” that has not been proven to be tied to anything other than manipulated stats and fear mongering pronouncements.
Vogel and his colleagues are undaunted by the fact that there are absolutely no examples of low-energy societies providing decent living standards—as defined by the researchers themselves—for their citizens. So they proceed to jigger the various provisioning factors until they find that what is really needed is a ‘more fundamental transformation of the political-economic regime.’ That fundamental transformation includes free government-provided high-quality public services in areas such as health, education, and public transport.
So enjoy the future, Leeds-style, Biden-style, UN-style.
It only requires your submission. All for the false god of Anthropogenic Climate Change.