Claiming that it would be a “fairer” way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, which climate hysterics tell us are leading to out-of-control global warming, a team of researchers from the University of Leeds in England says that a World War II-style rationing system could be an effective way to reduce emissions quickly and fairly.
The research team claims that current global-warming mitigation schemes such as carbon taxes and the ability to purchase carbon offsets are weighted towards the wealthy. Rationing, as was done during the Second World War, could spread the climate misery around in a more equitable way.
The researchers propose rationing of carbon, not only as a mitigation tool but also as a way to change public perception about the so-called “climate crisis.”
“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,” said Nathan Wood, one of the lead authors of the study.
The study laments that such “rationing has been neglected as a climate change mitigation policy option. Indeed, it may be that it is not merely neglected, but is considered by many to be an unpalatable option.”
The study’s authors argue that our current society of plenty creates the impression that there’s nothing really wrong with our climate. But by rationing, society might begin to understand the depth of the crisis that we are supposedly facing.
“There is a limit to how much we can emit if we are to reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change. In this sense, the scarcity is very real,” said co-author Rob Lawlor.
The United Kingdom and all of Europe are in the midst of an energy shortage largely created by the Continent’s insistence on abandoning reliable fossil-fuel sources of energy such as coal for risky “renewable” sources such as wind and solar.
“The cost of living crisis has shown what happens when scarcity drives up prices, with energy prices rising steeply and leaving vulnerable groups unable to pay their bills. Currently, those living in energy poverty cannot use anywhere near their fair share of energy supply, whereas the richest in society are free to use as much energy as they can afford,” Wood said.
But the main reason that working families are struggling to pay exorbitant energy prices is their governments’ insistence on abandoning cheap, plentiful sources of energy for unreliable, fantasy energy sources.
The researchers say that the policy changes need to begin with the largest polluters, such as oil and gas companies, industrial farming, and transportation industries. After those polluters are rationed, the public can be issued “carbon cards” to track their use of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Specifically, the research team would like to see governments ration high-carbon items such as airline flights, gasoline, household energy, meat, and clothing, likely by giving each product some type of carbon score, which could then be tracked by governments.
Price controls would be necessary to keep industries from price gouging as supplies become limited.
“Many have proposed carbon allowances and carbon cards before. What is new (or old, taking inspiration from World War II) is the idea that the allowances should not be tradable. Another feature of World War II-style rationing is that price controls on rationed goods would prevent prices from rising with increased demand, benefiting those with the least money,” said Lawlor.
The current system of “tradable” carbon allows people such as climate hypocrite Leonardo DiCaprio to claim he lives a “carbon neutral” lifestyle despite his private jet usage and carbon-spewing luxury yacht. Dealing in carbon credits has also allowed Al Gore to make hundreds of millions of dollars.
While it might be fun to see DiCaprio and Gore get their comeuppance on the climate issue, forcing carbon rationing down our throats seems like a steep price to pay.
The rationing that was done during the two World Wars was done largely to save resources necessary for those war efforts. People were willing to be inconvenienced because they saw an actual need for those things — be it sugar, tires, gasoline, meat, coffee, butter, canned goods, or shoes — in service to a larger goal, namely winning a war.
But rationing in service to a “problem” which the scientific community has failed to convince much of the world actually exists doesn’t sound like a good idea. It sounds more like a government attempt to quash freedom on the pretense that it will be good for us.
