David Runciman in Foreign Policy mag: Runciman is a politics professor at Cambridge University and the author of How Democracy Ends: "If electoral democracy is inadequate to the task of addressing climate change, and the task is the most urgent one humanity faces, then other kinds of politics are urgently needed. The most radical alternative of all would be to consider moving beyond democracy altogether. The authoritarian Chinese system has some advantages when it comes to addressing climate change: One-party rule means freedom from electoral cycles and less need for public consultation. Technocratic solutions that put power in the hands of unelected experts could take key decisions out of the hands of voters." ...
But there are two reasons to doubt that this is what the climate emergency needs. First, any transition from a democratic to a post-democratic system would be massively disruptive....Second, it would not satisfy Thunberg’s generation either. She was not asking for less democracy. She was asking for a democracy in which she could be heard."
WEF Chairman Klaus Schwab: "The future is not just happening. The future is built by us, by a powerful community as you here in this room. We have the means to improve the state of the world, but two conditions are necessary. The first one is that we act all as stakeholders of larger communities. That we serve not only self-interest but we serve the community. That's what we call stakeholder responsibility. And second, that we collaborate," he said.
Alibaba Group president J. Michael Evans at the World Economic Forum in May 2022: "We're developing through technology an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint. What does that mean? That's, where are they traveling? How are they traveling? What are they eating? What are they consuming on the platform? So, individual carbon footprint tracker. Stay tuned. We don't have it operational yet. But this is something that we're working on."
Mercola: The treaty would also give the WHO the power to censor health information worldwide. On the European Council’s web page discussing the pandemic treaty, under the headline “Restoring Trust in the International Health System,” it states:(5)
“The agreement … will set the foundation for better communication and information to citizens. Misinformation threatens public trust and risks undermining public health responses. To redeem citizen trust, concrete measures should be foreseen to improve the flow of reliable and accurate information as well as to tackle misinformation globally.”
In other words, under this treaty, we can expect even greater censorship than what we’ve experienced so far. Tech companies have already proven where their allegiance lies, and it’s not with the public.
As the world is far off-track on limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, Guterres urged all governments to strengthen their climate action plans under the Paris Agreement, “until they collectively deliver the 45 per cent emissions reduction target.” This means “no new coal plants. No expansion in oil and gas exploration,” he said.
U.N. chief Antonio Guterres: "We must rescue the Agenda 2030." ...
Meanwhile, the climate crisis is fueling conflict and escalating humanitarian crises. ... At the same time, every country must strengthen their Nationally Determined Contributions until they collectively deliver the 45 per cent emissions reduction needed by 2030. ... Every sector and every industry, including shipping and aviation, must be on a trajectory to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Wealthier countries must finally make good on the $100 billion climate finance commitment to developing countries, starting in 2022."
Foreign Policy mag's deputy editor Cameron Abadi: "Democracy works by compromise, but climate change is precisely the type of problem that seems not to allow for it...That the world’s democracies are witnessing a growing spectrum of climate radicalism, both from the bottom up and the top-down, is not to suggest that authoritarian systems would do any better in solving the relevant political and economic issues involved in moving beyond the carbon economy. But it is a sign that democracy, in its current form, is not necessarily the path to a solution. It might, instead, be part of the problem."
Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change - Published online by Cambridge University Press - American Political Science Review - December 6, 2021
ROSS MITTIGA - Professor Department of Politics at University of Virginia (Former Assistant Professor, Instituto de Ciencia Política, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile, [email protected] )
Abstract Excerpt: Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? ... While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach."
The paper's author Ross Mittaga, calls for "authoritarian environmentalism" to address the alleged climate "emergency." : "It is ultimately an empirical question whether authoritarian governance is better able to realize desired environmental outcomes and, if so why and to what extent? Yet, it is undeniable that nearly all wealthy democratic states have failed to respond adequately to the climate crisis. By contrast, various less affluent authoritarian regimes have been successful in implementing stringent climate policies..."
UK Independent: "Your home, sometime in the next decade. You click the heating on and receive an app notification telling you how much of your carbon allowance you’ve used today. Outside in the drive, your car’s fuel is linked to the same account. In the fridge, the New Zealand lamb you’ve bought has cost not just pounds and pence but a chunk of this monthly emissions budget too. Welcome to the world of personal carbon allowances – a concept that is increasingly gaining traction among experts as a possible response to the climate crisis. Each month, it would see every person or household in the country given a limited emissions quota to spend on heating, energy, travel, food and possibly consumer goods. Those who wish to expend more could buy top-ups. Those who require less would be able to sell their left-overs back to the ‘grid’." ... Now, in the wake of Cop26, many feel the concept – radical, perhaps, but demonstrably do-able – has never been riper for consideration. So, could this be our future? ... “By establishing an equal monthly budget for everyone, you create a sense of a shared effort to address a shared problem,” says Fawcett.
BRENDAN O'NEILL: "The rich, the powerful and the full of puffed-up virtue will gather in Glasgow to pontificate to the rest of us about how much we are harming the planet with all our waste and hubris. They’ll arrive in their private jets to bemoan the scourge of air-industry emissions. They’ll tuck in to five-star meals in between wondering out loud if the little people should eat less meat. They’ll rest their weary, virtuous heads on plump, silk pillows after long days of discussing how to rein in the material aspirations of the masses. It promises to be one of most nauseating displays of oligarchical conceit of recent times. ... According to one report, the private jets landing in Glasgow will spew out around 13,000 tonnes of carbon. That’s the same amount of CO2 that 1,600 Scots get through in a year. ..
It’s been clear for years now that the green movement is a neo-aristocracy that draws its loudest voices from the old aristocracy and also from the middle-class managerial elites and the new technocratic establishment. This is a movement that allows the descendants of incredibly wealthy banking families to tell the rest of us to wear a cardie rather than turn on the central heating and which invites literal princes to make sad faces about all the flying and meat-eating the oiks are engaging in. I said it was a modern version of Versailles, but actually it’s worse than that. ...
For years now, it has been clear that the environmentalist movement is fundamentally a wealthy man’s game, made up of people who live luxurious lives bemoaning the destructive habits of the masses... It’s the fact that environmentalism is now the core ideology of the new ruling class.
The Harvard Crimson:A Harvard Medical School committee voted last month to embed climate change into the school’s curriculum. In a meeting early last month, the HMS Educational Policy and Curriculum Committee voted unanimously to officially add climate change and health as a theme in the HMS M.D. curriculum. ... The new climate change curriculum will examine the impact of climate change on health and health inequality, applications of these impacts to clinical care, and the role of physicians and health institutions in arriving at climate solutions. ...
Caleb J. Dresser, a Climate and Human Health fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health said: “It’s been developing for years, as more and more medical students and faculty members have started to engage with this issue and to see it as a really important context in which we are all practicing medicine.” ... “It’s going to be increasingly important for people in leadership roles in healthcare and other industries to integrate climate change and climate-related hazards into their strategic decision-making as they lead organizations.”
HMS student Madeleine C. Kline said: “Every student who comes through the Medical School will leave with an understanding of what climate change is and what it means for their patients,” she said. “I think it is going to mean a lot for their patients.”
The COVID-19 pandemic wasn’t all bad, a new Biden admin plan to fight climate change argues: It at least “highlighted major opportunities” to reduce travel demand and lower carbon emissions through “remote work and virtual interactions.” The plan—which President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency and Energy, Transportation, and Housing departments released in January—aims to “eliminate nearly all greenhouse gas emissions” from the transportation sector by 2050, mostly through a transition to electric vehicles. Also included in the plan, however, is a controversial call to reduce “commuting miles” through “an increase in remote work and virtual engagements,” including in education. ...
Jazz Shaw of Hot Air has a prediction: "I can’t shake the feeling that this brings us one step closer to a declared “climate emergency.” You people can all stay locked down in your homes voluntarily to save the polar bears or we can declare an emergency and lock you down like we did during COVID."
NY Post: Experts are now recommending that doctors reduce their use of certain kinds of anesthesia in order to combat the effects of climate change. Dr. Mohamed Fayed, a senior anesthetist at Detroit’s Henry Ford Health, made the suggestion during the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ annual conference last Friday in Orlando, Florida. “Global warming is affecting our daily life more and more, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become crucial,” he said. Dr. Fayed added, “No matter how small each effect is, it will add up. As anesthesiologists, we can contribute significantly to this cause by making little changes in our daily practice — such as lowering the flow of anesthetic gas — without affecting patient care.”
Research notes that inhaled anesthesia accounts for up to 0.1% of the world’s carbon emissions, which are regarded as the primary driver of global climate change. An hour of surgery using an inhaled anesthetic is equivalent to driving as many as 470 miles, according to a 2010 study.
Flashback 2020 Study in American Cancer Society Journal in 2020 Fretted over ‘carbon footprint of cancer care’ - ACS Journal: "Climate change and cancer" - Excerpt: "To date, no studies have estimated the carbon footprint of cancer care...The energy expenditure associated with operating cancer treatment facilities and medical devices, as well as the manufacturing, packaging, and shipment of devices and pharmaceuticals, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions in cancer care...Some cancer treatment facilities have begun to consider their own carbon footprint and started a process to achieve carbon neutrality."
Climate Depot's Morano: "Here is a question for the American Cancer Society: If you need cancer treatment, would you go to a cancer treatment center that was worried about its carbon footprint? Or one that was worried about delivering the best possible modern care possible?"