Boundary.News

C40 Cities will mean doom for many Americans

Fourteen major cities in the United States are members of a global climate organization called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.” This group has set ambitious objectives to be achieved by 2030, including reducing meat and dairy consumption to zero, limiting clothing purchases to three items per person annually, eliminating private vehicle ownership, and allowing only one short-haul flight every three years per person.

The dystopian aspirations of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group are detailed in their report titled “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World.” Published in 2019 and reportedly reaffirmed in 2023, this report outlines their objectives. The organization, primarily funded and led by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg, encompasses nearly 100 cities worldwide. Among its American members are Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

Media coverage of C40 Cities’ goals has been limited. The few media personalities and news outlets that have broached the topic have often faced criticism from corporate “fact-checkers.” For instance, conservative commentator Glenn Beck was targeted by AFP Fact Check, which refuted the banning of meat, dairy, and travel limitations as “not policy recommendations.”

AFP Fact Check cited a passage from the original “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, stating that the inclusion of more ambitious targets was not an endorsement for wholesale adoption but rather a set of reference points for consideration. Despite this clarification, the very term “target” implies a desired objective, which seems to diverge from the stated purpose of the paragraph.

The insistence of fact-checkers that C40 Cities’ climate goals are insincere appears less convincing when observing their gradual implementation. For instance, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced measures in alignment with C40 Cities’ 2030 objectives, such as capping meat and dairy consumption in city institutions. Similarly, the U.K. has committed to ending sales of new gas-powered vehicles after 2030, while France has banned short-haul flights to reduce carbon emissions.

In 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF), a promoter of C40 Cities, introduced “The Great Reset,” utilizing the Covid-19 pandemic as a catalyst for a global societal overhaul to combat climate change. Critics argue that this reset is more about societal control than climate action. Notably, many globalist leaders who advocate for the environment maintain conspicuous carbon-intensive lifestyles.

The push towards zero-emissions policies coincides with increased acquisition of real estate and farmland by hedge funds and private billionaires worldwide. Paradoxically, these policies are impoverishing individuals in Western countries and eroding the middle class, thereby fostering reliance on centralized governance. This counterproductive approach also harms the environment, as wealthier nations generally exhibit cleaner surroundings and reduced resource strain.

In a parallel to Covid lockdowns, climate activists have proposed “climate lockdowns” involving restrictions on movement and potential income redistribution. Additionally, figures like WEF-affiliated “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao have suggested genetic modifications to induce allergies to meat and even physical size reduction to curtail resource consumption.

Critics argue that these policy suggestions are irrational when evaluating available data. Proponents of environmentally friendly nuclear energy believe it’s a practical alternative to fossil fuels. However, Globalist climate activists often oppose nuclear energy, contradicting their stated intentions.

Ultimately, the goals of the climate coalition are anti-human. The dietary importance of meat and protein, combined with measures like banning meat and dairy, calorie restrictions, genetic alterations, and impoverishment, could negatively impact both people and the planet. It’s suggested that these policies might lead to significant harm, even mortality, for many people.