Carbon Pawprints and the Rationing of Life

THE CORBETT REPORT

by James Corbett

As I mentioned last week, I spent some of my time in the UK last month dipping into the local dinosaur media to see what kind of indoctrination the British are being subjected to these days. Who knows? Maybe I'd even be pleasantly surprised by some thought-provoking or counter-establishment content in the local paper.

Or not.

Ugh.

Sorry for the poor cropping on this photo (I was balancing the paper on my knee on a bumpy train ride when I snapped the pic), but yes, the full headline does indeed read "is owning dogs really as bad as using private jets?"

At first glance, this story seems utterly absurd, a preposterous joke slipped into the daily news by an editor with a penchant for the bizarre. At second glance, it seems like it must be some kind of tongue-in-cheek recognition of the stupidity of the green hysteria.

But, after reading the article for yourself, you will see that the article and the author are taking this concept deadly seriously. In fact, it is the logical next step in the escalation ladder leading us toward outright carbon eugenics.

My long-term viewers will already know what that means, but for anyone who doesn't understand the importance of this story (and the many, many more like it that we will doubtless be subjected to in the near future), allow me to explain. . . .

THE LIE

Published on inews.co.uk late last month under the headline, "Comparing the carbon footprint of private jets to owning pets is a waste of time," the "carbon pawprint" story is penned by Stuart Richie ("Science Writer"!) and labelled a "fact check."

The basis of the article is a claim made last month by Patrick Hansen—the founder of the private jet company Luxaviation Group—that the carbon footprint of private jets must “be put into perspective.” Hansen proposes to achieve this objective by pointing out that, on average, his company's clients emitted about the same amount of carbon dioxide last year flying on their private jets as three pet dogs require for their annual upkeep. The strange comparison captured the attention of the public, generating headlines in The Financial Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail and various other dinosaur media outlets.

So, did any of these MSM pundits stop to question Hansen's implication that the carbon hysteria of the green movement has now led to us measuring life itself in terms of carbon dioxide emissions?

Did they stop to laugh at the zany rhetorical tactic that Hansen deployed to deflect criticism of the much-beleaguered private jet industry in the face of the rising "flight shame" movement?

Did they merely report on his comments and move on?

Of course they didn't. Instead, they took the comparison completely seriously, broke out the calculators and got to work "fact checking" his claim.

Perhaps inevitably, the issue was then taken up by the self-appointed arbiters of truth over at Bloomberg, who contend that Hansen's calculation—namely, that his customers' private jet usage produces 2.1 tons of CO₂ per year while three pet dogs produce about 2.3 tons—assumes that each of Luxavation's 67,000 passengers accounts for an equal share of the company's 150,000 tons of annual CO₂ emissions. Not so fast, writes Lara Williams, Bloomberg's crack opinion columnist:

The Luxembourg-based company has roughly 45,000 unique clients, so the carbon emission per customer is more like 3.3 tons. Just over half of its clients take more than two private-jet flights a year and about 9% take more than five. Their carbon footprint will be much higher – five flights would give you an estimated annual carbon footprint of more than 11 tons; using the pet analogy, that’s the equivalent of the yearly emissions of 10 cats and 10 dogs.

Yes, that is an actual paragraph in a hard-hitting Bloomberg fact check.

But wait, it gets worse! In his inews piece, Stuart Richie gets even further into the weeds. He notes that the "770 kg of annual CO₂ emissions per dog per year" number Hansen employs to make his case is based on how much meat and cereal crops are in the "average" dog's dog food. But those numbers are themselves an average of the diverse diets of dogs from a number of different countries.

So, does Richie start dissecting the diets of pets in various countries? You bet he does!

Indeed, there was a lot of variation both within and between the countries: for example, according to the study [upon which Hansen's numbers are based], the average dog produces between 343 and 1424kg of greenhouse gas per year in the Netherlands and between 313 and 1592kg in China, but only between 127 and 831kg in Japan. The researchers said that Dutch and Chinese dogs tended to eat more than they needed, which might partly explain why the numbers are so much higher there.

So you see, folks, Hansen's clientele is more likely to be European with fat Dutch dogs than Japanese with slender Japanese dogs, and thus his calculation isn't accurate. Neener neener neener.

This is insane. It would be one thing if this were meant as an exercise in stupidity, but all of the coverage of this tempest in a dog food bowl treats it as a Very Serious Issue and uses it as an opportunity to moralize about our travel decisions and the way we keep our pets.

Qua Williams:

I’d say that the value per ton of carbon is much higher for pet ownership than for private jet use. Plus, if we stopped keeping pets tomorrow, our food systems would continue polluting — so I’d argue that’s what we should tackle first. If someone is concerned about the climate impact of pet food, they should also be taking a look at their own diets.

Qua Richie:

This whole episode does remind us that – even if we don’t fly private all the time – there are some things we can do if we want to reduce our carbon footprint. Having our dogs eat mainly dry food made from chicken seems like the best option short of making them go vegetarian (which, let’s face it, will produce its own problems).

And just like that, the Overton window has been shifted. Of course flying on private jets is a horrible climate sin that must be eradicated, but feeding your dogs the wrong kind of dog food is also a sin and we need to start addressing that, too.

But this is quite obviously about something much bigger than what type of dog food we're buying or even how we choose to travel from place to place. So what's really going on here?

THE BIG LIE

At first glance, it's tempting to attack this transparent charade by simply pointing out that the entire "green" agenda to transform our society from top to bottom in the name of saving Mother Earth is a complete and total lie.

Electric vehicles, we are told, are such an important part of the Great Resetters' plan to save the planet that many states in the US are beginning to mandate them. . . . But it turns out that these  "green" electric vehicles actually produce 70% MORE emissions during their lifecycle than the ordinary gasoline vehicles they are slated to replace "due to the carbon intensity of battery and steel production, as well as from the increased share of aluminium in the plug-in car."

We are exhorted to stop eating meat because of the devastating environmental impact of ranching and are told to eat lab-engineered biogunk instead. . . . But we are not informed that the "green" lab-engineered synthetic "meat" being pushed by Gates and his ilk actually has a carbon footprint that is 25 TIMES GREATER than real meat.

We are constantly warned that so-called "fossil fuels" are the harbingers of the Apocalypse and that we must switch to an all-renewable power grid or face the wrath of the weather gods. . . . But we are not told that there are not enough known mineral deposits on the planet to make even one generation of renewable tech units, or that the process for mining the lithium required for the lithium-ion batteries in this hypothetical renewable energy grid is itself wreaking untold havoc on the environment, or that the solar panels touted by the renewable energy advocates are a ticking environmental time bomb of difficult-to-dispose toxic waste, or indeed that the "green" energy myth is a scam propounded by the oligarchs who wish to keep the masses from making use of the abundant energy resources that have lifted the human race out of poverty.

And, naturally, we are never told that the entire premise upon which this house of cards is built—i.e., that manmade carbon dioxide is the global thermostat and that the world is warming (AND cooling!) as a result of our activities—is itself a crock of unfalsifiable, psuedoscientific bulltwaddle, a point I have attempted to make time and time and time and time and time again. (And again and again and again.)

As I say, it's tempting to attack the blatant lies at face value and on their own terms. As if we're dealing with matters of scientific fact that can be calmly refuted one by one rather than the gaslighting lies of psychopaths who are trying to manipulate us into going along with the culling of the human race.

But when the conversation turns from the usual "we must reduce our fossil fuel use to save the planet" lie to the much darker "we must start calculating (and reducing) the carbon pawprint of our pets” lie, it should be clear to even the least perceptive among us that the climate agenda is about to take a much darker turn.

THE BIGGER LIE

If you were a rich and powerful oligarch with eugenicist beliefs and a desire to cull the population, you would have a hard time devising a more effective plan for implementing your depopulation agenda than the one that is being rolled out before us.

First, you convince the public that their "emissions" are a threat to the long-term survival of humanity, and indeed of the planet itself.

Then, you habituate the masses into constantly calculating the "carbon footprint" of their daily activities and train them to accept ever-greater sacrifices in the name of reducing that "footprint."

Finally, you convince the credulous commoners that the real problem lies not in their actions but in their very existence. You make them believe that life itself is the original sin against nature and that they would be less of a burden if they didn't keep that pet. Or if they didn't have that baby. Or if they themselves had never been born.

The process is subtle, and it likely never becomes as crass as a direct command to "kill yourself to save Mother Nature!" But, over time, the generations of propaganda, indoctrination and conditioning have their effect: the very same people who started down the "green, sustainable, renewable" road in order to save humanity from the existential threat of the weather gods are gradually convinced that humanity itself is the problem. Soon, they are calculating life itself in terms of carbon footprints and looking for ways to reduce it.

If all this sounds suspiciously familiar, then congratulations! You've been paying attention! Indeed, as long-time Corbetteers will no doubt know by now, this is precisely the plan of the globalist oligarchs, as articulated by Club of Rome co-founder Alexander King in his 1991 manifesto, The First Global Revolution:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself. [Emphases added.]

Digging deeper, we find (naturally enough) that the elitists do not include themselves in this "enemy" class. No, hewing to the twisted ideology of carbon eugenics, they believe themselves and their offspring to be deserving of the fruits of civilization and the technological comforts that come with human activity. It is only us "useless eaters" who deserve to be restricted, reduced and (ultimately) eliminated.

Sadly, this is not some hypothetical plan for some far-off future dystopia. It is already being implemented.

Propaganda that conditions the public to accept (and even to embrace) carbon rationing has been broadcast for decades now.

The Optimum Population Trust set up their "PopOffsets" program allowing wealthy members of the developed world to contribute to the cause of culling the Third World 14 years ago.

The notion that animals are themselves an environmental hazard has been so thoroughly engrained that governments around the world are now cracking down on farming and ranching, and (as we have seen) even the practice of keeping pets is now coming into question.

And, most remarkably, our basic, primordial instinct—to go forth and multiply in order to perpetuate our species—is now under such pervasive attack by the promoters of this Malthusian death cult in the establishment media that we hardly even notice the seemingly unending series of stories warning us of the environmental burden that babies place on the planet.

After all, human life can be measured out in carbon. The logic follows that it must be reduced . . . to zero.

ENDING THE LIE

Of course these narratives about carbon eugenics and global depopulation seem rather grandiose compared to the seemingly trivial story about "carbon pawprints" that we started out with today. But that's precisely the point. We are in the middle stages of a very lengthy conditioning process, one that is designed to seem innocuous at first. But make no mistake: if the eugenicists get their way, the people who go through this process will be actively desiring the very culling of the human population that the oligarchs so fervently desire.

Yes, it is important to examine the details of this lie. After all, if we are to truly break free of the conditioning, we have to truly understand that the entire green agenda—from the green energy scam to the manmade global warming scam—is a deception. We have to be able to articulate to whoever is rightfully concerned about the environment that Earth's very real environmental problems will in fact only be exacerbated by obeying the edicts of the climate cultists. We have to understand that, contrary to all of the cultural programming, miseducation and propagandistic indoctrination we have received our entire lives, human ingenuity and resourcefulness will help us to answer these problems.

But, ultimately, this is not the type of argument that will be won by facts and figures because it isn't a rational argument at all. Instead, it's a cynical attempt by the would-be social engineers to use their centuries of study of the "human animal" to weaponize the Thanatos and coerce the "useless eaters" to walk willingly to their slaughter.

To that end, we must step out in front of this unfolding narrative before it reaches the inevitable next stage of carbon rations and neofeudalism and mass culling. We must completely and utterly reject the "carbon footprint" lie before it escalates to the next stage by calling it what it is: an anti-human agenda spread by those who wish to rule over others.

The human species is not a cancer on this earth. Our pets are not measured by their carbon pawprints. Our babies are not a burden on the planet.

The moment we start accepting any of these perverse premises is the moment we enter the chute leading into the slaughterhouse.

Source: The Corbett Report