Video available on:
- WEF aims to reduce cars globally by 75% by 2050, despite their reliance on private jets.
- WEF recommends electrification, public transport, and shared mobility for sustainable urban mobility.
- Implementing WEF’s goals requires central planning, substantial costs, and a reliable energy source for electric vehicles.
- Leading by example, WEF should ban private jet travel to gain public support for their plans.
- Evaluate environmental policies to prioritize both human flourishing and sustainability.
In a recent report, the Wall Street Journal highlighted the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) ambitious goal of reducing the number of cars worldwide by 75% by 2050. This ironic stance by the Davos elite, who heavily rely on private jets for their travel, raises questions about their true motives. The WEF’s briefing paper, titled “The Urban Mobility Scorecard Tool: Benchmarking the Transition to Sustainable Urban Mobility,” emphasizes the need to electrify urban transport, promote public transit, and embrace shared mobility in order to meet climate goals outlined in the Paris Agreement. However, achieving this drastic reduction in cars within a short timeframe poses significant challenges and demands extensive central planning at a substantial cost.
The WEF’s target to decrease the global car count by 75% by 2050 stems from the projected increase in urban population, with more than two-thirds of the world’s population expected to reside in cities by then. The report suggests that electrification, public transport, and shared mobility are essential for meeting the needs of urban residents and reaching the climate objectives set in the Paris Agreement. By reducing the number of vehicles from a potential 2.1 billion to 0.5 billion, the WEF claims it could slash emissions from passenger vehicles by 80%, thereby reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by a significant 3.9 billion tons per year.
Car ownership offers unparalleled mobility and convenience, and most vehicles currently run on fossil fuels due to their superior performance and value. However, if mass transit options could provide comparable performance, affordability without substantial taxpayer subsidies, and improved convenience, more people might choose these alternatives over private cars.
One crucial aspect often overlooked is the question of energy sources to power the electric vehicles that would replace gasoline-powered engines. The WEF’s objectives would require significant central planning and incur substantial costs. It is important to consider the feasibility and sustainability of these energy sources when evaluating the proposed solutions.
To gain public support for their plans, the Radical WEF and other influential groups should set an example by banning private jet travel to their gatherings. Private jets have a much larger carbon footprint than individual cars, and initiating a debate within the WEF about this disparity could encourage a more realistic discussion on the costs and benefits of their proposed policies.
Now, let’s delve into the reasons why organizations like the WEF advocate for policies that aim to eliminate vehicles or implement concepts like “15-minute cities.” To understand this, we need to analyze the WEF’s own statements. According to their briefing, there is no viable pathway to achieving the climate goals of the Paris Agreement without embracing electrification, shared transport, and designing more compact cities. The WEF asserts that these measures, by reducing the number of vehicles from 2.1 billion to 0.5 billion, would provide numerous benefits, including an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions from passenger transportation.
Benefits of Sustainable, Electric, and Connected Mobility: Adopting a Sustainable, Electric, and Connected Mobility (SEAM) strategy would yield far-reaching advantages beyond just mitigating climate change. Passenger vehicles are a significant contributor to urban air pollution, which resulted in an estimated 1.8 million excess deaths in 2019 and nearly 2 million cases of childhood asthma. Electrifying transport would lead to cleaner and healthier air for city dwellers. Additionally, reducing the number of vehicles would alleviate congestion, decrease the need for costly infrastructure like highways, parking spaces, and maintenance, resulting in substantial cost savings for the global economy, potentially totaling $5 trillion annually by 2050. Electrification alone cannot achieve these outcomes; it requires a synergistic approach that combines electrification with increased use of shared transport and the creation of more compact cities.WEF
The Rise of the 15-Minute City: Part of the Radical WEF vision involves implementing the concept of the 15-minute city, which is rapidly gaining traction worldwide. This approach focuses on designing cities where residents can access their daily needs within a 15-minute walk or bike ride. This development aims to enhance urban livability, reduce the need for long commutes, and create more sustainable communities.
You might wonder why it is necessary to impose restrictions and bans on transportation to combat the perceived climate emergency and protect the planet. However, it is crucial to critically examine the dominant narrative surrounding climate change and the policies being advocated. It is evident that climate change rhetoric has caused widespread concern, especially in light of recent events such as the pandemic. The drastic measures taken by authoritarian governments during the pandemic raise concerns about similar approaches being employed to address climate change.
Net Zero and other climate change objectives may sound noble, but they carry significant implications for billions of people and their access to affordable energy. The primary objective of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to 1.5°C, with a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the radical policies proposed and the narratives surrounding climate change are unwarranted and unjustified, given the catastrophic tone used to describe the situation.
Throughout history, it has become evident that humans operate within a moral framework, guided by a hierarchy of values and objectives. We have the choice to embrace either a pro-human or anti-humanistic story. A pro-human moral stance, for example, would recognize the importance of animal testing in advancing human flourishing. On the other hand, an anti-humanistic perspective would prioritize animal equality over human well-being, rejecting any human impacts on animals, including beneficial practices like medical research. This demonstrates how adopting an anti-humanistic stance can lead to pursuing policies that go against our better judgment.
In the case of climate change, the knowledge system and environmentalist movement operate under an anti-humanistic ideology. They paint the Earth as a delicate virgin, victimized by a parasitic, patriarchal, capitalistic system. Their objective is to eliminate all human impact on the environment, with the belief that the Earth’s pristine state holds a god-like status. This perspective, when combined with the demonization of fossil fuels, suggests that environmentalism aims to eradicate any human influence on the Earth, rather than advancing human flourishing.
The knowledge system perpetuates the narrative that fossil fuels have destroyed the environment and caused climate-related disasters. However, the reality is that the world has experienced unprecedented levels of human flourishing, thanks in part to the use of fossil fuels. While concerns about rising CO2 levels and potential future impacts are valid, it is crucial to acknowledge the substantial benefits that fossil fuels have brought to human society. The one-sided evaluation of fossil fuels as purely detrimental fails to consider the positive aspects and the remarkable progress humanity has achieved.
The evaluation of the world and the policies advocated by environmentalists suggest that their true goal is not to advance human flourishing but to eliminate all human impact on the Earth. By catastrophizing the effects of CO2 and overlooking alternative energy sources like nuclear power, the environmentalist movement displays an anti-humanistic agenda. They disregard the manageable nature of the greenhouse effect, neglecting the fact that doubling CO2 levels has not occurred since 1850 and is not expected until the latter half of this century.
CO2 is not entirely detrimental; it plays a vital role in plant growth and greening the Earth. The notion that the greenhouse effect will intensify and lead to global catastrophe has been exaggerated. The greenhouse effect follows a diminishing, logarithmic trajectory, reaching a saturation point where each additional molecule of CO2 absorbs less heat. This manageable rate of warming does not warrant the extreme measures proposed by environmentalists.
It is essential to approach CO2 and fossil fuel policies with an impartial lens, considering both the positives and negatives. The prevailing catastrophic narrative disregards the benefits of CO2 fertilization and the diminishing greenhouse effect. Rather than embracing overly restrictive measures, it is crucial to develop alternative energy sources like nuclear power while acknowledging the manageable nature of CO2’s impact.
While the World Economic Forum and environmentalists advocate for reducing cars and limiting human impact on the planet, it is crucial to scrutinize their true motives and evaluate the narratives surrounding climate change. The anti-humanistic agenda that seeks to eliminate all human influence on the Earth disregards the substantial progress and benefits humanity has achieved, thanks in part to fossil fuels. It is imperative to balance environmental concerns with the advancement of human flourishing and seek sustainable solutions that consider both the planet and its inhabitants.