Wednesday, April 14, 2021

Covid-19 Lockdowns Are a Perfect Model for Green/Climate Lockdowns

Mariana Mazzucato is a name most people—aside from those in particular fields—won't be aware of, however, it's clear that she is a very influential professor, according to the biography featured on her website:

Mariana Mazzucato (PhD) is Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London (UCL), where she is Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation & Public Purpose (IIPP). She received her BA from Tufts University and her MA and PhD in Economics from the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research. Her previous posts include the RM Phillips Professorial Chair at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at Sussex University. She is a selected fellow of the UK’s Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS) and of the Italian National Science Academy (Lincei).

She is winner of international prizes including the 2020 John von Neumann Award, the 2019 All European Academies Madame de Staël Prize for Cultural Values, and the 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. She was named as one of the ‘3 most important thinkers about innovation’ by The New Republic, one of the 50 most creative people in business in 2020 by Fast Company, and one of the 25 leaders shaping the future of capitalism by WIRED.

She is the author of three highly-acclaimed books: The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (2013), The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (2018) and the newly released, Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (2021).

She advises policy makers around the world on innovation-led inclusive and sustainable growth. Her current roles include:
  • Chair of the World Health Organization’s Council on the Economics of Health for All
  • Member of the Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisors
  • Member of the South African President’s Economic Advisory Council
  • Member of the OECD Secretary General’s Advisory Group on a New Growth Narrative
  • Member of the UN High Level Advisory Board for Economic and Social Affairs
  • Member of Argentina’s Economic and Social Council
  • Member of Vinnova’s Advisory Panel in Sweden
  • Member of Norway’s Norway’s Research Council.
  • As Special Advisor for the EC Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation (2017-2019), she authored the high impact report on Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union, turning “missions” into a crucial new instrument in the European Commission’s Horizon innovation programme.

Mazzucato is a prolific writer of policy papers on various economic topics, though she notably has written many papers on transitioning domestic and/or global "carbon economies" into "low-carbon economies," as well as other forays into green economics, several papers on Covid-19, the need for stakeholder capitalism, and many other topics. As her short hair and physiognomy would suggest, she is an intersectional feminist, and she agrees with the elite on most topics, whether it be race, LGBT, anthropogenic climate change, etc. The one area where she disagrees with many of them is her critique of neoliberalism, but most world leaders seem interested in adopting her ideas now that the global economy is quite malleable due to the lockdowns.

(She seriously showed her woke credentials by name-dropping in an interview two examples of improvements in recognizing women as innovators:  Hidden Figures, a movie that greatly exaggerates the role of black women in the space race, and Jess Wade's laughable Women in STEM Wikipedia editing project.)

The full extent of her influence is likely impossible to convey with even the lengthy credits above. 

New York Times:
Over the years, Mariana Mazzucato, an economist and professor at the University College London, has achieved the kind of celebrity status that is uncommon for academics.

In February, British GQ named her one of the 50 most influential people in Britain, alongside David Beckham and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. The Financial Times described one of her panel discussions as “electrifying.” She’s got the ears of politicians and chief executives around the world, from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the U.S. and President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, to Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Pope Francis, who all turn to her for advice or lean on her work for ideas.
Other figures from the political left and right have been influenced by or incorporated her ideas, including Elizabeth Warren and Marco Rubio. In the UK, she has influenced Jeremy Corbyn, Theresa May, and Nicola Sturgeon.

Though it was not mentioned on her biography page, she is also associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF), which has been getting a lot of negative press in alternative media as of late; Mazzucato is regularly referenced in WEF articles, is an agenda contributor, and is one of the Co-Chairs of the Global Future Council on the New Agenda for Economic Growth and Recovery.

The WEF was founded by Klaus Schwab, who is also the current executive chairman of the organization. The WEF is a globalist organization that is highly supportive of the Covid-19 lockdowns, and their advocation seems largely intended to promote a "Great Reset" of capitalism. Additionally, they have expressed interest in moving away from a cash-based currency to a digital currency, stakeholder capitalism, climate change, and potentially, the phasing out of private property

It should be pretty obvious that the WEF is an elite organization intent on bringing about a new world order, and everything they advocate for is a means of consolidating power. People ignorantly scoff at such a notion, labeling it a "conspiracy theory," but it is often the tendency of powerful internationalists to consolidate everything, and the western powers are trending in that direction, keeping weaker countries under their thumb with cultural imperialism, debt-trap diplomacy, and the opening of domestic markets for the benefit of transnational corporations and the privatization of industry.

For anyone who isn't themselves an elite or is a nationalist of any sort, the WEF is obviously a group to be opposed, and the same applies to academics like Mazzucato.

I have seen supporters and detractors alike speculating that the Covid-19 lockdowns may be used in the future not only for a "pandemic," but to curb carbon energy usage and as a climate lockdown. Though don't expect that we'll switch one out for the other; more than likely they will expect the populace to have overlapping lockdowns for the two separate issues—there is still no sign of the "normal" lockdowns abating in most areas, and they can exaggerate another minor virus—or a strain of the same virus—to enact a lockdown anytime they want. Mazzucato obviously has a lot of clout with the elites, and she has laid out these ideas in "Avoiding a climate lockdown."
As COVID-19 spread earlier this year, governments introduced lockdowns in order to prevent a public-health emergency from spinning out of control. In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency.

Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

Addressing this triple crisis requires reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy systems toward a green economic transformation. To achieve this, three obstacles must be removed: business that is shareholder-driven instead of stakeholder-driven, finance that is used in inadequate and inappropriate ways, and government that is based on outdated economic thinking and faulty assumptions.

Corporate governance must now reflect stakeholders’ needs instead of shareholders’ whims. Building an inclusive, sustainable economy depends on productive cooperation among the public and private sectors and civil society. This means firms need to listen to trade unions and workers’ collectives, community groups, consumer advocates, and others.

Since the focus of my article is more general and centered around climate change, I haven't touched on Mazzucato's work extensively. As can be seen above, she has a position within a branch of the WHO. Bill Gates is connected to the WHO, and many of the usual suspects fund Project Syndicate, the NGO featuring Mazzucato's above cited article—including Soros' Open Society Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 

As Global Research notes, this same article was also featured on the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), an NGO that describes itself as "a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world." Most of the big corporations are members of the WBCSD, including Walmart, Bayer, Chevron, Google, Microsoft, DuPont, 3M, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Danone, and Nestlé. A full list of members can be found here

Mazzucato's views are formulated for the benefit of globalist elites and big corporations, and these ties are an indication of their approval of her views.

(Also, make sure to take note of how oil companies are always associated with all of the environmental and sustainable development initiatives; Shell, BP, and Chevron are all on board. Maurice Strong, an oil tycoon was also one of the leading figures in the movement and is associated with the Club of Rome; the Rockefellers of Standard Oil fame are another powerful family that took an interest in the environment and anthropogenic climate change, even though, on the surface level, it would appear to be against their best interests.)

Personally, contrary to most of the conservatives and libertarians commenting on this topic, I'm finding there are some aspects of "stakeholder capitalism" that don't sound bad—some have even likened it to Mussolini-esque fascism and corporatism—however, the distinct difference is her ideas are filtered through a globalist and woke lens, not a nationalist lens. This is not about reining in corporations for the betterment of the people and the nation—it's for the benefit of only an elite minority, and will result in further dysgenic pressure, lower standards of living, and greater suffering for the populace. 

Mazzucato even cites a kooky article from a scientific journal, titled "Covid-19: The disease of the anthropocene," which posits that Covid-19 is a product of ecological degradation, and the authors are proponents of the "wet market" hypothesis, when we're really still not certain of the origins of the alleged virus—I think what we're looking at here is just your standard influenza and coronaviruses, along with whatever else is being lumped in when one tests positive for Covid-19. Yes, many diseases are zoonotic, but it is ridiculous to take a very mild coronavirus and use that as an example of the devastating effects of ecological interactions. 

This is the authors' attempt to tie the majority of diseases to environmental issues. To expand or build roads is to disrupt ecologies, which in turn leads to new diseases. It is the same for animal husbandry and meat production. The idea is obviously to reduce automobile usage and meat consumption for the masses—eventually to zero. 

I can't say that an attempt to reduce zoonotic disease prevalence (or supposed anthropogenic climate change) to near zero is worth these losses in quality of life, and this is obviously not their intention—if they cared about human health, they would do something about the opioid and obesity epidemics or the environmental impact of plastics and chemicals. 

Meat consumption is healthy and important for a balanced diet. Vegan diets are very unhealthy for children especially—even with well-researched supplementation—and adults in general, and vegetarianism is, frankly, not much better. By improving public transit, car usage could be reduced, but it's pretty clear to me that they intend to crack down on car usage to the point that it will affect poorer rural communities who have to commute, the most, in hopes of forcing them to migrate into the cities, where they can better surveil larger swathes of the public.

Can you imagine a future where most humans don't venture very far outside of their heavily surveilled city blocks, where everything is within walking distance or perhaps public transit is used? Only it gets worse. You're eating synthetic "meat," bugs, and soy, all while living in the security of your tiny pod; meanwhile, the elites are eating excellent food, living in spacious manors in gated communities, and maintaining their jet-setting lifestyle. This seems to be a fairly accurate summation of the elites' vision for the world.

The likelihood of a human dying of Covid-19 is very low unless the adult is very old and/or very unhealthy—especially with various comorbidities. Even the oldest person in Europe, who was almost 117 years old when she contracted Covid-19, survived. I get that people who live to be over 100 are freaks of nature in some way, but if people in their 80s-100s can survive it, it's obviously not that serious of an illness.

This may not be the best chart, but it will have to do until I've written a series of articles on Covid-19.

The rate of death is under 1% of those infected until the 50s, where it increases a bit, and it's not really very high until 70-79 years—recall that the average life expectancy in the U.S. is about 78; this data is from China, and their life expectancy is about 76.

The data from the U.S. and other countries is very similar.

In the context of the U.S., we have an alleged 562,000 deaths and 31.3 million cases. The above death toll being true would mean that .17% of the population has died from Covid-19. Using the case numbers to determine the death rate, as many are wont to do, is not accurate because not only are the PCR tests prone to deliver false positives and not at all intended for this purpose, but many people have a very mild or nearly asymptomatic case and are not tested. The death numbers are also inflated because they are counting people who died and tested positive or had similar symptoms to Covid-19 as a Covid-19 death, and hospitals are incentivized to report deaths in this manner to increase their funding.

.17% is not a "serious pandemic," and certainly pales compared to the Kansas Spanish Flu of 1918, which is estimated to have killed 675,000 Americans—the population was a third of our current size, and the percentage works out to about .65% of the population dying. The lockdowns we're using for a more piddly virus than what we saw in the past have caused devastation upon the health of the population and the economy beyond what the virus is capable of. 

If the population of 1918 did not use these lockdown measures, then it's obvious we did not need them either. This is not an instance of the governments of the world being too stupid to learn from history. The lockdowns are for the sake of further controlling the population and consolidating power. 

In the modern context, Hanlon's razor should be seen as a fallacy, and the inverse should instead be invoked: "Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice."

The lockdowns are a failure and Covid-19 is not a serious issue anymore so than seasonal influenza.

Sweden was correct to not force a lockdown or mask mandate on their population, and that is the model the entire world should have followed.

Similarly so, using this model to tackle climate change will be equally deleterious, if not more so—after all, the two "public health" issues will likely be overlapped.

It's really no wonder Mazzucato is speaking of climate lockdowns, for the Covid-19 lockdowns are lowering emissions—if they were to tweak the formula to be centrally focused on climate change (or just emphasize climate change more), then they might be able to reduce emission levels beyond the basic Covid-19 lockdowns.

One of the most common talking points critical of the ruling class is how they bemoan the peasants for energy usage, but they live a jet-setting lifestyle, have yachts, oil-guzzling vehicles, and spacious mansions—so they use a disproportionate amount of energy, and likewise for the amount of emissions they are responsible for. They're eager for a world where travel is rare and everyone is easily accounted for—other than the elites themselves; they will come and go as they please.

Everyone knows tourism and travel drastically decreased globally and in the United States. Estimated international arrivals shrank from 1.461 billion in 2019 to 381 million in 2020—a 74% decline. This is especially devastating for islands and other countries that rake in considerable revenue from tourism. An estimated 2.4 trillion in global export revenue was lost in 2021 as a result of the global Covid-19 hysteria and cultish behavior. About 10% of global jobs pertain to travel, but most of this is now gone.

Emissions from worldwide aviation dropped by 50%. Long-distance travel by automobile also decreased.

Overall energy demand decreased globally during the lockdowns. This decrease was most dramatic in the industry and service sectors, partially offset by increased residential energy usage.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) presented data from 2020, which indicated that energy demand dropped during lockdowns, began to recover by about 10% and 5% in June and July, respectively, below 2019 levels, as lockdowns were easing up, then, in October the energy demand levels returned to normal, before new restrictions were announced.

In the U.S., overall energy-related CO2 emissions decreased by 11% in 2020; by sector: residential, -6%; commercial, -12%; industrial, -8%; transportation, -15%. 

Various countries have either increased or are planning to increase their reliance on renewable energy during the "pandemic." Much to the chagrin of Texas, the cold-snap incident was a result of an over-reliance on wind power and a lack of winterized power plants.

Here are some more data points from The Guardian:
During the northern hemisphere spring, when restrictions were at their strictest, the human footprint softened to a level not seen in decades. Flights halved, road traffic in the UK fell by more than 70%. Industrial emissions in China, the world’s biggest source of carbon, were down about 18% between early February and mid-March – a cut of 250m tonnes. Car use in the United States declined by 40%. So light was humankind’s touch on the Earth that seismologists were able to detect lower vibrations from “cultural noise” than before the pandemic.

Global emissions fell by an estimated 7% globally, the sharpest annual decline ever reported, but The Guardian laments that the trend did not last long enough to curb climate change.

Not all of that is bad, of course. Less pollution is good, but there are economic offsets to be considered and all of this comes far too fast. Taking measures to decrease air pollution by improving car engines and industrial methods, among other gradual improvements could be done, but that's not really what this is about. It's not really just about Covid-19, and future lockdowns, even of the green lockdown variety, will not solely be about reducing CO2 emissions.

It's hard to say what these lockdowns are about, because they are obviously about many things: further destroying small businesses and consolidating the power of big businesses, a means of controlling the population and restricting their movement, implementing contact tracing, vaccine passports, and increasing surveillance technology, rolling out experimental vaccines, as well as the topic of this article—their war against climate change. The most succinct, though too broad to be very helpful, answer is that the lockdowns are a means of consolidating power, and all of what was listed above (and what I failed to list) is a subset of that process of consolidation. 

Nevertheless, the data has been in for a while. These lockdowns have shown their potential for furthering the goals of climate change activists, and it's looking like we'll be in and out of lockdown in the following years. One day, they could say Covid-19 is eradicated, but all they have to do is release a new virus from a lab or simply ascribe all of the characteristics of Covid-19 (which is basically just the flu) to another virus.

Then the court-scientists will roll out their data and pretend the lockdowns were a smashing success and ignore Sweden, the media will clap, and then it all starts over again.

It's unlikely enough people will be on board for climate lockdowns alone. The virus seems to be a necessary component. There are many people who are deathly afraid of viruses, and a virus is a solid excuse for wearing face masks and other obtrusive restrictions that break down trust and lower immunity. A "pandemic" is good for big pharma and will reduce energy usage, so that's quite a few birds with one stone.

It's very clear to me that they will never rebrand these general lockdowns into climate lockdowns, rather the two will overlap and support each other, to the detriment of just about everyone other than the elites.

From the recent Project Veritas CNN leaks, a CNN staffer revealed that CNN has played up the Covid-19 death toll for ratings. This is so obvious that anyone who is paying attention would already know this without confirmation. All of the MSM were doing the same thing.

The far more important revelation is what the staffer goes on to reveal:

“I think there’s a COVID fatigue. So, like whenever a new story comes up, they’re [CNN’s] going to latch onto it. They’ve already announced in our office that once the public is — will be open to it — we’re going to start focusing mainly on climate,” Chester said.

“It’s going to be our [CNN’s] focus. Like our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without saying it, that’s what it was, right? So our next thing is going to be climate change awareness​,” he added.

The insider information provided by the footage from Project Veritas was proven correct.



This enemy does not recognize geopolitical borders. It has the power to wreak havoc on national economies, to cost people their livelihoods and their lives. It seeps through the smallest cracks in our social fabric, targeting the poor and the vulnerable among us. Sound familiar?

The Covid-19 pandemic and climate change have led to catastrophic fallout on a global scale, necessitating cross-border cooperation. Both also cause exponentially more harm to those of lower socioeconomic status.

Experts say that the Covid-19 pandemic has been a stress test for regional and international collaboration that has strained political partnerships. But despite nationalistic self-interest surrounding supplies of vaccines and virus treatments, some experts say it may actually put us in a better position to earnestly and successfully combat climate change in a post-pandemic society -- if we learn from our mistakes.

"The pandemic has given us a trial run," said Alice Hill, the David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the big difference between pandemics and climate risk is that the climate has undergone permanent, irreversible damage. And so we need to focus on how we build resilience quickly and effectively on a global scale."

They're already babbling on about—not inequality—but inequity, riding the nauseating wave coming from the Biden administration, most notably Kamala Harris' Twitter clip—possibly other sources as well. 

Also included with an ominous—though predictable, if you're paying attention—quote from the United Nation's "independent expert on human rights and international solidarity," Obiora C. Okafor, who states, "This pandemic will not end for anyone until it ends for everyone." CNN editorializes in a way that allows this line to apply equally towards climate change. It boils down to advocacy for a global redistribution scheme that further consolidates the various countries of the world under a supranational entity (along with the typical domestic diversity fiasco)—expect the IMF and other international financial institutions, as well as the endless list of NGOs and other influential bodies to increase the pressure to make all countries comply.

This shift from Covid-19 to climate change is likely a directive from higher up (above CNN), and you'll see plenty of horizontal alignment on the issue of climate change among the MSM outlets. They'll continue to report on Covid-19 and enforce that narrative, but they'll weave in more climate change talking points and use it for the purpose of stoking fear in an already subdued population. The two will probably be drip fed in cycles—one having greater emphasis when the other topic becomes too stale.

Update: On August 16, Kit Knightly published an article titled "The IPCC Report & the Pivot from Covid to Climate" for Off Guardian. The IPCC report is always an effective way to renew the climate change scare. Knightly has collected quite a few quotes that demonstrate the current round of climate-related propaganda, and these MSM hacks are further reinforcing the idea of climate lockdowns. The social conditioning and modification of infrastructure associated with Covid-19 measures can very easily be adapted to climate change. There can be an ebb and flow between the two issues, or they can co-occur. 

Here is a solid quote to close with, coming from Andrew Marr of iNews:
There is a great turn coming, a change in the terms of political debate, a period of hinge. We are swinging from the many months of coronavirus obsession into an autumn which will be dominated, rightly, by the climate emergency. But much of what we have learned from Covid-19 – about the state, authority, journalism and civil society – is directly applicable to what’s coming next.

No comments:

Post a Comment