UK Poll Shows Support for Weather Tax

This is you in 12 years if you don’t start eating bugs NOW.

You can’t tell anymore if the media is lying, but you also cannot underestimate the stupidity of normal people.

The Guardian:

The UK public backs a carbon tax on polluting industries, higher levies on flying and grants for heat pumps in order to tackle the climate crisis, according to the biggest analysis of policy preferences ever published.

Almost 22,000 people chose their favoured mix of policies to hit the government’s 2030 target for emissions cuts. A speed limit of 60mph on motorways and a campaign to reduce meat eating by 10% were also among the most popular measures, all of which had between 77% and 94% public support.

The public went further than the government, choosing to surpass the current carbon target by 3%. Age, location and political leaning made little difference to the policy choices, the researchers found, with an “overwhelming consensus” for strong and fair climate action.

The most popular suite of policies meant people earning less than £22,000 would be £44 a year better off, thanks to redistribution of the carbon tax to the less well-off and savings on heating and car bills. Those with incomes between £35,000 and £53,000 would pay £195 more a year to fund the policies. The policy suite was also estimated to support a million jobs by 2030.

I guess I don’t have to keep telling you, my dear reader, that the global warming agenda is not actually about changing the weather. This is moronic and nonsensical.

But it’s also not about taxing the rich or any other thing that seems like a reasonable idea.

These people are supporting an agenda to drastically downsize the lifestyles of the average person.

The end goal here is to have people living in tiny apartments in high-rise buildings and eating bugs. They want everyone sterilized, and basically not doing anything other than watching Netflix and masturbating.

And I can promise you this: when you’re living in a tiny apartment eating bugs, with no job and no life, the weather is still going to be the same as it always was.

This whole hoax was literally published in 1972 by the Club of Rome – they said that the best way to get people to accept a vastly reduced quality of life was to threaten them with the weather.

But what is the actual threat?

Are people worried that they’re going to just like, get really sweaty?

That you’ll have swamp ass all day?

Don’t people like warm weather, generally?

It would obviously be good for the crops.

If people really are worried about getting too sweaty, they can just move north. Their total threat right now is like a 2 degrees Celsius average temperature change over 100 years or something. According to them, it changed less than 2 degrees in the last 150 years. So even if it was all real – who cares?

But it isn’t real. The entire thing is a lie. So of course, they are very dishonest in their selling of it. They’re saying that hurricanes and earthquakes are caused by driving cars.

Of course, most people live their entire lives without getting caught in an earthquake or hurricane. Especially in Britain.

So what they’re selling is just a big emotional batch of pseudoreligious gibberish – and they are not telling you what it is going to cost you.

The Guardian article contains this graph:

Yeah, okay.

Go read this article from The Guardian about how the only solution is “less of everything,” where they say clearly they’re going to destroy your quality of life, and see if it sounds like they’re talking about a few bucks a week.

This is from that piece by weather extremist and faggoty apocalypsist George Monbiot:

Everywhere, governments seek to ramp up the economic load, talking of “unleashing our potential” and “supercharging our economy”. Boris Johnson insists that “a global recovery from the pandemic must be rooted in green growth”. But there is no such thing as green growth. Growth is wiping the green from the Earth.

We have no hope of emerging from this full-spectrum crisis unless we dramatically reduce economic activity. Wealth must be distributed – a constrained world cannot afford the rich – but it must also be reduced. Sustaining our life-support systems means doing less of almost everything.

By “the rich,” he of course means “the middle class” or “white people.”

He doesn’t mean Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. If he meant them, they wouldn’t be foaming at the mouth supporting this agenda, now would they?