The fact that these climate change policies have a negative effect on our overall standard of living is not lost on the social engineers designing this system. The document titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000" published in 2003 details how the United States did not agree to an international plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, "citing concerns about the economic impact of reducing GHG emissions on the time scale required under the agreement." This is a clear indication that there's an understanding among government officials that these Greenhouse Gas Emission reducing policies can have negative effects on the economy, and yet many of these policies are still pursued.
One easy way to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions is to charge people more money for things like gas and electricity, so that they use less. In a 2007 state progress report on Climate Change the topic of gasoline consuming motor vehicles causing greenhouse gas emission is discussed and it's stated that "elevated consumer gasoline prices of mid-2006 indicate that increased fuel prices may act to restrain consumption". They also attribute a 3.7% increase in bus ridership to this increase in gas prices. See high gas prices are good for their agenda because high gas prices will reduce the amount of gas used,even causing some people to give up their car and use the bus. Actually, increasing the cost of driving in general is good for their agenda. As documented in part three of this series The War On Cars, they want us out of our cars and onto public transportation.
Even our ability to keep our house cool is under attack by the social engineers of this system. A 2006 report bemoans the fact that "[t]oday, most homes are air-conditioned", saying "[t]he increased use of residential air conditioning adds considerable demand during daytime peak periods" and that "[t]hese peak periods coincide with unhealthy air quality days in the summer." Suggested solutions to this problem include having your air conditioner connected to a "smart grid" that allows an outside grid operator to control your output. The topic of the smart grid and smart meters deserves, and will receive, its own analysis in the near future.
The way that we heat our home is also being manipulated, creating an extra financial burden. In a 2013 document put out by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) it discusses the topic of people who use oil or propane to heat their home, and laments the fact that oil and propane home delivery services are not regulated by the state. The DEEP recommends that policymakers consider a "dedicated fund supported by fuel oil and propane customers to provide robust efficiency programs" and that "oil and propane heating customers will need to be assessed higher co-pays for use of the State‘s electric efficiency programs." In other words, tax you more money under the guise of "efficiency".
Being poor is also good for reducing solid waste generation. In a 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health" it is stated that "Connecticut currently is at or has surpassed the capacity to manage its own solid waste ". It follows with the statement that "while the economic downturn has been positive for solid waste generation because people produce less solid waste per capita when the economy is poor, the eventual economic improvements will continue to strain capacity in future years." Therefore, when people don't have money, they don't produce as much trash, and this is good for the environment, but if the economy improves, and people have more money, they will produce more trash, and this is bad.
Knowing that poor people are good for the climate change agenda, it makes sense that in 2014 when the state celebrated meeting their initial green house gas reduction goal, they credited "the economic downturn" as one of the instrumental factors in reaching that goal.
If we follow the path that these policy makers are creating to its logical conclusion, the majority of the world will be living in destitute conditions, with little to no technological innovations, similar to what we are told is the living conditions of the average citizen of North Korea. Surely not everyone involved with propagating these climate change policies understands the disastrous consequences of such policies however that doesn't make the disastrous consequences any less likely to occur. As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
- The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
- The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
- The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
- The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)