World Economic Forum attacks idea of private property, natural rights
The World Economic Forum is pushing for a global transition away from private ownership of vehicles and other "idle equipment" as part of a "clean energy revolution,” itself part of the Great Reset.
In a recently released report, the Swiss-based international lobbying group stated that "transition from fossil fuels to renewables will need large supplies of critical metals such as cobalt, lithium, nickel." But the report noted that shortages of these critical metals are likely to make renewable fuel technologies prohibitively expensive.
The report highlighted a couple of options, but downplayed both as essentially unworkable, saying: "One obvious route is to mine more virgin material, but this comes with its own costs and potentially unintended consequences. Another solution commonly discussed is to recycle more and use the metals already in circulation. The complication is that we do not currently have enough metals in circulation, and even with recycling taken into consideration, mineral production is still forecasted to increase by nearly 500%." (Which, in my opinion, would be a low estimate.)
Having set the parameters of any debate, the WEF report got down to the heart of the matter, its raison d’être. It listed three proposals geared toward building a "fully circular economy" in order to reduce demand for critical metals, which are used in cellphones, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and many other technologies.
The first of these is the most important, and surely the most arousing to the likes of Klaus Schwab (son of a former member of several National Socialist (i.e. Nazi) organizations, and his ilk. The report argues that private ownership of vehicles and electronic devices, et. al., is wasteful and inefficient, and that we must “go from owning to using.”
It further notes, "The average car or van in England is driven just 4% of the time,” and adds, “While most already have a personal phone, 39% of workers globally have employer-provided laptops and mobile phones. This is not at all resource efficient." Right. No one should be allowed to own more than one of anything.
Memo to the WEF: one doesn’t live in one’s house, condo or apartment every hour of every day, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t own one…or that it is “resource inefficient.” And how often do we use our toasters? Five minutes a day? That would be about three-tenths of one percent of the time. Our blenders? Washing machines, dryers? Televisions? Most folks don’t use their heat for several months out of the year. The same goes for air-conditioning. I guess we should get rid of all these “idle, wasteful, and inefficient items,” too. Maybe we could call for a toaster, washing machine or T.V.-- if and when we need one.
Precisely the thing, the report states! For example, it suggests the dramatically expanded use of "car sharing platforms" that let users briefly rent vehicles rather than own them. And it says a fundamental transformation of the way things and systems -- including entire cities -- are designed is a necessary part of this “revolution.”
To enable a broader transition from ownership to usership, the way we design things and systems need to change too. For example, car sharing is made possible by new keyless unlocking features. Similarly, user profiles that create a distinction for work and personal use on the same device is needed to reduce the number of devices per person. A design process that focuses on fulfilling the underlying need instead of designing for product purchasing is fundamental to this transition. This is the mindset needed to redesign cities to reduce private vehicles and other usages.
And that was just the first proposal.
The second proposal was to have consumers keep things longer before buying a new one to replace them. For example, the report observed that keeping a smart phone for five years instead of three could reduce the phone's annual carbon footprint by 31%.
The third proposal? The WEF wants to encourage the repurposing of technologies that no longer can perform their original function into doing something else. For example, a retired battery from an electric vehicle could be refurbished to power streetlights.
The report acknowledges that implementing these solutions would require a dramatic upheaval of worldwide economies but claims that failing to make them would harm the environment.
You know what else would harm the environment? The utter devastation of worldwide economies and the resulting poverty, illness, disease, chaos, conflict, and hopelessness that would be sure to follow.
Transitioning from fossil fuels to “sustainable” energy, at least via proposals like the WEF’s, will require those of us that aren’t wealthy and famous to give up our rights to private ownership…and probably everything else. That’s not sustainable. Or shouldn’t be. Will we meekly go along with this—or fight back? At this late stage, even if we fight back, we may lose and be forced to comply. But “this dude doesn’t abide.”
The WEF thinks we all need to get rid of everything we own. Per Herr Schwab, we are supposed to own nothing and be happy about it. WEF types purport to believe that, rather than being a key to liberty, private property is evil…and reeks of white supremacy! Can’t we all just share our things?
I will share one thing with these tyrannical Marxist asshats who would run—and ruin—our lives: they can kiss my ass any time they want to.