BBC declares the world can be saved 'with the right policies'

You are the carbon footprint they want to reduce.

Last week, Jocelyn Timperley penned an article for the BBC, and began by posing this question:

But what do truly low-carbon lifestyles look like — and can they really be achieved by personal choice alone?

Timperley’s piece paid special attention to two climate cultists, Carys Mainprize and Rosalind Readhead, and their ambitious experiments to go “ultra-low carbon”. The verdict? Impossible; something’s gotta give. Care to take a wager what that could possibly be?

If you guessed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property, you’d be correct.

From the text:

…with the right policies, infrastructure and technology in place to enable changes to our lifestyles and behaviour [sic], we can reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions substantially by 2050.

But don’t worry, the “changes” necessary for this great energy and economic transformation aren’t “necessarily” agonizing (but of course they are), you’ll be happier!

Timperley includes insight from Lewis Akenji, managing director of the Hot or Cool Institute, and Tim Gore, a former head of a European “sustainability thinktank”; she writes:

One major change would be to change how we move around. Akenji envisions a combination of public transport alongside micro-mobility systems (such as electric scooters and drones) which make it efficient and effective for people to reach it. Private cars, with their huge emissions and often empty seats, would largely be a thing of the past, he says, and car parks converted to green public spaces where people go to play, relax or do exercise.

This high-quality public transport would be electrified and powered by renewable sources, says Gore. It would be complemented by cycling and walking and other forms of mobility that get people active – benefiting wellbeing and health too.

(“High-quality public transport” is an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.)

I wonder if these are the same people who backed global governments as they shuttered playgrounds and isolated beaches during the “pandemic”? I’d suspect so.

The next to go? A comfortable home — the harbinger was Biden’s EPA coming for our gas stoves. Completely unironically, Gore notes that the legislated/mandated transition to “energy efficiency” for private property will create jobs, so of course, it’s a “no brainer.” Quick economics lesson: robbing Peter to pay Paul didn’t create wealth, it merely transferred it.

And finally, of course, the bugs:

Meat and dairy products would be seen more as a luxury or a special occasion treat rather than something you would eat two or three times a day, says Gore.

If anyone rejects the idea of a landscape that resembles a dystopian wasteland, it’s me — trust me, I lived in Tucson, Arizona for eight years — but I’m also a realist who knows what communism is. (Don’t forget the biggest pushers of the “green” movement consistently load their limousines on private planes to attend conferences to “tackle the climate crisis”!) It all comes down to one question, courtesy of the brilliant Thomas Sowell: “At what cost?”

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.

If you experience technical problems, please write to