Cities’ Climate Goals Point To Radical Changes

In an era where climate change takes center stage in international politics, some American cities are making radical shifts, toeing the line of regression rather than progression.

Fourteen major American cities, including New York City, San Francisco and Chicago, are now C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group members. This globalist climate organization set forth an “ambitious target” for 2030 which involves no meat or dairy consumption, an annual limit of three new clothing items per person, no private vehicles, and a cap on short-haul return flights. In their 2019 report, “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World,” these targets were reemphasized this year.

In most contexts, the term “target” would mean a desired goal. However, media personalities and news outlets covering these goals have faced relentless scrutiny from corporate fact-checkers. Take, for example, a fact-check by AFP Fact Check on conservative commentator Glenn Beck, which declared that these goals were not “policy recommendations.” This seems to contradict the very definition of a target.

Adding to the mix, New York City Mayor Eric Adams recently stated that the city would limit the quantity of meat and dairy provided in city institutions, aligning with the C40 Cities’ goals. This was after the city unveiled a greenhouse gas inventory, pinpointing food production and consumption as contributing to 20% of the city’s emissions.

Ethan Lane, the NCBA Vice President of Government Affairs, criticized Adams for allegedly misconstruing the emission statistics of the American meat industry. Lane asserted that beef cattle account for a mere 2% of U.S. emissions, explaining, “Cattle producers are continuously improving their sustainability practices and will keep producing high-quality beef to feed the entire world.”

While Mayor Adams pushes plant-based meals, stating they’re beneficial for health and the planet, there’s another side of the coin. Should globalist leaders dictate such stringent standards without themselves practicing what they preach? Chartering private jets and owning expansive, energy-guzzling mansions hardly aligns with the so-called climate-friendly lifestyle they champion.

Moreover, the World Economic Forum, a supporter of the C40 Cities, introduced “The Great Reset” in 2020, using the COVID-19 pandemic as a launching point for a global societal reset to combat climate change. This raises the question: is the climate crisis used as a front for social control?

The world is in a precarious situation. While temperatures have risen, some policies, like banning meat and dairy, restricting dietary choices or considering the genetic modification of humans, are essentially anti-human. The International Disaster Database notes that deaths due to extreme heat, floods, and storms have significantly decreased as CO2 emissions have increased, emphasizing the advancements brought by the fossil fuel economy.

Addressing climate change shouldn’t mean undermining human rights or erasing societal advances. Efforts should promote sustainable solutions like nuclear energy, a reliable and clean energy source. Regressively dictating what people can eat, wear, or drive could lead to a society where individual freedoms are threatened in the name of saving the planet.