Well, if they keep backing leftist politicians they will get WWIII style rationing
Almost 40% would agree to WW2-style RATIONING to fight climate change
After the end of World War II, it took Britain almost a decade to finally abolish rationing for everyday goods.
While the war may be almost 80 years in the past, nearly 40 per cent of the public would now welcome back the ration book to help fight climate change.
Researchers from Uppsala University, Sweden, surveyed almost 9,000 participants from India, Brazil, Germany, and the US.
Their responses revealed that rationing for fuel and ’emissions-intensive’ products such as meat is nearly as widely accepted as raising taxes.
Lead author Oskar Lindgren, a PhD student at Uppsala University, says: ‘Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change. This may explain why support is rather high.’
Weirdly, all those who believe in this aren’t actually reducing their own consumption voluntarily.
Currently, most governments and researchers focus on ‘economic instruments’ like taxing polluting products and subsidising greener alternatives.
However, scientists believe that a fairer alternative might be to limit how much of these goods can be bought.
Mr Lindgren says: ‘One advantage of rationing is that it can be perceived as fair, if made independent of income.’
And who would be in charge of this? Government? Sounds rather authoritarian. Rationing was rather forced on nations during WWII due to shortages, especially in a nation like Britain. They really didn’t have much of a choice. And does anyone think that the Elites would be subjected to the same rationing? How many politicians yammer about reducing the use of fossil fuels, yet, use way more than everyone else?
Overall, 38 per cent of respondents said they would accept monthly limits on fuel purchasing compared with 39 per cent who said they would accept greater fuel taxes.
Likewise, 33 per cent of people said they would support monthly limits on meat purchases compared with 44 per cent who said they would back a greater tax on high climate-impact foods.
This is all theoretical. The minute government started putting this in action there would be a revolt. At least in the 1st World, and, especially here in the U.S.A.
Some questions just answer themselves, don’t they?
My mother told me about World War II rationing, how packets of yellow coloring came with what she called oleomargerine — she still referred to it as oleo in the sixties — so people could make it look like butter. With nylon rationed away, women had pencils so that they could draw a line up the backs of their legs, so it would look like they had stockings.
Those seem like little items, but everything deemed necessary for the war effort was rationed.
What would the warmunists like about rationing? Would they be upset that they couldn’t get the latest iPhone upgrade? How about the rationing of electricity, which is primarily produced by burning coal or natural gas? Would they like the rationing of gasoline itself, because few of them have the plug-in electric cars they want Other People to drive, or which they couldn’t keep charged due to electricity rationing?
The first real cold front of the season is about to hit; would they like to see electricity or heating oil or natural gas rationed when it drops into the 30s or 40s in some places this evening? After all, rationing to fight
global warmingclimate change would surely limit that stuff!My old house in the Keystone State used heating oil as our steam radiator fuel, and we were hardly alone; Jim Thorpe supported not one but two heating oil distributors, which tells you how many homes depended upon it. And there was one home, just up the block from us, that used coal for heating!
The sparktricity went out due to 14″ of heavy, wet snow on Christmas morning of 2002. Our fuel-oil furnace didn’t work, because it requited electricity for the oil pump and ignition. The power went out at 1130 Christmas morning, and wasn’t restored until around 1800 on the 26th; it got down into the 50s in our house by the time we got power back.
Our electricity came from a fossil fuel burning power plant. Downgrading to electric heat would have been either significantly expensive, if baseboard heaters were used, or very expensive, if a heat-pump forced air system had to be installed; our Victorian home had no forced air ducts, and installing them would have downgraded the interior appearance significantly. And, even had that been done, and we were no longer burning heating oil to heat the house, we’d be burning natural gas at the power plant with our increased demand for sparktricity! Those BTUs don’t just magically appear!
I did install a woodstove, later.
nothing is stopping them from living like that now
That’s my opinion Andrew. Almost 40% would agree to WW2-style RATIONING to fight climate change? Sign them up. There is no reason why everybody has to do the same thing.
As seen on X
“Hey SpaceX, whatcha up to?
“OH, just catching giant rockets out of the air with a freaking tower”
“Oh, cool, how about you, NASA?”
“We’re…..studying how racist the air is….”
(article on the “study” is then shown)