Footprints and farming folk

As most sane folk know, the notion of carbon footprint was invented to provide an extraordinary degree of control over every person on Earth. All seven billion of us – we each have a carbon footprint and the UN still seems intent on using it as designed – to control us in a way any farmer would understand. It’s what COP17 is all about.

As governments and global bureaucracies grasp the possibilities of having international standard measures for all the inputs and outputs of a human life, it may be that we need to raise more than our voices about the implications. Especially now we have even more hard evidence from the revelations in Climategate 2 that climate change propaganda is just that – propaganda.

Carbon footprint is the equality agenda taken to its Animal Farm conclusion. Equality is turning out to mean little more than the rights a farmer expects livestock to have. Carbon footprint using common units such as kilograms of carbon dioxide per year can be used as a standard measure of :-

  • Food.
  • Clothing.
  • Warmth and light.
  • Cooking.
  • Housing.
  • Non-food sundries.
  • Transport.
  • Work environment.
  • Entertainment.
  • Cremation.

All these have their carbon footprints. Because they are expressed in the same units, they can be mixed and matched and added together to give global pictures of what sized carbon footprint is appropriate to maintain a human being in a state of bovine passivity – or equality as it is so often described by those with an ambiguous vocabulary.

The carbon footprint seems to be the tool by which human beings are to be domesticated. It is the key measure by which we are to be farmed – to be reduced to livestock where all inputs are calibrated to a global standard and thereby globally controlled. Don’t believe it? In the UK we are already being lectured on how many bedrooms there should be in what we used to think were our homes.

16 comments for “Footprints and farming folk

  1. December 2, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    As the current object of the two-minute-hate Jeremy Clarkson once said, I don’t have a carbon footprint. I drive everywhere.

    • December 2, 2011 at 10:02 pm

      A pretty good reply too.

  2. nemesis
    December 2, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    You missed out ‘breathing’ – thats half a ton of CO2 every year for every person!!
    Carbon footprint seems to be a misnomer – since its not carbon but carbon dioxide they are concerned with. Carbon dioxide is an invisible, odourless gas that is in effect food for plants but according to MSM and politicians is a nasty pollutant. Go figure!!

    • December 2, 2011 at 10:03 pm

      I know – the more CO2 the better as far as plants are concerned. It’s already too low.

  3. December 2, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    I don’t give a stuff about carbon footprints, don’t understand them and am not going to play, thanks very much all the same.

  4. WitteringsfromWitney
    December 2, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Have reposted over at my place, AKH. Well said!

    • December 2, 2011 at 10:04 pm

      Many thanks.

  5. Stadtler
    December 3, 2011 at 7:53 am

    Oddly enough their carbon footprints never stop the worthies collecting to discuss it in jolly places like Cancun…

    • December 3, 2011 at 8:00 am

      Some animals are more equal than others…

  6. December 3, 2011 at 10:32 am

    …and of course, that many global Banks around the world are now dependent on the earnings from their Carbon Trading Desks, literally trading on the air your breathe, tells another part of the story.

    • December 3, 2011 at 1:21 pm

      IanPJ, good point.

      When we strip it down to its bare essentials, the whole climate change thing is about people getting their snouts in troughs. Whether that’s selling windmills, feed in tariffs for solar panels (thankfully curtailed), trading in these permits, large corporations selling off excess permits, yet more third world aid, more funding for more research, selling bags-for-life, sustainable, fair trade, subsidies for agricultural landowners to do absolutely nothing ‘set aside’, crapola, yadda, etc etc.

    • December 3, 2011 at 3:13 pm

      I agree – the science is a smokescreen.

  7. December 3, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    The IF were NOT “lecturing” anybody about how many bedrooms they “should have”, nothing of the sort.

    Unlike most people, I’ve actually read their report and the bulk of it is merely about how unevenly housing ‘wealth’ is distributed and how skewed this distribution has become since Home-Owner-Ism became the dominant ideology in this country (gathering pace since the late 1970s).

    They just used ‘spare bedrooms’ as one way of measuring it, they could have used square yards of available space per person, net housing equity per household or anything else.

    The IF were pretty indifferent whether this could be evened up by smaller households trading down or just allowing a load more housing to be built so that younger, larger households could trade up.

    • Jeremy Poynton
      December 3, 2011 at 1:29 pm

      Monbiot, however – as one might expect from such an odious, sanctimonious cowardly little shite – did write an article in the Guardian telling people with extra rooms in their houses that they should fill them up.

      • December 3, 2011 at 1:40 pm

        I agree, people should fill them up… but with food. Dry foods such as pasta, rice, flour etc, tins and all other long lasting foodstuffs, cause when the banks collapse, the money becomes worthless, the ATMs stop dispensing, the transport infrastructure grinds to a halt and the shops are empty.. you will need it.

    • December 3, 2011 at 3:11 pm

      I’ve read it too or I wouldn’t have cited it. In my view “lecturing” is an entirely appropriate word.

Comments are closed.