Climate Change Lockdowns? Yup, They Are Actually Going There…

[Addict2sex]

Climate Change Lockdowns? Yup, They Are Actually Going There…
December 6, 2022 by Michael

End Of The American Dream

Life As You Have Known It Will Never Be The Same Again...

endoftheamericandream.com

I suppose that we should have known that this was inevitable. After establishing a precedent during the pandemic, now the elite apparently intend to impose lockdowns for other reasons as well. What I have detailed in this article is extremely alarming, and I hope that you will share it with everyone that you can. Climate change lockdowns are here, and if people don’t respond very strongly to this it is likely that we will soon see similar measures implemented all over the western world. The elite have always promised to do “whatever it takes” to fight climate change, and now we are finding out that they weren’t kidding.




Over in the UK, residents of Oxfordshire will now need a special permit to go from one “zone” of the city to another. But even if you have the permit, you will still only be allowed to go from one zone to another “a maximum of 100 days per year”…

Oxfordshire County Council yesterday approved plans to lock residents into one of six zones to ‘save the planet’ from global warming. The latest stage in the ’15 minute city’ agenda is to place electronic gates on key roads in and out of the city, confining residents to their own neighbourhoods.
Under the new scheme if residents want to leave their zone they will need permission from the Council who gets to decide who is worthy of freedom and who isn’t. Under the new scheme residents will be allowed to leave their zone a maximum of 100 days per year, but in order to even gain this every resident will have to register their car details with the council who will then track their movements via smart cameras round the city.

Are residents of Oxfordshire actually going to put up with this?

[Paul Joseph Watson notes that the local authorities in Oxford tried to ‘fact check’ the article claiming they’re imposing de facto ‘climate lockdowns’, but ended basically admitting that’s exactly what they’re doing...]

never thought that we would actually see this sort of a thing get implemented in the western world, but here we are.

Of course there are a few people that are loudly objecting to this new plan, but one Oxfordshire official is pledging that “the controversial plan would go ahead whether people liked it or not”.

Ouch.

Meanwhile, France has decided to completely ban certain short-haul flights in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions…

France Is Banning Short-Haul Domestic Flights in a Bid to Reduce Carbon Emissions

Three routes with viable rail alternatives have been prohibited.

www.yahoo.com

France can now make you train rather than plane.
The European Commission (EC) has given French officials the green light to ban select domestic flights if the route in question can be completed via train in under two and a half hours.
The plan was first proposed in 2021 as a means to reduce carbon emissions. It originally called for a ban on eight short-haul flights, but the EC has only agreed to nix three that have quick, easy rail alternatives with several direct connections each way every day.

This is nuts.

But if the French public accepts these new restrictions, similar bans will inevitably be coming to other EU nations.

In the Netherlands, the government is actually going to be buying and shutting down approximately 3,000 farms in order to “reduce its nitrogen pollution”…

The Dutch government is planning to purchase and then close down up to 3,000 farms in an effort to comply with a European Union environmental mandate to slash emissions, according to reports.
Farmers in the Netherlands will be offered “well over” the worth of their farm in an effort to take up the offer voluntarily, The Telegraph reported. The country is attempting to reduce its nitrogen pollution and will make the purchases if not enough farmers accept buyouts.
“There is no better offer coming,” Christianne van der Wal, nitrogen minister, told the Dutch parliament on Friday.

This is literally suicidal.

We are in the beginning stages of an unprecedented global food crisis, and the Dutch government has decided that now is the time to shut down thousands of farms?

I don’t even have the words to describe how foolish this is.

Speaking of suicide, Canada has found a way to get people to stop emitting any carbon at all once their usefulness is over. Assisted suicide has become quite popular among the Canadians, and the number of people choosing that option keeps setting new records year after year…

Last year, more than 10,000 people in Canada – astonishingly that’s over three percent of all deaths there – ended their lives via euthanasia, an increase of a third on the previous year. And it’s likely to keep rising: next year, Canada is set to allow people to die exclusively for mental health reasons.

If you are feeling depressed, Canada has a solution for that.

And if you are physically disabled, Canada has a solution for that too…

Only last week, a jaw-dropping story emerged of how, five years into an infuriating battle to obtain a stairlift for her home, Canadian army veteran and Paralympian Christine Gauthier was offered an extraordinary alternative.
A Canadian official told her in 2019 that if her life was so difficult and she so ‘desperate’, the government would help her to kill herself. ‘I have a letter saying that if you’re so desperate, madam, we can offer you MAiD, medical assistance in dying,’ the paraplegic ex-army corporal testified to Canadian MPs.

“Medical assistance in dying” sounds so clinical.

But ultimately it is the greatest lockdown of all.

Because once you stop breathing, you won’t be able to commit any more “climate sins”.

All over the western world, authoritarianism is growing at a pace that is absolutely breathtaking.

If they can severely restrict travel and shut down farms today, what sort of tyranny will we see in the future?

Sadly, most people in the general population still do not understand what is happening.

Hopefully they will wake up before it is too late.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting story about how US domestic passenger flights could be virtually shut down, voluntarily or by government order.

But even if you have the permit, you will still only be allowed to go from one zone to another “a maximum of 100 days per year”…

 

[Addict2sex]

France Bans Short-Haul Domestic Flights... Because 'Climate Change'

France is banning short-haul domestic flights when there is a regular and frequent train option that takes less than two and a half hours, after a 2021 climate law, No 2021-1104, received permission from the European Commission (EC).
Article 145.I of the law prohibits passenger flights “on all air routes within French territory for which there are several direct rail connections per day of less than two and a half hours,” according to the European Union decision report (pdf).
The proposal, which has been hailed by the French Greens and environmental lobbyists in Brussels alike, will directly affect three major air routes between Paris-Orly and Lyon, Nantes, and Bordeaux.

Remix News' Thomas Brooke reports that an intention to improve rail services and decrease the journey duration could see routes from Paris and Rennes to Lyon and Marseille also axed.

The measure is expected to take several months to enter into force and should last initially for three years, with a review of its effectiveness undertaken after two.

In its decision, published on Dec. 2, the European Commission dismissed the protestations of French airports and airline lobbyists, who claimed that the ban would fall foul of competition laws.

It claimed, however, that “the negative impacts on European citizens and connectivity of any restriction of traffic rights must be offset by the availability of affordable, convenient and more sustainable alternative transport modes.”

France’s Transport Minister Clément Beaune called the move a “major step forward,” adding:

“I am proud that France is a pioneer in this area.”

Karima Delli, a French Green MEP, hailed the European Commission’s approval of the ban, calling it a “victory” for environmental campaigners, but insisted that “the threshold must be raised to four hours, and above all, include private jets in the ban.”

A four-hour threshold would effectively see the abolition of all internal flights across France.

“The French ban on short-haul flights where quick train connections exist is a baby step, but it’s one in the right direction,” said Thomas Gelin, Greenpeace’s EU climate campaigner.

However, some Green Party politicians want to extend the ban to cover four-hour train journeys, while other European lawmakers are hoping to expand the coverage to the whole continent with upcoming new railway lines like the European Uunion’s TEN-T project.

As The Epoch Times' Naveen Anthrapully points out, detractors of the new rule, like the Net Zero Watch, commented in a tweet, “Just another freedom Net Zero will be taking away. #CostOfNetZero."

Perhaps most notably, The EC noted that the new rule will not have much of an impact on the environment because air traffic on the routes had considerably declined since the pandemic shutdowns.

“Banning those routes will therefore not lead to an actual reduction in emissions. However, unquantifiable environmental benefits may nonetheless be generated since air carriers potentially interested in operating these routes will be prevented from doing so,” said the commission in the report.

“Expect much more of this,” tweeted Canadian conservative scholar Jordan Peterson in response to the news.

PS. And they also banned private jets, right? RIGHT? Soon they will ban living as well?

 

[Addict2sex]

https://www.arup.com/-/media/arup/files/publications/c/arup-c40-the-future-of-urban-consumption-in-a-1-5c-world.pdf

The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5C World - Arup

New ways of measuring cities’ climate footprints show that C40 cities consumption-based emissions contribute to 10% of global greenhouse gases. This report explores how cities consumption-based emissions need to reduce to avoid a climate breakdown and focuses on six sectors – food, construction...

www.arup.com

This report by C40, Arup and the University of Leeds assesses the impact of urban consumption on climate breakdown and explores the type and scale of changes needed to ensure that C40 cities reduce their GHG emissions in line with internationally agreed, climate-safe limits.
Main takeaways
1 • New ways of measuring the climate footprint of C40 cities show that urban consumption is a key driver of global GHG emissions. C40 cities
can have a significant impact on GHG emissions beyond their geographic borders by influencing global supply chains.
2 • C40 cities alone represent 10% of global GHG emissions when accounting for consumption- based emissions.
3 • While C40 cities have strong action plans
in place to significantly cut emissions produced directly within their geographic boundaries, emissions measured by what is consumed within C40 cities are rising and, left unchecked, will nearly double by 2050 (+87%).
4 • To avoid climate breakdown, emissions from global urban consumption must halve by 2030. For this to be achieved, emissions from consumption in high-income cities must decrease by two thirds within the next decade. At the same time, rapidly developing economies need to adopt sustainable consumption patterns when growing.
5 • Cities are already leading on addressing climate breakdown by setting science-based targets and taking meaningful action to
reduce local emissions from buildings, energy, transport and waste. However, it is crucial that emissions from consumption are measured when considering how to reduce a city’s full impact on climate change.
6 • Urban action on consumption can significantly reduce emissions from key consumption categories such as buildings and infrastructure (26% by 2030; 44% by 2050), food (36% by 2030; 60% by 2050), private transport (28% by 2030; 39% by 2050), clothing and textiles (39% by 2030; 66% by 2050), electronics and household appliances (18% by 2030; 33% by 2050) as well as aviation (26% by 2030; 55% by 2050).
7 • Cutting consumption-based emissions will deliver wider benefits for a city and its residents. Individuals, businesses and city governments all stand to gain if changes are delivered in the right way. This analysis shows that a city that consumes sustainably can also be a city where residents’ health is improved and mortality rates are lowered, where it is safer to walk and cycle, where there
is more public space, where there is cleaner air, where water and land are used effectively, and where housing is more affordable.

 

[Addict2sex]

No Joke, Climate Change Professionals Now Provide Goals and Individual Allowances for Transportation, Food, and Clothing - The Last Refuge

Carbon trading is the economic platform to generate government income. That income then drives the carbon control financial mechanisms that will be deployed to the people. At the end of the financial lane, we arrive at a world with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). The digital money...

theconservativetreehouse.com

No Joke, Climate Change Professionals Now Provide Goals and Individual Allowances for Transportation, Food, and Clothing
December 5, 2022 | Sundance | 654 Comments
Carbon trading is the economic platform to generate government income. That income then drives the carbon control financial mechanisms that will be deployed to the people. At the end of the financial lane, we arrive at a world with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). The digital money provides instant control over spending and carbon resource allocation.
For many years the carbon allowances for individuals were esoteric goals as presented by those who assemble at various global COP meetings, Davos and the World Economic Forum. However, with rapid advances in the energy control process, a result of the pandemic and Build Back Better exit, the control officers are now quantifying the specifics for the individual citizen. [pdf Here]
In short, we are now getting down to the brass tacks. Your resource allocation is part of the “consumption intervention” consideration, where the amount of carbon emission your consumption drives is what determines the goal for your future allocation.

[From the Abstract] – There is a growing consensus, based on compelling evidence, that the world is facing a climate crisis and rapid action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a necessity. Historically, decision-makers and academics have discussed a range of options that can reduce our carbon footprint over the long-term. However, recent evidence demonstrates that choosing between one option and another is no longer compatible with rapid and significant emission reductions.

Increasingly, all options are required, and this involves multiple actors exploring how they can respond to the current climate crisis; including national government, cities, business and civil society. (read more)

As you can see above, the goal is to remove meat and dairy products completely.

In the next chart, you can see your allocation for “net clothing and textiles“:



You will be permitted 3 new clothing items each year.

 

[Addict2sex]

In the Transporation sector, the ambitious goal is to remove all private vehicles, and the target lifetime of vehicles is 50 years.

For airline travel, citizens will be permitted one flight less than 1,500km (930 miles) every three years.

[Abstract] – “The wide range of action required to achieve a 1.5°C scenario leaves little room for delay or failure over the coming decade; other broad, supporting policies can provide a safety net by bringing about complimentary emission reductions. Examples of such policies are a wide deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS), particularly in industries that emit direct emissions, and carbon pricing mechanisms that can underpin action across entire economies and markets. However, even deeper paradigmatic shifts may be relevant, such as adopting more useful measures of societal development than just economic growth. In practice, no one city or nation will follow the exact same emissions reduction pathway, but this report provides direction on the type, scale and timescale of policies that will need to be implemented (read more).

As mentioned in the beginning, these are the allocations we can expect to see in the future.

 

[Addict2sex]

The enforcement mechanisms will likely vary depending on government power amid the various nations within the collective western society. However, based on the successful results from the COVID passport beta tests, gateways and permissions, some form of digital currency will likely be part of the compliance process for the carbon allocation as outlined.

 

[Addict2sex]

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/digital-currency-the-fed-moves-toward-monetary-totalitarianism.802797/

 

[Resetset]

The madness of the ‘15-minute city’
The green agenda is taking inspiration from the illiberal days of lockdown.
JAMES WOUDHUYSEN
25th October 2022

Most people will know Oxford as Britain’s oldest seat of learning – but, according to The Sunday Times, it is better ‘known to its residents for its gridlocked traffic’. In past decades, town planners might have looked at this problem of high levels of congestion and drawn up plans for new and wider roads. But today planners are gripped by an anti-car ideology. Their focus is less on helping people get around than in reducing our use of cars by any means necessary.

To this end, Oxfordshire County Council, which is run by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, wants to divide the city of Oxford into six ‘15 minute’ districts. In these districts, it is said, most household essentials will be accessible by a quarter-of-an-hour walk or bike ride, and so residents will have no need for a car.
On the surface, these 15-minute neigbourhoods might sound pleasant and convenient. But there is a coercive edge. The council plans to cut car use and traffic congestion by placing strict rules on car journeys. Under the new proposals, if any of Oxford’s 150,000 residents drives outside of their designated district more than 100 days a year, he or she could be fined £70.

Do not leave your allotted zone, at least most of the time – that is the policy. Or it could soon be after Oxfordshire County Council decides on the matter on 29 November. Although there is a public consultation that is still ongoing, the council is likely to overrule any objections from residents. Labour councillor Duncan Enright, cabinet member for travel and development strategy, has already declared that the policy is ‘going to happen, definitely’.

Run by a Labour administration, Oxford City Council takes a similar line. Its Local Plan 2040 ‘places a strong emphasis upon the concept of the 15-minute city’. Foremost in its ‘vision and strategy’ is not residents, but the environment. Oxford, we learn, ‘is a human-scale city’. ‘[It] has the potential to enable residents to live in a healthy and sustainable way, for example because of the possibility of travelling by active modes, such as by bike and on foot, which is why it is such a sustainable location for development, including jobs and housing… The environment will be central to everything we do.’ Clearly, Oxford City Council sees the 15-minute-district concept as the key to the city’s flourishing, not just to lowering emissions of CO2 and particulates.

So where did this ‘15-minute city’ concept come from? The answer is: from an unholy mix of the UK Labour Party, the American plutocracy, the United Nations and French academia.

The concept of the 15-minute city was born with ‘C40’. Chaired today by London mayor Sadiq Khan, C40 calls itself a ‘network of mayors of nearly 100 world-leading cities collaborating to deliver the urgent action needed right now to confront the climate crisis’. Central to the birth of the project was another former London mayor, Ken Livingstone. Livingstone was often explicit in his anti-car ideology. In 1999, shortly before becoming mayor, Livingstone famously remarked: ‘I hate cars. If I ever get any powers again, I’d ban the lot.’

As mayor, in 2005, Livingstone staged the first C20 climate-change summit. Within a year, his initiative was backed by former US president Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation. In 2007, billionaire New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg hosted the second summit. By this point, the group had been renamed C40, as it featured 36 mayors from major global cities.

The C40 mayors would later be invited to the United Nations’ COP21 climate confab in Paris in 2015. The mayors basked in the green limelight, staking their claim as ‘crucial voices’ in shaping and advocating a strong summit agreement. Significantly, it was at COP21 that Carlos Moreno, a professor at the Sorbonne University, Paris, presented the idea of the 15-minute city. For Moreno, the concept is very simple: ‘Why does a noisy and polluted street need to be a noisy and polluted street?’ Moreno even sounds humanistic when he proclaims that cities must adapt to humans, not the other way round. Yet there is little pro-human about the concept. And the fact that it took the Covid lockdowns to really give the idea a boost is telling in this regard.

The big moment for the 15-minute city came in 2020, when the Socialist Party candidate for mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, won re-election. Much of her campaign was based around the 15-minute concept. As Politico noted earlier this year, Hidalgo’s ‘pitch to turn the French capital into a “city of proximity” – where children walk to school and residents know their local baker – struck a chord at a time when Covid-19 lockdowns meant people were suddenly spending a lot more time in their own neighbourhoods. Enthusiasm for the idea sparked similar campaigns in Dublin, Barcelona, Milan and Lisbon.’
Just last month, C40 announced a partnership with United Nations Habitat, Carlos Moreno and the Danish property investor NREP, which manages seven million square metres of real estate across Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Poland. The project aims to fund a ‘new Green and Thriving Neighbourhoods programme, deliver proof of concept for “15-minute city” policies and empower cities around the globe to implement ambitious Net Zero and people-centred neighbourhoods’.

Advocates like to present 15-minute cities as ‘people-centred’. But we should be sceptical of these claims, given that they only seem to come from high-placed politicians, wealthy institutions and out-of-touch academics. And it was only after lockdowns that the previously unthinkable idea of confining people to their local areas for the greater good was able to gain currency.
As usual, it is ordinary people who will suffer the costs of the 15-minute city. Particularly, urban car-owners and families who regularly travel across town to visit relatives or friends, or to go to work. And we shouldn’t forget the needs of older citizens, those with disabilities and children – as well as the women who so often look after them.

The many practical problems of the 15-minute city are easy to see. Advocates seem to have forgotten that simple bad weather can make a car indispensable. And as Oxford City Council concedes, while most of the city ‘has very good accessibility to a [district] centre… there are clearly a few areas outside of this 15-minute walk’. This means that residents will have to content themselves with ‘local centres’ – though these ‘have a much smaller range of facilities, and [are] often slightly less well connected by public transport’. People-centred? Hardly.

What is posed as a revival of Britain’s green and pleasant land is in fact a coercive drive to put motorists on a leash. Those homes with a car will have to count how many times they use it to cross town. There will be permits, penalties and almost certainly more ubiquitous surveillance. All of this, just so that Oxford officialdom, which has declared a ‘climate emergency’, can claim to be achieving the council’s ‘Net Zero carbon Oxford’ vision by 2040.

Not for the first time, or indeed the last, the Net Zero agenda seems to have taken far too much inspiration from those illiberal days of lockdown.
James Woudhuysen is visiting professor of forecasting and innovation at London South Bank University.

The madness of the ‘15-minute city’

The green agenda is taking inspiration from the illiberal days of lockdown.

www.spiked-online.com

 

[canada-man]

the world opened backed up nobody is going to tolerate another lockdown.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

I thought right wingers were against open borders ?

 

[John_Jacob]

France Bans Short-Haul Domestic Flights... Because 'Climate Change'

France is banning short-haul domestic flights when there is a regular and frequent train option that takes less than two and a half hours, after a 2021 climate law, No 2021-1104, received permission from the European Commission (EC).
Article 145.I of the law prohibits passenger flights “on all air routes within French territory for which there are several direct rail connections per day of less than two and a half hours,” according to the European Union decision report (pdf).
The proposal, which has been hailed by the French Greens and environmental lobbyists in Brussels alike, will directly affect three major air routes between Paris-Orly and Lyon, Nantes, and Bordeaux.

Remix News' Thomas Brooke reports that an intention to improve rail services and decrease the journey duration could see routes from Paris and Rennes to Lyon and Marseille also axed.

The measure is expected to take several months to enter into force and should last initially for three years, with a review of its effectiveness undertaken after two.

In its decision, published on Dec. 2, the European Commission dismissed the protestations of French airports and airline lobbyists, who claimed that the ban would fall foul of competition laws.

It claimed, however, that “the negative impacts on European citizens and connectivity of any restriction of traffic rights must be offset by the availability of affordable, convenient and more sustainable alternative transport modes.”

France’s Transport Minister Clément Beaune called the move a “major step forward,” adding:


Karima Delli, a French Green MEP, hailed the European Commission’s approval of the ban, calling it a “victory” for environmental campaigners, but insisted that “the threshold must be raised to four hours, and above all, include private jets in the ban.”

A four-hour threshold would effectively see the abolition of all internal flights across France.


However, some Green Party politicians want to extend the ban to cover four-hour train journeys, while other European lawmakers are hoping to expand the coverage to the whole continent with upcoming new railway lines like the European Uunion’s TEN-T project.

As The Epoch Times' Naveen Anthrapully points out, detractors of the new rule, like the Net Zero Watch, commented in a tweet, “Just another freedom Net Zero will be taking away. #CostOfNetZero."

Perhaps most notably, The EC noted that the new rule will not have much of an impact on the environment because air traffic on the routes had considerably declined since the pandemic shutdowns.


“Expect much more of this,” tweeted Canadian conservative scholar Jordan Peterson in response to the news.

PS. And they also banned private jets, right? RIGHT? Soon they will ban living as well?

At least I can see banning flights as a more logical conclusion compared to other Climate Change 'solutions' I've seen.

Of course they won't ban 'private jets', Wealth can fight back.....

 

[bazokajoe]

I thought right wingers were against open borders ?

Only against illegal immigration.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

Only against illegal immigration.

What a better way to stop illegals? - wouldnt even need a mexican border

 

[bazokajoe]

What a better way to stop illegals? - wouldnt even need a mexican border

Unfortanately Canada treats illegals better than tax paying citizens.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

Unfortanately Canada treats illegals better than tax paying citizens.

Imagine if Canada had a border with Mexico - we would have a billion people like India and China execpt instead of being exploited as cheap labour they would all have 30/hr government jobs with full benefits.

 

[Valcazar]

Wait.
People are upset because they have to drive a longer route?
And they are claiming this is tyranny?

 

[Chhow]

The madness of the ‘15-minute city’
The green agenda is taking inspiration from the illiberal days of lockdown.
JAMES WOUDHUYSEN
25th October 2022

Most people will know Oxford as Britain’s oldest seat of learning – but, according to The Sunday Times, it is better ‘known to its residents for its gridlocked traffic’. In past decades, town planners might have looked at this problem of high levels of congestion and drawn up plans for new and wider roads. But today planners are gripped by an anti-car ideology. Their focus is less on helping people get around than in reducing our use of cars by any means necessary.

To this end, Oxfordshire County Council, which is run by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, wants to divide the city of Oxford into six ‘15 minute’ districts. In these districts, it is said, most household essentials will be accessible by a quarter-of-an-hour walk or bike ride, and so residents will have no need for a car.
On the surface, these 15-minute neigbourhoods might sound pleasant and convenient. But there is a coercive edge. The council plans to cut car use and traffic congestion by placing strict rules on car journeys. Under the new proposals, if any of Oxford’s 150,000 residents drives outside of their designated district more than 100 days a year, he or she could be fined £70.

Do not leave your allotted zone, at least most of the time – that is the policy. Or it could soon be after Oxfordshire County Council decides on the matter on 29 November. Although there is a public consultation that is still ongoing, the council is likely to overrule any objections from residents. Labour councillor Duncan Enright, cabinet member for travel and development strategy, has already declared that the policy is ‘going to happen, definitely’.

Run by a Labour administration, Oxford City Council takes a similar line. Its Local Plan 2040 ‘places a strong emphasis upon the concept of the 15-minute city’. Foremost in its ‘vision and strategy’ is not residents, but the environment. Oxford, we learn, ‘is a human-scale city’. ‘[It] has the potential to enable residents to live in a healthy and sustainable way, for example because of the possibility of travelling by active modes, such as by bike and on foot, which is why it is such a sustainable location for development, including jobs and housing… The environment will be central to everything we do.’ Clearly, Oxford City Council sees the 15-minute-district concept as the key to the city’s flourishing, not just to lowering emissions of CO2 and particulates.

So where did this ‘15-minute city’ concept come from? The answer is: from an unholy mix of the UK Labour Party, the American plutocracy, the United Nations and French academia.

The concept of the 15-minute city was born with ‘C40’. Chaired today by London mayor Sadiq Khan, C40 calls itself a ‘network of mayors of nearly 100 world-leading cities collaborating to deliver the urgent action needed right now to confront the climate crisis’. Central to the birth of the project was another former London mayor, Ken Livingstone. Livingstone was often explicit in his anti-car ideology. In 1999, shortly before becoming mayor, Livingstone famously remarked: ‘I hate cars. If I ever get any powers again, I’d ban the lot.’

As mayor, in 2005, Livingstone staged the first C20 climate-change summit. Within a year, his initiative was backed by former US president Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation. In 2007, billionaire New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg hosted the second summit. By this point, the group had been renamed C40, as it featured 36 mayors from major global cities.

The C40 mayors would later be invited to the United Nations’ COP21 climate confab in Paris in 2015. The mayors basked in the green limelight, staking their claim as ‘crucial voices’ in shaping and advocating a strong summit agreement. Significantly, it was at COP21 that Carlos Moreno, a professor at the Sorbonne University, Paris, presented the idea of the 15-minute city. For Moreno, the concept is very simple: ‘Why does a noisy and polluted street need to be a noisy and polluted street?’ Moreno even sounds humanistic when he proclaims that cities must adapt to humans, not the other way round. Yet there is little pro-human about the concept. And the fact that it took the Covid lockdowns to really give the idea a boost is telling in this regard.

The big moment for the 15-minute city came in 2020, when the Socialist Party candidate for mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, won re-election. Much of her campaign was based around the 15-minute concept. As Politico noted earlier this year, Hidalgo’s ‘pitch to turn the French capital into a “city of proximity” – where children walk to school and residents know their local baker – struck a chord at a time when Covid-19 lockdowns meant people were suddenly spending a lot more time in their own neighbourhoods. Enthusiasm for the idea sparked similar campaigns in Dublin, Barcelona, Milan and Lisbon.’
Just last month, C40 announced a partnership with United Nations Habitat, Carlos Moreno and the Danish property investor NREP, which manages seven million square metres of real estate across Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Poland. The project aims to fund a ‘new Green and Thriving Neighbourhoods programme, deliver proof of concept for “15-minute city” policies and empower cities around the globe to implement ambitious Net Zero and people-centred neighbourhoods’.

Advocates like to present 15-minute cities as ‘people-centred’. But we should be sceptical of these claims, given that they only seem to come from high-placed politicians, wealthy institutions and out-of-touch academics. And it was only after lockdowns that the previously unthinkable idea of confining people to their local areas for the greater good was able to gain currency.
As usual, it is ordinary people who will suffer the costs of the 15-minute city. Particularly, urban car-owners and families who regularly travel across town to visit relatives or friends, or to go to work. And we shouldn’t forget the needs of older citizens, those with disabilities and children – as well as the women who so often look after them.

The many practical problems of the 15-minute city are easy to see. Advocates seem to have forgotten that simple bad weather can make a car indispensable. And as Oxford City Council concedes, while most of the city ‘has very good accessibility to a [district] centre… there are clearly a few areas outside of this 15-minute walk’. This means that residents will have to content themselves with ‘local centres’ – though these ‘have a much smaller range of facilities, and [are] often slightly less well connected by public transport’. People-centred? Hardly.

What is posed as a revival of Britain’s green and pleasant land is in fact a coercive drive to put motorists on a leash. Those homes with a car will have to count how many times they use it to cross town. There will be permits, penalties and almost certainly more ubiquitous surveillance. All of this, just so that Oxford officialdom, which has declared a ‘climate emergency’, can claim to be achieving the council’s ‘Net Zero carbon Oxford’ vision by 2040.

Not for the first time, or indeed the last, the Net Zero agenda seems to have taken far too much inspiration from those illiberal days of lockdown.
James Woudhuysen is visiting professor of forecasting and innovation at London South Bank University.

The madness of the ‘15-minute city’

The green agenda is taking inspiration from the illiberal days of lockdown.

www.spiked-online.com

This is interesting idea, but for modern world it is hardly suitable. I can't even imagine how this will affect the lives of ordinary citizens...

 

[Frankfooter]

This is interesting idea, but for modern world it is hardly suitable. I can't even imagine how this will affect the lives of ordinary citizens...

I live downtown.
Most of what I need is within a 15 minute walk or bike ride.
I hate it when I go out of town and that's not the case.
You should try it.

 

[NotADcotor]

I live downtown.
Most of what I need is within a 15 minute walk or bike ride.
I hate it when I go out of town and that's not the case.
You should try it.

Apparently trying to set up a situation where almost everything you need is within 15 minutes is the exact same thing as a lockdown.

The OP... how to let people know you don't understand what you are reading without actually telling them.

There is this apartment building in downtown Montreal on Atwater.
The big movie theatre in the former Mtl Forum that shows everything including Bollywood and other foreign films is literally next door as is a gym in the same building [and a timmies and a A&W
Across the street is a green line metro stop which is maybe 2 km away from McGill and it's library and easy access to pretty much everything else you need.
Also across the way is a mall with a grocery store, a McDs, a Shoppers Drug Mart and loads of other shit.
Next intersection down is St Caths with all it's shit.

If I had money and da French, I'd consider it an ideal place to live. Rent a car once a month to go for a drive/into Laval/Ottawa.

I am sure in Toronto if you are along the metro lines you can find something similar but if there was a spot 5 or 10 minute walk away from the UoT library, civic library, Movie theatre, gym, grocery shopping that would be grand also... for when I live the lotto and can afford to live in such a place.

As it is, I live in a small town and aside from going to the movies 10 times a year [12 minute drive] everything is under 10 minutes away by car and traffic is pretty good/not stressful. I guess, help help I'm being lockdown repressed!