“Warming fighters rejoice because quarantine has reduced harmful emissions and shown how easy it is to convince entire countries and continents to go into hardship in the face of mortal danger. They hope that the world will not begin to restore the fossil economy destroyed by the crisis, and will immediately begin to build a clean green future on its ruins (end of quote).
Well, it would seem - and then say to these global green climate activists: (... many, many profanity ...)
... HERE AND NO (I quote further):
... the global economy will begin to recover, and this, in turn, will happen thanks to large-scale anti-crisis programs for which the leading countries of the world have already promised to allocate more than 10 trillion dollars - about the same as they spend per year on current expenses. Environmentalists urge authorities to burden state aid with obligations to reduce emissions. Not every generation has the chance to radically rebuild the economy, and you should not miss it, they say. They are supported by financial authorities and economists from leading countries of the world, a group of researchers in Oxford found out, among them Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz.
“The short-term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by quarantine will not practically affect the long-term trend, unless it leads to profound changes in the behavior of people, businesses and institutions,” they warned. Scientists interviewed the leaders of the finance ministries and central banks of the G20 countries, economists of international organizations and scientists - and found that among this cohort of influential people, a common view of the problem prevails. These are not just experts - they directly influence, and sometimes they make decisions about where to spend trillions of dollars of anti-crisis appropriations.
Everyone agreed that recovery from the crisis will be effective if it is financed with a focus on clean technologies, and the “dirty” industries and practices carried out by the crisis are left behind in the dock. Since it is necessary to restore the ruins, it is better immediately according to the drawings of the green future, and not the hydrocarbon past.
“We came to the conclusion that the progress in combating climate change will be largely determined by the decisions that will be taken in the next six months. If they are correct, the long-term trend will be refracted and greenhouse gas emissions will begin to decline,” they wrote. (end of quote).
Then there’s a lot of boring lies that the “green economy” is supposedly more profitable than the “hydrocarbon economy”. Well, of course, this whole “green economy” sits on subsidies at the expense of billions, roughly speaking, plebeians. Plebeians are administratively forced to pay uncontrollably rising prices for consumer goods - these prices include growing greenhouse taxes and fees).
The consultants of the global leaders convince them that now is the time to gut the pockets of billions of plebeians even harder.
(I quote) Coronavirus increased the physical distance between people, but rallied them in spirit. The mercantile is losing ground to the spiritual; a private good is sacrificed to the public. These are almost ideal conditions for a left turn in the politics of Western countries - strengthening the position of the state and curbing the free market, economists Samuel Bowles and Wendy Karlin write. And accordingly, it facilitates the fight against climate change, which brings inconvenience to citizens and costs for business. After quarantine, this is no longer news for them; people and companies are better prepared for privations in order to jointly combat mortal danger (end of quote).
Obviously, global leaders have defended some red line. Since the above clearly indicates that the coronacrisis with panic and the Great Quarantine was specially directed to quickly accustom the plebeians to poverty.
A kind of six-month blitzkrieg to psychologically and economically rape the people.
History contains a protocol of a similar case - although not global but local:
“The whole experience of the past confirms that people tend to endure vices as long as they can be tolerated, rather than use their right to abolish government forms that have become familiar to them. But when a long series of abuses and violence are invariably subject to the same goal, testifies to the insidious plan to force the people to come to terms with unlimited despotism, the overthrow of such a government and the creation of new security guarantees for the future becomes the right and duty of the people. " (DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE USA, 1776).
It is not that people are radically robbed by the method of the Great Quarantine.
The fact is that global leaders do not stop, and intend to continue unlimited robbery, stripping plebeians to the last thread, and robbing to the last rally.
Political science teaches that this leads to war (simply because there are no other options). Moreover, due to the specifics of the current situation, logic indicates a global war, heterogeneous, and fractal - i.e. such, the fronts of which will pass both between territorial and political associations, and between individual territorial forms, and even inside such forms (breaking up into narrow-local armed conflicts).
Very bad thing turns out ...
... Experts express themselves on this subject, trying to smooth the corners - but the corners are not smooth
(quote) The way out of the biggest crisis of the century threatens to turn out to be not as swift and wide as the entrance, they say, and they predict heavy economic rehabilitation, partial paralysis and lifelong scars for the world economy ... Most of the money allocated for the restoration came from rich countries, and the developing ones it remains to be seen how to finance the most difficult stage of the crisis - not medical, but economic. It is fraught with a surge of poverty, disunity, nationalism and protectionism, political instability and a decline in trade - that is, it threatens to throw the world back at the end of the last century (end of quote).
... And what if not at the end, but at the beginning or in the middle of the last century? ”