Climate Rationing Of Meat & Fuel Is Now In Advanced Planning Stages

Is World War II-style rationing the answer to the planet’s “climate crisis?” That’s the question posed in a new study by academics from the University of Leeds, England. You won’t be surprised to learn the answer is ‘yes:’ rationing of various commodities, including fuel and meat, is in the cards…



he authors of the study believe a rationing scheme would be more equitable than individual allowances, because unlike carbon taxes and carbon-credit schemes – both of which have been proposed in response to climate change – rationing would not allow the rich to “buy their way out.”

A rationing plan may also have broader applications, the researchers claim. “The concept of rationing could help, not only in the mitigation of climate change,” says joint lead author Dr Nathan Wood, “but also in reference to a variety of other social and political issues – such as the current energy crisis.”

He added:

“The cost of living crisis has shown what happens when scarcity drives up prices, with energy prices rising steeply and leaving vulnerable groups unable to pay their bills. Currently, those living in energy poverty cannot use anywhere near their fair share of energy supply, whereas the richest in society are free to use as much energy as they can afford.”

Although the study is little more than a research piece at this stage, that could all change very quickly as we near 2030, the key target date for the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Accords. It is already clear that the world will not meet these commitments.


New schemes are already being implemented to limit personal mobility and consumption and there will surely be more to come. Recent proposals for so-called “15-minute cities” have drawn widespread criticism across the world, including in cities such as Oxford, where pilot test programs are due to be conducted.

Beginning in 2024, Oxford will be divided into a series of six separate “neighborhoods” by the local council, with car-travel between them heavily restricted and subject to fines if unauthorised.

Residents of the city will be able to apply for special permits to allow them to drive into other neighbourhoods for up to 100 days a year. Otherwise, they must use public transport, bike or walk in order to move from one neighbourhood to another.

Meanwhile, the anxiety and catastrophism about the effects of climate change is being increased by the Globalist Elite. At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos a few weeks ago, the subject of “climate migration” was one of the predominant topics of discussion.

In a blustering speech, Al Gore suggested the West would soon be overwhelmed by 1.5 billion migrants fleeing the effects of climate change who would make it impossible for individual nation states to govern themselves normally. Some, such as WEF-approved author Gaia Vince, are claiming that we must encourage these migrants to come here right now, to minimise their suffering.

There is also alarm about the prospect of private geo-engineering after an American startup, Make Sunsets, announced it had released helium balloons containing reactive gas in an attempt to cool the earth. A number of pilot releases took place in Mexico in April last year. Although the Mexican government has now moved to prevent further releases within its territory, Make Sunsets has vowed to continue with its crowdfunded project, and the technology it uses is cheap and readily available; virtually guaranteeing other groups will try to emulate it. All with unknown consequences for the environment.


The inspiration for the proposed climate rationing measures comes from the food & fuel rationing of the Second World War, especially in countries like Britain, where there were severe restrictions on consumption of a wide range of commodities and resources to aid the war effort. In Britain, the rationing program outlived the war and only came to an end eight years later in 1953.

Researchers note that compulsory food rationing was more popular than voluntary changes to behavior when resources became scarce. Despite shortages, rates of malnutrition actually went down in Britain during the Second World War.

One of the main problems, according to the aforementioned new paper study is that people today just don’t understand the potential scarcity they are facing in the way Britons did seventy years ago. A world of instant gratification and consumer goods at the touch of a button is not conducive to a sense of deprivation or urgency regarding limited resources.

Dr Rob Lawlor, joint lead author of the Leeds study said, “There is a limit to how much we can emit if we are to reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change. In this sense, so the scarcity is very real.”

However, the authors of the study believe rationing wouldn’t be the first step. An information campaign to promote the benefits of rationing and stricter regulations would be required to condition the public to accept further restrictions; and, such a campaign appears to have already begun.

Regulation would focus first on the “biggest polluters” such as international travel, the fossil-fuel industries, as well as many areas of animal husbandry & farming. This would in effect serve to artificially create scarcities in “products that harm the planet.” Rationing could then be gradually phased in to meet people’s basic needs in a “fair” manner.

Rationing could be regulated through the use of a personal carbon allowance, utilizing “carbon cards” which function like bank cards but track and limit usage of all commodities. Or alternatively, the government could simply unilaterally ration particular goods such as flights, petrol, and meat.

Rationing they claim, would speed up the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and sustainable lifestyles and infrastructure. For instance, rationing gasoline could drive government investment in low-carbon methods of transport such as rail and tram systems. Price controls on rationed goods would also “prevent prices from rising with increased demand, benefiting those with the least money,” An almost complete negation of the entire basis of market economics and endorsement of state control of resources.


Choice won’t be a factor in whether or not we change our lifestyles to conform to the climate-change narrative. This is already particularly evident with regard to consumption of animal products, as new plant-based alternatives and synthetic proteins fail to attract consumer demand on the basis of their taste or the many health claims made about them.

Additional methods of getting people to reduce or eliminate their traditional of eating meat include enhanced social pressure, inflation and even direct government intervention in the form of a direct meat tax are now the preferred methods of advocating fake foods instead of making these products more desirable or delicious.

Rationing is never desirable, but it can be made mandatory. For example, look at what’s happened to eggs recently as a result of the ongoing “eggflation” in the manipulation of the egg market. the availability of eggs to the consumer has been limited due to artificial scarcity; mainly as the result of punitive measures to combat avian flu; however, also because of a spate of mysterious fires and fertility problems affecting egg producers. There’s no reason why such artificial scarcities on a much broader scale could not be created. Precisely such an experiment is already being tried out on Dutch farmers, who are currently being expropriated from farmland which has been in their families for generations.

Although the future rationing scheme proposed by the new Leeds study is now only a “proposal,” some form of personal carbon allowance is likely to be introduced in the future by world government ✪


James O’Keefe’s Full Resignation Statement From Project Veritas

▶️ 44 Minutes 35 Seconds ⭐️ Toothless Dawg

▶️ 10 Minutes 25 Seconds ⭐️ Michael Brower

▶️ 4 Minutes 40 Seconds

▶️ 5 Minutes 45 Seconds