The implementation of the climate framework being developed can be distilled into the following steps:

step 1: set an acceptable overall carbon limit. This is a global carbon limit that is a derivative of mathematical climate models, identified and quantified in the Paris Climate Accord. The first graph below shows global emissions as of 2020 by major country (both total and per capita). The second graph illustrates the target carbon reductions.

2022 carbon emissions bar graph.JPG reductions projected-1.JPG

step 2: At a macro level, first identify the "how" these reductions will be achieved. Which industries will be invested in, which ones will be eliminated, and which sectors of the global economy (private firms, governments, or consumers. Estimate the total cost, which many estimate to be between $50 trillion and $200 trillion. A good 5-minute WSJ video below answering a few of these big-picture questions.

step 3: Define the "fair share" of personal carbon emissions (these can be chosen to influence economic behavior, cognitive awareness and social norms). This is a critical step, since it essentially allocates each individual with a "carbon endowment" that they can spend. Any consumption or lifestyle choices that exceed the personal quota must be purchased via a carbon credit (paying someone who is willing to sell some of their quota). It is critical to know who is setting the fair share allocation. Is it the same for every person? Is it the same across countries?
step 4: Define the carbon score fore every specific behavior, consumption good or service, and "lifestyle choice". The latter really applies mainly to "having another child". This is interesting and this is where population control is explicitly related to the climate change aspect of The Great Reset.

one fewer child.JPG source: https://www.science.org/content/article/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about

Original source document: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf

Digging a Little Deeper: Why is "having one fewer child" assigned such a huge "carbon bonus" relative to all of the other lifestyle choices? Digging a little deeper we find that this estimate, although widely communicated in the popular press, comes from a single study in 2009 that was a statistical simulation. Using the life-expectancy and average birth rate for each country, the authors estimate the "carbon legacy" of "one more child" by counting not only that child's entire lifetime of carbon emissions, but also that child's children, their children, etc. No discounting rate is applied to future emissions, so that emissions this year count the same as emissions 80 years, or even 380 years, into the future. That is one problem.

A second issue to consider is who assigns the carbon scores?

source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378008001003

EPA Carbon Calculator Link: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/simplified-ghg-emissions-calculator

Dark Origins of the Great Reset: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/10/no_author/the-dark-origins-of-the-davos-great-reset/

step 5: Enforcement. Use 4th Industrial Revolution technology to track personal emissions

Listen to Alibaba group President J. Michael Evans describing the goal of monitoring and tracking individual carbon footprints. Where you travel. How you travel. What you are eating. What you are buying and consuming. THE INDIVIDUAL CARBON-FOOTPRINT TRACKER.

One way will be through a smartphone built directly into the human body:

Another way is to embed tracking into clothing. I am not personally clear on how this actually saves the planet, but it does allow tracking and it may allow retailers to eliminate competition from second-hand or thrift stores. The alleged idea here is to eliminate "fashion waste", but I see this as really just a movement away from owning your clothing to essentially leasing or renting your clothing:

own nothing and be happy.PNG

step 7: Institute a cap-and-trade system that allows buying and selling of carbon credits and offsets, with terms to be set by those doing the net buying.

This creates the appearance of a pro-market mechanism, but in reality is simply a controlled economy, since supply is controlled (both in the aggregate by fixing a total carbon output quota and for individual products by assigning individual carbon scores). Prices are not allowed to adjust in a free way because supply cannot naturally respond to demand. Thus, the relative prices of all goods and services are fixed according to their carbon score.

This means that the "relative prices" of all behaviors and lifestyle choices are dictated to people. One reason that prices are fixed is both because the overall carbon allotment is pre-determined. It comes out of a mathematical model with much uncertainty, but is re-fashioned into an overall target that is precise and dogmatic. Individuals are also given a carbon allocation and behaviors/goods/services are assigned carbon scores. If I want to exceed my carbon quota, I must buy credits from someone willing to sell, and the price I must pay will reflect not the supply & demand but the carbon score of the item I wish to obtain. More carbon-intensive choices will cost more (that is the point). But some key issues emerge:

How is the carbon score for individual actions/goods scored? Who decides the score?
How do we score a human life?
How do we monitor and enforce?

The aggregate carbon quota, along with carbon scores of each good/service/behavior, implicitly define and dictate the prices we must pay for every choice we make. The products/goods/services/behaviors that are discouraged, encouraged or even subsidized are hidden in the carbon score.

Children are not free, not in the climate framework. Having a child is defined as the single most damaging choice one can make for the climate, and having "one less child" is declared the most virtuous and effective single behavior for saving the planet. This is because the carbon footprint of a child is assigned a carbon score equal to that child's entire lifetime carbon quota, plus a portion of the quota for each of the the child's children, plus each of their grandchildren, and so on. No provision is made for discounting carbon emissions projected decades or even centuries into the future, and this results in a carbon score for "one more child" that is between 6-9 times the lifetime carbon quota for a single individual.

This means that having a child will become an extremely expensive endeavor, available only to those with resources sufficient to buy the necessary carbon offsets. The poor, the marginalized and minorities will be largely shut out, and the overall number of births will be strictly regulated (defining the carbon footprint for a child implicitly defines the acceptable birth rate and population ceiling; is it any surprise that the embedded population ceiling is about 1/6 to 1/9 of the current population?).

Margaret Sanger would blush at the success with which this climate agenda achieves her goal of "the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks - those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

step 8: Central bank digital currencies are used to give authorities an ability to "turn on" or "turn off" individuals' ability to transact.

October 2022 Proposal for Digital British Pound: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9821855/Rishi-Sunak-plans-replace-cash-official-digital-currency.html

A pretty important 20-minute video: