In spite of my best efforts to avoid doing so, I’m taking the AOC bait…

Yup. If you don’t like the #GreenNewDeal, then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge – and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats. https://t.co/h3KSJhHqDN — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 23, 2019

…because it fits neatly with a topic I’ve been meaning to write about for a long time. In one of the first articles I wrote, addressing the regressive and useless nature of carbon taxes, I made a very short hypothetical policy list that would meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions, with the following caveat:

For the record, I’m not in favor of or an advocate of mandating any of the measures listed above, I am merely trying to illustrate what would be necessary to actually reduce global CO2 output. I also do not believe in the hoax perpetuated by the mainstream media that CO2 emissions are detrimental to the environment and a survival threat to mankind.

I’m all but certain climate change fearmongering is just part of a big globalist taxation scheme to control energy pricing and consumption. Contrary to the popular (groupthink) belief that “muh CO2 emissions will fry the planet”, the earth is far more likely to cool and enter a “glacial period” than warm significantly.

But let’s (again) play devil’s advocate, and say I’m wrong, and the climate alarmists are right. The “green new deal” does almost nothing to control the carbon cycle, and even Greenpeace’s Patrick Moore has taken AOC to task on her plan’s fallacy:

The "world as it is" has the option of taking the subway rather than a taxi. option of Amtrak rather than plane, option of opening windows rather than A/C. You're just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know — Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) March 3, 2019

So for argument’s sake, I’ll be drawing up FMShooter’s “ globally ambitious, on-scale proposal” to address CO2 emissions… “from the cheap seats” of course. To do so, we will first examine the sources of CO2 emissions…

…and list meaningful ways to reduce CO2 emissions and control the carbon cycle. If this is indeed a global problem that will kill us all, nothing is off limits, right? So with that said, we’ll start the list with perhaps the toughest line-item to implement:

Ban deforestation and destruction of any major living plant formation, and subsidize expansion of plant lifeforms. Considering a great deal of the world generates heat/energy from wood and biomass burning – and trees are basically everywhere – this would be all but impossible to enforce. But it would have the compounding effect of taking a lot of construction and industrial CO2 emissions down with it, considering a great deal of buildings and consumer goods are wood-based.

Consume/kill off as many animal and fish populations as possible, and ban production of livestock and animal consumption. Hey, Obama has previously said that society should consume less meat to reduce CO2 and methane emissions – if greenhouse gases will kill us all, why stop at cessation of raising livestock? Of course, there’s not much “green” about this plan, but hey, whatever it takes to control the carbon cycle… right?

Immediately halt any construction/industrial mining and processes that produces CO2 or draws power from fossil fuels. Freight, heavy construction equipment, and many other facets of industry are all dependent on fossil fuels. Economic hit be damned, it all has to be stopped to check emissions. Which leads into the most important one yet…

Replace all coal, oil, and gas power plants with nuclear energy. The “green new deal” failed pretty quickly when its language to shutter nuclear plants was exposed. Nuclear power provides about 60% of the US’s carbon-free emissions, and while the liberal pipe dream is to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar…

…the fact of the matter is, its just impossible to replace 61% of the earth’s electricity production with “renewable” energy, as even major environmental activists have pointed out:

Because solar and wind produce such small amounts of energy, according to Shellenberger, they require a much larger amount of land to generate electricity.

Wind and solar farms take up a massive amount of land, and it would be difficult to clear the space even if deforestation wasn’t already banned (oh did you forget about that already?). The only way to generate power on the same scale as fossil fuels is nuclear power – perhaps some genius can construct a Thorium reactor already?

And we’ve just gotten to the fun part – reduction of transportation greenhouse gas emissions – where we start by banning all civilian aviation and automotive transport that does not conform to strict emissions standards and justifications for transit. Yeah that’s right – if you want to get around, its gotta be as carbon-free as possible. Unfortunately for the liberals, those Tesla cars will probably be banned, since they’re not really all that environmentally friendly after all.

But all those SUVs, sports cars, and high MPG automobiles are going to the scrapyard too. NASCAR is as good as gone with it. Same with all the yachts and boats that rely on gas or diesel to get around. You want to run a cruise liner, freighter, or other heavy boat? Gotta be with a nuclear reactor – Thorium anyone?

Same goes for aviation. Private planes and first-class seats are as good as gone – anyone traveling anywhere via airplane better have 1) a “cleared” non-leisure reason to travel, and 2) be crammed into a jet with smaller-than-coach sized seats with as many possible people as the aircraft will support. Your bags will just have to stay at home – aircraft will be stripped for weight to ensure maximum passengers and fuel efficiency, and that does not include your personal cargo!

Ban all military exercises, maneuvers, training and transit that are not absolutely necessary to enforce the world’s new emissions mandates. Military vehicles, ships, and aircraft are among the biggest fuel hogs on the planet – how else would an already-wasteful F-35 be able to land vertically?

Lucky for the military and the “emissions enforcement task force”, subs and carriers already run on nuclear energy. But those jets will only be taking off to enforce global emissions guidelines, which brings us to the final, unspoken and perhaps most important part of any plan to curb emissions…

Immediately begin a major reduction of the planet’s human population. AOC (and others) have already said having fewer children is the easiest way to reduce your emissions footprint, haven’t they?

If emissions are going to kill us all, why stop at childbirth? If we’re already exterminating all the animals we can, won’t it be even more productive to kill humans? Less people equals not only less CO2 exhaled, but less indirect carbon emissions, right?

Even though the green crowd has ignored it, and no scientist would dare consider the per capita impact of population reduction, killing people would absolutely be necessary to reduce the human race’s impact on the carbon cycle.

So how will we decide who dies? Very easily – skirting or breaking any of the above emissions reduction mandates is punishable by death and confiscation of all assets. This will produce the double-edged benefit of not only reducing the human population, but funding the program to reduce emissions.

Some American wants to take his private jet on a vacation? Time to put those F-35s to use – that’s punishable by missile intercept. Any big baller who takes his gas/diesel powered yacht out on a joyride risks a one-way trip to the bottom of the ocean. Death row already provides a lot of criminals ripe for execution – but any crime, even petty crime – would be punishable by death.

And this ties directly into how to enforce the program globally – the only way any emissions reduction scheme would ever work. China and India refuse to abandon coal for nuclear? Sounds like humanity needs to kill a billion or two to save the species. After all, its called nuclear winter, not nuclear summer – what better way to combat golbal warming?

And since humanity be feeding less people anyway, we can go ahead and ban the use of fertilizer or any emissions-based activity to enhance agriculture production. Yet another easy way to get one more emissions reduction out of a less populated planet, right? Once the human race is reduced by a few billion or so, of course.

(This should go without saying, all of the suggestions in this article are complete hyperbole, and I believe none of them should ever be implemented. However, in the era of the internet, where snippets get taken out of context, it’s all but mandatory to include this disclaimer, even if just as a “fuck you” to whoever accuses me of even suggesting we attempt to regulate carbon emissions, much less kill billions to do so.)

There it is – the FMShooter “on-scale proposal” to address carbon emissions. If AOC and the “climate change” crowd were actually serious about reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases, they would be advocating for a plan similar to this.

However, the Al Gores of the world would never advocate for any position on the environment that would affect their own gluttonous personal consumption. And if they were really serious about reducing CO2 emissions…

…they’d have to be prepared to use whatever ends are necessary to justify their means. Come to think of it, they’re probably heading down that route already.