Fazio’s proposals in the editorial address specific state-level policies driving up electricity costs in Connecticut, such as the “public benefits” charges, subsidies for preferred energy sources, and electric vehicle charging installations. While he offers practical solutions for reducing electric rates and promoting a balanced clean energy strategy, his proposals do not directly confront the broader federal or global forces behind the UN's climate agenda or the more broader implications of the agenda that have been discussed at the World Economic Forums which our representatives are all in on, don't know or are feigning ignorance.
Agenda 2030 climate goals and policies, as promoted by the United Nations, are pushing countries and STATES (like Connecticut) toward aggressive energy transitions. Many of these policies prioritize de-carbonization and the promotion of "renewable energy" at the expense of affordability and energy reliability. For example, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7, under Agenda 2030, calls for "affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all." However, in practice, states like Connecticut have been adopting policies that disproportionately favor renewable energy sources like wind and solar, while the hidden costs and surcharges are passed on to consumers.
Where Fazio's Proposals Miss the Mark:
Limited Scope: Fazio's focus is on state policies and immediate financial relief for residents, such as removing "public benefits" charges and fostering a more competitive energy market. While these are valid concerns, they do not address the larger, systemic forces at play in the UN's climate agenda. The broader agenda often drives energy policies that prioritize long-term decarbonization over short-term consumer costs.
No Mention of Federal Incentives: The editorial does not mention the role of federal dollars or incentives tied to green energy mandates, which are critical components of the UN's climate agenda. Many states, including Connecticut, receive federal funding conditioned on compliance with certain energy policies, such as increasing renewable energy quotas. Fazio's omission of this dynamic leaves out a key driver of state policies that exacerbate high electricity costs.
Avoidance of Global Climate Goals:
The UN Agenda 2030 framework includes specific planks to transition to "sustainable energy", reduce carbon emissions, and promote renewable energy projects. Fazio does not directly address how these global goals are shaping state and national policies, nor does he examine how federal or global mandates could be driving Connecticut’s participation global goals despite their higher costs. He either genuinely doesn't know or he is feigning ignorance to save face with his base.
In Connecticut, most Republican politicians have expressed reservations or opposition to policies tied to Agenda 2030, especially concerning environmental mandates. While Agenda 2030 is not typically mentioned directly, their opposition to aggressive climate and sustainability initiatives, such as California’s stringent emissions standards and electric vehicle (EV) mandates, signals a resistance to the more progressive aspects of what are being called "global sustainability frameworks".
And what are these "frameworks"? Factions and unelected within the World Economic Forum (WEF) argue that the Agenda 2030 framework goes beyond just reducing global emissions and focuses on broader socio-economic transformations, particularly with respect to property ownership, freedom of movement, and centralized control. These concerns arise from initiatives that emphasize sustainable development, which some critics interpret as promoting state or corporate control over resources and limiting individual freedoms.
Key Elements and Criticism
Move Away from Property Ownership:WEF discussions and some documents have floated the concept that in a sustainable future, people might not need to own personal property—often summarized by the phrase, "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy." This reflects a shift towards shared or collective ownership models, which are tied to reducing material consumption and waste, part of the global emissions reduction goals under Agenda 2030. Critics argue this could diminish personal autonomy, with the loss of property rights impacting individual economic freedom and creating greater reliance on corporate or government systems .
Reduction of Freedom of Movement:Agenda 2030’s focus on sustainable urbanization emphasizes compact cities, public transportation, and the reduction of private vehicle ownership, particularly with the phasing out of fossil fuel-powered cars. Critics argue that such policies, including heavy incentives for electric vehicle (EV) adoption and penalties for using traditional vehicles, could restrict personal mobility. This is particularly worrying for those in rural areas or industries dependent on flexible transport .
Centralized Control:The WEF’s "Great Reset" and Agenda 2030 emphasize more global governance and public-private partnerships to address systemic challenges like climate change, inequality, and pandemics. Critics view this as a move towards increased centralized control, where a select group of international bodies, corporations, and governments dictate policies that reduce the autonomy of individual nations and citizens. Centralized regulations on emissions, energy consumption, and production quotas are seen as curbing economic and personal freedoms .
Technological Surveillance and Digital ID Systems:Part of the WEF’s long-term agenda includes a focus on digital identification systems and the Internet of Things (IoT) to manage resources more efficiently. While these are framed as tools to improve efficiency and sustainability, critics worry that such technologies could be used to monitor and control individuals' behavior, from energy usage to travel habits, thus reducing privacy and personal freedom .
Redistribution of Wealth and Centralized Planning:Agenda 2030 calls for the redistribution of wealth, arguing that the current economic models are unsustainable and contribute to inequality. Critics interpret this as a move towards centralized planning, where wealth and resources are allocated based on global priorities, not individual or national interests. This has sparked fears of diminishing market freedom and an increase in regulatory control, leaving less room for innovation and personal choice .
Senate Republican leader Kevin Kelly and Sen. Stephen Harding have spoken against the impracticality of banning gas-powered vehicles by 2035, Democrat "progressive" goals which purportedly align with a central element of Agenda 2030.
They propose alternative approaches, such as improving charging infrastructure and encouraging the use of hybrids, without the heavy-handed regulations seen in California's standards. The idea is to take a more gradualist and market-driven approach to environmental goals rather than outright support for Agenda 2030-style mandates Sources - (Ground News) & (Connecticut Inside Investigator). But how any of this is possible hasn't been outlined in any plan that is remotely coherent. But if we're honest with ourselves It's almost as if Republcians are saying: "yeah, yeah we know about the bad thing and we can't really do anything about it so we're just going to try to slow the bolder rolling down the hill but we can't stop it". You get the idea.
While on the other hand Democrat representatives from Greenwich, Connecticut—Steven Meskers, Rachel Khanna, and Hector Arzeno— who are the ones that are content to roll more bolders down hills at the unsuspecting villagers below have been criticized for their lack of action regarding punitive surcharges baked into Eversource electricity bills. More like: "How dare the peasants critizize us!".
Specifically, these representatives have remained silent and did not support Republican efforts to hold a special legislative session aimed at addressing skyrocketing energy costs caused by these surcharges. Despite Republican efforts to call for a session to provide relief for ratepayers, no Democrats, including the Greenwich delegation, have backed the petition or offered alternative solutions. Their lack of response on this issue has drawn frustration from constituents, who view their inaction as a failure to represent local interests in Hartford effectively.
Additionally, U.S. Congressman Jim Himes and Senator Chris Murphy have been similarly criticized for not being forthright or proactive in addressing the root issues tied to energy costs and regulatory measures that allow companies like Eversource to burden Connecticut residents with excessive charges. These elected officials’ silence in the face of rising public discontent is seen as aligning more with party lines and corporate interests than with the needs of their constituents.
Furhermore, the tone of the recent Greenwich Democrat Newsletter reads as though the representatives are beyond reproach, even though their inaction speaks volumes to the contrary. The lack of transparency about how the surcharges were allowed to balloon without oversight contributes to the pretentious air. And rather than acknowledging any fault or making efforts to correct the situation, it focused on an image of passive support for "broader" concerns without diving into the specifics that are affecting ratepayers directly.
The newsletter ignores the fact that the Greenwich Democrat delegation didn't even back the Republican call for a special legislative session to tackle the surcharges. Their lack of response is particularly striking, given the public outcry, but the newsletter glosses over this as if it's a non-issue. By omitting their lack of involvement, the rhetoric seems dismissive of bipartisan efforts and further entrenches the perception that Steven Meskers, Rachel Khanna, and Hector Arzeno are prioritizing party lines over local needs and rolling more bolders down hills. Shocker.
And rather than directly addressing why they did not support the special session, the letter suggested that Republican efforts to call for the session were obstructionist or politically motivated, casting the Democrats as above partisan squabbles. The gaslighting and stone throwing is real. This common political strategy allows them to avoid accountability for inaction while deflecting blame onto the opposition. People who consistently avoid accountability are generally narcissists and view others as inferior but this is generally the nature of the political class and it has begun to fester and grow unchecked even by a growing cross section of "Republicans" in Greeniwch which has to make one wonder whose side they're really on. Turn the lights off and lets find out.
Comentários