Claim: C40 Cities aims to ban dairy and meat consumption etc... by 2030

TheNZThrower

Active Member
Some of the more conspiratorial news outlets allege that an organisation called C40 Cities seeks to impose a ban on dairy and meat consumption, and private car ownership etc... by 2030:
Fourteen major American cities are part of a globalist climate organization known as the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,” which has an “ambitious target” by the year 2030 of “0 kg [of] meat consumption,” “0 kg [of] dairy consumption,” “3 new clothing items per person per year,” “0 private vehicles” owned, and “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.”

C40’s dystopian goals can be found in its “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report


C40 Cities is, according to their website:
External Article: https://www.c40.org/about-c40/
C40 is a global network of nearly 100 mayors of the world’s leading cities that are united in action to confront the climate crisis.


The report can be accessed here (https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/a...n-consumption-in-a-1-5-C-world?language=en_US), and a version which allows for highlighting and wordsearching is can be accessed here (https://expose-news.com/wp-content/...ture-of-Urban-Consumption-in-a-1-5C-World.pdf)

The sections of the report in question are as follows:
1717381983459.png
1717382017118.png


The report defines "consumption intervention", "progressive target" and "ambitious target" as follows:

Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.21.14 am.png

Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.22.13 am.png

Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.22.20 am.png

So it seems that a progressive target refers to a target which can be achieved by consumption interventions that are based on current technologies and political will (e.g. what consumption habits the public are realistically willing to change). As in "we can achieve X at most based upon current technologies and what consumers are realistically willing to do." Ambitious targets are basically a what if scenario where consumption interventions based on future production technologies and a public that is more willing to adopt drastic changes to their consumption habits. As in "we can achieve X if we assume that future technologies improve and consumers are willing to do more than what they actually are realistically willing to do"

The report then expands upon the nature of what an "ambitious target" is.
Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.52.04 am.png

The report also implies that the consumption interventions are implemented by the city through policy incentives.
Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.48.32 am.png

Based on this, we can pin down both the main allegation and a steelmanned allegation as follows:
  1. C40 member cities seek to implement a legal prohibition on dairy and meat consumption, and private car ownership etc... by 2030.
  2. C40 member cities seek to implement as of yet unspecified policy incentives (e.g. taxes, subsidies) with the goal of reducing dairy and meat consumption, and private car ownership etc... to zero - or to the level in the respective "progressive targets" by 2030
All in all, the paper seems to not be advocating for any specific policies, but rather leaving it up to the cities as to what their strategies for emissions reduction would be. It doesn't explicitly call for banning dairy and meat consumption, and private car ownership etc... by 2030.

This was a rather tough one, especially since the allegations centred more around nefarious framing than any outright examples of dishonesty. If there is any additional context in the report I have missed, please let me know in the replies.
 

Attachments

  • 1717377180149.png
    1717377180149.png
    289.6 KB · Views: 8
  • Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.22.20 am.png
    Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.22.20 am.png
    62.4 KB · Views: 12
  • Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.22.13 am.png
    Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.22.13 am.png
    67.4 KB · Views: 8
  • Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.21.14 am.png
    Screen Shot 2024-06-03 at 9.21.14 am.png
    48.3 KB · Views: 5
  • 1717377476929.png
    1717377476929.png
    41.6 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
The red flag for that claim was the source.
External Quote:

The Federalist – Bias and Credibility​

The Federalist - Right Bias - Questionable - Conservative - Not Credible or Reliable
Factual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable


QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
  • Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/
 
C40 member cities seek to implement a legal prohibition on dairy and meat consumption, and private car ownership etc... by 2030.

It's hard to see how such prohibitions could be implemented without a dystopian level of enforcement (particularly the meat and dairy ban). Many of the C40 cities have vast numbers of entry points.

We can imagine apocalyptic scenarios where the public might accept a massive expansion in police numbers or deployment of the military to encircle a city, perhaps like in Escape From New York (1981), The Siege (1988), The Crazies (1973) or 28 Weeks Later (2007), but probably not for the purpose of hunting for sausage rolls.

"...by 2030" is only five-and-a-half years away.
That would be an awful lot of unemployed butchers, fishmongers, livestock farmers etc. and very aggrieved consumers /voters.
I would guess many restaurants, burger joints and street vendors would fall by the wayside.

The mayors of many of the cities in developed Western nations (inc. Japan, South Korea) are democratically elected.
While levels of meat and dairy consumption vary by geography and culture, I don't think that there's a popular demand in any city in the liberal democracies for enforced vegetarianism.

There's a list of C40 participant cities at Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C40_Cities_Climate_Leadership_Group, which also has other info on C40.
C40's own website is here, https://www.c40.org/.

The one relevant city mayor whose role and authority I know a little about is London mayor Sadiq Khan,
Capture.JPG
...who happens to be the co-chair (and before that sole chair) of C40 since 2016.

Khan has taken a stance on environmental issues, and controversially expanded London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone for traffic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone. He has also angered environmentalists by approving new road construction and being in favour of airport expansion (though he has changed his position on which airports should expand).

He has gone on record that Londoners should eat less meat:

External Quote:

Sadiq Khan has pledged that London will eat less meat
Written by El Hunt Thursday 10 October 2019

...Currently, 13 percent of the city’s total emissions stem from food consumption alone, and a whopping 75 percent of that comes from animal-sourced food. That’s why, along with 13 other mayors from cities including Los Angeles, Barcelona, and Tokyo, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has just made an official commitment to slash meat consumption in our city.

City Hall is aiming to have schools, hospitals, and other public institutions around the city serve up meals that stick to the ‘planetary health diet’ by 2030. If you can’t bear the thought of turning full herbivore, fear not: the diet allows for about 300g of meat per week. The idea is to cut down on animal product consumption by balancing it out with loads more fruit, veg, nuts and legumes
From Time Out,
https://www.timeout.com/london/news/sadiq-khan-has-pledged-that-london-will-eat-less-meat-101019.

Actually the public institutions serving food that Khan has authority for are very limited (and does not include hospitals).
It wouldn't apply to restaurants/ shops of any sort, other than Greater London Authority staff canteens (e.g. at City Hall).
GLA Employees are not obliged to eat what their canteen serves up, and can take in their own food.

By far the most significant sector affected would be school-provided meals, but the majority of English schoolchildren take packed lunches from home (AFAIK, can't find recent figures) which also are not affected.
External Quote:

There has been a rise in the number of children eating school lunches in England, data suggests.
But this still leaves less than half of primary pupils and just over a third of secondary pupils eating school lunches, the School Food Trust says.
" 'More pupils' eat school lunches", 8 July 2010, BBC News, Family & Education https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10552560

In response to a question from a Green member of the London Assembly in 2019, who asked if Khan would support "Meat Free Mondays" in City Hall, Khan gave a long-ish response concluding
External Quote:
...However, Londoners have the right to choose what they eat, and it would not be right for me to seek to make those choices for them by enforcing particular dietary restrictions on them via the menu in the City Hall café. For that reason, it would not be appropriate for the café in City Hall to offer solely vegan produce...
London Assembly, Mayor's Question Time, 17 October 2019 link Meat Free Monday.

The Mayor of London / Greater London Authority utterly lacks the legal authority, or means, to determine what people eat in their own homes or in private sector food outlets (which is pretty much all food outlets) even if the electorate voted for candidates who proposed doing so, which must be extremely unlikely any time soon. The GLA cannot pass primary legislation.

I would guess the same applies to many other (depressingly, maybe not all) C40 cities.

Unsupportable scare stories about C40, and Sadiq Khan in particular, are not new:

External Quote:
Fact Check: London Mayor Did NOT 'Sign Up All Nine Million Londoners For The Planetary Health Diet' And 'Vegetarian Plan' In October 2023 -- Claim Distorts His Statements

Did London Mayor Sadiq Khan impose restrictions on meat consumption on all city residents as of October 20, 2023? No, that's not true: While the mayor publicly promotes increased vegetable consumption, he neither introduced rationing of meat nor enacted a total ban on this category of food. Posts on social media mislead about his policies. In addition, Khan first announced his food plan in 2019.

...In 2019, Khan explicitly said that, while his administration welcomes a greater inclusion of greens in people's diets, he had no intention of imposing measures to control what people consume, even when it comes to the meals served for the city's employees:
"Londoners have the right to choose what they eat, and it would not be right for me to seek to make those choices for them by enforcing particular dietary restrictions on them via the menu in the City Hall café."

The supposedly existing or upcoming bans on popular consumer items are a repeated leitmotif on websites with a lengthy history of publishing factually incorrect information. Lead Stories already reported that Phoenix did not "impose WEF's ban on meat, dairy, private cars" in September 2023, that 14 U.S. cities did not "sign WEF treaty to ban meat, dairy, private cars by 2030" and that the World Economic Forum did not say fashion will be abolished.

All those claims were derived from misinterpretations of the 2019 C40 report.
(My emphasis) Lead Stories website, 20 October 2023, Uliana Malashenko, link to article here.


Ann K. has drawn our attention to the reliability of The Federalist.
The author of the article "These 14 American Cities Have A ‘Target’ Of Banning Meat, Dairy, And Private Vehicles By 2030" in @TheNZThrower's OP is Evita Duffy-Alfonso.

She is the daughter of US Republican politician Sean Duffy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Duffy, and Rachel Campos-Duffy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Campos-Duffy , a Fox News host (Fox & Friends).

Since its inception in 2020, Duffy-Alfonso has been the managing director of Chicago Thinker https://thechicagothinker.com/about-us/,
External Quote:
"...the University of Chicago’s right-leaning student newspaper."
The website centres around some right-wing concerns, more "culture war" stuff than serious consideration of, e.g., economic policies. In fairness, not too many of the articles are "cranky" considering the (I guess) youth of many contributors.

External Quote:
The Chicago Thinker embraces the mission of President Gray, Ayn Rand, and all those who desire to discern truth
Ayn Rand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand, I expect many people here will have views about Rand.










 
Last edited:
The Chicago Thinker embraces the mission of President Gray, Ayn Rand, and all those who desire to discern truth
I had to google President Gray (not grey) Is it this guy? https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/President_Gray
External Quote:

President Gray was also responsible for the manufacturing of internment camps that the psi children were sent to. Each child was divided into different classes based on their eye colors.
Based on this and 'Rand' are you sure you're not citing a satire website
 
Just to state the obvious:
the idea behind having a progressive target and an ambitious target is ostensibly to frame the progressive target such that people think, "look, that's not too bad". As such (and as stated), the ambitious target is impossible and not intended to be reached (in that timeframe, if ever): it's a rhetorical device to help the progressive target gain traction.

There is no evidence for plans for a blanket ban. As such, this is a repeat of maliciously interpreting "less population on Earth would be more sustainable" as "they're planning to kill people off".
 
There's an awful lot of ad hominem in this thread over an article and claim that is not only factually correct, but actually links to the sources that informed all her claims in the article. Maybe instead of damning her for being "Republican" we should at least give her credit for actually providing sources AND presenting the alternative point of view in her article.

If the c40 didn't want people to take their goals as "0 kg", then they shouldn't have written it in their report.
 
I had to google President Gray (not grey) Is it this guy? https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/President_Gray

President Gray was also responsible for the manufacturing of internment camps that the psi children were sent to. Each child was divided into different classes based on their eye colors.
Content from External Source Based on this and 'Rand' are you sure you're not citing a satire website

I had to look up President Gray, and found that President Gray too!
Also Jonathan D. Grey, president of Blackstone Group (asset management) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_D._Gray and a donor to Hilary Clinton's 2016 campaign, so probably not him.

Pretty sure "President Gray" is Hanna Holborn Gray, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanna_Holborn_Gray,
President of the University of Chicago 1978-1993.
 

There's an awful lot of ad hominem in this thread over an article and claim that is not only factually correct, but actually links to the sources that informed all her claims in the article. Maybe instead of damning her for being "Republican" we should at least give her credit for actually providing sources AND presenting the alternative point of view in her article.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso co-founded the Chicago Thinker when quite young (21?), and while in the 2nd year of University, so in the absence of a previous career I don't think it's unfair to mention her background. Not every student is in a position to start a newspaper.

Her interpretation of the C40 goals is alarmist.
External Quote:
If C40 Cities’ climate aims are carried out, people will die.
(Original bold, Evita Duffy-Alfonso, The Federalist 17 August 2023).

As @Mendel has pointed out, there's no evidence of a plan for a blanket ban, and there's no evidence of any planning to enforce the C40 goals. They're at best aspirations (and pie-in-the-sky, in-a-perfect-world aspirations IMHO).
C40 co-chair Sadiq Khan has stated it would be wrong to limit dietary choices in the café at City Hall, his HQ.

In her article, Duffy-Alfonso associates a number of things with her criticism of the C40 report,
External Quote:
Meanwhile, the U.K. has banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles after 2030, and France has banned short-haul flights “to cut carbon emissions.”
Neither of these have anything to do with C40; they are policies of national governments intended to reduce emissions.
(The UK legislation is from a Conservative government, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan is a Labour politician- "the opposition".)

External Quote:
Right now, hedge funds and private billionaires are buying up residential homes and farmland all over the world.
If the billionaires made the money themselves, and are pursuing their own happiness, wouldn't Ayn Rand approve?

Some of Duffy-Alfonso's commentary might be seen as raising straw-man type scare stories:

External Quote:
Climate activists are also advocating for “climate lockdowns,” in the same way there were Covid lockdowns. Ideas floated for a climate lockdown have ranged from shuttering people in their homes...
Again nothing to do with C40, and a plainly unacceptable course of action to most of us (I hope).
Duffy-Alfonso's source for this claim is an opinion piece, "Will Climate Lockdowns Be Necessary to Fight the Climate Crisis?",
17 Jan 2023 by Rayner Skiver on website Greenmatters (link).
Skiver concludes,
External Quote:
While some people didn’t mind lockdowns during the pandemic, there were still a lot of people that did mind. Staying at home and not being able to go somewhere isn’t all that fun. So if the idea of another lockdown — albeit a slightly different kind — isn’t appealing, then we better start tackling climate change sooner rather than later.
-Essentially saying that, in her opinion, to avoid lockdowns in the future to reduce emissions (which I think is an unrealistic fear) we should start reducing emissions. One person (not "climate activists") who isn't advocating "climate lockdowns".
Evita has found the musings of one blogger, misrepresented her views, and associated it with C40.

She also says
External Quote:
WEF-linked “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao has proposed the idea of scientists genetically modify humans to be allergic to meat.
Liao is a philosopher with a fondness for discussing theoretical technological fixes, some of which don't currently exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Matthew_Liao. Evita states Liao is "WEF-linked" (how?), the World Economic Forum approves of C40 (though I can't find a direct link, e.g. funding) so Liao's ideas are associated with C40.
No mention of the philosophical nature of Liao's startling proposals, which are made to make us think about ethics,
a bit like the Trolley Problem. The Trolley Problem isn't guidance for rail operators on safety management.
Or that US, EU, UK laws explicitly forbid this type of genetic engineering
External Quote:
...there are countries which allow, for example, HGGE [human germline genome editing- John J.] for research purposes. Yet, also these more permissive national orders, of which China, the USA, and the UK are the most prominent, have laws and regulations that impose strict limits to the use of this technology.
Rewriting the human genome, rewriting human rights law? Human rights, human dignity, and human germline modification in the CRISPR era, Britta C van Beers, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 7(1) January-June 2020.

If the c40 didn't want people to take their goals as "0 kg", then they shouldn't have written it in their report.
Agreed. Mendel pointed out the difference between progressive targets and ambitious targets in the C40 report.
However well-meaning, the ambitious targets are unrealistic aspirations. The report's commissioners should have realised that they would raise fears of compulsory action by city authorities amongst some, even where city authorities don't have the power to enforce the C40 goals.

Maybe instead of damning her for being "Republican"
I don't think anyone's done that, but Duffy-Alfonso's article is scaremongering in places.

The real power of the C40 report is shown by the mayor of London (and C40 co-chair) not banning meat in his own City Hall's café, despite the report's "ambitious goal" of having 0% meat consumption in five-and-a-half year's time.
London schoolkids dependent on school meals, i.e. disproportionately poorer kids, might consume less meat/ dairy midday, saving a few quid reducing environmental stress.
 
There's an awful lot of ad hominem in this thread over an article and claim that is not only factually correct, but actually links to the sources that informed all her claims in the article. Maybe instead of damning her for being "Republican" we should at least give her credit for actually providing sources AND presenting the alternative point of view in her article.
NO.

The article is NOT "factually correct". Excerpted falsehoods:
External Quote:
In 2020, the World Economic Forum (which promotes C40 Cities on its website) introduced “The Great Reset,” which seeks to use the Covid-19 pandemic as a point from which to launch a global reset of society to supposedly combat climate change.
External Quote:
If C40 Cities’ climate aims are carried out, people will die.
External Quote:
unrealistic zero-emissions policies are impoverishing Westerners and annihilating the middle class
External Quote:
wealthier nations are proven to have cleaner environments and put less strain on natural resources
and of course the general idea that C40 advocates for a "ban"
Screenshot_20240604-215633_Samsung Internet.jpg


In addition, NOBODY in this thread has "damned" the author "for being Republican". In fact, I don't see any attacks at all, just information on her background.

All I see is you attempting to derail a thread you don't like because of your own politics. Again.
 
In addition, NOBODY in this thread has "damned" the author "for being Republican". In fact, I don't see any attacks at all, just information on her background.

All I see is you attempting to derail a thread you don't like because of your own politics. Again.
Ann's post, effectively "the source being The Federalist implies the story is likely to be wrong", could be considered /ad hominem/.
John's follow-up gave us "The Federalist is Republican"

It's not the most complicated join-the-dots to see "Republican => wrong" has been insinuated. Sure, "damning" might be hyperbolic, but given that there's no reason to believe actual literal damnation was involved, it was clearly rhetoric.

I will confess that it's a thought pattern I often follow, it can be a useful shortcut when you're limited more to the field of abductive resoning than inductive reasoning, but at least I will confess to it rather than pretend it doesn't happen. It can often be an anti-pattern, of course.
 
Ann's post, effectively "the source being The Federalist implies the story is likely to be wrong", could be considered /ad hominem/.
John's follow-up gave us "The Federalist is Republican"
@Ann K 's quote from mediabiasfactcheck already sorted The Federalist as "far-right biased". I expect you equating that with "Republican" could be considered a slight to Republicans?
And no, "the Federalist is Republican" is not supported by @John J. 's post. Do the work and find the quotes instead of paraphrasing!

It's not the most complicated join-the-dots to see "Republican => wrong" has been insinuated.
It hasn't been insinuated.
fake-news-1-e1608300183808.jpg

The most insinuating statement was John's "I expect many people here will have views about Rand", which is something that could probably also be said of the RNC, so...

(I'm not defending @captancourgette 's "recondite BS".)



The reason the claim in the OP is wrong is that it rips factoids out of their original context and inserts them into an existing conspiracy theory narrative.

The reason the claim in the OP was made is that the author was writing from/for a far-right mindset.

Please don't confuse discussing the latter with discussing the former; that's when you start seeing ad hominem where there is none.
 
@Ann K 's quote from mediabiasfactcheck already sorted The Federalist as "far-right biased". I expect you equating that with "Republican" could be considered a slight to Republicans?
I'll stop you right there - which of my words, precisely, do you consider me equating far-right biased with Republican?
 
All this focus about the WEF and C40 cities makes you wonder what ever happened to the Bilderbergs or even the Illuminate. What are they up to these days?
 
Regardless of politics, I think the evidence is that Duffy-Alfonso's article exaggerates concerns about the C40 2030 goals, and she attempts to associate scary stuff about "...shuttering people in their homes", and genetically modifying humans, with the C40 report on flimsy evidence and by ignoring the context of those "proposals".

@Mendel quotes Evita Duffy-Alfonso's article, and correctly points out that she is factually wrong
...wealthier nations are proven to have cleaner environments and put less strain on natural resources
The idea that, per capita, wealthier nations put less strain on natural resources is clearly wrong, and is historically wrong; many of the natural resources used by wealthy nations are from poorer nations, effectively exporting the land use/ water use and pollution/ greenhouse emissions to the poorer nations.
The people of DR Congo aren't mining coltan because they all use a vast amount of consumer electronics.

Comparing carbon dioxide emissions with per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP):
The map on the right, per capita carbon dioxide emissions, is most relevant. (Click to enlarge).

m1.jpg



Per capita GDP:
gdp.png

There appears to be a strong relationship between high GDP and high carbon dioxide emissions.
The region with the lowest GDP, central Africa, has the lowest emissions per capita.
Russia, some former Soviet republics are significant outliers; significantly industrialised and with access to vast reserves of fossil fuels but mid-range GDPs.
(Maps sourced from Wikipedia, gross emissions per country, emissions per capita, GDP.)

I'm right-of-centre on many issues, not politically a fan of C40 chair and London mayor Sadiq Khan (though I think some of the criticism levelled at him in the UK is misplaced and verges on, shall we say, xenophobia).

But anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and global mean temperatures will continue to rise unless we reduce greenhouse emissions:

External Quote:
What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the Earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.

...We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.
At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.
The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones.
UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 8 November 1989,
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817; Mrs T. wasn't widely known for her namby-pamby lefty tendencies.

Not everyone / every organisation that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to provide more sustainable sources of food or consumer products, is hell-bent on a Khmer Rouge-style return to year zero and the abolition of individual freedoms
(though many self-appointed climate change activists do themselves no favours by disrupting life for populations who overwhelmingly accept the need to counter anthropogenic climate change.)

Evita Duffy-Alfonso's article has a "Look what those freedom-hating lefty environmentalists are planning now!" feel to it.

I'm sceptical about C40, but not about their concern for the environment.
They're not going to close every fish-and-chip shop in London, board me up in my house, alter my genome and let me buy 3 socks a year (what do I do with the 3rd one?)

C40 member cities from China, Russia etc. will always do the bidding of their national governments; "western" mayors can say whatever they want but in reality they're constrained by their electorate and by national laws (and separate state laws in US and some other nations).
But mainly, I suspect the list of C40 cities provide a nice itinerary of places to be visited by city staff when perhaps their efforts should focus on the city where they're elected/ employed.
 
All I see is you attempting to derail a thread you don't like because of your own politics. Again.
you are again assuming my legitimate critique is politics based. How come you don't accuse me of being an extraterrestrial believer everytime i defend a UFO believer or claim?
 
I'm scanning the report and while I do agree that there is set an "aspirational" target of "0 meat consumption", I don't see any mention of banning meat consumption. If anything they seem more concerned with making sure good and healthy food options are more available and easier to afford. It would seem like C40's just want to eventually move people away from eating meat by influencing habits - NOT infringing upon citizen's rights and freedoms.

Link on c40knowledghub.org "Why cities should support access to healthy, sustainable food for all"
https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/a...althy-sustainable-food-for-all?language=en_US
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-06-10 081213.png
    Screenshot 2024-06-10 081213.png
    107.8 KB · Views: 8
I tend to think that reducing meat consumption, car ownership and aircraft use to a minimum would all be desirable goals. Disclaimer; I generally eat a vegetarian diet, but I'm not meat-free yet. I don't drive a car, and I've just come back from a rail-trip across Europe. So these reductions would not significantly affect my lifestyle.

I'm not sure about reducing the number of new clothes to three purchases a year though - in particular, children need a lot more new purchases than that, because they are constantly growing. Perhaps we would need to make our own clothes in a c40 utopia. My wife loves knitting, but I'm hopeless at it.

Maybe we should wear more recycled clothes. This is quite commonplace in countries outside the West.
 
Last edited:
There is a world of difference between having a goal of eating less meat and "banning" meat consumption
There is a world of difference between "eating less meat" and "zero meat and zero dairy" too.

The latter is the claim of this thread.
fair enough. if you think there is a logical way to hit 0kg of meat and 0kg of dairy without bans.. that's cool.

(for the record i could care less what liberal cities choose to do. I live in America, i have the freedom to not live there.)
 
if you think there is a logical way to hit 0kg of meat and 0kg of dairy without bans.. that's cool.
Do you eat Insects?
Apart from the parts that get mixed into your bran flakes, I guess you eat 0kg
Now why don't you eat insects? its not banned and all the ones I've eaten have tasted quite good.
You and most of the people in the USA choose not to eat them because of culture,
i.e. I guess what I'm saying is its possible to make consumption of something effectively zero without banning it.
Like I think in the USA they don't eat much horse. I brought some in the supermarket and consumed it last week (This is in Catalonia btw), I've eaten most things, Bush meat in Africa, Dogs brains, Raw snake head etc, To me nothing is really off limits (except for maybe octopus now). I grew up partly on a farm thus ate our animals.

Do I actually eat much meat nowadays? Often I won't eat any meat for 2-4 weeks in a row, I do eat some fish though but even that not much. I estimate my meat consumption is between 5-10kg a year now
I guess I changed for 3 reasons My Health, Environmental reasons, Animal Welfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption
I see back in 2002, NZ had even higher consumption than the USA. Growing up every meal I got except breakfast (though sometimes even then) had meat, now its decreased by quite a bit within a couple of decades. Laws haven't changed during that time, its just peoples attitudes that have changed
 
Maybe we should wear more recycled clothes. This is quite commonplace in countries outside the West.
I'm an artist, and my wardrobe consists of two kinds of clothes: those with paint on, and those which don't have paint on yet. There's a large resale clothing store in one direction from me, and a Goodwill store in the other, and almost everything I have comes from one or the other of those, so recycled clothes are popular in the USA as well.
 
An article linked by Duffy-Alfonso in her post claims the following:
External Quote:
Starting on page 66, the report summarises what they hope to impose on us. Below are images of their “ambitions” which require no further comment, except to say that all these plans are being made and agreed upon outside the democratic process and in a classic dictatorial manner under false pretences.
https://expose-news.com/2023/06/18/by-2030-you-will-be-allowed-only-three/

The claim that the plans are made outside the democratic process seems to strike a chord with me in some way, as the plans are not being drafted officially by any respective city government which comprises C40. However, I am not quite sure how to articulate why I think the claim made above is true, as I think it is the only effective way to debunk the claim.
 
The claim that the plans are made outside the democratic process seems to strike a chord with me in some way,
but it's not true!
the study is public, there full transparency, and none of the C40 participants in democratic countries have indicated that they're going to circumvene democratic processes to pursue these goals.

as the plans are not being drafted officially by any respective city government which comprises C40.
in a totalitarian state, policy originates within the government. In a democracy, policy originates within society and is affirmed through democratic processes. The people who wrote this study are not a "shadow government".
 
What do you think the article Duffy-Alfonso linked meant when they said that the C40 plan was made outside the democratic process?
This article: https://expose-news.com/2023/06/18/by-2030-you-will-be-allowed-only-three/

Excerpts:
External Quote:
The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World was co-created and co-delivered by C40, Arup and the University of Leeds with funding from Arup, University of Leeds and Citi Foundation. It claims to be an analysis and not a plan but the tone of the report, from the outset, reads like a plan.
It's not a plan since it formulates targets and breaks them down, but does not describe the steps needed to achieve them.

External Quote:
City Mayors can set a vision and convene actors to bring about the changes we describe
This is a quote from the study. It sounds perfectly democratic to me. If this is the worst they can accuse C40 of...

External Quote:
C40 and Arup have worked together since 2009 and have collaborated on dystopian publications such as Deadline 2020, Green and Thriving Neighbourhoods and a for creating net-zero neighbourhoods.
"Thriving neighbourhoods" does not sound dystopian at all.

External Quote:
Because it provides damning evidence against its collaborators, we have also attached a copy below should it disappear from public view at any time in the future.
Standard conspiracy theorist stuff. There's no reason this study should "disappear from public view", but it makes expose-news look more edgy to claim that. No "damning evidence" is cited, except for the "ambitious targets" discussed above in this thread.

External Quote:
Below are images of their “ambitions” which require no further comment, except to say that all these plans are being made and agreed upon outside the democratic process and in a classic dictatorial manner under false pretences.
No support for these claims is given. Pure imagination. No false pretenses are identified.

External Quote:
C40 and Arup’s activities need to be halted immediately and their operations shut down permanently. Additionally, any person who has actively contributed to/participated in devising, considering or implementing these plans should be questioned, investigated and brought to account.
Since neither C40 nor Arup have broken any laws, these demands by the expose-news author look decidedly anti-democratic to me.
External Quote:
So, who are the people who feel they can autocratically override fundamental freedoms and remove inalienable rights while destroying our well-being, livelihoods, economies and societies?
A list of names follows. The author wants people persecuted who exercised their right to free speech, because the author does not agree with what is being said. That is anti-democratic.


Who is Arup? They offer architecture-related services and have a track record of social responsibility:
Arup is an employee-owned business, with all staff owning a stake in the company and part of a global profit share.[22]

The firm has published an annual sustainability report since 2008, and is involved in several projects around the world aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions,[24] such as Dongtan Eco-City, which is planned to be zero waste,[25] and the High Speed 2 Interchange Station, which is the first railway station in the world to achieve BREEAM 'outstanding certification.[26]

Arup also runs community engagement programmes comprising initiatives to combat homelessness,[27] improve sanitation in disaster relief programmes,[28] and disaster recovery after earthquakes.[29] They also engage in partnerships with governments, NGOs, think tanks, and other advocacy groups.[30][31]
 
Last edited:
To be 100% clear:
• it is democratic to ask others to stop consuming dairy and meat
• it is not democratic to try and suppress those who ask that
 
C40 cities also said in their report the following:
External Quote:
In a future scenario where C40 cities implement the identified interventions across these categories, alongside global delivery of NDC targets and Deadline 2020 commitments, C40 cities’ consumption-based emissions would decrease by an additional 32 GtCO2e between 2017-2050.
In this context, does C40 cities refer to the member cities of C40, or the organisation itself?
 
And regarding the C40 definitions of progressive and ambitious targets, I am having trouble with understanding the definitions:
1720114460027.png

What do they mean by target level of ambition for consumption intervention? Is it "targeted amount of consumption of a good intended to/can be be achieved by consumption interventions which are more realistic and likely to happen based on existing technologies and observed changes in consumer habits in conjunction with verifiable existing consumer priorities"?
 
Just to state the obvious:
the idea behind having a progressive target and an ambitious target is ostensibly to frame the progressive target such that people think, "look, that's not too bad". As such (and as stated), the ambitious target is impossible and not intended to be reached (in that timeframe, if ever): it's a rhetorical device to help the progressive target gain traction.

There is no evidence for plans for a blanket ban. As such, this is a repeat of maliciously interpreting "less population on Earth would be more sustainable" as "they're planning to kill people off".
How did you come to that conclusion behind having progressive and ambitious targets? How did you make the inference?
 
How did you come to that conclusion behind having progressive and ambitious targets? How did you make the inference?
you have yourself figured out that the ambitious target is basically impossible:
Ambitious targets are basically a what if scenario where consumption interventions based on future production technologies and a public that is more willing to adopt drastic changes to their consumption habits. As in "we can achieve X if we assume that future technologies improve and consumers are willing to do more than what they actually are realistically willing to do"
so if it is impossible, why was it included?
The logical reason is, for framing.
And it works: the OP article decries the ambitious target, but does not object to the progressive target.
 
And regarding the C40 definitions of progressive and ambitious targets, I am having trouble with understanding the definitions:
View attachment 69799
What do they mean by target level of ambition for consumption intervention? Is it "targeted amount of consumption of a good intended to/can be be achieved by consumption interventions which are more realistic and likely to happen based on existing technologies and observed changes in consumer habits in conjunction with verifiable existing consumer priorities"?
I interpret that defintion as little more than "we reckon this should be possible, if only we can persuade people to change their lifestyles".
Which is fine as long as a third of the population aren't Maddox (who, if you order vegetarian, will order 3 meat dishes, so that the net meat consumption is thereby increased).
 
Back
Top