Aletho News


Deutsche Bank: “A Certain Degree of Eco-Dictatorship Will Be Necessary”


Izabella Kaminska, formerly the Editor of the FT’s Alphaville and now the Editor of the Blind Spot, has flagged up an alarming passage in a document published in January 2021 by Deutsche Bank Research entitled ‘What we must do to Rebuild’. Eric Heyman has written the section about the tough choices the EU must face it if’s to meet its goal of achieving ‘climate neutrality’ by 2050 – Net Zero, in other words – and says the following:

The impact of the current climate policy on people’s everyday lives is still quite abstract and acceptable for many households. Climate policy comes in the form of higher taxes and fees on energy, which make heating and mobility more expensive. Some countries have set minimum energy efficiency standards for buildings or similar rules in other areas. However, climate policy does not determine our lives. We take key consumption decisions, for example whether we travel at all, how much we travel and which means of transport we use, whether we live in a large house or a small apartment and how we heat our homes, how many electronic devices we have and how intensely we use them or how much meat and exotic fruit we eat. These decisions tend to be made on the basis of our income, not on climate considerations.

If we really want to achieve climate neutrality, we need to change our behaviour in all these areas of life. This is simply because there are
no adequate cost-effective technologies yet to allow us to maintain our living standards in a carbon-neutral way. That means that carbon prices will have to rise considerably in order to nudge people to change their behaviour. Another (or perhaps supplementary) option is to tighten regulatory law considerably. I know that “eco-dictatorship” is a nasty word. But we may have to ask ourselves the question whether and to what extent we may be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship (in the form of regulatory law) in order to move towards climate neutrality.

When he says we have to “ask ourselves… whether and to what extent we may be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship” I don’t think he has a Net Zero referendum in mind. Rather, by ‘ourselves’ he means the EU’s ruling class. It has to ask itself whether it’s willing to pass laws forcing the EU’s population to modify its behaviour to meet the 2050 ‘climate neutrality’ target, regardless of whether it has a democratic mandate to do so or not.

I suppose we should be grateful that at least Heyman hasn’t tried to sugar coat this. It should be clear what “eco-dictatorship” means, even to those most reluctant to accept that Net Zero zealots have little love for democracy.

Stop Press: Izabella Kaminska has interviewed the neo-Malthusian Turkish-American economist Nourel Roubini for the Blind Spot podcast. In his book Megathreats: The Ten Trends that Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them he argues that individual freedoms will have to be sacrificed if we’re to contain another pandemic or avoid a climate catastrophe.

December 21, 2022 - Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity |


  1. Wait, wait, wait! All these projected consequences, resulting from the battle to have a net zero carbon society are based on the assumption that there is a climate change issue at hand. The repeated propaganda all over the world has convinced some of us that a problem does exist, just as they convinced millions of the absolute need to be injected with a poisonous bioweapon. It is time that we pushed back on the basic concept about climate change. These guys are winning the battle against us.


    Comment by Peter | December 21, 2022 | Reply

    • The truth is temporarily being kept from the majority of an unsuspecting population by way of deception and criminal behavior. But because of relentless actions of truth seekers in and out of the medical profession, and like-minded individuals like you and I, the truth will eventually prevail.
      Such is the case with SARS CoV2 and the Pfizer mRNA. The former was manufactured as a bioweapon, funded by US government agencies. The latter was never approved by US patent office examiners. And because it was never approved it should not have classified as a vaccine.
      The ingredients in the mRNA are as potentially deadly to humans as they were to the animals they were tested on. Not one rat nor any other animal used in experiments by Pfizer or Moderna survived after being injected with the concoction the FDA approved for emergency use on humans. The S1 Spike Protein in the mRNA is a computer generated carbon copy of the spike protein in SARS-CoV2. The facts speak for themselves. When will the truth move governments to do the right thing and ban the mRNA Vax? Probably next year after the death toll from the mRNA reaches epic proportions. Regardless, this is a monumental crime, probably the crime of the century. Fauci, Daszak, Baric and a few others at Pfizer and Moderna, would be wise to lawyer up. Their time is coming.


      Comment by Thomas Simpson | December 22, 2022 | Reply

      • Though usually an optimist, in the present case I disagree with your projection and am very pessimistic as to outcome. In times past, when critical thinking was taught and practiced, people could not be influenced as easily as they are today, by sustained propaganda. But the covid reaction from 2020 till now convinces me that the global public has allowed itself to be stripped of such critical thinking and is coasting along in belief of the climate change propaganda and all the accompanying side maneuvers, such as increasing power to the WHO, the manufacture and promotion of fake foods, digital currencies, vaxx passports, etc. I still see way too may zombies with masks on (even with a shield over a mask) proving that such people, surely double and triple vaxxed, are either not hearing the current revelations of truth, or are so steeped and vested in the propaganda that nothing can change them. I personally face resistance to information that I try to provide to friends within my Church circle, which is absolutely astounding, in view of their stated claim that they seek only the truth. To halt the progression of the totalitarian push more people need to turn away from the football game and open their eyes and minds to what is happening and especially what is planned to happen by those who have taken it upon themselves to alter the world.


        Comment by Peter | December 22, 2022 | Reply

  2. Apologists for the financial oligarchy and the wealthy and powerful miscreants they represent, who have been busy pushing net zero carbon and other falsities on civilization. May soon hopefully find themselves sitting in the docks at a second Nuremberg Tribunal accused of committing crimes against humanity. These folks, may I dare imply they are human, have no concern whatsoever for the suffering they may cause in the name of enforcing the fraud of Climate Change. I only hope I live long enough to bear witness.


    Comment by Thomas Simpson | December 22, 2022 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: