According to her bio on her website, Mariana Francesca Mazzucato is an economist with dual Italian-US citizenship. She is a professor at University College London in Economics of Innovation and Public Value and she is the founder and director of their Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. However, according to her recent essay, she’s also a tyrannical advocate of economic lockdowns. Unlike the crippling coronavirus lockdowns that sent overdoses into record breaking territory and childhood suicides through the roof, these lockdowns are for climate change. Unfortunately, she is not alone in her views either.
In her essay, which was endorsed by many in the establishment media, Mazzucato pushes for draconian measures to curb what she refers to as a tipping point on climate change. If we don’t take “dramatic interventions” immediately, human civilization as we know it will come to an end and so will the planet, according to Mazzucato. These interventions are not child’s play either. According to Mazzucato’s paper, which was reprinted in mainstream media outlets across the planet:
Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.
Given what we know about the covid lockdowns, the effects of such a system would likely have devastating consequences for every country and send shockwaves throughout every socioeconomic arena. So why on Earth would politicians and media be chomping at the bit to get on board?
Earlier this month, President Joe Biden used the recent hurricanes as “proof” we’re in a “climate crisis” and issued a “code red” for the world. He was backed up by House climate adviser Gina McCarthy, who added that the climate crisis is now a “health emergency.”
A recent Nature journal piece followed suit, claiming that COVID-19 lockdowns have prepared people for “personal carbon allowances.” Restrictions on individual freedoms “that were unthinkable only one year before” have us “more prepared to accept the tracking and limitations” to “achieve a safer climate,” the piece notes.