Aussie Bank Linking Customer Purchases To ‘Carbon Footprint’
In another foretaste of potential future ‘carbon allowance’ limits, a major bank in Australia has introduced a new feature that links purchases to a customer’s ‘carbon footprint’ and warns them when they are going over the average.
Australia’s Commonwealth Bank (CBA) has partnered with CoGo, a “carbon management solutions” company, to launch the new feature, which is part of CBA’s online banking platform.
The bank gives the customer the option to “pay a fee” to offset their ‘carbon footprint’, with the average listed as 1,280 kilograms, a long way from the ‘sustainable’ figure of 200 kilograms.
A person’s ‘carbon footprint’ is calculated and then an ‘equivalent’ metric is shown to make the customer feel guilty about it, such as “8 trees being cut.”
“By combining our rich customer data and CoGo’s industry-leading capability in measuring carbon outputs, we will be able to provide greater transparency for customers so that they can take actionable steps to reduce their environmental footprint,” CommBank Group executive Angus Sullivan said in a statement.
The bank has promised to refine the calculation to show how much CO2 individual purchases are responsible for.
While initially presented as a handy way for someone to track their consumption habits and the supposed impact they have on the environment, some fear that such schemes could one day become mandatory and place limits on purchases of customers who exceed their ‘carbon allowance.’
As we previously highlighted, allied with climate lockdowns, technocrats want to exploit hysteria over climate change to increase financial control over individuals.
Such a proposal was presented in the science journal Nature by four environmental “experts” as a means of reducing global carbon emissions.
Everyone would be issued with a ‘carbon allowance card’ “that would entail all adults receiving an equal tradable carbon allowance that reduces over time in line with national [carbon] targets.”
The authors make it clear that the program would be a “national mandatory policy.”
Carbon units would be “deducted from the personal budget with every payment of transport fuel, home-heating fuels and electricity bills,” and anyone going over the limit would be forced to purchase additional units in the ‘personal carbon market’ from those with excess to sell.”
Of course, the wealthy would be easily able to afford the offsets, and many of them are directly invested in the trading mechanisms that the scheme would be based on.
The proposal makes clear that the means of measuring a person’s uptake of carbon units for travel would function “on the basis of tracking the user’s movement history.”
The authors note that mass compliance with COVID-19 lockdown regulations has greased the skids for further intrusive tyranny and that, “people may be more prepared to accept the tracking and limitations related to PCAs to achieve a safer climate” as a result.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
Well, Bigfoot will have a lot of splaining to do.
Reply
Alan
| #
First it is provided as guidance and then it will become compulsory, and purchases will be controlled.
Reply
Terry Shipman
| #
Here in Arkansas I receive a monthly email from the gas company comparing my usage with my neighbors. I always use more gas since my home is 120 years old, two stories and on the National Register of Historic Places. It is as drafty as an old barn despite my attempts to insulate it. Well, I guess it is an old barn. The downstairs windows, built in Victorian style, are as tall as the door & transoms. But I love restoring it.
I can foresee that under a future dystopian (Democratic party) dictatorship I would be warned about my gas usage and threatened with fines and shutoff. I am at a disadvantage since my neighbor’s homes are modern with better insulation. I am in the process of restoring the fireplace and have completed restoring the two brick flues in the back part of the house. I can see a necessity for wood heat once again.
Why not? My grandparents built the house in 1901 when all that was available was wood heat, wood cook stove, oil lamps, well water and the outhouse. I’m 72 now and I have such fond memories of the outhouse when I was very young. Wasps & snakes in the summertime and freezing cold in the wintertime. Or use the ever-present chamber pot. My parents would get on to me to dump the chamber pot in the weeds out back. “You use it, you dump it.” Dumping in the weeds was preferable to dumping it in that horrible three-holer outhouse.
Why, just imagine the small carbon footprint I would have if I went back to all of that. Who needs indoor plumbing! Al Gore and Greta would be so proud of me.
On second, thought I’ll vote a straight Republican ticket in the upcoming election to try and keep what I have. The following is a history of the improvements my house and town received in the twentieth century:
Electricity circa 1930.
Natural gas circa 1941.
Municipal water 1958 (I was here that summer to see it built)
Municipal sewer 1969 (bye bye outhouse).
My grandmother raised her eight children cooking on her wood burning stove beginning in 1901. After they were all grown she finally got a natural gas cook circa 1941 for the remaining seven years of her life. She died in 1948.
I was raised in St. Louis and visited every summer. The old cook stove was still in place back in the original kitchen. I was born in 1950 and my post-war subdivision house had natural gas central heat & cooking, running water, indoor plumbing and a sewer system. I would look at that old stove during my annual visits to Arkansas and marveled at how anybody could live like that. Well, my mother was raised in this house (born in 1911) and all of her meals were cooked on that old stove.
I think all these childish climate protestors should try living as my grandparents and parents lived back in the low CO2 level days. They might have a better appreciation for modern life.
As for me, I will fight to retain what we now have.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Well said Terry!!
Reply
aaron
| #
better yet, dont vote, it means nothing and only legitimizes the authoritarian psychopathic so called leaders and purveyors of oppression and misery for humanity while they live literally like kings, hiding behind their walls and their well paid enforcers of tyranny.
police sergeants and brass make well over $150,000 yearly each, which makes a very compliant situation, esp when given the power of the state and weapons
Reply
aaron
| #
What do you mean ‘don’t vote’?
Reply