This article was originally published by Rhoda Wilson at The Daily Exposé under the title: By 2030 You Will Not Eat Meat And You Will Be Allowed Only Three Items of New Clothing a Year, Report Says
A report published in 2019 and re-emphasized in 2023 recommends that by 2030 we will not be permitted to eat meat or dairy products, we will be limited to three items of new clothing per year and one airplane flight every three years. It will start in countries that “consume the most.”
Published in 2019, ‘The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World’ report sets out targets for cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as consistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement ambitions. What this report aims to do is quantify and then suggest ways for city “leaders” to reduce consumption-based emissions. In other words, reduce what you and I consume be it food, clothes or travel, etc.
The place to start, a press release stated, is with those who consume the most, and “consumption-based emissions must be cut by at least 50% by 2030.”
The report outlines six sectors where the world’s cities can take “rapid action to address consumption-based emissions”: food, construction, clothing, vehicles, aviation, and electronics.
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. The foreword stated:
“The report demonstrates that mayors have an even bigger role and opportunity to help avert climate emergency than previously thought … While the analysis addresses big global questions, its purpose is to inspire practical action … average consumption-based emissions in C40 cities must halve within the next 10 years. In our wealthiest and highest consuming cities that means a reduction of two thirds or more by 2030.” – Mark Watts, Executive Director of C40
“It is now clear that action to reduce consumption will be necessary as part of the global effort to mitigate climate change … The actions set out in the report are challenging and they will be confronting for many, but we think they are necessary … City Mayors can set a vision and convene actors to bring about the changes we describe … The work reported here forces a focus on what a sustainable urban future might look like and helps us to consider what policies, regulations, incentives and behavioural changes will be necessary to transition to a zero-carbon world.” – Gregory Hodkinson, Former Chairman of Arup
The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World, 2019
C40 is a global network of mayors representing one-quarter of the global economy. It includes almost 100 cities plus 1,143 cities and local governments that have joined C40’s ‘Cities Race to Zero’. The cities that sign up for the ‘Cities Race to Zero’ commit, among others, to keeping global heating below the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Without reading the numerous reports and recommendations thrown at the ‘Cities Race to Zero’ signatories, it’s not possible to establish if the actions set out in The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World report are specifically included in the action plan. Why does it matter? Because if they are, it is not only the 100 or so C40 Cities but more than 1,000 cities that are committing to the report’s reductions in consumer-based emissions. Additionally, we can assume Arup’s network is committing the same.
Arup works as a global network of “experts” and boasts that it “shapes cities in a thousand ways.” It has more than 17,000 members and offices in 46 of the 97 cities that make up C40’s global network. C40 and Arup have worked together since 2009 and have collaborated on dystopian publications such as Deadline 2020, Green and Thriving Neighbourhoods, and a guide for creating net-zero neighborhoods. But these collaborations have not come about without money changing hands.
The first C40/Arup report titled ‘Powering Climate Action: Cities as Global Changemakers’ was published in 2015. That same year Arup committed to investing $1 million over three years into a research partnership with C40.
In 2019, the year the C40/Arup consumer-based emissions report The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World was published, Arup trebled its advisory support to C40 to $3 million over 3 three years.
In 2023, Arup continued its investment in C40 with up to US$300,000 a year to help C40 drive resilience and decarbonization in cities around the world. Unsurprisingly, in March 2023, C40 Cities re-highlighted the 2019 C40/Arup consumer-based emissions report in an article titled ‘A spotlight on consumption-based emissions’. “Since our report was published, cities around the world have begun to map consumption-based emissions and explore ways to reduce them,” C40 said.
So, what does the 2019 report that Arup has so heavily invested in say?
Below we have picked out a few highlights. You can download and read the full report HERE. 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.
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 pretenses.
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.
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? Some of their names are provided in an “acknowledgment” section at the beginning of the report:
| Project Team | Specialist input |
| C40 Tom Bailey, Markus Berensson, Rachel Huxley | C40 Mark Watts, Kevin Austin, Shannon Lawrence, Andrea Fernández, Michael Doust, Josh Alpert, Josh Harris, Emily Morris, Sophie Bedcecarré Ernst, Donna Hume, Zachary Tofias, Stefania Amato, Ricardo Cepeda-Márquez, Kathrin Zeller, Zoe Sprigings, Paul Cartwright, Caroline Watson, Anna Beech, Milag San Jose-Ballesteros, David Miller, Laura Jay, Stelios Diakoulakis, Hastings Chikoko, Pengfei Xie, Divyaprakash Vyas, Daniel Robinson, Caterina Sarfatti, Julia Lipton, Charlotte Breen |
| Arup Ben Smith, Kristian Steele, Christina Lumsden, Christopher Pountney, Stephanie Robson, Ewan Frost-Pennington, Ethan Monaghan-Pisano, Francesca Poli, Anna Lawson, Maria Sunyer Pinya, Jaspreet Singh, Ben Ashby | Arup Will Cavendish, Carol Lemmens, Alexander Jan, Stephen Cook, Richard Boyd, Orlando Gibbons, Michael Muller, Christine McHugh, Tim Armitage, Joe Wheelwright, Emily Woodason, Giacomo Magnani, Erato Panayiotou, Allen Hogben, Jack Clarke, Simon Hart, Andrew Lawrence |
| The University of Leeds John Barrett, Andrew Gouldson, Joel Millward-Hopkins, Anne Owen | Other organizations Miranda Schnitger (Ellen MacArthur Foundation), Maja Johannsen (Ellen MacArthur Foundation), Richard Waites (World Resources Institute), Graham Earl (Ecolyse), Arianna Nicoletti (Future Fashion Forward e.V), John Dulac (International Energy Agency), Thibaut Abergel (International Energy Agency), Tiffany Vaas (International Energy Agency), Mikael Linnander (EAT Forum), Dabo Guan (University of East Anglia), Julian Hill-Landolt (World Business Council for Sustainable Development |
| Third Party Reviewers Klaus Hubacek, University of Maryland, Emma Stewart, World Resources Institut |
The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World, 2019
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.