Useful idiots, the term coined as far as I could see from the Russian Communists (it's usually one or the other), those weak minded masses who take on the evil ideas of the ruling class and impose their views on other people even though those rules would wreck their own lives just as much if they were brought in. Fear is the key, you do a Margaret Mead and lie through your teeth for the cause, she was pushing post-normal science with the late Stephen Schneider back in 1974, with the quote:
"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"
ie lie to the public and get them to harangue each other. Which has reached its peak in the 21st century. If you removed the imaginary threat, currently global warming, racism, sexism, and all other divide and rule tricks used by the extreme left and right alike, they wouldn't want it either. All these punishments and divisions are to make a world better for the ruling classes alone, not us. Wiping out population in the UN's 'managed depopulation' programme of Agenda 21 doesn't include them. Taking most of what rich people earn doesn't go back to the poor or apply to the rulers, look at the Russian Communist party members if you don't believe that. They had everything the people didn't, and make today's theoretical 1% look like a significant number in comparison.
Look at the aims of Greenpeace, the Socialist Workers, Worker's Revolutionary Party, the liberal left leaders, social workers, the BBC, anyone either part of the establishment or working to impose even worse restrictions on us. I can't imagine a world better for a single person when or if each policy is added, which include:
Making driving restrictions so severe it makes people want to give up their cars
Stopping personal wealth and inheritance
Removing personal property
Banning fossil fuel
Restricting free speech to include causing offence, banning specific words and anything else the government do not want you to say, despite only inciting a crime and lying do any actual harm.
Forced diversity and multiculturalism
Rights for criminals
What sort of life would you get if every single one of these was fully implemented?
Firstly it would be almost impossible to travel quickly or easily (like in Soviet Russia), so people would tend to work and stay near home and gain very little knowledge of the outside world or see their family or friends beyond a few miles away, and restrict everyone's work prospects. People would be given what the state considered adequate, from accommodation to clothing if you remember Chairman Mao. The UN already have plans to remove personal wealth on a worldwide scale by replacing cash with carbon credits, which only last a year. This of course could never have been accepted without the imaginary fear of global warming. Forced diversity has two results, firstly it forces diverse cultures at totally different stages of development and with entirely different values and languages to live on top of each other, as they already do in London, while each coalesces together in local pools and does their best in practice to avoid the others, unless their culture includes stealing from them. Without fossil fuel we would simply revert to times before we had it, with little industry and electricity only for those rich enough to generate their own in the very few other ways which could never run a hospital, so people would not have operations or treatment for many illnesses and again die as they did in the dark ages (ie managed depopulation). Meanwhile those still alive and forced to live alongside Arab, Muslim, African, Pole, Sunni, Shia, Pakistani and English, and that's just in one street, would start turf wars and end up trying to take over each other's territory, as that is the nature of history wherever this has happened and still does in places like Nigeria and Sudan. People could not speak freely in public, like Soviet Russia, and probably not allowed to meet in groups either in case they plotted revolution. Education would almost fall apart altogether (except for the elite), as so many subjects would be banned for one reason or another, and what was taught would be so regulated (like global warming and history) little of value could actually be learned. You could never speak freely, see anyone beyond the travel limitations, get decent healthcare, improve your standard of living very far or have use of much of the technology we now take for granted as they almost all need fossil fuel for production and use.
Protests, which I assume would be inevitable under such conditions, would need to be vigorously dealt with.
So even though these represent the extreme and total enforcement of the green movement, far left and UN, no one affected by a single one would actually have the quality of their lives improved. Global warming alarmists only see it as a sacrifice to save the planet but certainly wouldn't want to give so much up unless they had to (useful idiots), and when their fire engine or ambulance can't get there in time as they can't handle the road humps you lose even more than your enemy the car drivers. They all use computers to spread their propaganda, how long could they last from a solar panel? Anyone who believes in hell can see the comparison I've described, and there is no other way of seeing the results, especially as we have some already now which have spoilt the areas they were implemented in and this is early days. I suspect nearly all the anti car brigade don't drive or can't afford to, so won't make any difference if they stop everyone else. Even the most careful and best intentioned idiot can slip up, so sooner or later your activist of today will say something wrong about disabled lesbians or having too many Bangladeshis living in the garden behind their house. The fact they worked to get these laws won't stop them being punished the same as the enemy who actually freely disagree with gay marriage and immigration without the power of the law to stop them. The schools are already coming to pieces in London with a hundred languages being spoken, often without actual English. If the gypsies now allowed in as it's deemed racist to stop any form of immigration steal they won't care if their victims are PC or not, and if you invited them in personally it won't make you immune from being mugged or raped by organised foreign criminals. I fight for this cause as I can sense the difference between heaven and hell very easily, and if you give up more freedom than any possible benefits I can guarantee you it's wrong.