Joe Biden’s $2.5 trillion infrastructure spending spree will include $20 billion earmarked for actually destroying highways because they have been deemed to be racist.
The administration pointed to the Claiborne Expressway in New Orleans and Interstate 81 in Syracuse, New York as two examples of “long-standing and persistent racial injustice,” in infrastructure.
The plan set forth by Biden would see billions spent on an effort to “reconnect neighborhoods” by destroying current highways and making sure that new projects “advance racial equity and environmental justice.”
A whopping $621 billion has been touted for ‘transportation infrastructure and resilience,’ with the administration promising it will address “historic inequities.”
“Structural racism and persistent economic inequities have undermined opportunity for millions of workers,” the administration has also claimed.
Last year, Biden’s Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg proclaimed that “Black and brown neighborhoods have been disproportionately divided by highway projects or left isolated by the lack of adequate transit and transportation resources.”
Black and brown neighborhoods have been disproportionately divided by highway projects or left isolated by the lack of adequate transit and transportation resources.
In the Biden-Harris administration, we will make righting these wrongs an imperative.
During a Senate confirmation hearing in January, Buttigeg declared “At their worst, misguided policies and missed opportunities in transportation can reinforce racial and economic inequality by dividing or isolating neighborhoods and undermining government’s basic role of empowering Americans to thrive.”
Transportation Secretary nominee Pete Buttigieg says in opening statement that "misguided policies and missed opportunities in transportation can reinforce racial and economic inequality, by dividing or isolating neighborhoods" https://t.co/23V91I8u7Qpic.twitter.com/DUUMm7fiNM
The Infrastructure plan has been widely criticised for including non-infrastructure related components:
Tucker Carlson warned Thursday that the Biden Administration is “looting America” and that the infrastructure outline is as much about tearing down highways than it is building them.
“Expect a lot more highways to meet this fate. People who believe highways are racist will get tens of billions of dollars as part of this plan, as long as they’re in what the Biden administration calls ‘underserved communities,'” Carlson noted.
“Is this really about infrastructure? Bridges? Roads? Airports? Things we could actually use? Or is it yet another weird climate scheme/power grab/race-based redistribution plan?” the host asked, going on to cite multiple examples of non-infrastructure wokeness in the bill.
Despite the vast investment plan, the woke ‘Green Deal’ crowd is all not happy with it, saying it isn’t enough.
This is not nearly enough. The important context here is that it’s $2.25T spread out over 10 years.
For context, the COVID package was $1.9T for this year *alone,* with some provisions lasting 2 years.
UK’s “Nudge Unit” recommends various online psychological manipulations when people shop and travel to push a “net zero society”
Published
4 months ago
on
4 February, 2023
Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net
Getty Images / Yuichiro Chino
The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) – started by the UK government to then in late 2021 become owned by Nesta, which describes itself as an independent charity focused on innovation – has a new report out.
And while its authors present it as a useful “guide” toward building “a net zero society,” what observers critical of this content have taken away from it is that it is promoting, and detailing, various forms of psychological manipulation of people.
The problem that Behavioural Insights Team (aka, “Nudge Unit”) has found for itself to solve is a part of the climate change narrative, where achieving “net zero” means doing away with greenhouse gas emissions.
And they don’t seem to care if the way to get there is through direct manipulation of people, specifically online, via prompts (“nudges”) toward making choices that are not really theirs but serve the agenda.
These choices concern and consume people’s everyday lives: what they wear, what and how much they eat, how they travel to work, whether that job is “climate-friendly,” how they travel just in general and where to, for example, for a vacation.
These are all examples of what the report aims to affect from the behavioral perspective, and clearly, the “solution” is to actively push citizens toward “social transformation.”
In this sense, the report recommends putting prompts in apps that would seek to direct the user to order less takeaway food through what critics might call “reality transformation” – one suggestion is changing the name of small portions to “regular portions.”
At one point, the report mentions BIT case study 4, which deals with “exploring” the role of social media influencers as vehicles to promote “green behaviors.”
BIT case study 12, meanwhile, is about “Helping Solent Transport deliver an effective ‘Mobility as a Service’ app.” Solent Transport is a partnership with local transport authorities, while the main idea here is “encouraging people out of cars” and “nudging” them toward other means of transportation.
BIT case study 15 is one about “encouraging” customers to order smaller portions on takeaway platforms.
Several suggestions are made to make “sustainable food easy,” including utilizing the fact that online shopping “gives many opportunities to provide timely substitution prompts, or encourage personalized goals and tips linked to product filters and ranking.”
BIT says that in producing these case studies of interventions, it partnered with “HMG, the French government, UAE’s Crown Prince Court, World Wildlife Forum, Unilever, Tesco, Sky, Gumtree, and Cogo,” among others.