“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
UNTIL Climatism blog I hadn’t done any regular writing. I entered the climate wars in 2013 without any formal training in writing or journalism. Though, one doesn’t need any formalities to suffer from the blight of writers block!
HOWEVER, one area of the climate debate that always seems to get the writing juices flowing is when I see how draconian climate policies affect our most vulnerable. How a very large segment of society, including struggling small businesses are made to suffer energy poverty in silence from the virtuous “save the planet” decisions pushed by wealthy climate elites, gleefully rubber-stamped by do-gooder politicians – all who can afford to pay the ruinous costs of ‘green’ energy and comply with the rules and regulations that they impose on others.
AND, let’s not forget the 1.3 billion people, globally, who have no electricity at all. What for them?
THE latest UN IPCC special report (SR15) details dramatic changes in lifestyle and energy consumption habits needed to limit modelled warming to 1.5°C by 2100. A multi-trillion dollar transition to
renewables unreliables to reach a lofty ‘zero-emissions’ goal by 2050 in order to avoid a (fabricated) 2°C global temperature rise by 2100 that we’re told will result in certain Armageddon.
“The Global Warming of 1.5C report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the need to maintain the strongest commitment to the Paris Agreement’s aims of limiting global warming to well below 2ºC and pursuing efforts towards 1.5ºC.”
ONE of Australia’s great columnists and TV news personalities, Chris Kenny, writes a cracking piece that puts another spin on the latest, predictably hyper-alarmist IPCC report.
HOW enthusiastic are IPCC cheerleaders to dramatically rearrange their own lifestyles and reduce that ‘carbon footprint’ in order to obtain the utopian “sustainability” goals as laid out by their globalist overlords at the UN?
‘Climate change activists, it’s time to kill your pets’
Surely it is time for the climate activists to kill their pets. Invigorated by the latest alarmism from the UN’s IPCC, they are at it again, advocating a range of economically damaging policies to save the planet.
We should shut down the coal industry, they say. Never mind it is about to reclaim its mantle as our highest export earner, never mind the tens of thousands of people that would lose their jobs, the communities that would be ruined and the millions of people overseas who would be denied energy and prosperity.
We should switch to renewable energy, they say. Never mind the pensioners and low income families who cannot afford their electricity bills and go to bed early to stay warm. Read the rest of this entry »
“Articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony..”
― Chris Kenny
FIRSTLY, apologies for the use of “suicide” in the heading to all those who have been directly or indirectly affected by such a horrible and tragic event. I can personally sympathise.
THAT said, the use of the threat of “suicide” by those pushing the
global warming climate change agenda is indicative of the desperate, dishonest and disrespectful lengths that climate activists will go to in order to drive their latest fashionable eco-scare.
AUSTRALIAN columnist Chris Kenny with some much needed perspective, clarity and reason to parlay the constant rhetoric of climate change doom and gloom that the Climate Crisis Industry relies on in an attempt to remain relevant…
(Links, Graphs and Bolds added by Climatism)
WHEN people go public with private tears I am immediately suspicious. Not that I am against tears; as a physical reaction to emotion they are a fact of life best controlled in some circumstances but uncontrollable in others.
But articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony. Telling the world about your saltwater reaction to this or that is perhaps the epitome of virtue-signalling.
“I cried two times when my daughter was born,” was the opening line in a New York Times piece this week. Those sanctimony warning bells rang loud. It was by Iraq veteran, English professor and climate alarmist Roy Scranton, promoting a new book of essays on war and climate change titled We’re Doomed. Now What? And yes, he claims to have shed tears for the planet.
“First for joy, when after 27 hours of labour the little feral being we’d made came yowling into the world, and the second for sorrow, holding the earth’s newest human and looking out the window with her at the rows of cars in the hospital parking lot, the strip mall across the street, the box stores and drive-throughs and drainage ditches and asphalt and waste fields that had once been oak groves. A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.”
Where to start with such inanity? Perhaps with the good news. Max Roser’s work for Oxford University’s Our World in Data project shows that two centuries ago, 90 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty and now, even though the population has grown from less than one billion people to about 7.5 billion, those proportions have completely reversed so that only 10 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty.
ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change” and the control of carbon dioxide, via the supply of energy, has deep roots in a radical yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.
A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.
THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental think-tank and consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome 1993,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
SO, it comes as no surprise that today’s UN is successfully upholding its misanthropic agenda by attempting to
starve control the world’s population through a blatant misallocation of resources, in favour of wanting to control the weather, rather than feed the most needy, for a fraction of the cost.
MEMO to the UN – If you want to reduce the world’s population, provide the third-world with cheap, reliable fossil-fuelled or nuclear power generation to lift them out of abject poverty. Wealthy (fossil-fuel/nuclear powered) nations have predominant negative birth rates. Poverty is the enemy of the environment.
Bjorn Lomborg with more via his column in The Australian…
For more than a decade, annual data showed global hunger to be on the decline. But that has changed. According to the latest data from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, hunger affected 815 million people in 2016, 38 million more than the year before, and malnutrition is now threatening millions.
Research from my think tank, Copenhagen Consensus, has long helped to focus attention and resources on the most effective responses to malnutrition, both globally and in countries such as Haiti and Bangladesh. Unfortunately, there are worrying signs that the global response may be headed in the wrong direction.
The FAO blames the rise in hunger on a proliferation of violent conflicts and “climate-related shocks”. which means specific, extreme events such as floods and droughts.
But in the FAO’s press release, “climate-related shocks” becomes “climate change”. The report itself links the two without citing evidence, but the FAO’s communique goes further, declaring starkly: “World hunger again on the rise, driven by conflict and climate change.”
It may seem like a tiny step to go from blaming climate-related shocks to blaming climate change. Both terms relate to the weather. But that little difference means a lot, especially when it comes to the most important question: how do we help to better feed the world? Jumping the gun and blaming climate change for today’s crises attracts attention, but it makes us focus on the costliest and least effective responses.
The best evidence comes from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has clearly shown that there has been no overall increase in droughts. While some parts of the world are experiencing more and worse droughts, others are experiencing fewer and lighter droughts.
A comprehensive study in the journal Naturedemonstrates that, since 1982, incidents of all categories of drought, from “abnormally dry” to “exceptional drought”, have decreased slightly. On flooding, the IPCC is even blunter: it has “low confidence” at a global level about whether climate change has caused more or less flooding.
What the IPCC tells us is that by the end of the century, it is likely that worse droughts will affect some parts of the world. And it predicts — albeit with low confidence — that there could be more floods in some places.
Relying on climate policies to fight hunger is doomed. Any realistic carbon cuts will be expensive and have virtually no impact on climate by the end of the century. The Paris climate agreement, even if fully implemented up to 2030, would achieve just 1 per cent of the cuts needed to keep temperature from rising more than 2C, according to the UN.
And it would cost $US 1 trillion a year or more — an incredibly expensive way to make no meaningful difference to a potential increase in flooding and droughts at the end of the century.
In fact, well-intentioned policies to combat global warming could very well be exacerbating hunger. Rich countries have embraced biofuels — energy derived from plants — to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. But the climate benefit is negligible: according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, deforestation, fertiliser, and fossil fuels used in producing biofuels offset about 90 per cent of the “saved” carbon dioxide.
In 2013, European biofuels used enough land to feed 100 million people, and the US program even more. Biofuel subsidies contributed to rising food prices, and their swift growth was reined in only when models showed that up to another 135 million people could starve by 2020. But that means that the hunger of around 30 million people today can likely be attributed to these bad policies.
Moreover, climate policies divert resources from measures that directly reduce hunger. Our priorities seem skewed when climate policies promising a minuscule temperature impact will cost $US1 trillion a year, while the World Food Program’s budget is 169 times lower, at $5.9 billion.
There are effective ways to produce more food. One of the best, as Copenhagen Consensus research has shown, is to get serious about investing in research and development to boost agricultural productivity. Through irrigation, fertiliser, pesticides, and plant breeding, the Green Revolution increased world grain production by an astonishing 250 per cent between 1950 and 1984, raising the calorie intake of the world’s poorest people and averting severe famines. We need to build on this progress.
Investing an additional $US88bn in agricultural research and development over the next 32 years would increase yields by an additional 0.4 percentage points every year, which could save 79 million people from hunger and prevent five million cases of child malnourishment. This would be worth almost $US3 trillion in social good, implying an enormous return of $US34 for every dollar spent. By the end of the century, the additional increase in agricultural productivity would be far greater than the damage to agricultural productivity suggested by even the worst-case scenarios of the effects of global warming.
And there would be additional benefits: the World Bank has found that productivity growth in agriculture can be up to four times more effective in reducing poverty than productivity growth in other sectors.
We are at a turning point. After achieving dramatic gains against hunger and famine, we run the risk of backsliding, owing to poorly considered choices. The stakes are far too high for us to pick the wrong policies.
Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.
(Climatism bolds added)
- Bjørn Lomborg: Why Africa Needs Fossil Fuels, Not Wind Power & Wishes | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- OVER-POPULATION : Another non-problem | WND
- Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming | Watts Up With That?
- THE Papal Dilemma: Champion Of The Poor or UN Puppet? | Climatism
UN Related :
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism