Photo by Centre for Ageing Better on Pexels.com
The world is ending since I have a memory. Year after year, we are being reminded that there is not much time left until an apocalyptic climate event will finally erase us from the phase of the earth.
I still remember Al Gore’s speech saying the Ice Poles will be melted by 2013. And the many count-downs about how much longer we will stay around until we literally fry away. It is funny that they always inflict us with the fear of “burning” instead of “freezing” – this for sure has a psychological connotation. Because logically speaking, humans resist better heat than cold; but that’s another story.
Turns out the enemy of the world is carbon dioxide emissions, or so the story goes. This dangerous gas emission is a by-product of a civilization that uses too much fossil fuel. The mainstream story often forgets that carbon dioxide has a fertilization effect and is the main responsible for photosynthesis, which is the living mechanism of plants and that the more carbon dioxide is emitted, the bigger the plants grow and the more life flourishes.
Are we still so naïve to believe that carbon dioxide emissions are the only enemy of humanity and the environment? Will neutralizing carbon will save us from burning in hell?
Will “morally green” choices like replacing fossil-fueled cars with electric ones, stopping eating meat, stopping all plane travel, recycling your plastics and PETs and investing in solar panel grids have the desired effect of actually reducing temperatures, or is it a well-intentioned but ignorant and completely useless choice?
According to global climate experts like Bjorn Lomborg, we can’t really fix climate change. Even if all the nations of the world would comply 100% with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius in 100 years spending trillions and trillions of dollars along the way, the reality is that as technology and industries keep evolving along with our civilization needs, the carbon intensity will keep rising and we will use more and more energy than ever before, which makes this goal completely unattainable.
There is no single nation in the world today that can rely fully on solar or wind energy to cover all their energy needs. Governments spend more than 40 billion USD every year subsidizing inefficient solar energy and wind power. With our current technology, the WEF brags that we have reached in 2021 the 10% mark of use of solar and wind energy worldwide. Even if that would be true, how are we planning to get the 90% left?
Carbon dioxide emissions are of course a by-product of “cheap “ energy delivered by fossil fuel, which took us two hundred years of development. To think that we can replace fossil and become “carbon neutral” worldwide by 2030 is a fairytale dream that will cost trillions of dollars. Oddly enough, countries bragging about such ambitions do not include China which is one of the top fossil fuel consumers worldwide.
Maybe in countries like the USA, Germany or Switzerland sounds like a whim of destiny. What about the world’s poorest nations which don’t have trillions to spend? Poor countries, especially in marginalized areas, need desperately cheap power and energy to sustain their needs. Energy is the main source of growth and life, as it is for all nations still today. No single nation can realistically survive from solar and wind alone. At least, the technology is not there yet.
So why make a big drama about it?
Why are the governments supporting leftist agendas that radicalize the ideologies around climate change to pass laws that make the poor poorer and the elites richer?
We might find part of the answer if we take a look at the worldwide protests happening everywhere and which are hidden by the mainstream media outlets. The mainstream never shows that more than 30,000 farmers from the Netherlands are threatening to stop the nation’s food supply in protest of the extreme “climate policies” to eradicate “pollutant gases” by 2030. By common sense, even if Dutch farmers will cut more than 70% of their gas emissions, we will not reach the goal in the first case and at the worst, we will destroy a vital part not only of the Dutch food supply but also on a worldwide level.
Let us not forget that the Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural commodities, just behind the US (agdaily.com). Another case is the mass protests in Germany taking place due to excessive elevated gas prices and the shut- down of nuclear energy plants. If the gas is shut in winter, are the Germans expected to survive the harsh winter based on solar energy panels alone? When the sun “shines” basically 4 hours a day in winter? In the United States, President Joe Biden just announced as I’m writing this that he is planning to call for a “climate change national emergency” which will allow him to take drastic measures against fossil fuels. All of this happening while heads of state and prince Harry are flying on private jets all around the world to blame for our “abusive consumption”.
All I see when looking at climate emergency speeches by governments everywhere is pure and sheer hypocrisy and hunger for power.
I agree that we can do much better at managing our waste and finding ways to reduce the pollution we produce as species. However, little we can do if we do not stop the real sources of the problem. The real pollutants are the same people preaching they know better by restricting us and cutting away the energy and essential resources that we so much need to keep striving as a civilization. Those politicians and industry cartels are the ones who generate the problems that now they claim to try to solve. If not, let’s ask Coca-Cola how they stole precious pure and drinkable water from marginalised communities in Mexico so that they can use that water to produce more Coke (and pollute Mexico’s underground water sources, producing more plastic and emitting enormous pollutants like nobody during the manufacturing and distribution on their way). Those communities might not have drinkable water for domestic use, but take a look at their small corner stores and you will find full stacks of 2-litre Coca-Cola bottles!
Let’s keep our eyes wide open and stop believing in climate change propaganda. Let’s observe who really benefits from this and who the real losers are.
Let’s face some inconvenient truths:
1. We cannot change the climate with our routinary small daily actions (but geoengineering on the military level can change it on the surface)
2. Nothing we do will have any noticeable effect on the “rising temperatures” a 100 years from now, so 2030 is a ridiculous target
3. There is another agenda behind climate change
Our job is to become aware of it and reverse this trend that will affect us much more than benefit us.
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin”- Thomas Huxley