At a book signing event on 2 November, Greta Thunberg, joined the major global warming alarmists when she acknowledges that global warming is merely a cover for their real objective—destroying capitalism. The Telegraph,com. posted “Greta Thunberg: It’s time to transform the West’s oppressive and racist capitalist system”. The telegraph made the following comment:
“The 19-year-old Swedish activist has announced that as well as tackling her usual area of climate action and awareness-spreading, she has now thrown her weight behind defeating the West’s “oppressive” capitalist system.
Calling for a “system-wide transformation” at her book launch in London, she claimed that the world’s current “normal” – dictated by the people in power – has caused the climate breakdown.
She said: “We are never going back to normal again because ‘normal’ was already a crisis. What we refer to as normal is an extreme system built on the exploitation of people and the planet.
“It is a system defined by colonialism, imperialism, oppression and genocide by the so-called global North to accumulate wealth that still shapes our current world order.”
Wow, her family is middle to upper class. She is living in a capitalist nation that is nothing like her description of capitalism. One wonders where, in her youth, she has formed such opinions.
Michael Shellenberger made this comment:“Media Must Take Responsibility For Greta Climate Panic” He is right. Think of the young people that have been taken in about global warming only to learn that it is capitalism that is her real enemy.
My first reaction to the title question was NO. A new poll of the major issues that American citizens are concerned about, found global warming as the next to last of the list’s 12 issues. A previous poll shows almost no interest in any program to “fix” global warming that would cost the individual more than $5 per month. Considering the trillions of dollars that are estimated to do the “fix”, that hardly seems enough to get any program even started.
“At a virtual meeting earlier in June (2020) hosted by the World Economic Forum, some of the planet’s most powerful business leaders, government officials and activists announced a proposal to “reset” the global economy. Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations, and massive Green New Deal-like government programs.
“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, in an article published on WEF’s website. “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
“Schwab also said that “all aspects of our societies and economies” must be “revamped,” “from education to social contracts and working conditions.”
Joining Schwab at the WEF event was Prince Charles, one of the primary proponents of the Great Reset; Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at theInternational Monetary Fund; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; and CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft and BP.
Activists from groups such as Greenpeace International and a variety of academics also attended the event or have expressed their support for the Great Reset.
That and much more can be found on two additional postings on the idea that global warming was being used to bring down capitalism. As a follow up on those postings, I am expanding on that theme.
George Soros is an agenda setter and an advisor for the Great Reset
As an example of who are the leaders of the Great Reset, I offer George Soros.
He is quoted as saying in an interview by the NEWSWEEK magazine:
“NEWSWEEK: You say that the main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States. That’s a pretty strong statement.
George Soros: Yes, but it happens to coincide with the prevailing opinion in the world. And I think that’s rather shocking for Americans to hear. The United States sets the agenda for the world. And the rest of the world has to respond to that agenda. By declaring a “war on terror” after September the 11th, we set the wrong agenda for the world.”
The Great Reset is neocommunism—an analysis
At the end of WWII, the people of Hungary were forced to live under USSR communism. Following the collapse of the USSR, Hungary became a democratic parliamentary republic in October 1989. The time under communism has embedded in the Hungarian’s memories how communism operates. The Visegrad Post, posted an article by the Hungarian daily outlet Magyar Nemzet titled “Davos-era neocommunism”: on March 1 2021. I am selecting some section of the Magyar Nemzet article. I recommend that your read the completed article.
“The Great Reset would usher in a new world order in the post-Covid era, which would mean political, ideological, and economic cohesion as well as a nationless world. Based on what Schwab and the lot have said, we can see that their big plans would introduce Marx and Engels’ great dream of global communism under some sort of a transnational, international ruling system. (This can’t exactly be called a proletarian dictatorship either, as the members of the world elite – from the Rothschild family to say, Bill Gates – can hardly be labelled proletarians; by replacing the word “proletarian” with elite and keeping “dictatorship” we start to get closer to the truth.)”
“First of all, let’s confirm the following: it is no longer a question that the global elite’s primary goal is to dismantle nations and nation-states and create a comprehensive, large-scale global government, which –according to their plans – will enable the handling and resolving of issues like social inequalities, climate change, unsustainable growth, migration and so on.”
“Therefore, the solution they see is that companies and governments “effectively communicate with each other”. I believe this means nothing more than that the global market leaders will gradually take over these “difficult tasks” from national governments”.
“If we dig just a little deeper, I’m immediately struck by the fact that these big shots want to replace democracy with complex governance, prioritize technocracy over elections and MPs, and emphasize “expertise” that the general public doesn’t understand instead of transparency”
“Schwab wrote, already in 2016, in his opus, Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution, that the techniques used by new tech giants allow governments to penetrate the private sphere of our minds, read our thoughts, and influence our behavior – and thus becoming part of our physical world as well. Schwab predicts that today’s external devices like laptops and virtual reality headsets, will eventually “most likely be able to be implanted in our bodies and minds”. And Schwab concludes, “By the time the Fourth Industrial Revolution is leading, it is the unification of our physical, digital, and biological identities.
As the article says it will be a corporation/government running thing, I don’t expect you would have much say on how you live if the Great Reset is adopted globally.
Covid 19 is minor and it is not even remotely an equal to WWI or WWII
The Great Reset is trying to put COVID 19 as an equal with WWI in order to make it seem urgent. Gross exaggeration that it is. WWII resulted in 60 to 85 million deaths when world population was about2.5 billion. COVID deaths might be several million with a world population of 7.8billion. Even the highly exaggerated forecast of deaths due to future global warming do not even come close to WW II.
After WWII, the nations using the current form of capitalism made an enormous recovery. Why would you think that it needs to be changed?
Other attempts at global governance have been failures.
The League of Nations was going to make World War I the last war. It failed in 19 years. It ended when the NAZI invaded Poland. There was really nothing distinguished that League of Nations did in the intervening years.
The United Nations was founded right after WWII was over. It was planned to be able to prevent future wars, and other catastrophes. Wiki says that 64 wars having 25,000 or more deaths have happened since WWII. Politically caused famines occur regularly, too. No success at all.
Is there co-operation in the UN.? Well, yes occasionally. Think of how many nations share a common objective, swearing to destroy Israel. Iran, daily chants “Death to America,” and I am certain that there are followers.
When socialist are challenged that no socialist nation has ever improved their citizens lot, and most of those nations failed to survive, they just say that is because the right people had not run any of those nations. Their presumption is that only they are so brilliant and compassionate that it will not happen on their watch. Someone said that insanity is continuing to try something that always fails over and over again and expecting a change.
It is feeble to try to say that the COVID 19 is epic when you compare it to WWI and WW II.
Two thirds of Americans rate the UN as a poor performer.
So, what are the American’s view about the UN’s job approval? Gallup may have newer polls, but I have not found any. The peoples view of the UN has probably little changed. UN approval has only been above 50% several times in the 60 years — 1957 until 2017.
We do not want a neo-UN to govern us. Remember, some of the most dangerous words are, “I’m from the government and I am here to help you.”
Look at what the promised land of the Great Reset is like.
I am not sure how the leaders are going to get people to believe what this woman , a Member of the Denmark Parliament, has to say:
She writes an essay placing herself in the year 2030. The essay describes how life will be thanks to the Great Reset. She says: “We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much”. She says robots and AI have taken over most of the work.
Have you read the H G Wells novel “The Time Machine”? An inventor makes a time machine and travels into the future. He encounters the Eloi, a society of small, elegant, childlike adults. They live in small communities within large and futuristic yet slowly deteriorating buildings,. . Their food is provided. His efforts to communicate with them are hampered by their lack of curiosity or discipline, Maybe in 2030 we will be on our way to becoming Elois.
If you have read the book or seen one of the several movies based upon the book, you know about the Morlocks and their interaction with the Eloi. Beware of a new breed of Morlocks—they may be wearing suits.
“But the Great Reset is not OK. It really doesn’t matter whether you want to cast its masterplan — which remember, ultimately includes the abolition of private property — as communist or fascist or technocratic. The much more important point is that it represents a totalitarian takeover by a small, powerful, oppressive, unelected elite which will leave the rest of us impoverished, immiserated, and deprived of our liberty.”
Again, I quote Dr. Roy Spencer’s statement that there really is not a crisis that needs the great reset:
“Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us. Why does it matter? It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency. Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist). But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life. Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.“
This is the sixth posting of a series listing things that the alarmists and the mainstream media do not want made public. At the top of this posting is a link to the preceding postings.
The Paris Agreement (PA) has been a flop, so far. The PA’s target is lowering CO2 emissions. Since the PA was signed in 2015 by some 180+ nations, the CO2 emissions have risen.
The chart below, from Rhodium, shows the percentage of the total global emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases made by the top 8 emitters in 2019. China is far and away the leading emitter and will be increasing the difference in the future. CO2 from fossil fuels is nominally 80+ % of the total emissions. The rest of the total is from cement manufacturing, methane, and fluorocarbons, etc. In 2020, the emissions dropped due to COVID but are forecast to be back up in 2021.
The International Energy Agency forecasts that 2021 will exceed the emissions in 2019. Their forecast is 33GtCO2 for the year 2021.
China and India as well as many nations in Africa and Asia are installing coal-based power plants at a breakneck speed. Because coal combustion produces more CO2 per Megawatt hour, than any other commonly used fossil fuel, it is the primary target of the alarmists. Bloomberg Green data reports on the primary users of coal int 2019:
COAL USER
% OF TOTAL COAL USED
CHINA
51.7
INDIA
11.8
US
7.2
REST OF THE WORLD
29.3
The US has been reducing the use of coal by using natural gas as a replacement.
The premise of the PA is to essentially eliminate all global manmade CO2 emissions to prevent the global temperature to have risen to 2C since 1900. Or else, awful things are going to happen the alarmists tell us.
If the US were able to totally reduce their emissions, would that prevent the global temperature to rise to 2C?
“Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” Kerry conceded.
All the signers of the PA must submit their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), a plan to reduce CO2 emission. Then every 5 years they are to make a new set of NDCs more robust than the preceding submittal. There are no penalties for not meeting your NDC nor are there any for not making a sufficient effort. The burden for accomplishing this objective is laid on these 42 nations that signed the PA. This group consists of the 27nations within the EU, Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the US, and the UK. These nation are accused of creating the problem because they have used fossil fuels to discontinue the use of horses, whale oil, backbreaking labor, inadequate living conditions, child labor, while at the same time providing affordable and available electricity— just to mention a few reasons.
The first submission of NDCs were underwhelming. And since then, the story is:
President Xi and the then President Obama met. Obama was going to bring China into the PA. The deal was that China could continue increasing their emission until 2030 without disapproval of the PA organization. From China’s perspective it was a perfect opportunity to build up their manufacturing/economy while the other nations were destroying theirs.
China has disappointed in every way, especially those who thought China was really into environmental stuff. China recently announced that wind and solar are too unreliable to depend upon. An added that they were reducing support to renewables. That was followed by the fact that they were going to build more coal plants. They offered to buy the UKs steel business. Does that sound like someone who worries about the global warming theory? Their new five-year plan that was expected to be based upon using less coal, turned out to be based on more coal.
“At a time when China is so obviously saying one thing and doing another, and clearly not fulfilling its share of the world’s commitments to reducing CO2 emissions — as the world’s second-largest economy– sends all the wrong signals. What China and others see is that no matter what it does — even if it deceives the world and continues its predatory behavior — the US is willing to reduce its own competitiveness, leaving China a thick red carpet to become the world’s dominant superpower, the very role to which it aspires. “
This same Gatestone posting also reminds that the Chinese government are not people of their word:
“It is extremely unlikely that China will deliver on its climate commitments and there are enough precedents to show that the CCP’s pledges cannot be trusted. In 1984, China pledged that Hong Kong’s autonomy, including its rights and freedoms, would remain unchanged for 50 years under the principle of “one country, two systems” after the 1997 return to Chinese sovereignty. By June 2020, however, when China introduced its iron-fisted national security law in Hong Kong, China had reneged on its pledge, and the CCP continues to crush Hong Kong.
China also broke its 2015 commitment not to militarize artificial islands that Beijing has been building in the Spratly Islands chain in the South China Sea and it has never honored at least nine of the commitments it made when it joined the World Trade Organization, to name just a few instances.
The list of broken pledges does not even include the lies that China told the world about the supposed non-transmissibility of the Coronavirus, which originated in Wuhan and has so far taken more than three million lives and ravaged countless economies.”
And another pact, the Montreal Protocol on Ozone is another example of a broken pledge. Jonathan Turley’s post titled China found in massive violation of the Montreal Protocol:
“A study in Nature shows a massive violation by China in the release of ozone-depleting gases like chlorofluorocarbons. China agreed to the Montreal Protocol to stop such CFC pollution. However, it now appears that the Chinese regime is violating the Protocol. A concentration of increased CFC pollution was traced to the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei.”
“We find no evidence for a significant increase in CFC-11 emissions from any other eastern Asian countries or other regions of the world where there are available data for the detection of regional emissions. “
“Several considerations suggest that the increase in CFC-11 emissions from Eastern mainland China is likely to be the result of new production and use, which is inconsistent with the Montreal Protocol agreement to phase out global chlorofluorocarbon production by 2010.”
“If China cannot comply with the Montreal Protocol to control these most dangerous pollutants (particularly with the availability of alternatives for industry) the nation undermines its already low credibility on environmental compliance.”
Look at what is already under way. This chart by IEA shows the Energy Related CO2 Emissions. The table that follows illustrates that the Advanced Economies have a diminishing role in controlling CO2 emissions.
Yellow is “Rest of the World” and rust is “Advanced Economies”.
IEA Chart
2010 2019
GtCO2
% of Total
GtCO2
% of Total
Advanced Economies
12.6
54.5
11.3
34
Rest of the World
10.5
45.5
22.0
66.0
Total
23.1
100
33.3
100
Energy Related C02 Emissions
IEA Data
In ten years, the advanced Economies reduced their energy related emissions by 1.3 GtCO2. The Rest of the World increased their emissions by 11.5 GtCO2. Neither China, nor India nor Brazil nor Russia nor the other Asian and African nations are going to stop installation of fossil fuel-based energy. Their reasons for this are many but they want their people to have electricity and other products of fossil fuels, too.
So, John Kerry nailed it, ““Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,”
If the West attempts to decarbonize, it will not succeed. I think that the further they get in this futile and misdirected attempt will be disastrous —not to the climate but to the viability of the West. The public will eventually wake up to the facts. Price rises for everything and sharp rises for electricity and gasoline, the new name for renewable will be unreliables, jobs will disappear as manufacturing leaves our shores for lower cost energy, and an unease about the US loss of stature and ability to protect its citizens. These things are likely to create public awareness that the government programs have had disappointing results.
If the West attempts to decarbonize, it will not succeed. I think that the further they get in this futile and misdirected attempt will be disastrous —not to the climate but to the viability of the West.
There is another party that wants to see the West fail. That is a movement titled the Great Reset. This blog will discuss the Great Reset in the next posting.
From a recent Dr. Roy Spencer blog: Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us. Why does it matter? It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency. Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist). But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life. Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.“
In the previous postings, the computers predicting global temperatures were shown to be much higher than the actual measured temperatures and that you are not being told that the actual measured global temperatures are currently falling and do not seem to have a link with the rising CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere. This posting looks at the future predictions of global temperatures and how they are biased to make you think they are going to be rising quickly.
To have some understanding how the computers are programed one needs to be acquainted with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP).
ECS
Firstly, an examination of ECS. The 1979 Charney Report, named for the Chairman of an Ad Hoc group stated:
“We believe, therefore, that the equilibrium surface global warming due to doubled CO2 will be in the range IC to 4C, with the most probable value near 3°C”.
That means, for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, global temperature will rise approximately 1C due to CO2, and the CO2 induced increase in temperature will result in more water vapor. Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. That and some other minor changes in atmospheric gases will result in an additional rise of 2C. Thus, CO2 doubling does not just create 1C rise but rather a 3C rise. They acknowledged that there was a lot of uncertainty about this number. How water vapor and clouds interact are not yet known with any certainty.
Climate sensitivity is expressed two ways. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) is the initial effect of the change in CO2 concentration. ECS does not happen until the oceans heat come into equilibrium with atmospheric heat, for example.
ECS is controversial. There are those that do not believe in the CO2 effect at all. They may not appreciate this postings discussion of ECS and RCP but the posting is addressing what the Alarmists believe. Also, many others buy into the concept but conclude that the effect is much lower than the 3C rise due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Down as low as 1C. As well, there are alarmists that use ECS in the 4C range.
As can be seen in the Part 1 posting, the ECS being used has yielded too high of global temperatures.
It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high.”
If you are a climate computer programmer, you can increase the ECS, and it will result in an increase in forecast temperature.
RCP
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is an estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time. After studying numerous scenarios, more than the available computer time would allow, they settled on just 5 RCPs.
It is my understanding that the upcoming IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report will use somewhat revised versions of the original 5 pathways. These revisions are to accommodate current thinking about the options and potential pathways. Only RCP 8.5 remains as orginally conceived. At least one of the pathways will meet Paris Agreement goal of of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5C . In between 1.5 and 8.5are three others that do not meet the objective but are considered potential outcomes depending on mitigation policies. The pathways keep track of the forecast fossil fuel emissions of CO2” versus “years” beginning at the current time continuing out to the year 2100.
The alarmists and many other warmers are using RCP8.5 as Business As Usual. Most are not notifying the reader that the forecast CO2 in the atmosphere for their predicted temperatures is the HIGHLY UNLIKELY pathway. Some postings have said that it is physically impossible, requiring such things as all the minable coal would have to be burned. What does this amount to? The alarmists are using the Highest CO2 concentration. They are also using a Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that historically is too high. This combination will deliver Highly Unlikely predicted global temperatures. They need to scare you into going along with the alarmist’s program.
Some scientists and engineers do not believe that carbon dioxide emissions and other so-called greenhouse gases are causing global temperature to rise. My guess is that most of the scientists and engineers believe that those gases do influence the globe’s temperature. Within the believing group, however, there is a divide as to how much temperature rise can be attributed to the greenhouse gases. (Your host, cbdakota, is an agnostic skeptic that believes that on-the- whole, the sun is in control).
From a recent Dr. Roy Spencer blog:
“Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming. But the amount of warming makes all the difference to global energy policies. Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us. Why does it matter? It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency. Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist). But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life. Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.“
Climate Home News is a publication that believes we are doomed unless we achieve net carbon zero as promoted by the Paris Agreement. They are disappointed by the reluctance of some of the developed nations to actually comply with drastic reductions in fossil fuel emissions of CO2. And two nations that are not “developed” nations, those being China and India are not into reductions either. From Climate Home News recent email message to me, they give voice to their dilemma. The following are a few of their recent postings:
China was expected to use Covid-19 cutbacks as a step to reduce use of fossil fuels. Surprise the Chinese once again fooled the fools that believe Chinese environmental promises.
Oh my, the Japanese are building new coal plants and neither the US or Japan have a plan to phase out coal. The Germans have a plan. They are planning on using coal until 2038.
A bonus entry by cbdakota that was not included in the recent Climate Home News postings.
“The United States of America emits 13 per cent of global GHG emissions.” Comparatively, “China emits more than one-quarter of global GHG emissions.” The U.S. still contributes the most greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world, but, over the last decade, the country’s GHG emissions have been in decline (0.4 per cent per year). “Greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the U.S. are dropping precipitously while those of China, India and Russia continue to rise. With the world’s most successful economy (over $21 trillion in 2019), it is not a surprise that the U.S. pollutes more per person, but the U.S. is making great strides in changing this.”
The following chart is from the UN report showing total and per capita emissions:
President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017.
“In 2017, the White House said, that if it remained a part of that agreement, “compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.” Instead, the U.S. continued decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other major polluter, and it did so without the Paris agreement.”
Unfortunately, we know that the president elect, Joe Biden, wants to sign up again. It may be too late to negate any signing even though the Paris Agreement appears to be a treaty which requires a 2/3 majority of the US Senate to approve it. The Senate is going to be controlled by the Democrats for the next two years. Whether or not this is a treaty may not get resolved is a question.
The UN comment about the US not needing to join is frivolous. The Paris Agreement requires that the developed nations need to contribute $100billion every year to a fund for the under-developed nations to use to reduce CO2 emissions. And you will not be surprised to know, that the biggest contributor to the fund is expected to be the US. So far, I don’t believe the fund has ever reached $100billion cumulatively, let alone annually. The US has voluntarily contributed to the fund. Why, I do not know.
I am forwarding a posting by RealClear Energy titled “China’s Green NGO Climate Propaganda Enablers” with the following subtitle: “Climate change is a national security threat – but not in the way the national security elite assumes.”
A quote from with in this posting sums up China’s objectives. “China is a great power using global warming to advance its geopolitical interests. Unlike the Soviet Union’s sclerotic economy, China’s is far from a state of collapse. Indeed, China is likely to be the only major economy to emerge larger at the end of 2020 than at the beginning. For China, climate change offers a strategic opportunity. Decarbonizing the rest of the world makes China’s economy stronger – it weakens its rivals’ economies, reduces the cost of energy for its hydrocarbon-hungry economy, and sinks energy-poor India as a potential Indo-Pacific rival.”
Shortly before the Soviet Union collapsed, Greenpeace opened an office in Moscow. It enjoyed the patronage of a leading member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and enjoyed Kremlin funding, laundered through a state-owned record company. The green activist group made clear that it would have nothing to do with environmental groups in the Baltic republics. Recycling standard Soviet propaganda, Greenpeace denounced them as little more than separatist organizations.
This was by no means a one-off. The inconvenient truth: the environmental movement fought on the wrong side of the Cold War. In the early 1980s, it used the “nuclear winter” scare to try to stop Ronald Reagan’s nuclear build-up and undermine the West’s ability to negotiate the arms agreement that effectively ended the Cold War. It turns out that nuclear winter had been concocted by the KGB and transmitted to America by executives of the Rockefeller Family Fund. A nuclear winter conference held in 1983 was supported by 31 environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
This pattern, wherein the West’s enemies use the environmental movement – whether NGOs like Greenpeace, foundations, or “concerned scientists,” to undermine Western interests – is now being repeated, this time in respect to China. A report by Patricia Adams for the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation released earlier this month lays bare the role of the green movement in acting as China’s propagandists.
“But don’t be lulled by soothing thoughts of policy continuity under a Biden-Harris administration. The contrast between Republican and Democratic world-views of fossil fuels and global energy geopolitics could not be more stark. And nowhere are the costs as extravagant as in the promises made regarding the Green New Deal. The adverse impacts on US domestic affairs will be as profound as they will be on the global stage. The policy discontinuity expected to take place in the oil and gas sectors under a Biden administration is about as radical as one can contemplate in US and global affairs.
The Biden Plan for a “100% clean energy economy [which] reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050” will require his administration to sign in its own words “a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track”. The 4-year, $1.7 trillion Biden plan – reflecting an even more aggressive “climate crisis” action plan set out by the House Democrats — includes banning fracking in federal lands and waters, denying federal permits for new fossil fuel infrastructure projects, and ensuring 100% clean renewable energy by 2035 in electricity generation, buildings, and transportation.”
Executive orders are band-aid measures that Presidents use to set policy for issues that can not gain Congress’ approval. However, ambitious program such as net-zero and Green New Deal will require gun-shy Senators and Representatives to vote for the massive financing that those programs will require. Congress’ appetite for bravery has been in short supply in recent years.
“It worth it for the American taxpayers to pay $1.7 trillion to lower the Earth’s temperature by 0.1C (0.18F) “
If you answered YES, I dub you Captain “Gullible”. Oh, by the way, maybe you would like to buy some of my ocean front property in Arizona.
The $1.7 trillion is the cost estimate of Joe Biden’s planed phase out of fossil fuels in the US. The Biden plan would lower the global temperature by 0.1C as calculated by the Alarmist’s Climate Action Tracker.
All of this comes from the pages of the UK Guardian newspaper. This newspaper is perhaps the world’s biggest media supporter of the climate change alarmism. The stated cost and the results are Guardian’s bona fide.
My guess is that when 2050 arrives, there are three likely outcomes.
Outcome A
The plan was dropped after it was clear that no apocalypse was going to happen.
The Alarmist’s computers that predict the future temperatures have been much higher than the actual temperature measurements. The Alarmists are alarmists because they refuse to recognize the facts that their computers are flawed.
The plan was dropped because it was too costly and that adaptation, if necessary, was deemed less costly.
Let’s assume that in 30 to 70 (2050 to 2100) years, sea levels rise several feet, mankind would have the capability to adapt to the change. It would not happen overnight, but rather slowly over years. And the odds are that equally good that it will not raise several feet.
Outcome C
The plan was dropped when the West realized the Chinese were never planning to follow any carbon reduction program. Consequently, China dominated the globes economy because their energy costs were vastly lower, and it was more reliable than the nations of the West’s energy.
Wind and Solar will be deemed failures. They are unreliable and must be backed up. Currently, it is necessary to have fossil fuel-based production facilities that can supply the demand reliably. During this time as more wind and solar are added, the price of electricity would “skyrocket” (as predicted by Former President Obama.) China has world domination as their target. The Biden plan will be a big help to the Chinese toward realization of their objective.
Ultimately, nuclear energy-based electricity production will become the major source. The alarmist does not want nuclear to succeed as they have seen it as a threat to imposition of wind and solar.
I see anyone of the three as likely to happen. Maybe it will be all of them will be realized and that will cause the Biden plan to be dropped.
And a commonsense addition—- how many people are going to believe the stopping a global temperature rise of just 0.18F as worth S1.7trillion is worth it? Less that one fifth of one degree! Or even necessary!
When President Trump walked away from the Paris Agreement in 2017, Democrats, principally, around the US, were enraged. They decided they would show the world that even without the support of the Trump Administration they were “woke” and would do the job without him. Mayors, Governors and Corporate Executives rallied one another and began setting carbon dioxide reductions goals. Most of these goals contained the CO2 amounts and timelines. I am reasonably confident that most of this crowd does not understand the real-world consequences of their actions. I think they were motivated by politics.
The Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank, surveyed the top 100 cites to see how they were doing. On 22 October 2020, E&E News posted their take on the Brookings Institute survey titled “U.S. cities struggling to meet lofty climate goals”. They began by saying:
“Most major U.S. cities that have signed on to the climate fight with pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions are failing to meet their goals or haven’t even started to track local progress, according to a survey by the Brookings Institution.
The report, “Pledges and Progress,” looked for climate policy and actions in the nation’s 100 most populous cities, finding that two-thirds have made commitments to address citywide emissions.”
The E&E News continues:
But the Brookings analysis found that actions taken by cities aren’t matching up with their pledges to address climate change.
Among the 100 largest cities, only 45 set specific targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions during the past decade and inventoried emissions levels within city boundaries as baselines for measuring progress.
Twenty-two more cities have made general pledges to address emissions. But the Brookings analysis found they haven’t set emissions targets or inventoried current emissions levels.
“Half the cities aren’t doing anything,” said David Victor, co-chair of the Brookings Initiative on Energy and Climate.
Ok, you may be thinking that the corona virus is the reason. E&E reports that Brookings does not think that is the major reason:
“But roadblocks facing mayors in the climate campaign were obvious even before the coronavirus pushed the nation’s economy into a dramatic downturn.
The Brookings results point to the challenges faced by cities whose climate commitments diverge from policies at the state level. Another challenge for cities is the limits within which they operate. City governments can’t control everything that happens within their borders.
For example, when Pittsburgh inventoried greenhouse gas emissions in 2013, it estimated an annual citywide total of 4.8 million metric tons. Emissions from operations directly under City Hall control came to just 115,069 metric tons. The city government plans more reductions in part by buying refuse trucks that run on lower emission compressed natural gas. Its Parking Authority is teaming with Duquesne Light Co. to bring 16 new electric vehicle chargers to city parking lots.
These are marginal changes in a city and county with nearly 694,000 registered passenger vehicles. Most of them run on gasoline engines that pump out carbon emissions.”
The Paris Agreement is the Green’s framework for reducing CO2 and the timeline for reaching their goal of preventing the global temperature from ever rising more than 0.5C over the current global temperature, I sure you have heard that the world is all in step with this goal, except for the US, of course. Well they are not. First of all, the nation that leads in emissions of CO2 is China. And by agreement with then President Obama, they do not need to start to reduce their emissions before 2030. By then they will probably be emitting twice as much CO2 as the US. Further, India, the number 3 CO2 emitter has no plans to stop increasing their emissions.
China has a political move going called the Belt and Road Initiative. The less developed nations in south east Asia, for example want to improve their citizens lives by providing electricity. The World Bank bans making loans to these countries as the Bank, taking guidance from the UN does not want them to put in coal plants. But China is loaning them the money. This raises China’s political standing in these nations. More than 1,600 coal plants are scheduled to be built by Chinese corporations in over 62 countries and that will make China the world’s primary provider of high-efficiency, low-emission technology.
But Japan is not exactly twiddling its thumbs, either. Since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Tokyo has ramped up coal use and has raced ahead in clean coal technology development. Japan now boasts the world’s most efficient coal-fired plant, which uses less coal to produce more electricity. Seizing on this competitive advantage, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has tried to capitalize on these capabilities in a bid to increase Japan’s reach across Southeast Asia – and in China’s backyard. Through the Japan-led Asian Development Bank, Tokyo has pledged US$6.1 billion for projects throughout the Mekong as well as for various other projects from Vietnam to Myanmar, providing an alternative to China’s regional designs.
A coal plant can be made more efficient, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that this makes them close to the much lower CO2 emissions created by a natural gas-based facility.
And do not think the European Nations are still on board with the Paris Agreement. The EU leadership in Brussels are deeply into this the Paris Agreement, but most of the Nations have not even met their meager 2020 commitments. Each year the required commitments become much greater, too. And the nominal leader of the EU, German politicos are not getting much support from their industries. They see themselves becoming non-competitive with China and all these developing nations. Their auto industry sees themselves even becoming non-competitive in the US market.
Former President Obama also committed to be the big sugar-daddy for the Paris Agreement fund to give money to the underdeveloped nations to hold down production of CO2 Each year the developed nations are to pay $100 billion to the fund. This as I have noted is not a once and done fund, it is to be refunded each year. So, assuming that the Trump administration are not playing nice with the Paris Agreement, those Mayors and Governors and Corporate Exes are going to have pay at least $5 billion every year. And get this, China is not obligation to put money into this fund because they are said to be a developing nation. Meaning China can draw money from the fund for their own use.
Climate Change Sanity 