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
NOT to mention the shocking admission by the wind industry chief that England is not even windy enough! 🤦♂️
“Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.” – Robert Louis Stevenson
By Paul Homewood
Wind turbines near the village of Bothel in Cumbria.
Anyone who lives in England knows just how ubiquitous wind farms now are across the countryside.
So it might come as a surprise to learn just how little power they actually produce.
The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy has now published the detailed data for 2016. It shows that onshore wind farms in England produced only 5.7 TWh, out of a total generation in England of 241.8 TWh.
In other words, the princely amount of 2%.
Can anybody say it has been worth all of the bother?
“People under 25 are the strongest supporters of renewable energy, though they worry more about job security. I suspect this is because a lot of them don’t pay energy bills.
“Despite the job losses, the factory closures and the painful cost of living price hikes, I suspect South Australians will continue to believe the green lies, they will keep chasing their impossible dream of a renewable future for a long time to come.”
AS long as Left-wing/socialist governments can borrow and use other peoples’ money for ideological “green” symbolism, the economic rot of unreliables – wind and solar power – fed by a collective climate change madness, will continue unchallenged, despite what the majority of people want over the eco-elites and the >25 year-old social justice warriors.
Insanity on stilts.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
South Australians, the world’s renewable crash test dummies, have just overwhelmingly rated affordability and reliability of supply as more important than tackling climate change in an online survey – but they still want their green energy revolution.
Your Say survey finds South Australians rank power bills, supply over tackling climate change
Paul Starick, Sunday Mail (SA)
December 9, 2017 5:30pm
SOUTH Australians are abandoning support for tackling climate change by cutting carbon emissions in favour of demanding affordable and reliable electricity supply and developing a renewable energy industry.
In agenda-setting results on a cornerstone issue for the March state election, more than 3500 respondents overwhelmingly ranked affordability and reliability as the most important components of electricity supply in the Sunday Mail Your Say, SA survey.
Forging a renewable energy industry was also popular among respondents, demonstrating support for solar, wind and batteries.
View original post 488 more words
“This new climate report is not an objective or an honest assessment of the state of the climate, particularly in relation to the US.
Instead, it is a highly partisan and politicised report, designed to promote alarmism.
There has been much talk of the need for red and blue teams, to challenge lazy consensus.
It is now time for this to happen, so that this Report can be constructively assessed and, where appropriate, criticised. One of the tasks of a counter group should be to produce their own state of the climate assessment.
The climate mafia have had it their own way for far too long.”
Spot-on Paul. Great re-reporting to make the non-politicised version available!
The mere fact that activist “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe was a lead on the report, speaks volumes.
Corruption of climate ‘science’ by eco-activists, gobbled up by the sycophant mainstream media without any objective analysis.
Eisenhower was right, warning of the corruption of sciences by govt in 1960:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”
By Paul Homewood
The Federal Climate Science Special Report from the US Global Change Research Program, mandated under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, has now been published.
As with the draft, which I reported on in August, it is the usual mix of half truths, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies.
Let’s look at the main sections:
View original post 2,389 more words
“I see two things going on here:
1) Most people are far more intelligent than the elites give them credit for. They can see through the deception they have been fed, and are capable of using their own eyes to see what is really going on.
2) People are growing numb to the incessant propaganda.”
3) Economies, businesses and (non-elite) peoples’ livelihoods are being destroyed by insanely high electricity bills as a direct result of the West’s mad obsession with unreliable-energy, wind and solar.
By Paul Homewood
From No Tricks:
If one were to rate the investment made by governments globally aimed at creating concern for a potential problem, then the huge investment in climate change fear by now would definitely have to be rated as “junk” quality.
Never has so much seen so little return.
Hundreds of billions have been invested so far with the aim of generating mass fear, and by now we would think the global public should be in a state of panic. That’s the least one would expect from such a massive investment in fostering fear.
But it turns out that climate change remains very low on the list of concerns that citizens have.
View original post 238 more words
“Using taxes, subsidies, dictates and mandates to replace a full-time power producer like coal with up to five part-time power producers only makes sense in the part-time minds that inhabit Greentopia.”
AND, Like the old sailors say, “The wind is free, but everything else costs money”.
Viv Forbes on the problems with symbolic, novelty, “part time” energy sources…
Guest opinion by Viv Forbes
Solar power only works while the sun shines – it is part-time power.
Wind power only works when suitable winds blows – also part-time power.
Batteries only work when charged – part-time power again.
Hydro fails in droughts – more part-time power.
And using full-time power like natural gas to fill the inevitable supply gaps from part-time power forces backup gas to operate like part-time power.
Moreover, on sunny windy days, wind and solar generators spew out electricity at little extra cost. These erratic surges of part-time power drive electricity prices so low that even low-cost full-time producers like coal cannot operate profitably at those times. They are throttled back and forced to operate as yet another part-time power plant.
24/7 electricity users such as hospitals, trains, factories, refineries, fuel and water pumps, cash registers, infrastructure and mines cannot operate on part-time electricity.
View original post 139 more words