ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy) has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.
GLOBAL warming aka climate change has little to do with the “environment” or “saving the planet”. Rather, its roots lie in 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 the Lefts social agendas.
THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome(Environmental 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.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club Of Rome
THE Club Of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion.
NOT surprisingly, the study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’:
AROUND the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Medical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Barack Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of the “The Population Bomb”.
THE conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.
WE are given clues as to the motives of this extreme agenda from various statements by prominent environmental ‘icons’…
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” – Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
VIV Forbes on how the control of population growth and people’s lifestyles manifests today through the control of energy supply…
The “zero-emissions” zealots want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power. They oppose the main thing that sets us apart from all other species – the use of fire from explosives, coal, oil, gas or nuclear power.
They have yet to explain how our massive fleet of planes, trains, tractors, harvesters, trucks, road trains, container-ships and submarines will be powered and lubricated by windmills, treadmills, windlasses, solar energy, distilled whiskey and water wheels.
Western nations, driven by a global agenda of climate alarmism, are destroying their profitable industries with carbon taxes; and their promotion of expensive, intermittent green energy is pushing us back down the energy ladder; and our competitors in Asia are climbing the energy ladder as quickly as they can. At the same time, the enormous waste of public money on government promotion of the climate industry has created a global fiscal mess.
Unless reversed, this wasteful de-energising policy will drive much of the world’s population back to the poverty and famines which often prevailed in the past. Some see the inevitable de-population this would cause as a desirable goal.
JO Nova on how the radical environmental movement has succeeded in the implementation of draconian climate change policy that has created an era of energy poverty that is destroying western economies and hurting the poor…
Electricity prices declined for forty years. Obviously that had to stop.
Here’s is the last 65 years of Australian electricity prices — indexed and adjusted for inflation. During the coal boom, Australian electricity prices declined decade after decade. As renewables and national energy bureaucracies grew, so did the price of electricity. Must be a coincidence…
Today all the hard-won masterful efficiency gains of the fifties, sixties and seventies have effectively been reversed in full.
WHEN the Abbott Government axed the Climate Commission in 2013, in what was its very first act of government, professional alarmist Tim Flannery and his mates immediately created a Climate Council to keep up their propagandising.
IT wasn’t a hard decision for then PM Abbott to make considering the string of outlandish claims made by Flannery and the Commission…
IN what was to be their final report and parting gift to the Australian taxpayer, the Climate Commission’s 2013 “Critical Decade” report, claimed that there is a one-in-two chance that there will be no humans left on the planet by 2100
This morning Tim Flannery & Co [at the Climate Council] must be tickled pink to see how much adverse publicity they have generated [with their report last week], and not merely in the domestic press. From Pakistan to the Caribbean there are stories today about the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef, the intolerable heat allegedly set to afflict the Red Centre and how big chunks of Hobart will be swallowed by the heat-swollen waters of the Great Southern Ocean.
That there are casualties and collateral damage as a consequence of one organisation’s blinkered determination to promote itself and its allies’ climate cause should not need to be stated…
[T]here were no reassuring words from Queensland Tourism Minister Kate Jones… So how did the tourism minister react to the Climate Council’s codswallop and bleak appraisal of tourism’s future? Why, God help us, she endorsed it!….
That impression that North Queensland (and the Centre and Hobart, too) are not worth a visit would be hard to avoid in light of the Reef-is-dying coverage the Climate Council orchestrated. Below, a collection of international headlines and snippets re-broadcasting word of the Reef’s impending demise:
THIS latest episode of climate alarmism churned out of Flannery’s panic-factory, based solely on the ‘evidence’ of broken and overheated UN IPCC computer models further trashes Australia’s international reputation, directly affecting the crucial tourist industry and the livelihoods of the good people who are employed within it.
AT risk, an estimated 10,000 jobs. How many more are at risk now?
WHO will be made accountable or held responsible for the exaggeration of data and wreckless alarmism? No one, of course. Because again, the worst any climate change alarmist can ever be accused of is an excess of “Save the planet” virtue.
Renewable energy: powering Australia in more ways than one
A jobs boom is sweeping across regional Australia and there’s one industry to thank – the renewable energy sector. From places like Gordon in southern Tasmania to Pindari in north-east NSW, new solar installations, windfarms, battery arrays, solar towers and pumped hydro facilities are springing life into regional towns. How are they doing this? By injecting desperately needed investment and job opportunities into remote locations.
This is great news! But despite the steady stream of new developments in regional areas, we’re actually being short-changed. Policy uncertainty due to ongoing internal squabbles in the Federal Government is strangling the growth of this sector and costing regional Australia the true jobs boom it deserves.
If politicians could simply commit to a modest and achievable 50 per cent renewable energy target, this would create 28,000 new jobs. The vast majority would be in regional Australia where they are greatly needed to breathe new life into struggling local economies.
NO one would deny that job creation is a good thing especially in regional centres and remote locations in Australia. Areas with often high rates of unemployment and limited opportunity.
BUT, where the ‘green energy jobs’ argument falls down is not only in the longevity of the full-time jobs available after installation, but in the fact that these jobs are a direct result of green central planning. Green jobs are like ‘Fiat money’ – a currency without intrinsic value established as money, often by government regulation.
WITHOUT massive government subsidies, estimated at $60 BILLION by 2030 under the Australian government’s RET (Renewable Energy Target), their would be no ‘green’ jobs as advertised by The Daily Advertiser. The private sector simply will not invest in weather-dependent ‘energy’ sources when in competition with cheap, efficient, reliable base-load sources like coal and gas on a dollar-for-dollar or subsidy-equalised basis.
“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett
TELLINGLY, the piece by James Wright (chief executive officer of the Future Business Council)in The Daily Advertiser not once mentions the private sector as a direct player in the ‘green jobs boom’. His argument relies solely on government and politicians:
“Policy uncertainty due to ongoing internal squabbles in the Federal Government is strangling the growth of this sector…”
“If politicians could simply commit to a modest and achievable 50 per cent renewable energy target, this would create 28,000 new jobs…”
“we can’t let backwards politics spoil this once in a generation opportunity…”
GREEN central planning like economic planning of failed socialist regimes gone by is doomed for failure. Market distorting policies that pick winners only work until the money runs out.
THIS is the intrinsic problem faced when big government and statist green central planning displaces the commercial sector. Market mechanisms are eliminated, the very mechanisms that promote checks and balances and ensure accountability to make sure stuff works.
THE “green” energy revolution with its touted “green jobs” is largely survived by rent-seeking corporations entering the “save the planet” sector in pursuit of the lucrative government funds, grants and subsidies on offer, supported pro bono by the virtue-signalling, “save the planet” mainstream media.
WHAT is set to be Australia’s largest wind farm will provide only 20 full-time jobs once it goes into operation next year…
Australia’s biggest wind farm to generate just 20 full-time jobs
What is set to be Australia’s largest wind farm will provide only 20 full-time jobs once it goes into operation next year.
Construction started yesterday on AGL’s $850 million Coopers Gap wind farm at Cooranga North, 250km west of Brisbane, 10 years after it was proposed. The state government, which is committed to a 50-50 split between renewable energy and fossil fuel energy production by 2030, has endorsed the project, with Energy Minister Anthony Lynham turning the first sod.
Two hundred jobs will be created during construction of the 123-turbine, 453 megawatt facility, which will provide enough power for 260,000 homes.
During the election campaign in November, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk spruiked her clean energy policy at the under-construction Clare Valley Solar Farm in north Queensland — a project that will employ up to 350 people during construction, but offer only five to 10 jobs once operational.
ADVICE to marketers of the unreliable-energy jobs ‘revolution’. May I suggest lobbying the private sector and extolling the virtues of so-called “cheap, clean and green” energy to them, rather than writing propaganda, puff pieces in the daily rags and insulting the intelligence of your audience…the ones who now have to pay the highest power prices in the world thanks to the unreliable energy ‘revolution’!
DO let me know if any private sector orgs will take up an investment opportunity in the unreliabels sector without access to the $60 Billion taxpayer-funded RET…
EVERYONE is familiar with the “climate change caused the Syrian war” meme that invaded the climate lexicon in another attempt to ping man-made global warming climate change as the root cause of anything and everything that is bad in the world.
CLIMATE CHANGE helping to create ISIS was listed as #49 on the The Lid‘s “official list,” of stupid things global warming enthusiasts have blamed on their failed theory:
COLOURLESS, odourless, tasteless, non-reactive, trace gas and plant food ‘carbon dioxide’ as the cause of ISIS and the Syrian war was qualified by the usual suspects – Prince Charles, Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore, the Obama admin, Former Secretary of State John Kerry, the climate-theory obsessed mainstream media and of course, the authority that matters most – academia…
CHARLES B. Strozier Professor of History, The City University of New York; and Kelly A. Berkell Attorney and research associate, Center on Terrorism at John Jay College of Criminal Justice believe that ISIS formed because of a severe drought in Syria from 2006-2010 and that drought happened because of—you guessed it—Climate Change.
As the Obama administration undertakes a highly public, multilateral campaign to degrade and destroy the militant jihadists known as ISIS, ISIL and the Islamic State, many in the West remain unaware that climate played a significant role in the rise of Syria’s extremists. A historic drought afflicted the country from 2006 through 2010, setting off a dire humanitarian crisis for millions of Syrians. Yet the four-year drought evoked little response from Bashar al-Assad’s government. Rage at the regime’s callousness boiled over in 2011, helping to fuel the popular uprising. In the ensuing chaos, ISIS stole onto the scene, proclaimed a caliphate in late June and accelerated its rampage of atrocities including the recent beheadings of three Western civilians. While ISIS threatens brutal violence against all who dissent from its harsh ideology, climate change menaces communities (less maliciously) with increasingly extreme weather.
A new study from the University of Melbourne, the Georg Eckert Institute and Freie Universität has found several problems with research related to assessing the propensity for war amid environmental changes due to ‘global warming’.
THE study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, found such research suffers from “a streetlight effect.”
“We demonstrate that research on climate change and violent conflict suffers from a streetlight effect,” reads the study. The “streetlight effect” is when researchers search for answers where it’s easiest, instead of where the right answer might be.
“Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables,” reads the study.
Linking global warming to violent conflict became in vogue after Syria erupted in violence in 2011. Researchers quickly began suggesting the drought that wreaked havoc on rural Syria served as a spark for civil war.
The Obama administration considered global warming a national security threat, and top officials often repeated the claim that violence in Syria, and the rise of ISIS, stemmed from climate factors.
CLIMATE realists/sceptics called it right again. Don’t expect an apology or correction from the mainstream media, Hollywood, the Obama administration, Prince Charles, the UN, academics or Leo DiCaprio for misleading you on global warming climate change, yet again.
PLEASE donate to Climatism to help keep the good fight alive!
No matter the amount, your donation is greatly appreciated. You WILL make a difference. The less time spent finding money, the more time we have to fight the alarmists.
“A generation system that throws 2,000 MW into the grid over the space of minutes, without warning, and collapses by the same margin over the same time-frame, again without warning, and irrespective of the demands of users, is not a system, at all. It’s chaos.
Now that that chaos is repaying wind and sun worshippers with mass blackouts and forced load shedding across two States, slowly but surely the proletariat is reaching the same conclusion.”
“Never before in our recent history have we seen on this scale governmental incompetence and arrogant disregard for the well being of communities in the quest for green votes.”
Alcoholics call it a ‘moment of clarity’. In wind powered South Australia and Victoria, hitherto fans of renewables call it a ‘mass blackout’.
In 1919, after Engineer/Soldier, Sir John Monash returned to his home town of Melbourne from the Western Front, to a hero’s welcome, he set about establishing an electricity grid that would serve his home State, and the coal-fired power plants located in the Latrobe Valley that would power it.
Immediately after the Armistice was struck with the Germans on 11 November 1918, Monash sent officers to infiltrate German coalmines near Cologne and elsewhere to get an understanding of how the Germans managed to achieve the successful use of their brown coal reserves, similar to those found in the Latrobe Valley. Armed with knowledge of the German’s techniques and engineering, Monash drove the development of those reserves and their exploitation, and Melbourne and Victoria never looked back: the…
“FEW things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion.” – Charles Colson
“THE road to hell is paved with good intentions.” – Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 – 1153)
WE all want to be good stewards of the environment. However, in the era of “Save The Planet” virtue-signalling, the need for deeds may, in fact, be doing more harm than good, to you and Mother Nature!
THE “10 Problems With The Green Agenda” remind us that noble intentions are often misguided leading to undesired environmental outcomes and frequent misallocation of public resources with little regard for accountability and budget constraints.
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then the road to climategeddon must be paved with pages from the green agenda. For the past couple of decades, armchair environmentalists and image-conscious politicians have been pushing through planet-saving initiatives that are often anything but. Initiatives like:
10. Carbon Offsetting
Let’s say you’re environmentally-conscious but need to fly. Enter carbon offsetting: for the price of a coffee you can pay some third world farmer to quit burning coal, or some company to plant enough trees to cancel out the emissions from your trip.
If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. The whole practice of carbon offsetting is so fundamentally flawed that eco-writer George Monbiot compared it to pushing food around your plate “to create the impression you have eaten it.” The numbers simply don’t add up: if we in the West decided to offset even fifty percent of our emissions targets, developing nations would have to magically start emitting negative amounts of carbon. Commercial offsetting is no better; investigations routinely find companies fudging their figures, or outright lying. With no industry standard, there’s nothing to measure improvements against; meaning companies can claim whatever they like.
9. Organic Food
Organic foods are routinely billed as environmentally friendly and chemical free; despite being neither. All the nasty stuff we use in agriculture was developed to solve efficiency problems; take it away and you’re back to square one. A liter of organic milk, for example, can require up to eighty percent more land to produce than regular milk. This means deforestation, destruction of habitats and other things you don’t associate with organic. But wait, it gets worse: multiple studies have found high levels of pesticide in supposedly-organic food; while researchers have concluded eating it is no healthier and its production may lead to increased pollution. The chasm between what we expect and what we get from organic food has gotten so wide even die hard Greens have dropped it in favor of local and sustainable.
8. Water Conservation
If you’re in possession of a Y chromosome, you’ve probably experienced the waterless urinals in McDonald’s. Insofar as you were thinking about such things, they maybe even seemed like a good idea; after all, saving that much water must be a good thing, right?
Well, not if you want to work without the constant stench of urine. Turns out stagnant pee doesn’t react well with copper piping; and by that we mean it chews right through. Chicago City Hall wound up decommissioning their waterless urinals after that exact situation led to waste flooding the toilets. But what about day-to-day conservation, like in your home? Yeah, maybe—if your neighbors are flushing nonstop. In Germany people have gotten so good at keeping water usage down their sewers are getting backed up, forcing the utility companies to blast insane amounts of water through just to keep them working. As a result, water rates are skyrocketing—while little to no benefit is provided to the environment.
According to one green group, a single town with below-average insulation can waste as much energy in a year as the BP oil spill. By my maths, that’s something like the equivalent of a bazillion oil spills happening annually. No wonder governments are subsidizing home insulation.
Which is great, so long as people buy the right type. See, skinning cats and insulating houses have one thing in common: there’s no one way to do it. Some methods, such as mineral wool or denim, are super-green—others, involving blown hydrofluorocarbons, are like punching Mother Nature in the face. It’s estimated this poisonous junk has a global warming potential nearly 1,500 times that of carbon dioxide, meaning it’ll take roughly ten lifetimes to settle your environmental debt. Even worse, as demand for insulation grows, so does production, leading to more pollution and so on and so on until Armageddon.
6. Wind Turbines
As anyone who’s ever lived below an RnB-obsessed neighbor knows, hearing stuff you don’t want to hear can be irritating as hell. Same applies to wind turbines.
To date no study has found a correlation between turbines and physical illness, though there may be an interesting mental one. According to that link, while people living near community-owned turbines rarely report health problems, people who have had them forced on their village often do. Complaints often focus on the low-level humming noise and shadow flickera sun-blocking side effect officially classed as an annoyance, but probably enough to send most of us into a blind murderous rage. Obviously they could just start building these turbines further away or go the Denmark route and give local people a stake in them, but that’s probably too much to ask.
5. Electric Cars
Okay Science, now you’re just screwing with us. Regular cars are like environmental cyanide, how can electric ones possibly be worse?
It depends where in the world you are. As a Norwegian study pointed out, there’s no benefit to driving a car powered by electricity from a coal-firing power station. If your town happens to be on an old fashioned grid, all you’re doing by hopping in your losermobile is letting the world know you don’t understand science. As an extra kicker, the manufacturing process for green vehicles is more polluting than your average gas-guzzler, and will remain so until market pressure speeds up technological breakthroughs. At the current rate you can probably expect that to happen sometime after the last trumpet.
The Biofuel cause has been on the wane for a few years now, but that didn’t stop Germany from attempting to make the switch in 2010. By bringing E10 to the pumps at 10 cents a liter cheaper than petrol, the government were hoping to boost the country’s already impressive green credentials. You can probably guess where this is going.
The opposite happened: a joint study by nine European environmental groups found large-scale biofuel development had led to deforestation and a lack of farming land in South America, increasing the risk of famine. But it’s not just E10, for years now environmental groups have opposed biofuels, arguing that their development wastes water and causes pollution. Yet the government keep on giving out subsidies, because apparently Obama hates petroleum and the environment.
3. Energy Efficient Light Bulbs
Remember that story about a woman having to call in a hazmat team to clean up a broken CFL light bulb? Pretty dumb right, it’s not like there’s enough mercury in there to cause harm, is there?
There is if you’re involved in the production side. In Jinzhou, China, one manufacturer tested their workers and found 121 out of 123 were suffering from mercury poisoning, with one employee’s levels being 150 times the acceptable amount. Another factory was required to hospitalize sixty-eight of seventy-two workers, while the reopening of decommissioned mercury mines has led to entire regions being decimated. So what’s fueling this sudden boom in toxic substances? Demand from Britain and the EU, where we’re apparently determined to go green at the cost of every single other nation on the planet.
Now I’m not saying recycling is a bad idea; just that its delivery is far from perfect. See, as a global business, recycling is focused not on the environment but making money. This can lead to some weird ecological side-effects: for example, if domestic demand for recycled produce drops, suppliers will ship it halfway across the world to unload it, carbon footprint be damned. Likewise, recyclable materials are routinely discarded for no reason other than aesthetics. Take PVC—when melted it goes a funky brown color most consumers would avoid like Bronie slash fiction, so centers simply burn it.
Then there’s our own ignorance. Most of us have no idea what plastics our city recycles. We just chuck it all in the recycling bin, a move likely to lead to energy-wasting hold ups at the plant and the stuff just getting burnt anyway.
1. Forgoing the Scientific Method
Imagine you work in a field where the future of the planet may be in your hands. Most of the smartest minds on Earth agree with you, governments are starting to pay attention and even the skeptical public are coming round to your way of thinking. What’s the one thing you wouldn’t do?
How about sabotage the scientific method? In 2009 a leaked cache of emails briefly made the world sit up and question the validity of climate research. While the falsified data claims were quickly disproven, the essential idiocy of those involved is pretty much inarguable. Rather than relying on peer reviewing to weed out shoddy research, some of the researchers at the CRU at UEA had apparently used their position to censor, silence debate and generally act like they had something to hide. The resulting storm completely destabilized public support for their research and made a mockery of their claim to scientific impartiality. That’s not so much shooting yourself in the foot as blasting it off with a howitzer.
“WE live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.“
– Saufatu Sopoanga, fmr Prime Minister ofTuvalu, at the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly New York, 24th September 2003
THE Pacific island nation of Tuvalu has long been cited as proof that rising seas caused by man-made climate change are going to drown Pacific and Indian island atolls.
THE climate-obsessed fake news media has gleefully pawned the emotional link between climate change and ‘sinking’ tropical islands for eons … “The tiny pacific island nation of Tuvalu looks set to become a victim of global warming, with the entire country predicted to be washed away in 50 years.”(BBC 2002)
TUVALU’s plight even formed part of the basis for arguably the most hysterical fake news claim in the history of climate alarmism: the UN’s prediction that by the end of 2010, climate change would have created “50 million environmental refugees”!
CLIMATISM, along with the climate sceptic “denier” community have been citing real science, data and observations that have consistently contradicted the fashionable claims of “sinking islands” for years, only to be given the standard respect from the lame-stream activist media…crickets.
WHAT has now become even more apparent is that the purported plight of Pacific and Indian Ocean Island nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu, Seychelles and the Maldives serve merely as emotional arguments to promote the global climate agenda, whilst cash-strapped and over-populated island nations use the associated climate guilt as a vehicle to pursue compensation to be paid by Western nations. Economic outcomes in line with the United Nation’s wealth redistribution agenda.
DELLERS with a great summary of the latest “scientific” study out of Nature journal that has sent another alarmist claim to the propaganda graveyard…
Delingpole: ‘Sinking’ Pacific Island Actually Getting Bigger Shock
Tuvalu – the Pacific island group often cited by climate alarmists as the nation most immediately at risk from rising sea levels caused by ‘global warming’ – is not sinking after all.
In fact it’s getting bigger, scientists now admit.
A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.
It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.
Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.
“We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing,” he said.
“The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.”
If only they’d done their study a bit earlier they could have saved a lot of alarmists a lot of worry.
As recently as last year, anxious wonks produced a paper for the World Bank arguing that the situation in Tuvalu (pop. 11,000) and nearby Kiribati (pop.107,000) was so dire that Australia and New Zealand should open their doors to the fleeing refugees.
According to the paper:
“The worsening impacts of climate change have provided a new moral imperative for providing open access.”
In 2007, Grist went so far as to cite Tuvalu of one of climate change’s most “tragic” victims.
‘Climate Change in Tuvalu’ even has its own Wikipedia page. It records possibly Tuvalu’s greatest moment of glory on the international stage when it seized the opportunity at the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to grandstand about its terrible plight.
In December 2009 the islands stalled talks at United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, fearing some other developing countries were not committing fully to binding deals on a reduction in carbon emission, their chief negotiator stated “Tuvalu is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change, and our future rests on the outcome of this meeting.” When the conference failed to reach a binding, meaningful agreement, Tuvalu’s representative Ian Fry said, “It looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future… Our future is not for sale. I regret to inform you that Tuvalu cannot accept this document.”
Fry’s speech to the conference was a highly impassioned plea for countries around the world to address the issues of man-made global warming resulting in climate change. The five-minute speech addressed the dangers of rising sea levels to Tuvalu and the world. In his speech Fry claimed man-made global warming to be currently “the greatest threat to humanity”, and ended with an emotional “the fate of my country rests in your hands”.
Tuvalu’s plight also formed part of the basis for arguably the most hysterical fake news claim in the history of climate alarmism: the UN’s prediction that by the end of 2010, climate change would have created “50 million environmental refugees”.
The UN has since removed the claim from most of its websites. Happily, it can still be glimpsed in the Guardian archives:
Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.
“There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change,” Dr Bogardi said. “This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations.”
In reality, the total number of environmental refugees fleeing climate change so far around the world is close to zero.
Seventeen people from the Pacific – including 11 from Tuvalu and five from Kiribati – have already made refugee claims in New Zealand, citing climate change as part of their basis of claim. None have been successful (four have yet to be determined and 13 have been rejected) because the refugees convention does not recognise climate change as grounds for protection.
To climate skeptics, the fact that Tuvalu is not drowning will come as no surprise whatsoever.
Their favorite sea levels expert – Nils-Axel Mörner – has written numerous papers on the subject.