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
DEAR German “Greens”, who played a major government and activist role in phasing out (CO2-free) nuclear energy, via Fukushima hysteria, and implementing the economic and environmental disastrous #Energiewende, I repeat to you again – “careful what you wish for”!
By Paul Homewood
A 19th century church in Germany was demolished this week to make way for coal mining.
St Lambertus Cathedral – a church known by locals as Immerather Dom – in Immerath, a tiny farming village northwest of Cologne, was razed to the ground on Tuesday.
The double-spired church, thought to have been built between 1880 and 1890, was torn down in the latest step in energy company RWE’s demolition of the entire village in a bid to expand its access to the region’s lignite supply.
Perhaps instead of lecturing Donald Trump, our climate conscious MPs should be complaining to Mrs Merkel.
“Act On Climate” “Climate Action” “Science Says So” “Climate March” “Moral Issue Of Our Time” blah blah blah 🤦♂️
By Paul Homewood
Top hypocrite Leo’s been at it again, flying back to LA by private jet from his Aspen skiing holiday. That should really help fight global warming!
The usual excuse was given:
But if he was truly serious, he would be giving his buddies an earful about using such carbon spewing transport, and not encouraging their behaviour.
And if he was really serious, there is always the bus!
“OUR old friend fossil fuels” keeping UN “Save The Planet” delegates warm and toasty in Bonn!
Another one for the “you can’t make this stuff up” file! Lol.
EARLIER today I posted a report, via WUWT, on Al Gore’s failed “save the planet” legacy – the deforestation of pristine Sumatran rainforest, linked to palm oil production, that is making Indonesia warmer by up to 10°C !
ADD to that the senseless destruction of ‘carbon-sequestering’ trees, with the enormous loss of pristine rainforest threatening endangered animal species like the majestic Sumatran elephant…
Video summary of the EGU press release, ‘Deforestation linked to palm oil production is making Indonesia warmer’.
ACROSS the other side of the world, in Germany, Armageddon-Al’s other “save the planet” eco-fantasy – industrial wind turbines – are causing just as devastating a blow to Europe’s once uncorrupted countryside…
WHILE watching this video produced by Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung (German Wild Animal Foundation), that is being shown in 50 cinemas across Germany today, ask yourself one simple question:
- IF “Greens” (Al Gore et al) love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines?
German text translation : “No wind power plants in forests! Support German Wildlife Foundation!”
H/t to Michael Miersch for the video link and translation! @MMiersch
- UNRELIABLE Energy – Wind and Solar – A Climate Of Communism | Climatism
- CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History | Climatism
- WIND TURBINES Are Neither Clean Nor Green And They Provide Zero Global Energy | Climatism
- Al Gore Praises “Climate Leader” South Australia | Climatism
- Adding More Solar And Wind Power ‘Doubles’ CO2 Emissions | Climatism
- THE $Trillion Windmill Industry Is The Greatest Scam Of Our Age | Climatism
- @AlGore Your ‘Save The Planet’ Legacy – Palm Oil – Is Making Indonesia Warmer! | Climatism
Eco-Blowback – Images of Industrial Wind-turbines :
Brilliant 4:29s – Lifestyles of the rich and hypocritical…
South Australia’s Repeated Wind Power Blackouts Force Retreat to Fossil-Fuels: Base-load Gas Plant Ordered to Run ConstantlyPosted: December 20, 2016
So, it took job losses, heavy-industries to close and relocate, fuel poverty, economic ruin, environmental destruction, bird and bat slaughter, infrasound health atrocities, numerous multi-million dollar blackouts and the internationally famous September statewide blackout, not to mention the international trashing of SA’s business reputation for Australia’s climate-obsessed Government(s) to finally realise that *fossil fuels* are the ONLY genuine source of reliable baseload energy?!
What a disastrous joke the windmill and solar-panel experiment has truly become.
But fear not! Wind weasels and the eco-brainwashed will press on and most likely double-down on their insistence for “unreliable” energy sources in their religious quest to “SAVE THE PLANET”. Even if saving-the-planet means being 100% reliant on fossil fuels – the very energy source they despise!
Let that sink in for a minute.
Clueless and desperate, Australia’s political leaders are fiddling while Rome continues to burn.
The calamity that is South Australia’s self-inflicted power pricing and supply chaos, threatens to spread across state borders like a malignant tumour.
While State Labor governments in Queensland and Victoria continue to talk the talk about their desire to carpet their states with tens of thousands of these things, it’s apparent that they’re not so keen to walk the walk.
Rocketing power prices, routine load shedding and statewide blackouts have not only rendered South Australia an international laughing stock, but make it a prescient warning about what happens when ideology trumps common sense, market economics and sound engineering.
The politicised nonsense keeps spewing forth, however. Twaddle about batteries providing some kind of solution; and pie in the sky waffle about building interconnectors that cost $billions and…
View original post 2,528 more words
“It’s the flavor of the season: how outraged you manage to be is proof how wrong/evil your opponent is.”
“The same establishment makes a deafening racket every time there is an El Niño. In fact, climate activists actively hope for El Niño warm periods so they can hyperventilate about ‘record temperatures’ and advance their policy goals.”
Excellent post demonstrating the vicious rage emanating from climate change alarmists following the recent *record* drop in global temperatures!
As usual, the Left using the 101 tactic of – “Playing the man (Breitbart/Dellers), rather than the ball (evidence)”.
This is more evidence for mine that “Global Warming” aka “Climate Change” is the ultimate social(ist) issue that plays to many of the Left’s elitist agendas – power, control, money, virtue and misanthropy. After all, shouldn’t “Global Warming” alarmists be celebrating and cheering the *record* drop in global temps?! (albeit expected after a super El Niño).
The US House Science committee tweeted a link to a James Delingpole article on the drop in atmospheric temperatures of the Na Nina that is underway.
Look at the climate alarmist and intelligentsia response:
Science writer Deborah Blum:
The articulate British scientist Doug McNeall:
PhD scientist Bob Ward:
Former journalist Leo Hickman:
Climate activist ‘Climate Truth’
View original post 488 more words
We truly are living in the age of collective, virtue-signalling, climate-hysterical insanity.
And I’ll say it again –
If greens love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines?
Industrial wind turbines that kill millions of birds and bats, produce devastating infrasound that create untold misery to people and animals that live in close proximity.
They are weather dependent, running at a maximum of 30% output, providing intermittent, diluted and incredibly costly energy.
Duane J. Hyland nails this monumental hypocrisy…
“Environmentalists” would, in times past, raise the alarm at obstructions being built by the thousands across the land, but today the “Socio-Enviro-Emotionalists” salivate at the site of these rising monsters, believing they are “saving the planet.”
By Andrew Bolt ~
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg warns that just to meet the renewable energy targets of the Labor states would cost us $41 billion and require another 4800 wind towers to wreck our views.
Clements Gap wind plant in South Australia
And as South Australia has now taught us: we’d still end up with electricity that goes out in a storm.:
Households are exposed to a $41 billion capital cost for state government promises to embrace renewable energy, according to new federal analysis…
The Queensland and Victorian governments would need to build the equivalent of 4800 wind turbines to meet their renewable energy targets under the scenario, which contradicts state claims the extra cost would amount to only “cents per week” for consumers.
Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg will today press the states to rethink their renewable targets at a meeting in Melbourne that will hear from regulators…
View original post 353 more words