The Paris talks - what will be achieved?
MONDAY NOVEMBER 30, 2015
Polluting the food chain in the name of money
to combat "climate change" environmentalists lobbied hard for ethanol to supplement or replace petrol. Now 40% of corn is used to provide ethanol, to "save the planet". Food prices are higher because there is less land to grow it, putting basic foods beyond affordability of the poor. Governments accede to demands made by Greens in return for support in power and for popular votes from a public seduced to be "environmentally responsible" by reducing the "carbon footprint". As more and more land was converted to GMO corn production the unused and waste corn has been put into corn products and fed to livestock, enabling more stock to be harvested on less land which benefits larger corporations.
But cows are not designed to eat corn.
Result? They fart and belch more, hence starting the cycle again. This is called "sustainability". The only sustainable factor is the trend towards the richer getting richer and the poor becoming ever less advantaged. When the electronic age dawned and unemployment started to rise, the promise was that the working class could work fewer hours, and share the profits of a robotized economy. Has this happened?
No visible sharing of wealth
has it not happened, but the wealthy look for evermore ways to create poverty, by employing slave labour in underdeveloped nations and by keeping them underdeveloped. This is the real sustainability so sought for. Climate talks like this one in Paris are to preserve the status quo, namely to protect investors who bankroll a system of suppression of rights of the poor and disadvantaged. This is not a new formula. Global negotiations on climate change have been carrying on for more than 20 years. Nothing binding so far has been resolved. The conferences are always junkets held in exotic locations in 5-star hotels, a chance every few years to leave the spouse at home and holiday with your secretary and support staff. Everyone wants to be seen to be there, from reps from all political parties and youth and action groups to Len Brown. Being seen is the thing - it has nothing to do with the science of climate or the need to be prudent and sustaining, which delegates will speak about in worried tones, shaking heads as they munch caviar and drink champagne. The carbon footprint of 25,000 official delegates and airplanes from 190 countries spreading fumes over France does not even rate a mention. We have the means to video-conference now, which means all delegates concerned about such matters could have easily stayed at home and still conferenced.
More sceptics than gravy train riders
As for the agenda of this one, the recent Paris terrorism will be used to heighten the pretended urgency. But the Russian president is a climate change sceptic and they alone have recently lost over 200 civilians to the ISIS aircraft bomb over the Sinai. Russia doesn't support the lunacy of carbon emission caps in the face of their need to produce and sell oil and gas to the world because India and China effectively have no carbon caps. And in the absence of real near-term caps on China, everyone else's willingness to cap/cut emissions are lost in India’s and China’s huge emission growth uncertainties.
Russia doesn't even believe in "fossil" fuels, which they think is a capitalist device to keep high oil prices by artificially creating fears about scarcity. Russia and China even call reserves of oil 'abiotic' meaning it is produced and renewed naturally.
Russia will not be a signatory. Another reality is that India will not give up its coal - to do so would squander all its wealth, progress and development. America still runs on coal, as does Australia, South Africa, China and Malaysia, although all will say otherwise. In her term of government NZ's
Helen Clark signed a famous free trade deal with China that included supplying them with all NZ's Southland coal so the Chinese could pollute their skies, whilst at the same time preaching to the world about how NZ was a leader in taking "moral responsibility" for the environment
Show us the catastrophe.
this Emperors Clothes play, no one can see any climatic catastrophe occurring, any significant sea-levels rising, any hotter summers, colder winters, or more or less hurricanes or earthquakes than have always been in the past.
only difference about this Conference is the recruiting of more armed bodyguards for our supposed political elite and a perceived need for more armour-plated limousines and, being Paris, a larger influx of hookers that will no doubt be charging extra as danger money. Whatever the outcome of the Paris-ites’ meeting, there is unlikely to be anything of benefit other than for the Climate Cult faithful. Of course, western nations might still be dumb enough to agree to reparations in return for trade deals, over which the Third World’s motley assortment of incompetent politicians, warlords, rich thieves and assorted dictators will be very pleased, including their Swiss bank managers. So there will be no deal, but they will all look suitably concerned lovers of humanity when photographed between bouts of boozing. If they can stay awake long enough they may just resolve to persevere to get a climate change deal sometime in the future. There will be backslapping and the usual feel-good euphoria that comes after every conference anywhere, plus pledges to stay in touch with new-found friends, but it will all vanish when they get back home to the real world.
What they will really talk about
Most of the time at these conferences is spent in deciding where the next one will be held. As usual there will be a grave promise to do whatever it takes to get a deal next year or the year after or the year after that. A terrorist spreads terror. A lot of climate terror providers will be heard at Paris about climate breakdown. There will be extortion by the international thieves and murderers who have already taken over the world spreading the Environmental Catastrophic Delusion. They will demand that governments give them taxpayer cash by buying carbon "credits" and the imposition of carbon taxes which will be put towards new innovative technologies to "save the planet". It is like a school bully demanding money from a new kid, with the promise that his money will go towards saving his childhood. How much money? Eight years ago NZ had a $540 million per year liability to Kyoto. Add to that the $1 million given per day during Helen Clark days, from the NZ Treasury for research towards climate change issues and you have 2-3 million dollars per day wastage of taxpayer funds paid for by NZers, for questionable benefit. And that was then - it would be much more now. Will all that stop a hot summer or prevent one cyclone? It would certainly build more schools, hospitals and police stations, and fund expensive medication to hospitalised children in desperate need who are told the government cannot afford to keep them alive.
The proof that there is no danger? If there really ever was a problem in the atmosphere looming large for the planet it is a safe bet that world leaders would insist on the need to meet about every few months instead of every 5 years. As it stands now, discussing ways to further deprive the poor in the form of taxes to make the already rich and powerful richer and more powerful is only something they can safely get away with at well-spaced intervals. They know they are posturing for the press, and are actors in a fantasy that could have been scripted in Hollywood. No Green Party has been voted into power in a western country, but western governments need the Green vote. They will therefore say the words and pledge the mad pledges, designed appease the Greens and their supporters. There is no appetite among elected politicians to change the status quo, but there is a need to come up with new ways to placate eco-terrorists in green organisations so that the Environmentalism Religion does not take over and bankrupt every economy, as they have pledged to do. These conferences are therefore exercises in retaining inaction, which is why so many feel they have to go along - to ensure their own jobs. The real enemy is not CO2, it is environmentalism, which wants to take our freedom and our sovereignty and control our lives according to the ways and beliefs of the self-elected Planet Police. But the planet is doing fine. Lord Monkton points out
atellites show no global warming for the 223 months (i.e., 18 years 7 months) since April 1997. I
f anything the Earth is waterier; some records show no change in water vapour except in the vital mid-troposphere, where it has declined, wilder - Earth [The IPCC, both in its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Weather and in its 2013 Fourth Assessment Report, says there has been no particular overall trend in storminess, floods or droughts] that world leaders are trying to save: Bjorn Lomborg has reliably calculated that the effect of honouring all nations’ Paris pledges will be to reduce global temperature by 0.05-0.17 C° by 2100 compared with having no pledges, and the cost of getting that reduction will be $1 trillion]. The last time that the nations of the world struck a binding agreement to fight global warming was 1997, in Kyoto, Japan. It wasn’t binding: any nation had the right to give a year’s notice and just walk away, and one or two have done so. As leaders gather for a conference in Paris on Monday to try to do more, it’s clear that over the past 18 years there’s been no global warming in all that time. Some differences can be measured: degrees on a thermometer - a zero trend since April 1997, global sea-ice shows little change in extent or trend since satellite monitoring began 37 years ago, a rise in sea level of a couple of inches [the ENVISAT satellite showed that sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 1.3 inches per century]. And punishing droughts have been declining for the past 30 years globally, killer heat waves and monster storms have always plagued Earth, but no more than usual.
As for CO2 polluting the earth, CO2 is 0.03% of the atmosphere, very close to nothing. Of that 0.03%, 0.002% is made by all of Man, in other words 0.002% of 0.03%, i.e. all of mankind supplies 0.0000006%, or 0.000000006 or a 6 thousand millionth of CO2 to the atmosphere. Because of that we are supposed to have an emissions target, to protect the planet. But how does that get to be the primary cause of climate change, and not the other 99.9999994%? I hope someone asks that during question time in Paris..