How the World Bank Keeps Poor Nations Poor

Its policy of eco-imperialism forces renewables on a reluctant but largely helpless developing world.

Market
Market sellers in Lagos sell goods under candle light due to electricity shortages (image: Getty)

What is the point of the World Bank? You probably think of it, if at all, as a benign institution, a kind of giant, multilateral aid agency, whose job it is to bring liquidity to developing nations and help them grow out of poverty.

Until not so long ago, that was indeed its function. Created alongside the International Monetary Fund at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, the bank did sterling work in its early years helping countries like France recover from the war; and later, giving mostly third world countries the vital seed money needed to help attract investors to risky capital projects. Its multiplier effect on investment can be extraordinary. In 2013, the World Bank gave Kosovo $40 million towards building a lignite power station. This sent out the positive signal needed to encourage the private sector to complete the funding with another $1,960 million.

Amazing. Except that’s not what the World Bank does now.

Read the rest in the Spectator.

Trump Is Western Democracy’s Last Man Standing Against the Green Terror

trump climate
DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty

Donald Trump is the only leader left in the world defending Western democracy against eco fascism.
Don’t just take it from me. Read this Belgian philosopher, Drieu Godefridi, interviewed in the French liberal newspaper Contrepoints and translated here by Friends of Science Calgary.

He believes that the Paris climate agreement was a global socialist plot which the U.S. was absolutely right to escape:

[President Trump] perfectly grasped the essence of the Paris Agreement, which is to redistribute the wealth of the West to the rest of the world – he expressly declared it on the Lawn of the White House, on June 1st, 2017 when making the American exit from Paris official. In so doing, he has stopped the formidable internationalist socialist machinery that was in the process of being set up. In other words, he has refused to validate the third-world moral intuition, and the scientific pretext that gave birth to the Paris Agreement.

Environmentalism, argues Godefridi, is just another facet of the left’s ongoing war against democracy:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

The Great Diesel Disaster Shows How Badly Wrong-Headed Environmentalism Can Harm the Planet

No one has claimed responsibility for the Great Diesel Car Scandal and almost certainly no heads will roll

Who do you think was responsible for Europe’s biggest environmental disaster of the past three decades; one that caused more widespread damage and killed more people than even the nuclear accident at Chernobyl?

Was it a) greedy and selfish capitalists, probably linked to Big Oil, riding roughshod over the stringent health and safety regulations our wise, caring politicians have designed to protect us and our natural environment?

Or b) an alliance of fluffy green activists, campaigning journalists and virtue-signalling politicians, united on a noble mission to save the planet from the greatest environmental threat it has ever known?

If you guessed b) then you may appreciate why we climate sceptics are experiencing such schadenfreude right now. For years we’ve been vilified by the powerful green lobby as nature–loathing, anti-science ‘deniers’ in the pay of sinister interests. Now it turns out that the real bad guys (as some of us have been saying all along) are those worthy greenies.

I’m talking about the Great Diesel Car Scandal, which has exacerbated all manner of illnesses from asthma, autism and dementia to respiratory problems, heart disease and cancer, driven city air pollution to levels sometimes higher than Beijing’s, and caused tens of thousands of premature deaths across the EU.

No one has claimed responsibility for it and almost certainly no heads will roll. But this was an avoidable, completely man-made disaster: the consequence of a state-orchestrated, tax-incentivised, EU-wide drive from the early 1990s onwards to replace petrol car engines with diesel ones, organised in the belief that it would reduce CO2 levels and thus help spare the planet from the horrors of man-made global warming.

And so it has. One expert calculation says Europe’s mass switch to diesel means that in the next half century, global warming may be as much as four thousandths of a degree Celsius less.

Read the rest in the Spectator.

The Slow Death of Environmentalism

Where 25 years ago the environment was considered everyone’s domain, it has since been hijacked by the left.

Would you describe yourself as an ‘environmentalist’? I would, mainly to annoy greenies, but also because it’s true. If your definition of an environmentalist is someone who loves immersing himself in the natural world, makes a study of its ways and cares deeply about its future, I’m at least as much of one as David Attenborough.

But I can see why many fellow nature lovers might balk at the term, especially now that it has become so grievously politicised. That would explain the recent Gallup poll — it was taken in the US but I suspect it applies to Britain too — showing how dramatically this label has plunged in popularity. In 1991 the majority of Americans self-identified as environmentalists — 78 per cent of them. Now, it’s just 42 per cent: less than half.

Why has the term so fallen out of favour? Well there’s perhaps a clue in the fact that the decline has been far more precipitous among Republicans (down to 27 per cent) than among Democrats (down to 56 per cent). In other words, where 25 years ago the environment was considered everyone’s domain, it has since been hijacked by the left and turned into yet another partisan issue.

If you believe the greenies, the blame for this lies with an intransigent right so imprisoned by ideology that it stubbornly denies ‘the science’. Actually, though, I’d say it has more to do with the militant left exploiting environmentalism as a fashionable cloak for its ongoing war on liberty, free markets and small government.

Note the tactics. Like the Viet Minh or the Taleban, the environmental movement has become hugely skilled in the art of asymmetric warfare. The number of true believers is much smaller than you’d think — but they’ve managed in recent years to punch massively above their weight by infiltrating all the key positions of influence and by terrorising those who disagree with them.

Read the rest in the Spectator.

The Greens Are Losing the Culture Wars. Good.

All right, so Michael Crichton got there first with State of Fear (2005) but that movie would certainly never have slipped under the net if it hadn’t had the creator of Jurassic Park‘s name attached. It’s only in the last couple of years that screenwriters have started to recognise what a good idea it is to choose environmentalists as your bad guys: pure evil draped in cuddly, fluffy sanctimoniousness is drama gold.

See, for example, Kingsman (2014) which cast Samuel L Jackson as an insane Malthusian bent on wiping out most of the human race for the good of the planet; and also Utopia (2013), the genius, black as your hat thriller (insanely nixed after its second series by Channel 4) about a similar “the Earth has a cancer; the cancer is man” type conspiracy.

Now there’s a Nordic Noir TV series I strongly recommend you watch – just out on DVD – called Follow the Money. The Guardian hated it – which is a recommendation in itself. But what’s even better is the reason why I suspect the Guardian hated it: it couldn’t quite get its head around the fact that the bad guys aren’t in Big Oil or the Military Industrial Complex or some faceless corporation. Instead, the baddies work for a renewable energy company with the caring, sharing name Energreen.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Lovelock goes mad for shale gas | James Delingpole

June 18, 2012

Lovelock: growing wiser with old age

A glorious interview with James Lovelock in today’s Guardian. Essential reading for everyone, greens especially. In it, the inventor of Gaia theory and godfather of modern environmentalism declares that wind farms are hideous, renewables are a waste of space, nuclear power is good, sea level rises aren’t a worry, environmentalism has replaced Christianity as the global religion and that we should all be “going mad on” shale gas, which he considers our best energy hope for the immediate future.

My favourite line, though is this one:

“I’m neither strongly left nor right, but I detest the Liberal Democrats.”

Needless to say the eco-nuts who congregate beneath Komment Macht Frei are going mental. One commenter calls him an “evil bastard”. Several others say they always thought Gaia theory was total rubbish anyway and suggest that at 92 Lovelock has probably started to lose his marbles.

Really? All sounds perfectly sensible to me.

Have a read of this:

Lovelock does not miss a chance to criticise the green movement that has long paid heed to his views. “It’s just the way the humans are that if there’s a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it. It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air.”

Or this:

Having already upset many environmentalists – for whom he is something of a guru – with his long-time support for nuclear power and his hatred of wind power (he has a picture of a wind turbine on the wall of his study to remind him how “ugly and useless they are”), he is now coming out in favour of “fracking”, the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal: “Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.”

If anyone can find serious flaws in this argument, I’d love to hear them. (And no: “James Lovelock is, like, really old, and, like, Gaia Theory sucks. Heh heh heh,” isn’t good enough).

My only criticisms of Lovelock’s recantations are that a) they couldn’t have come a few years earlier (they would have been a lot braver – and more devastating – when the global warming craze was at its peak and that b) they seem to have been prompted at least partly by self-interest.

The move, he says, has been forced on him. Three years ago, he received a heating bill for the winter totalling £6,000. His age means he has to have the heating on full in his poorly insulted home and, with his disabled son, Tom, living in a house next door, his outgoings on fuel rocketed. Damp winters on the edge of Dartmoor were taking their toll, so in recent years he has overwintered in St Louis, his wife’s hometown in Missouri. The experience altered his attitude to the politics and economics of energy.

Could he really not see where green energy policies (inspired partly by his doomsday predictions in books like The Revenge of Gaia) were leading until he was socked with his first whacking great £6,000 heating bill? If so, then it strikes me as both a woeful failure of imagination and a lack of clear thinking. High energy bills, after all, are no accident. They are result of a very deliberate strategy by environmental pressure groups to make energy bills more expensive in order to force everyone to reduce their energy usage. Of course, the people this hits hardest are the ones for whom reducing energy usage is not really a viable option: the old and inform, many of whom have been driven into “fuel poverty” by the greens’ well-meaning attempts to save the world from the illusory threat of ManBearPig.

Still, better late then never, eh?

Related posts:

  1. Are lefties incredibly stupid or just plain evil?
  2. 24 Types of Authoritarians
  3. Am I offending the wrong Americans?
  4. ‘Imagine there’s no shale gas…’

One thought on “Lovelock goes mad for shale gas”

  1. Herkinderkin says:26th June 2012 at 6:01 amHeh heh. Reminds me of Germaine Greer. She too, recanted somewhat as she aged. And like Lovelock’s change of heart, hers got naff-all coverage from the mainstream media.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

I Have Faith in George Monbiot’s Sincerity, Whoever’s Paying Him

The other day George Monbiot of the Guardian had me round for the weekend at his country seat in Machynlleth, Wales. You’ll never guess what we had for dinner after a fine afternoon’s sport shooting the red kite which infest that region like a verminous plague. First, we had leatherback turtle soup; then a delicious tranche of foie gras à la Nigella; then a superb escalope of cruel-reared veal in a wild okapi reduction on a bed of endangered tropical hardwood; then

then finally, the pièce de résistance, candied polar bear cub paws marinaded in Château d’Yquem. Afterwards, the world’s third most famous Old Stoic (after Perry Worsthorne and his seducer the late George Melly) proposed a toast: ‘To the eco-bollocks that makes me my fortune!’

No, no, really, I jest. Granted, the world of eco-propaganda can be awfully lucrative, what with all the money sloshing around from advocacy groups like Greenpeace and from big oil companies like Shell trying to ‘greenwash’ their image by giving handouts to the Guardian environment pages. But not for a moment do I imagine that George Monbiot writes his paranoid, hair-shirt, anti-capitalist eco-screeds in order to please his paymasters. Nope, I’m quite sure the dear chap genuinely, sincerely believes every word he writes…

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. George Monbiot: the new Christopher Hitchens?
  2. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
  3. ‘Germany’s George Monbiot’ turns climate sceptic
  4. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?

2 thoughts on “I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him”

  1. Dismayed_citizen says:11th April 2012 at 8:16 amWell written, James!
  2. Nige Cook says:13th April 2012 at 12:13 pm“George Monbiot, who knows more about climate change that most of us could ever know, rather likes warm, sunny days. What Delingpole wanted to do here [suggesting that George Monbiot would probably ban warm days] was to remind his readers of Margaret Thatcher’s great disdain for what she called ‘the nanny state’ where everything that might harm us is banned.”

    – Aussie psychologist Dr Dorothy Rowe’s book “Why we lie” (Fourth Estate, London, 2010), page 234.

    Rowe’s book includes a huge amount of “climate change” evidence (which nobody will disagree with), but deceives by making no mention of natural climate variability at all. She assumes implicitly that 100% climate change is unnatural.

    Pseudo-science assumes “climate change” evidence by denying the ever present evidence of natural climate variability; the latter is not an unknown since there is evidence for significant climate fluctuations in all the data and statistical averaging is used by the IPCC to suppress the evidence for these fluctuations, producing a smooth hockey stick shaped curve. See Dr Spencer’s latest satellite data: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/ushcn-surface-temperatures-1973-2012-dramatic-warming-adjustments-noisy-trends/ which shows global warming stopped in 2000, 12 years ago. The mechanism for long duration climate variations is cirrus cloud cover shadowing the surface, produced by the Wilson cloud chamber effect (cosmic rays from the sun produce vapour trails, converting infra-red absorbing water vapour into sunlight-reflecting cloud droplets).

    IPCC fiddles H2O feedback parameters to fit its prejudices, starting off with the idea that 100% of climate change is due to rising CO2. It then uses the circular epicycle argument, whereby models are fiddled to fit the data using false implicit assumptions, and the “goodness of fit” through these two fiddled parameters is alleged to support the model.

    IPCC models assume about 30% of global warming is from CO2 and 70% is from H2O vapour (not clouds) which evaporates in response to CO2 and amplifies the overall warming. There is no inclusion of any natural climate change mechanism in any IPCC models, so they implicitly assume 100% of climate change is anthropic, and this delusion is the basis for selection of the feedback parameters based on fitting historical data, the “justification” being entirely dependent upon this denialism of any natural climate change.

Comments are closed.