Ding, Dong – The Godfather of Global Warming Is Dead!

His name was Maurice Strong (picture above, on the right), Canadian billionaire, diplomat and UN apparatchik, and though you may not have heard of him, he probably did more to make your world a more expensive, inconvenient, overregulated, hectored, bullied, lied-to, sclerotic, undemocratic place than anyone post Hitler, Stalin and (his personal friend) Mao.

He’s the reason, for example, that most of the world’s leaders, 40,000 delegates and their attendant carbon mega-footprint descended here on Paris yesterday in order to talk about magical fairy dust for two weeks and then charge you $1.5 trillion (that’s per year, by the way) for the privilege.

He’s the reason that “climate change” is now so heavily embedded within our system of global governance that it is now almost literally impossible for any politician or anyone else whose career depends on the state to admit that’s it not a problem and to argue that there are more important issues in the world, like maybe the terrorism that killed over 130 innocent people just the other week now, where was it?- oh yeah, here in Paris where for some bizarre reason all the delegates are talking about carbon emissions instead…

He was the father of the mother of all climate summits: the one in Rio in 1992 that spawned a million and one bastard offspring, like the one in Paris now.

He was the main instigator of the blueprint for arguably the most sinister and insidious assault on liberty and free markets: Agenda 21.

If you had met him – if you’d even noticed him – you would have probably quite liked him:

One of the most remarkable things about Strong was how unremarkable he was in person. Somebody once said that you wouldn’t pick him out of a crowd of two.

Nevertheless, he was an avuncular and likeable figure, even to those who disagreed strongly with his world view, as I did. I interviewed him numerous times over a 20-year period, and found that he took scarcely-concealed delight in explaining his often Machiavellian political manoeuvrings.

But as I argue in Watermelons – which gave a lot of space to Strong – it’s a big mistake to expect that supervillains will always have scars down the side of their face and fluffy white cat on their lap.

Strong’s true evil lay in the effects of his acts, not in his (claimed) good intentions.

Then again, the mask did occasionally slip.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

UN Reveals Its Master Plan for Destruction of Global Economy

More dangerous than Al Qaeda

More dangerous than Al Qaeda

Former US secretary to the United Nations John Bolton once famously said: The [UN] Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. (H/T Milo)

But I’d say Bolton was being too modest in his aspirations. Far too modest. I’d suggest that if we lost all 38 stories the benefits to mankind would be almost incalculable. Right now, indeed, it’s likely that the United Nations poses a far greater threat to Western Civilisation and the worlds economic future than Al Qaeda does. Have a glance at its latest report World Economic And Social Survey 2011 and you’ll see what I mean.

The report argues that over the next 40 years our governments must spend an annual minimum of $1.9 trillion–that’s an eyewatering $76 trillion–steering the global economy onto the path of green growth.

But Green growth as the report more or less acknowledges is an oxymoron. That’s why, even though it was supervised by an alleged economist, Dutchman Rob Vos, the report is not at all ashamed to advocate limiting economic growth through rationing, punitive taxation and other forms of government intervention. Why? To combat Climate Change, of course.

Here’s the kicker:

Hence, if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation in a timely manner. Proposals to put limits on economic growth can be viewed in this context. (P.19)

And if shaving off $1.9 trillion from the world economy each year (that’s 3 per cent of the world gross product in 2010) results in further economic stagnation and a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren, well what the hell. As the report primly tells us, none of us actually needs to earn more than $10,000 a year. Anything more is greedy:

For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income of about $10,000. Similarlycross-country evidence suggests that there are no significant additional gains in human development (as measured by the human development index) beyond the energy-use level of about 110 gigajoules (GJ) (or two tons of oil equivalent (toe) per capita.

Are they seriously suggesting that developed economies should ration their people’s energy use? They surely are:

The Survey estimates that the emissions cap would be equivalent to primary energy consumer consumption of 70 gigajoules per capita per year, which means that the average European would have to cut his or her energy consumption by about half and the average resident of the US by about three quarters.

So, instead of being able to enjoy a hot shower every day all you Americans, you’ll now confine your warm ablutions to weekends only. Same goes for air-con in summer. And heating in winter. Welcome to the New Green World Order.

What’s amazing about this stuff and believe me, there’s plenty more where this came from is the unblushing shamelessness with which it advocates this economic insanity. Here is the world’s most powerful intergovernmental institution essentially arguing for the destruction of the global economy, enforced rationing, Marxist wealth redistribution, greater regulation, the erosion of property rights and global governance by a new world order of technocrats and bureacrats. And being so upfront about it they actually issue press releases, telling us what they’re planning to do and encouraging us to write about it.

This is the thing that amazed while I was researching my book Watermelons. If the global green movement is any kind of conspiracy, then it’s a conspiracy in plain sight. The people in power who are advancing its agenda–be it President Obamas house eco-activists John Holdren and Carol Browner, Green MP Caroline Lucas, and all those faceless apparatchiks at the UN and the EU–make absolutely no bones about what it is that they want to do to save the world from the peril of Climate Change: the end of Industrial Civilisation.

Which might be just about understandable if the crisis we were facing were so great that only the most extreme measures would suffice. But the crisis they describe is non-existent. As I argue in the second half of my book, economic growth and true environmentalism as opposed to the sick, bastardised, warped, hair-shirt perversion of it currently being dumped on us by the Greenies go hand in hand.

As economies grow richer, so they have more money to set aside for cleaner rivers, fresher air, as well as to invest in R & D projects for ever more eco-friendly forms of energy. Its no coincidence that quite the worst environmental damage in the last century was done in those countries behind the Iron Curtain. Free market economies tend naturally to be cleaner and healthier because clean and healthy is what people choose anyway if they can afford it. They don’t need government to step in and take their money in order to spend it inefficiently trying to achieve something which would have happened quite naturally anyway.

What this ludicrous UN report is advocating is the exact opposite of what the world needs if it is to become genuinely greener. All those people in the developing world, if they’re to live healthier, less environmentally damaging lives, the very last thing they need is hand-outs from richer economies. What they need are property rights and free trade and the chance to grow their economy to the point where cf. the Kuznets Curve they can afford the luxury of having to breed fewer children and to heat and light their homes without having to chop down the nearest trees. What they also need for us in the rich West to have thriving economies in order that we can import more of their produce.

Rationing and limits to growth are not the answer. The UN is a menace and we listen to its eco-fascist ravings at our peril.

Related posts:

  1. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  2. The global economy is collapsing. The solution is not more media studies graduates
  3. Miliband’s brilliant plan to combat climate change: ‘We’ll export unicorns to China’.
  4. The real reasons why one billion go hungry: wind farms, biofuels, sustainability…

2 thoughts on “UN reveals its master plan for destruction of global economy”

  1. Jakob Unger Jr. says:14th July 2011 at 8:22 pmJames, if you spend enough time delving through the voluminous UN publications, you come to the crux of this madness. The UN wants to reduce world population by 90%. Nine out of Ten of us must die, in order to “save the world”. Agenda 21, “Communitarianism”, UNESCO, and many other UN plans are thinly veiled preludes to genocide.
  2. Marina says:15th July 2011 at 6:41 pmI’ve downloaded today the report from the UN website and I can’t find two of the quoted texts in your article:“Hence, if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation in a timely manner. Proposals to put limits on economic growth can be viewed in this context.” (P.19)
    “For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income of about $10,000. Similarly…cross-country evidence suggests that there are no significant additional gains in human development (as measured by the human development index) beyond the energy-use level of about 110 gigajoules (GJ) (or two tons of oil equivalent (toe) per capita.”

    They must have edited it, this is the title of the one I’ve downloaded:
    World Economic and Social Survey 2011
    The Great Green Technological Transformation
    Overview

    Is this the one you refer to?

Comments are closed.

Exploding Watermelons: ‘Oh No, Not Another Ruddy Energy Revolution?’

Methane hydrate

"Well I suppose there's always ocean acidification..."

“Well I suppose there’s always ocean acidification…”

There’s so much good news coming out on the energy front at the moment that it’s hard to keep up. (Thanks for the first few to the Global Warming Policy Foundation which is really on fire at the moment)

Here’s a story from Forbes about attempts by scientists to tap into methane hydrate, perhaps the most powerful and abundant energy source on the planet:

They’ve done it in a laboratory: Scientists have injected carbon dioxide into the kind of  methane ice that underlies vast tracts of permafrost in the Arctic and lurks beneath the deep seafloor throughout the world.

In that experiment, the carbon dioxide exchanged with the methane molecules. While the CO2 was sequestered inside the ice, the scientists extracted an energy source that may exist in nature in greater volume than all other fossil fuels combined.

Here’s a report on China’s attempts to do likewise, by building an undersea base.

Located in east China’s coastal city of Qingdao, the base will cost 495 million yuan (76.2 million U.S. dollars) and will be a multi-functional institution that will aid China in its study and exploration of the ocean, according to Liu.

Scientists believe that the area’s seabeds hold abundant deposits of rare metals and methane hydrate, a solidified form of natural gas that may serve as a new source of energy.

Here’s a sensible, measured piece at Reason from my friend John Stossel on the currently more realisable dream energy solution, shale gas:

Frankly, I’m skeptical of all of them: lefty moviemakers who smear companies, companies with economic interests at stake, and the regulators, who are often cozy with industry and lack essential knowledge. The surest environmental protectors are property rights—and courts that assign liability to polluters.

But hydraulic fracturing is a wonderful thing. It’s not new. Companies have done it for 60 years, but now they’ve found ways to get even more gas out of the ground. That’s the reason gas is getting cheaper and panicky politicians no longer rant about America “running out of fuel.”

Natural gas is not risk-free, but no energy source is. Perfect is not one of the choices.

Here’s some good news for the Poles, who have massive shale gas deposits which they’re dying to exploit (not least so that they no longer need be exposed to economic blackmail from Russia) but which the EU is doing its damnedest to prevent because of its ideologically-driven campaign to impose  “renewables” at all costs on its various vassal states.

WARSAW — US President Barack Obama will focus on energy cooperation, including shale gas development, when he visits NATO partner Poland for the first time next week, a US diplomat said Wednesday in Warsaw.

“Energy is a pillar of Polish-American relations and it is sure to be the subject of discussions when President Obama visits Warsaw next week,” US ambassador Lee Feinstein told delegates to a shale gas conference here.

Global fuel giants are exploring Poland’s shale gas deposits, which a recent US study pegged as having a potential 5.3 trillion cubic metres of natural gas which could last Poland some 300 years.

The US has become a global leader in the production of natural gas extracted from shale, boosting its energy security, driving down prices and making it an exporter.

Poland hopes it could reap similar benefits. However, experts insist that with exploration in the very early stages, it is too soon to gauge commercial viability.

Ex-communist Poland covers 30 percent of its gas needs from domestic resources.

“The issue of shale gas has become an important element of Polish-American relations, strengthening the extra-military importance of the United States for Poland’s security,” Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told the conference.

Here’s some fantastic news from Canada: (H/T WUWT)

OTTAWA — Conservatives have kiboshed a carbon tax, Environment Minister Peter Kent confirmed Thursday.

“It’s off the table,” he told reporters Thursday after accepting an award from World Wildlife Fund International on behalf of Parks Canada.

“There’s no expectation of cap-and-trade continentally in the near or medium future.”

In 2008, the Conservatives floated a North America-wide cap-and-trade system trial balloon soon after U.S. President Barack Obama was elected.

But during the election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned the carbon-tax scheme proposed in the New Democrat platform would spike gas prices.

Nixing cap-and-trade will likely be a sore point for the NDP caucus, but Kent said he’d ignore any sabre-rattling from opposition benches.

“It’s off the table,” he told reporters Thursday after accepting an award from World Wildlife Fund International on behalf of Parks Canada.

“There’s no expectation of cap-and-trade continentally in the near or medium future.”

In 2008, the Conservatives floated a North America-wide cap-and-trade system trial balloon soon after U.S. President Barack Obama was elected.

And here’s a piece of news so glorious it almost makes me want to cry: at least one tiny corner of the planet has seen sense and begun dismantling one of the most loathsome blights on the landscape human folly has yet devised.

Mark Duchamp writes in with this news from the Lerida, Autonomous Community (state) of Catalonia, Spain:

A judge ordered the removal of 45 wind turbines on the grounds that planning laws were violated. There was no “general municipal plan” establishing a “reserva del suelo” – i.e. the land was not legally declared appropriate for the erection of wind turbines.

But let me put all this in context. Why is it exciting? Why should we care? Because it confounds one of the key tenets of the Green Religion which, unfortunately, has so come to dominate global political thinking in the last three decades: that there is such a thing as “Peak Energy” and that we owe it to future generations to preserve “scarce resources” by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and migrating to renewables.

This, in essence, is the subject of my new book Watermelons. If you want to understand the real reason why Anthropogenic Global Warming theory prompted the biggest and most expensive outbreak of mass hysteria in history you must look beyond the science and examine the psychopathology of the environmental movement’s key thinkers. Whether it’s Rachel Carson or Paul Ehrlich or Aurelio Peccei (of the Club of Rome) or John Holdren or Zac Goldsmith’s uncle Ted or Jonathan Porritt or George Monbiot or even Al Gore and the Prince of Wales, each one of them cleaves to the same neo-Malthusian philosophy: that there simply aren’t enough resources to fuel and feed Mother Gaia’s burgeoning population and that therefore the only solution is to reduce population while simultaneously killing off the hateful economic growth which uses up all those “scarce resources.”

To the doom-mongers who hold this view, news first of the shale gas revolution and now of the methane hydrate revolution is like a slap in the face with a wet kipper. They hate it because it denies them the excuse they so badly need if they are to succeed in imposing on an unconvinced world their glorious New World Order in which an enlightened elite of experts (ie people like them) taxes, regulates and generally bosses around the rest of us in the name of “planetary responsibility.”

First Shale Gas; now Methane Hydrate. Sounds very much to me like there IS a God. And that He really doesn’t think much of those who engage in Gaia Worship.

Related posts:

  1. Don’t let the Watermelons kill the Shale Gas Revolution
  2. Copenhagen: the sweet sound of exploding watermelons
  3. Watermelons v the Shale Gas Miracle
  4. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy

 

When you hear the word ‘Biodiversity’ reach for your Browning | James Delingpole

October 28, 2010

It's OK: I don't want ickle wickle spotty wotty to die either....

It’s OK: I don’t want ickle wickle spotty wotty to die either…

This column comes to you from sunny Rajasthan, India, where I have taken my family to look for leopards (and crocodiles and monkeys and black buck…).

As you can imagine taking the kids somewhere so exotic at half term is costing me an arm and a leg I can ill afford. But I want them to share with me the almost matchless pleasure of seeing big cats (or big anything else: sharks are good too; and bears; and elephants…) in their native habitat. Being amid unspoilt nature, whether it’s walking in the Welsh or Scottish hills or going on safari in Africa or India, is what makes me truly happy, and I’m sure this will rub off on my miserable, ungrateful, ‘urrggh it’s spicy we hate spicy food isn’t there a Pizza Hut round here?’ kids eventually too.

Why am I telling you this? Well partly in response to the unutterable fatuousness of some of the comments I got last week below my post on ‘Biodiversity.‘ Some of the pillocks who chipped in their tuppeny happeny’s worth seemed to imagine that the world divides into two kinds of people:

Lovely, cuddly-wuddly, caring, WWF and Greenpeace types who want to save nature.

and

Hateful climate-change-denying, biodiversity-loathing types who want to destroy it.

Uh, no. With respect, morons, that is not how things work. When I attack the concept of ‘Biodiversity’ – and note the inverted commas, that’s kind of key – I’m not voting, as the eco-fascist would-be suicide bomber James Lee so touchingly put it, against “The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.” What I’m railing against is the way a noble-seeming concept has been subverted by the watermelons of the green movement in exactly the same way as “Climate change” has and with precisely the same aims: to extend the powers of government; to raise taxes; to weaken the capitalist system; to curtail personal freedom; to redistribute income; to bring ever-closer the advent of an eco-fascist New World Order.

I’ve got nothing against biodiversity. But I’ve an awful lot against “Biodiversity.”

To understand why it’s such a menace, download this PDF put together by the wonderful Donna LaFramboise. Her basic point is this: that the claims of mass man-made species extinction currently being bandied about by liberal activist bodies like the United Nations and the BBC are based on the flimsiest of science.

A few days I ago I wrote about the chapter in the 2007 Nobel-winning climate bible that concludes 20-30% of all the Earth’s species are at risk of extinction due to global warming. I explained that the research paper on which this finding depends has been demolished by experts in that field. According to one of the world’s pre-eminent biologists, the 2004 Thomas study isn’t just flawed it’s “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.”

LaFramboise also recommends this essay by Stephen Budiansky, which concludes:

There is no scientific dispute that extinctions are occurring, that they are occurring at a rate above the natural level due to human action, and that strenuous efforts are needed to protect critical habitats, to eliminate invasive competitors that threaten species, and to prevent overexploitation.

But the egregiously bad science that is still being invoked to shore up wholly unsubstantiated predictions of catastrophic mass extinctions is only undermining the credibility of environmentalists, and is already causing a dangerous political backlash that has handed ammunition (exactly as in the case of global warming) to those who want to reject any and all evidence of human impacts on the natural environment.

Are you with me now?

Biodiversity is climate change is ocean acidification is welcome to the New World Order.

Related posts:

  1. Fracking: why have we allowed the left to make it a dirty word?
  2. ‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie
  3. Nazis: the gift that goes on giving
  4. Surface pleasure

One thought on “When you hear the word ‘Biodiversity’ reach for your Browning”

  1. Roger says:16th September 2011 at 3:13 amJames,

    Did you find any wildlife? I am curious to learn why you thought it was worthwhile going to India to see leopards etc. when you consider trying to conserve them to be a scam.

    Roger

There Is Nothing Cuddly about the WWF

Today in the Sunday Telegraph my colleague Christopher Booker breaks possibly the most important environmental story since Climategate: a devious plan, truly Blofeldian in its scope and menace, by a hard-left-leaning activist body to gain massive global political leverage and earn stupendous sums of money by exploiting and manipulating the world carbon trading market.

My cynical prediction is that this vitally important story will gain little traction in the wider media, especially not with organisations like the BBC. Why? Because the activist body in question has a lovely, cuddly panda as its motif, and a reputation – brainwashed into children from an early age – for truly caring about the state of our planet. What’s more, this latest campaign by the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) is very easy to spin as something unimpeachably noble and right. After all, what kind of fascistic, Gaia-hating sicko would you have to be NOT to applaud a delightful heartwarming scheme to buy up whole swathes of the beauteous, diversity-rich, Na’avi-style, Truffula-tree dotted Amazon rainforest to preserve it for all time from the depredations of evil loggers, cattleranchers and other such profiteering scum?

Hence the understandably cautious tone in Booker’s opening par:

If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental cconcerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

Only after this nod to fashionable concerns is Booker able to stick in the knife:

If it then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before, more than a few eyebrows might be raised. The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions. The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.
WWF, which already earns £400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest – as shown recently by the furore over a much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging.

Read the full story here. Then, for even more grisly details – about how, for example, the WWF’s scheme rides roughshod over the interests of native peoples, in way that might rather shock those who think of the organisation purely in terms of that cute panda – turn to Richard North’s comprehensive analysis at Eureferendum. The work North and Booker have done exposing the great AGW scam is quite beyond admiration. Truly they are the McIntyre and McKitrick of British journalism.

But why does the story matter so much? Because it goes to the heart of what is truly the most shocking and evil aspect of the Global Warming Industry: the way democratically unaccountable – but quite astonishingly well-funded – activist groups like the WWF (annual income: £400 MILLION) have been able to subvert the scientific process, and coax and bully politicians into making policies which will benefit the environment barely one jot, but which will fleece the taxpayer, increase energy bills, and make a handful of filthy rich investors even richer. If this scheme ever comes off – and it still might, if Americans are foolish enough to vote for Cap and Trade – then the WWF will have the financial clout of decent mid-ranking economy and a political influence as great as any G8 nation. For WWF, read New World Order.

Related posts:

  1. After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate
  2. ‘Global warming’: time to get angry
  3. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  4. Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.