The Politics of Climate Change: Green New Deal And Other Madness


FOTCM Member
They have a goal of half of the cars on the road being electric by 2030, but claim that they aren't going to force it, they'll just use encourage it with things like tax breaks and subsidies.

Well, it's always their tactic to downplay the authoritarian aspect of things like that. But first, tax breaks and subsidies are essentially a form of enforcement, because if one player on the market doesn't need to make profit, how do you think the others will fare? And second, this is only step one. Step 2 will be shaming of those still sticking to real cars. Step 3 will be special prohibitions, such as inner cities and the like. And on it goes. Just think of smoking, vaccines etc. - it's always the same game. Grrrr.


FOTCM Member
Well, it's always their tactic to downplay the authoritarian aspect of things like that. But first, tax breaks and subsidies are essentially a form of enforcement, because if one player on the market doesn't need to make profit, how do you think the others will fare? And second, this is only step one. Step 2 will be shaming of those still sticking to real cars. Step 3 will be special prohibitions, such as inner cities and the like. And on it goes. Just think of smoking, vaccines etc. - it's always the same game. Grrrr.

Yes, it really is something of a 'boiling frogs' scenario, isn't it? - Where the agenda gets very slowly, insidiously ramped-up and, for a seemingly long time, nothing major seems to be occurring. When in reality, a lot of in-roads are being made that seem harmless enough on the surface because they are designed to not call too much negative attention to itself. Then, one day - Whammo! Enough data points are connected by enough people paying attention, and there can be no denying that something nefarious is afoot.

For a while, this Agenda 21 thing seemed like just one of those "semi-fringe conspiratorial ideas" surrounding the UN that I didn't pay much attention to. But darn if it isn't now pretty clear that this shtick casts a rather large net around the energy of the liberal-minded - as well as Wall Street and the globalist types who are being given their marching orders.


Dagobah Resident
I was watching a dutch interview, normally not, for most is spin, about the climate agreement. It was rammed through parliament without price tag. Members were asked: does it cost 1 , 10 or 100 billion? We have only 17 million inhabitants. Overall, the climate price tag, made by the interviewee, is a 100 billion...
But that is not all. If this green new deal is something similar, count on a 20 fold cost for the USA.


FOTCM Member
I am wondering, if this Tweet is humorous or serious:

Was curious with the two #tags that were mentioned and had a look - it was like walking into a parallel universe, into the wrong bar, and it was a real joy to press escape, yet I wonder about that, escaping that is.

As for RB, she seems to have a humorous side detected in her writing, yet tinged of course with a serious side depending on the issue (also detected). Her convictions are her convictions, and how God grants her or science protect her in either role, I'm not sure. However, a guy with the initials PC came up from behind here tweet with a rescue and answered "Or offset the GHGs you can’t mitigate!"

"Can't Mitigate" - Offsets, the go to guy in Canada, the esteemed Dr. David Suzuki (David was once pretty good at sticking it to Monsanto as a good trained geneticists, yet decided genetics was no longer his thing and the rest is history for his foundation once carbon came along) reminded me of the offset gymnastics again:

"A carbon offset is a credit for greenhouse gas reductions achieved by one party that can be purchased and used to compensate (offset) the emissions of another party." Okay, so in other words there is money to be made for someone out of all this gas, is that correct? Now David cautions, though: "As with any purchase, buyers need to choose their offsets carefully, particularly as the voluntary offset market is largely unregulated." Right, unregulated, that needs to get fixed, thank you David.

Now here is RB's handle from The Union of Concerned Scientists in the fight against GHG et al. She also has some diet advice “Beef, in particular, is very carbon-intensive food.” Personally, I think beef is well worth all that extra carbon, so I don't quite agree, yet a Ph.D I'm not. Thus I guess she has "the wisdom to know the difference," and the willingness to study and explain it all, and also she can offset, if done carefully, so that is good.

Along the lines of AOC, I met an old family friend from long ago and we discussed the past (family matters and such) and he let me know that his sister, who I grew up with, has now championed, in a matter of fact way, veganism. It was kind of odd, I was taken aback, you know before you might get hey, my sister switched from Catholicism to Judaism, or went full Islam, now it is Veganism (a darn ism at that). I didn't know what to say other than I hope that that works out well for her.

I better end here, thanks for the 'serenity prayer.'


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
President Putin at the recent International Arctic Forum told is that there is no solid proof that climate change is man-made ( see video below, 3.19 min)

He pointed out that Russia also has very different data than the Finnish president about the amount of CO2 that countries produce. Putin himself said that he had been to the Arctic, where he saw old ice layers with high CO2 concentrations. The ice layers were formed in the Middle Ages, or perhaps even earlier, he emphasized. "There was no industry then," said the Russian president. "Volcanic activity may therefore have more influence than all human consumption and the automobile industry." Niinisto asked Putin whether Russia is doing enough against ‘climate change’, to which he replied that Russia has signed the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.

Russia did that because it can't hurt, he said. But, he continued that the cause of global warming is not clear: "Is it emissions, or is it something else?"



The Living Force
FOTCM Member
"Climate change" has been discussed for many years and in several threads on the forum. By "climate change" I mean the official AGW narrative of CO2, fossil fuels, global warming. Below is a list of the titles according to the year the thread was posted. At the end, there are a few that also carried the search words, but where the view was broadened, as in Sott Talk Radio shows, followed by a comment on the changed editorial policy of the The Guardian.

Jun 14, 2006​
ANYONE SMELL A RAT! Tuesday, June 06, 2006 The Environmentalists' Climate Change Strategy The environmentalist Gristmill blog (Grist) points out an important document in the climate change debate: Americans and Climate Change: Closing the Gap Between Science and Action...​
Jun 27, 2006​
From Maybe I don't have all my facts straight. I believe he signed the Clean Air Act within days of steeling the 2000 election. It had to have been written by cronies before he got elected. It...​
Jul 20, 2006​
Nov 20, 2006​
Source : Subscribe to read | Financial Times This kind of article really ticks me off. How easy for the PTB to shift the blame on the population when the climate is going to get very ugly no matter what. First, there was never a realistic search from their side...​

Comment: Recently, 13 years later, some politicians have spoken about higher retirement age, more tax including more tax on transportation in general etc in order to avoid "climate change".
Nov 4, 2008​
Opinion Climate Change Bill makes chilling reading 02-11-2008 Who says the Almighty has not got a sense of humour? Last Tuesday MPs spent yet another six hours discussing what is potentially the most expensive single...​
Mar 7, 2009​
Climate minister says Obama's commitment to environment has raised prospects of global agreement at UN summit in December Not sure if this really belongs in the environmental issues section because the real agenda...​
Feb 3, 2010​
[...] I could barely believe this when I saw it just now -- Bin Laden and global warming -- two of our favorite propaganda memes, together for the first time. :love: I guess Climategate has really upset the apple...​
Oct 2, 2010​
This is a most disturbing video released by It was pulled within hours due to the backlash it created. In the video it shows people getting blown up by a psychopath with a big red button for not going along with reducing carbon emissions by 10. No remorse -just acts as though it...​
The video was pulled, but too late: Here it is, disgusting, but compared to what has been happening, it is becoming less far off the mark:
The Wiki has:
No Pressure
is a 2010 short film produced by the global warming mitigationcampaign 10:10, written by Richard Curtis and Franny Armstrong, and directed by Dougal Wilson. Intended for cinema and television advertisements,[1] No Pressure is composed of scenes in which a variety of men, women and children in every-day situations are graphically blown to pieces for failing to be sufficiently enthusiastic about the 10:10 campaign to reduce CO2 emissions. The film's makers said that they viewed No Pressure as "a funny and satirical tongue-in-cheek little film in the over-the-top style of Monty Python or South Park".[2] Before its release, The Guardian described it as "attention-grabbing" and "pretty edgy."[1]

The film was withdrawn from public circulation by 10:10, on the same day it was released, due to negative publicity.[3] Charities that had backed the film stated they were "absolutely appalled" upon seeing it, and several of 10:10's corporate and strategic partners withdrew from partnership.[2]
More on the Guardian later. Before moving on one could mention this article: Girl Reportedly Bullied by Teacher, Classmates for Refusing to 'Climate Strike' and a comment in
Scandinavian observations and perspectives Wait a minute... so official authorities (in this case a teacher) bully people into posing as revolutionaries and marching on the streets... what does that remind me of? Ah yes, fascism and communism. Jeez, at least the 68ers were up against the authorities at that time, at least for a while. But these manipulated brats just follow orders. It's sad and pathetic.
And now I return to threads begun in 2010:

Oct 18, 2010​
On the east coast there is a heat wave making the climate change debate more intense. When blizzards hit the east last March, the debate was hot also. Extreme weather events are being seized upon by both sides to support their global warming arguments within the debate that is all about climate...​
Jun 18, 2011​
Mar 3, 2012​
Professor criticized for course denying climate change - McLeans Magazine (Canada) ...more at _Professor criticized for course denying climate change - Macleans.caclimate-change/​
Nov 19, 2013​
_Environment | Weather, Climate Change & Conservation News | The Ageclimate-change/climate-change-scientists-attack-david-murray-for-serious-slur-20131101-2wqcc.html Not sure if this is newsworthy but I think it's interesting, given that he's a banking figure, who went on to express concerns over the integrity of the...​
Dec 12, 2013​ here reports on the intensified spreading of Noctilucent clouds around Antarctica and chooses to blame it all on climate change. We know as they mention in the report that these clouds ARE the result of meteor smoke so it seems quite unbelievable that they actually choose to...​
Sep 24, 2014​
...melting dramatically and people are also not paying enough attention. This is circulating far and wide on FB, perhaps they are preparing the masses for some drastic pro-climate change laws/restrictions in the near future? Cut down on meat consumption, energy usage and maybe even smoking? :huh:
May 8, 2015​
I noticed this post on Facebook and a barrage of abuse that the very notion that climate change is a hoax. Interesting that this has gone through all the "official" media channels. Here's one article from a government media agency: Another key snippet from a Murdoch's newspaper: On social...​
Jan 19, 2019​
I have been tracking the Climate Change narrative on Facebook for a while now. It amazes me that some people can get it when it comes to Russiagate, Iran, the Deep State etc but are completely taken in by the orthodox approach to global warming. ) I mention this only because all of the links...[/QUOTE]​
May 17, 2006​
Just got this article supporting the idea of abrupt climate change from a friend who says he saw it years ago but didn't want to pay $8 to read it online. Now free, I guess: It basically supports the C's 1997 assertion that, "One change...​
Jul 3, 2008​
Quite a turnaround, apparently Newseek corrected their "error" 31 years later! Original article in pdf form is here: And here's the article in text form​
Oct 12, 2008​
OpEdNews Original Content at Origins of Violence: Climate Change in the Sahara 7,000 Years Ago ________________________________ Hmmm... in short, it was a time when many pathologies may have originated due to environmental stresses.​
Feb 21, 2013​
Up next on SOTT Talk Radio... Climate Change, Food Shortages and the Future Record snowfall in the northern hemisphere, record heatwaves in the southern hemisphere; tornadoes in places they have never appeared before; constant flooding and persistent drought; record snow cover and unseasonal...​
May 18, 2013​
I've seen that Svensmark' work is already mentioned in a few topics and on sott, but I couldn't find this video there so here it is. There is experimentally proven relationship between sun, cosmic rays, aerosols formation around which clouds form. Of course, it's ignored greatly by mainstream...​
Jun 22, 2013​
Sunday 23rd June 2013: Ice Age Cometh? Extreme Weather Events and ‘Climate Change’ It’s midsummer in the northern hemisphere, where record rainfall and the coldest spring in living memory have European meteorologists forecasting ‘a year without summer’ for most of Western Europe. While...​
And back to the Guardian:
The Guardian said about the video No Pressure that it was "attention-grabbing" and "pretty edgy". Today they write in their plea for donations at the end of an article
At this critical time…
…we can’t turn away from the climate crisis. For The Guardian, reporting on the environment is a priority. We give reporting on climate, nature and pollution the prominence it deserves, stories which often go unreported by others in the media. At this pivotal time for our species and our planet, we are determined to inform readers about threats, consequences and solutions based on scientific facts, not political prejudice or business interests. But we need your support to grow our coverage, to travel to the remote frontlines of change and to cover vital conferences that affect us all.
The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda.[...]
See also Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment which came up on
The Guardian is open enough to say where it is going, but some others follow suit without telling:
One Danish editorial wrote: "Thunberg ignites a torch for a generation running out of time".

Some try to fend off the propaganda with humour, as this found on the previous link:
It is as if some of the ideas for policies related to "climate change" that came up in the threads three-five-ten-thirteen years ago are becoming more manifest. Where will it go from here?
Last edited:


FOTCM Member
The video above is quite telling of the mindset of these people. Since then there have been calls for prosecuting people who are sceptics for crimes against humanity or biocide as some call it. Here are a few links starting with January 2016:
_Climate Change Denial Is a Crime Against Humanity on a Planetary Scale - Planet Experts
JANUARY 5, 2016
Climate Change Denial Is a Crime Against Humanity on a Planetary Scale
Recently I wrote to several environmental attorneys I worked with during my career with the U.S. EPA. It was a plea for help to find a legal way to prosecute those deceiving the public about global warming, climate change and the consequences to the future of civilization. Consider this as a letter to all jurors as a plea for help to stop these crimes against humanity.

We have got to find a way to stop the lies and the knowing and willful deception by a few self-serving sociopaths.[...]

So people who are sceptical are called climate change deniers and are labelled as being sociopaths.

Then June 2017 in the Nation:
_Donald Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Accords Is a Crime Against Humanity
Donald Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Accords Is a Crime Against Humanity
This is murder—even if Trump’s willful ignorance of climate science prevents him from seeing it as such.
By Mark HertsgaardTwitter

JUNE 1, 2017

Then in Nov 2018:
_Trump's failure to fight climate change is a crime against humanity
(CNN)President Donald Trump, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and others who oppose action to address human-induced climate change should be held accountable for climate crimes against humanity. They are the authors and agents of systematic policies that deny basic human rights to their own citizens and people around the world, including the rights to life, health, and property. These politicians have blood on their hands, and the death toll continues to rise.

Then in Feb. 2019 by the Jacobin Magazine. Interesting as it was the Jacobin crowd that made the French revolution very violent instead of entering into discussions.
_It’s Time to Try Fossil-Fuel Executives for Crimes Against Humanity
It’s Time to Try Fossil-Fuel Executives for Crimes Against Humanity
It isn't hyperbole to say that fossil-fuel executives are mass murderers. We should put them on trial for crimes against humanity.
Green New Deal advocates have been right to focus on the myriad ways that decarbonization can improve the lives of working-class Americans. But an important complement to that is holding those most responsible for the crisis fully accountable. It’s the right thing to do, and it makes clear to fossil-fuel executives that they could face consequences beyond vanishing profits.

When arguments and fact are missing, then just mention the holocaust to get the message through:
By 2030, annual climate and carbon-related deaths are expected to reach nearly 6 million. That’s the rough equivalent of one Holocaust every year, which in just a few short years could surpass the total number of people killed in World War II. All caused by the fossil-fuel industry.

The author of that article then goes on to talk about Nazis and the Nuremberg trial and how to get a new Nuremberg trial going again. In short these people want blood, just like in the video, Thorbiorn posted.


FOTCM Member
So people who are sceptical are called climate change deniers and are labelled as being sociopaths.

The author of that article then goes on to talk about Nazis and the Nuremberg trial and how to get a new Nuremberg trial going again. In short these people want blood, just like in the video, Thorbiorn posted.

Yes, using 'deniers' in their discourse is akin to the holocaust denier on a psychological level; so they just repeat it at every opportunity and thus people equate the two issues as the same.

I've actually been encouraged by speaking with people recently as many are starting to know (at least feel) that something is all wrong with what is being said. I've yet to find a person, though, who understands the science, although they can recite some of the talking points from the IPCC.

This new level from the folks at the Guardian and this ex EPA guy is a doubling down process it seems to keep people in line and from speaking out.



FOTCM Member
I wrote almost two years ago a draft to an article about where this thing of global warming hysteria seemed to be heading. I missed the red thread in the article a bit during the research, yet still found something that might be of interest in this thread. In light of Darwinism and what we have learned since, it makes even more sense now in hindsight, I think. The first part of the article, I will put in quotes, so that it wont take up too much space (as is can be expanded/collapsed and then post the rest without quotes as it is relevant to this thread.

Flatland: Global Warming alarmists predict warming of 10°C by 2026
Sept 18th 2017

AGW Arctic sea ice projection

Different projections based on the PIOMAS projection found on the site. Hyping up fear is easy with a graph!
I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my dear readers, who are privileged to live in Space.

Imagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows - only hard and with luminous edges - and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen.

~ Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott
Looking around for numbers on the current Arctic sea ice extent, I ended up spending a couple of hours on a site called Arctic News. Managed by activist Sam Carana, very much a believer in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), reading it I felt like I'd entered a different reality. The site has many contributors listed, including professors Paul Beckwith and Peter Wadham, both renowned for annually announcing that this will be the year the Arctic becomes ice-free.

Just six weeks ago, they predicted that all Arctic sea ice will be gone by this month (September 2017)!
Arctic sea ice may well be gone by September 2017

The Arctic Ocean is warming up fast and this is melting the sea ice from below.

Sea surface temperature anomalies are well above 8°C (14.4°F) in several parts of the Arctic Ocean.

The image on the right shows sea surface temperature anomalies from 1961-1990 for the Arctic (60°N - 90°N) on August 2, 2017.

Global sea ice extent is at a record low for the time of the year, as illustrated by the graph below, by Wipneus.

arctic sea ice
© Wipneus
Note that they used data from 1961-1990, a cooler period, as a baseline. And the graph that they used doesn't match others, such as from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). Graphs, like statistics, are easy to arrange to make them fit an agenda, cherry-picking areas where it is warm, then extrapolating. The Arctic Ocean covers over 14 million km2, so there's ample room for finding 'anomalies' to push an agenda.

Reading on, another astonishing claim on Arctic News is that global temperatures could rise by 10°C (18°F) by 2026:
AGW alarmists global temperatures rise by 10 degrees by 2026
The global average temperature rose just 1°C from 1750 till 2012, but they want us to seriously consider that in the following 14 years the temperature will rise by 9 degrees!? Actually, the article concludes by suggesting that that it could even happen earlier... in 2021! ("assuming that no geoengineering will take place").

Looking at the graph above, one can see that 2017 is going to fall, but, and this is the advantage of graphs, the following years aptly make up for what 2017 is lacking. Every little added component, just gets a nice increase each year as if there only are positive feedback loops. One of the items listed is aerosols (green) and which has the biggest contribution to the 10°C rise, more than all the accumulated rises until the present time. By aerosols, they clearly mean, those caused by man and not those caused by volcanic eruptions or desert dust:
Emissions AGW alarmists

A rise of Global temperatures by 2.5° in a matter of weeks! Really or perhaps more likely a sign of a schizoidal's limited worldview?
With dramatic cuts in emissions, there will also be a dramatic fall in aerosols that currently mask the full warming of greenhouse gases. From 1850 to 2010, anthropogenic aerosols brought about a decrease of ∼2.53 K, says a recent paper. While on the one hand not all of the aerosols masking effect may be removed over the next few years, there now are a lot more aerosols than in 2010. A 2.5°C warming due to removal of part of the aerosols masking effect therefore seems well possible by the year 2026, especially when considering further aerosol impact such as caused by burning of biomass, as discussed in this post.
Man-made atmospheric aerosols are caused primarily by of fossil fuels. Cutting back these emissions as they wish, will then lead to a run away global warming, according to them. They even advocate drastic cuts. That is where geoengineering comes into the picture as they mentioned earlier and which was pointed out by a reader on our SOTT Forum. Lo and behold if not a Bill Gates funded project comes to the rescue with a geoengineering plan to save the world from global warming. Herefrom the Guardian:
David Keith, one of the investigators, has argued that solar geoengineering could be an inexpensive method to slow down global warming, but other scientists warn that it could have unpredictable, disastrous consequences for the Earth's weather systems and food supplies. Environmental groups fear that the push to make geoengineering a "plan B" for climate change will undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Keith, who manages a multimillion dollar geoengineering research fund provided by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, previously commissioned a study by a US aerospace company that made the case for the feasibility of large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering technologies.

Since it is impossible to simulate the complexity of the stratosphere in a laboratory, Keith says the experiment will provide an opportunity to improve models of how the ozone layer could be altered by much larger-scale sulphate spraying.
It might be worth remembering that 10 years ago, scientists discovered that they actually didn't know how ozone holes come into being:
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2).
"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."
Looking at the above graph about massive global warming one notices that there only are positive feedback loops, which is illustrated by another of the images from the site:
AGW positive feedback loops
© Sam Carana
Could it be that negative feedback loops as is commonly observed in nature as opposed to positive feedback loops are the norm, which is why Nature is much more resilient than alarmists would like to make us believe?

Another thing that is clear from looking at a site like Arctic-news, is that the world view is totally geocentric like in the days of the Catholic church under the inquisition. The sun's influence is not considered apart from thermal radience. There is no mention of the Solar cycle, the Grand Solar Minimum approaching, sunspots, the human cosmic connection, cosmic rays or some considerations brought up by the electric universe theorists. (For a comprehensive understanding of this check out the book by Pierre Lescaudron Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection) Nor are the thousands of scientists who criticize the AGW theorists listened to, as all who question the new religion of AGW - like the days of the inquisition - are deemed to be heretics, who only are worthy of the war crimes tribunal for crimes against humanity. The eco-warriors are out to quell dissent. See here, here and here.

The part above is just for reference for some of the things developed in the thoughts below.

So now the bit which is relevant to this thread as I think part of the shtick about global warming and why it is financed and pushed by the deep state is because it is also about depopulation:

Reading more on Arctic-News and its affiliated sites (Sam Carana manages 4/5 sites, ArcticNews, ClimatePlan, The Biochar Economy,Transport Electrification and Below 2C) then one finds that it is not so friendly as it alleges. The world that they envision is one with only 2 billion people living as deep ecologist Eileen Crist suggest in the linked article. How?
If women (and their partners) today were voluntarily to choose having an average of one child (meaning many would choose none, many one, and others no more than two), then the world's population-instead of climbing toward 10 billion-would stabilize and then begin descending toward 2.

One of the most effective and tangible ways to address climate disruption, as well as to curb the excessive consumption of everything (including food), is to move toward the substantial reduction of the number of consumers worldwide, meaning both the populations of the developed world and of "emerging economies" in Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.
The drive to procreate is one of the strongest drives if not the strongest drives a human being has. China had an enforced 1 child policy from 1979 to 2015 during which time the population grew by 30+%. It caused many problems including a huge number of female infanticide and proved unworkable, hence its abolishment. So to imagine that women could be encouraged to just have one child on average is like saying that we will abolish war by telling bullying countries to voluntarily give up killing others.
She even says that it could be swift:
Decline of Birth Rates

The combination of heightened public awareness, the empowerment of women, and the availability and affordability of up-to-date reproductive information and services yields swift declines in birthrates.

The following measures are recommended by Eileen Crist to reduce current birthrates:
  • prioritizing the education of girls and women;
  • establishing reproductive clinics that are accessible and affordable to all;
  • training large numbers of health workers for grassroots education and support;
  • making marriage counseling widely available;
  • bringing sex education to school curricula;
  • providing the full array of modern contraceptive methods for free or at minimal cost, and
  • instituting legal, safe abortion services.
Is there in the above any understanding of other cultures, religions, hormones, free will, not to mention the sovereignty of individual countries? Eileen is a sociologist from America, a country where one would be able to tick all the boxes in the above list of how to swiftly reduce birthrates. So why would a deep ecologist not argue for that the US would be a prime place to start depopulation as the following makes clear:
Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.

On average, one American consumes as much energy as

370 Ethiopians

In other words, the 5% of the world's population that lives in the U.S. has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other five largest countries.
The question therefore is how much has the population in the US been reduced in recent times? Well, actually it has grown from 281 million in the year 2000 to 325 million in 2017. A growth of 44 millions Americans, who would consume the equivalent of 16 billion more Ethiopians!!!

When one looks at a site that Eileen Crist quotes from, one can see from the pictures that depopulation is not actively sought in the first world, but in Africa, Asia etc.
Pop. control

Enter Bill Gates
This wish for depopulation happens to tie well into the plans of those who consider most of us as being useless eaters. And they might not believe that volunteering to just have one child will be do the trick that they have in mind. This is where 'philantrophist' Bill Gates mentioned above in funding of geoengineering comes into the picture and he is no stranger to depopulation:
Now Obama and his Administration, the US Government, have teamed up with "Mr Vaccinate All Africans" Bill Gates, a eugenics protégé and intimate of David Rockefeller. Obama and Gates share a dark secret. They are colluding to contaminate the incredibly rich and productive soils of Africa with GMO, GMO from a company where Gates is a major stockholder, Monsanto.

The Swanby report documents how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation works hand-in-glove with USAID by funding organizations such as the African Agriculture Technology Foundation whose aim is to promote introduction of GMO crops into Africa. Gates also works closely with the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations in their Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, which pushes GMO crops as the wonder advance in biological science. If harvest failure, declining crop yields and mandatory use of highly toxic Roundup weed killer from Monsanto-which has been proven to kill cells in human embryos-can be called a biological wonder, we should perhaps see it through the eyes of eugenics advocates like Bill Gates and David Rockefeller who have dreamed of biochemical population reduction for decades.

In effect, we have the first African-American US President, through the US AID, in an alliance with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Monsanto to spread death and destruction of natural agriculture in Africa.
Bill Gates has been quite focused on finding ways of getting rid of useless eaters for years and no doubt only little if any protest will come from the side of SJW groups such as deep ecologists and global warming alarmists as they see humans as a scourge on the earth, as little more than "intelligent apes". Apart from using Africa and India as a mass vaccination testing ground, Bill has come up a new thing for depopulation, namely the "temporary" sterilization microchip implant:
The birth control chip is the brain child of a professor, Robert Langer, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bill Gates and Melinda foundation has funded the research and the prototype is ready for human testing. The chips will be ready for sale by the year 2018 according to Robert Langer. The institute's Chip Foundation and Bill Gates' foundation have been working on the birth control chip for past three years.
As usual, "The main target" for the testing phase of the chips are women in third-world countries. That means African and Indian women will be human guinea pigs, subject to more of Gates' destructive horrors, like paralyzing nearly 50,000 Indian children with his polio vaccine tests. Or deaths/paralysis in Pakistan and more paralysis in Africa.
Looking at this subject it is hard not to see how SJW naively are being used by powerful psychopathic oligarchs to further their agenda of totalitarian control over the world population. That is why one finds the same names popping up of billionaires funding green technology while also funding the Deep State's endless wars to subjugate recalcitrant states who dare to say to the designs of the hegemonic elite. And what better way to ponerise our society than by funding schizoidal type Social Justice Warriors who easily find an audience among a generation or two who due to growing up in happy and peaceful times, have become 'victim' to egotism and societal hysteria. As written in Political Ponerology about Schizoidal characters:
(Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful,while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people's intentions. They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological world view makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: "Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea." Let us call this typical expression the "schizoid declaration".Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty
What strikes me about the fear porn coming from the global warming alarmists and greatly furthered by the Fake News MSM, and the call for urgent action NOW, coupled with the pushing for depopulation, is that it is as if there is a time table that those behind pulling the strings are adhering to. Is there a desire to get rid of us useless eaters just for make "Lebensraum" for the elite or is it also to make space for a more compliant type of human beings to come and fill the vacancies in the not so distant future after possible earth changes has taken place. For earth changes are real and natural, but this fact is being twisted by a political agenda that at the roots of it doesn't have humanity's best interests at heart. Just as with the progressives SJWs fight for gender politics and war on Trump, the climate change alarmist also call for radical solutions This is all done to polarize society and divide people so that the rightful anger is not directed at the psychopathic elite where it belongs.

Unfortunately arguing with climate change alarmists or other social justice warriors is like trying to trying to deal with people from Flatland as no new information is allowed to penetrate the bubble.



The Living Force
FOTCM Member
There's this bit from Sweden. It looks like that the CO2 policy makers will shoot themselves not just in the foot very soon.
(translated with Google)

Bread giant stopped by electricity shortage - compare Sweden with developing countries
The bread giant Pågen is now prevented from expanding its business in Malmö because the electricity company Eon can no longer guarantee electricity to the company, states SvD Näringsliv.

Climate realists have long warned that the government's fanatical so-called climate policy can lead to electricity shortages in Sweden. The government has shunned criticism.

But on May 20, the electricity grid company Ellevio warned of an acute electricity supply shortage in Stockholm that threatens growth.

"We are in an historic emergency," said one.

And now concrete examples of what the electricity shortage can lead to.

During Monday evening SvD Näringsliv states that the bread giant Pågen plans to expand his plans to expand the business in Malmö. This is because the power company Eon can no longer guarantee that the planned bakery will have enough electricity.

- Power shortage is something one hears about in developing countries, says Pågens CEO Anders Carlsson Jerndal to the newspaper.

The company, which already employs 800 people in the city, wants to grow but cannot because of the electricity shortage.

In April, it was reported that electricity shortage threatens southern Skåne because Eon may be forced to shut down electricity production in Heleneholm's combined heat and power plant. This is because of the Löfven Government's extreme climate taxes, in the form of an eight-fold increase in the carbon dioxide tax and a tripling of the energy tax for precisely cogeneration plants.

Sveriges Radio writes that Eon will shut down electricity production in Heleneholm already this summer, because the taxes "make it too expensive to continue".

According to climate expert and technology doctor Lars Bern, the climate taxes are really about politicians having to get more tax money for the increasingly poor economy in Sweden. But since the income taxes are already at the maximum level, one uses the "climate bluff", which he has called it, as a pretext.


FOTCM Member
This thread has been merged with "The politics of "climate change": Green New Deal and other madness".


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In this post, I begin with an article on SOTT about cobalt mining and use it as an angle to put a perspective on 1) the conditions under which the mining takes place and 2) the demand for a whole range of minerals in the so-called green technologies, some of which are available in limited quantities and at a high cost.

The article was: Greening the planet: Glencore cobalt mine in DR Congo collapses, killing 43 miners
Below are a few documentaries and reports about the mining of cobalt:
For more on mineral mining in Congo, which was the topic of the article and with reference to this thread like a case study of just one of the many elements needed for the realization of a Green New Deal and a CO2 neutral planet, have a look at
This explains that some of the illegally mined ore somehow flows back into a legal mine, and others are sold to dealers in town who then connect to the global marked.

There is a documentary about the conflict between DRC and the multinationals:
Glenco is mentioned at 2:10

includes comments on Unicore

And this close to one hour documentary
from RT is incredible. They find a fixer in Congo, someone who can help them get around and into the mines, but they get so much more, as the interviews they have with him carries a whole story all by itself. Well worth watching I think.

The "Greening" part in Greening the planet: Glencore cobalt mine in DR Congo collapses, killing 43 miners might refer to the push to reduce CO2, by introducing green technologies. What is often forgotten by the proponents is that these technologies are very dependent on a whole range of elements from the periodic table. Cobalt is used in many batteries. and while some opponents of for instance coal as an energy source emphasize the accidents that this type of mining sometimes leads to, the mining of all the many elements needed in green technologies are, just like the mining of cobalt, by no mean "suffering free."

To get an idea of how many minerals are needed in the new technologies, below are a few links, excerpts from articles and illustrations.

A smartphones has some 30-75 different elements, depending on who you ask: The Chemical Elements of a Smartphone | Compound Interest which has: 30616
The problem of all these different minerals used in our smart phones and new technologies is that they are not all found in great amounts everywhere, or even in great quantity anywhere: ‘Endangered’ elements used to make phones are ‘running out fast’ has this illustration, where you find cobalt right after Fe or iron in the fourth row (fourth period) of the periodic table.

This following article explains: Smartphones: Smart Chemistry - American Chemical Society
Smartphone chemistry
If you are wondering what chemistry has to do wit
h smartphones, just look at the periodic table. Of the 83 stable (nonradioactive) elements, at least 70 of them can be found in smartphones! That’s 84% of all of the stable elements.

Metals are what make smartphones so “smart.” An average smartphone may contain up to 62 different types of metals. One rather obscure group of metals—the rare-earth metals—plays a vital role. These rare-earth metals include scandium and yttrium, as well as elements 57–71. Elements 57–71 are known as the lanthanides, because they begin with the element lanthanum. The lanthanides often appear as the first of two free-floating rows located at the bottom of the periodic table. Scandium and yttrium are included in the rare-earth metals because their chemical properties are similar to those of the lanthanides.

A single iPhone contains eight different rare-earth metals. If you examine several varieties of smartphones, you can find 16 of the 17 rare earth metals. The only one you will not find is promethium, which is radioactive.

Many of the vivid red, blue, and green colors you see on your screen are due to rare-earth metals, which are also used in the phone circuitry and in the speakers. Also, your phone would not be able to vibrate without neodymium and dysprosium.

Rare-earth metals are not only used in smartphones but in many other high-tech devices, too. They are found in televisions, computers, lasers, missiles, camera lenses, fluorescent light bulbs, and catalytic convertors. Rare-earth elements are so important in the electronics, communications, and defense industries that the U.S. Department of Energy dubbed them the “technology metals.”
There is a Youtube about the minerals and metals which at a rather basic level explains the problems getting the materials needed to make a smart phone.

Critical Minerals describes what critical minerals are:
Critical Minerals
Critical minerals are those that are essential to the economy and whose supply may be disrupted. Critical minerals also tend to be those on which a country is heavily import-reliant, so the minerals that are deemed critical will vary from country to country. Demand for many of these minerals has skyrocketed in recent years with the spread of high-tech devices that use a wide variety of materials.

Critical minerals are mineral resources that are essential to the economy and whose supply may be disrupted. The 'criticality' of a mineral changes with time as supply and society's needs shift. Table salt, for example, was once a critical mineral. Today, many critical minerals are metals that are central to high-tech sectors. They include the rare earth elements and other metals such as lithium, indium, tellurium, gallium, and platinum group elements.
Why do critical minerals matter?
y definition, critical minerals are essential for society. Demand for critical minerals such as rare earth elements has increased in recent years with the spread of high-tech devices for personal and commercial use such as wind turbines, solar panels, and electronics such as smartphones and tablets.
How does geoscience help inform decisions about critical minerals?
Geoscientists study the formation of critical minerals; explore for and locate them; help determine how to mine them economically, safely, and with minimal environmental impact; help protect water and ecological resources around the mines; and help reclaim disturbed land after mining.
See also: has this:
For another illustration of what elements and minerals are used in our daily lives see this illustration from 2001, so fewer minerals are listed than would be the case today:


  • Minerals used in daily life.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 1
Top Bottom