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

One of the largest international investment corporations, Vanguard, has sharply reduced support for the decisions of shareholders of companies on environmental and social issues - from 12 percent to 2.
Pennsylvania-based Vanguard, which manages $8.2 trillion, has recently led the way in making decisions on sustainable development, ESG (ecology, social policy and corporate governance). It was her recommendations that largely determined whether the company would reduce greenhouse gas emissions or revise the composition of employees in order to dilute it with gays or trans people.
Vanguard has reduced support for ESG following the other largest company of the top three investors - BlackRock. Its management reported that it now supports mostly recommendatory measures in only 7% of cases, compared with 22% last year.
It seems that sustainable development, despite the fashion introduced for it, turned out to be not at all as profitable as it seemed a few years ago.

Preparing to invest in something more PTB relevant and genuine? 🤔
The Portuguese government has its mouth full of going green. Citizens put up with a lot, especially with the public sector in some sort of free fall, yet when it comes to a direct danger to livelihood and health, people are putting up fierce fights. F.i. protest groups and local residents worked together and said NO to the plans of installing a mega solar farm by Spanish energy giant Iberdrola involving over 175,000 panels, planned to cover a key water catchment area in the Sotovento Algarve, in the south.

The mega solar farm (called the Estoi Photovoltaic Plant project), which Iberdrola intended to install in an area designated as an ecological reserve for the recharge of aquifers, the protest group Probaal actually did the homework of the government. They worked diligently for years, submitting around 175 pages of documentation to the public consultation process; with 75 pages of technical and legal arguments and 100 pages of supporting materials, including hydrological and biological studies specific to the project area. This had been their long-term plan but what surprised everyone was that in the end, 13 other groups and 847 individuals would also make submissions. A great example of how the fight for the good of everyone in a transparent, honest way inspires many. During these last two years of preparing arguments Probaal raised awareness of the problems that would be caused if a solar power plant was allowed to be built on this ecological land. They spread information through press, social media and held public meetings on site. There’s power in numbers: the local municipality told the group that it had tried to get Iberdrola to change its mind for the last two years, to no avail.

And three days ago, the Portuguese Environment Agency APA released its negative Environmental Impact Declaration, saying: “As a result of the assessment carried out, direct and indirect negative impacts were identified that are very significant, irreversible, cannot be minimised or compensated for in terms of factors that are crucial to the assessment of the project, namely ecological systems, water resources, the socio-economy and the landscape. Accordingly, an unfavourable decision is issued for the Estoi Photovoltaic Plant project.’’ And "the location proposed is one of “maximum infiltration, which is just as important, if not more important, in terms of guaranteeing the infiltration of water into the soil, guaranteeing the future in environmental terms, guaranteeing the quality of such an essential asset, and maintaining it in good condition should be a priority. APA believes that the scarcity of water outweighs other concerns, such as energy.’’

In northern Portugal, there is fierce resistance to the opening of an open pit lithium mine in Covas do Barroso, a village in northern Portugal of just 100 residents, mainly farmers, by British company Savannah Resources Plc., which was on 31st May 2023 given the green light (DIA) to go to the next phase in the licensing process.

The Barroso mine is a high-grade, low-iron, lithium project, in a place that is also a world heritage site for agriculture. Savannah Resources Plc expects to commence production in 2025 and hopes to extract 5,000tpa of lithium from Barroso, notably for electric vehicle batteries. Opponents of this project have been in this fight for five years. According to this article protesters and residents held a camp and demonstration in Covas do Barroso in August, and they are ready to continue their fight.

“If this project goes ahead, it will have to be carried out by force,” one of the principal opponents, Nélson Gomes. “It will have to be done against the will of the population. This is a project that goes against everything and everyone,” he said.
The association Unidos em Defesa de Covas do Barroso has been campaigning against this plan since its inception. It is backed by the municipality of Boticas whose mayor “reacted with sadness”, confirm reports, when the DIA was granted, stressing the mine would put an enormous amount of local investment in livestock farming, agriculture and tourism at risk.

The mine is also opposed by environmental organisations which concur wholeheartedly with the premise that mining activity will negatively affect the quality of underground water sources beyond the fact that it will also require large quantities of water in order to operate – therefore putting the area’s sustainability at risk. “Water is the most important resource we have, and we have to preserve it,” Nélson Gomes reiterates. “Since mining is one of the activities that consume the most water, this is, in fact, one of our biggest concerns: the water they will need for their mining and the water they will pollute.”

Moreover, Savannah estimates that the mine has a duration of 17 years, yet experts have suggested even the estimated duration is dubious and there may not be the reserves touted, in which case this project will have disrupted lives and businesses in a rural community for even less in terms of ‘economic benefit.’ Some assess the duration at half a dozen years only.

The APA’s decision allows the Barroso project to progress to the next stages of the licensing process, which will include a social impact assessment. The regulator has already said the project will need to offer a “socio-economic compensation package” that includes, for instance, paying royalties to the municipality where the mine will operate.

I would think that the APA's arguments in the solar farm case relating to the scarcity of water trumping other energy concerns could be applied to the lithium project as well, leading to denial of a final operating license. One can but hope...
A very blunt admittance from Patrick T Brown, who recently had a paper on the impact of global warming on California wildfires published in Nature, about focusing solely on 'global warming' and ignoring other factors just to get published. He clearly states that you have to follow the narrative or you simply will not get published in the more prestigious journals.

The editor in chief of Nature has refuted Dr Brown's claims, saying he rejected putting the other factors into the paper, not them.

Patrick T Brown claims studies about climate change are rejected by scientific journals if they do not 'support certain narratives' and they favour 'distorted' research which overstates dangers.

He says his research article, which was published last week in Nature and titled 'Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California', focused exclusively on climate change and intentionally ignored other key factors.

The US state has suffered extreme wildfires in recent years which have led to loss of life and property. Writing in The Free Press, Dr Brown said: 'I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature... want to tell.'

'And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives – even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.'

Dr Brown claimed the journals approach climate change research in the way 'the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause' of wildfires, including the devastating fires in Hawaii last month, which killed 115 people.

However, he pointed out research that showed 80 per cent of wildfires were started by humans.
He said: 'To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change.'

After watching this clip, I was intrigued and posted the bellow question for the C's (the idea put forward by David Dubyne)

'' The various CO2 sequestration plans that TPTB want to implement are part of a terraforming process for a different specie to inhabit the planet ? (their make-up being affected by the CO2 in the atmosphere) ''
Looks like our glorious leaders are now using the climate narrative to continue the use of Glyphosate on UK farms, despite British food production being cut to make space for 're-wilding'.

Speaking to the National Farmers Union, The UK environment secretary says Glyphosate is "critical for regenerative farming".

So, despite all the warnings and even the reluctant acceptance from the WHO of the harm Glyphosate causes, we are now using the climate narrative and 'regenerating nature' to OK the use of carcinogenic chemicals…

Theresa Coffee has been overruled before, in her previous role as Health Secretary (as I recall), before being shifted out of her job - so maybe this is just her keeping the farmers happy in the short term, but the way things are going, likely not…

(Oh, and culling badgers also helps... Obviously...)

Therese Coffey said the herbicide, which is the key ingredient in the weedkiller RoundUp, is necessary for farmers who are “desperate” to continue using it.
Asked how it is so essential, she told reporters: “Glyphosate is absolutely fine to be used. Like any chemical, it’s about a risk management process and I think that is successful within farming.”

Regenerative farming is defined as practices that rebuild organic matter and biodiversity in the soil, though there are studies suggesting that glyphosate is toxic to microbes that benefit plant growth and to bees, frogs, fish and some forms of marine life.

Glyphosate has been used to such an extent around the world that dozens of weed species in many countries, including the UK, have become resistant to it.

There is also some research suggesting that in evolving to withstand the toxic effects of glyphosate, some forms of bacteria are inadvertently becoming more resistant to antibiotics.

In 2015, the World Health Organisation labelled glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic”, though there is disagreement within the scientific community as to whether this is an established fact.
Ms Coffey maintained that her Government will be “led by the science” and during a speech at the NFU event, also committed to the continued culling of badgers for as long as necessary to stop the spread of bovine TB.

Speaking to the National Farmers Union, The UK environment secretary says Glyphosate is "critical for regenerative farming".

Windmills in her head.

Now Bayer of course:

In 2018, Roundup was purchased by Bayer. By then, consumers had filed thousands of lawsuits linking Roundup to cancer. The most common cancer associated with Roundup is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer committed to begin in 2023 replacing “its glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential Lawn & Garden market with new formulations that rely on alternative active ingredients.”

Monsanto has settled over 100,000 Roundup lawsuits, paying out about $11 billion as of May 2022. There are still 30,000 lawsuits pending. This includes 4,000 cases in multidistrict litigation (MDL) in California. MDL cases are not class-action suits. Instead they group cases together so that instead of answering the same question repeatedly in each separate lawsuit, the courts can resolve some specific issues for all of them at once.

Ms Coffey maintained that her Government will be “led by the science”...

Ms Coffey seems to have missed the history and legal suites, yet alas, she is lead by the science screed.

Tony Mitra has done a ton of work on the Glyphosate question, here he is back in 2022 discussing Chickpeas:
Dans la série : "ils mentent, ils manipulent, ils censurent"....
Cela a longtemps été considéré comme l'un des secrets les moins bien gardés de la recherche sur le climat : les études qui traitent de ce sujet - que ce soit au cœur ou en périphérie - doivent paraître aussi alarmistes que possible pour pouvoir être publiées dans des revues spécialisées de renom. Patrick T. Brown du Breakthrough Institute de Berkeley (États-Unis) a désormais également vécu cette expérience.
Le climatologue très connu dans son pays admet que dans l'étude sur les incendies de forêt en Californie, qu'il a plublié, il n'a au moins « pas dit toute la vérité ». Raison : Dans le passé, ses œuvres étaient souvent rejetées, notamment parce que leur contenu s’éloignait trop du « récit dominant ».
Il est obligé d'ignorer d’autres « facteurs manifestement pertinents », notamment la mauvaise gestion du secteur forestier et surtout les incendies criminels.
Tout doit être mis sur le dos du mensonger réchauffement !
In the series: "they lie, they manipulate, they censor"....This has long been considered one of the worst-kept secrets in climate research: studies that address this topic - whether at the core or on the periphery - must appear as alarmist as possible in order to be published in renowned specialist journals. Patrick T. Brown from the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley (USA) has now also had this experience.The well-known climatologist in his country admits that in the study on the forest fires in California, which he published, he at least “did not tell the whole truth”. Reason: In the past, his works were often rejected, notably because their content strayed too far from the “dominant narrative”.It is forced to ignore other “obviously relevant factors”, including poor management of the forestry sector and especially arson.Everything must be blamed on the false warming!

Scientific American in their forthcoming October issue is making the case for geo-engineering.
Luke Iseman and Andrew Song, founders of solar geoengineering company Make Sunsets, had sold “cooling credits” to companies and individuals; a $10 purchase would fund the release of a gram of SO2, which they said would offset the warming effects of a metric ton of atmospheric carbon dioxide for a year. They had planned a launch in Mexico but switched to the U.S. after the Mexican government forbade them.
They used the example of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991:
SRM replicates a natural phenomenon created by large volcanic eruptions. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it blasted 20 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere, creating an “aerosol parasol” that cooled the planet by about 0.5 degree C over the next year or so before the droplets settled back to Earth.
So $10 to fund the release of 1 gram of SO2 to offset the warming of 1 metric ton of CO2. This sounds similar to the Catholic church and its abuse during the middle ages of selling indulgence permit, which would temporarily mitigate sins committed.

Back to the article and trying to put it in context. One question one could ask is how much CO2, humans 'cause' per year. This article from last year gives the figure of 35 billion tons of CO2/year. This translates to roughly 4 tons per person per year. According to the above article then the spending of $40 per person would buy the release of enough SO2 to offset this or $320 billion per year. It sounds like a good scheme, raking in $320 billion per year by most likely forcing a tax on people to save the planet.

The article mentioned Pinatubo, but I had more the Tonga eruption last year in mind and looked up what it contributed of SO2. A scientific paper from the Chinese Academy of Sciences studied it and made this estimate of SO2 release based on infrasound waves:

In this study, we analyze different vibrations in the atmosphere, ocean, and solid Earth caused by the HTHH eruption from seismic and tsunami waveforms. We use numerical simulations with the local subduction zone condition to estimate the volcanic sulfur fluxes. We then compare the estimated infrasound waves and the released SO2 to previous volcanic eruptions. Our study provides a new constraint for the strength of the infrasound waves and the emissions of SO2 by the HHTH eruption.
They found:
The total emission amounts of SO2 are controlled by the amount of sulfur contained in the subducted plate as well as the pressure and temperature conditions of the subduction zones (Devine et al., 1984; Guo et al., 2003). The desulfurization of the basalt layer of the subducted mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific Plate is approximately 0.23 Tg (230,000 tons), which can produce the eruption amount of SO2 by 0.46 Tg for the local volcanic area (Carn et al., 2022). This observation is consistent with the 0.40–0.42 Tg of the SO2 eruption observed by the TROPOMI instrument on the Sentinel-5P satellite in the first 3 days ( Numerical modeling of SO2 is essential especially for the volcanoes with blurry satellite images or inefficient nearby filed observations. Assuming the desulfurization area (100 km2), magma upward lost (40%–80%), and porosity of the overlying Indo-Australian Plate (1%–5%), we estimated that the total surface eruption of SO2 during volcanic eruptions at the HTHH area can reach up to 2 Tg.
So the total release was estimated to be between 0.4-2.0 Tg, where T stands for terra or trillion.

Using the model of 1 gr SO2 offsets 1 ton CO2 then it appears that the Tonga eruption last year would offset between
400-2000 billion tons of CO2. Keeping in mind the figure that humans release 35 billion tons per year, then in one foul swoop (pun accidental), the Tonga eruption offset at a minimum what humans release of CO2 in 11 years and at the upper limit in 57 years. Tonga was not the only volcano that year which released SO2.

Some critics will point out that it will only offset it for one year and therefore we still need to fork out $40 per year. Yet volcanic activity has been increasing and offsetting the alleged human contribution of 35 billion does not appear to require much arm lifting for mother Earth.
In 2021, there was the eruption on the Canary Islands which over 3 months released an estimated 1.8 Tg according to this paper on the eruption.
The La Palma 2021 volcanic eruption was the first subaerial eruption in a 50-year period in the Canary Islands (Spain), emitting ~1.8 Tg of sulphur dioxide (SO2) into the troposphere over nearly 3 months (19 September-13 December 2021), exceeding the total anthropogenic SO2 emitted from the 27 European Union countries in 2019.
So while the Tonga eruption took days to release a huge amount of SO2, the Canary Islands took 3 month and in those 3 months released enough SO2 to offset 50 years of the human CO2 footprint. If we want to put that release in money terms using the $10 per gram SO2 released, then the Canary Island eruption saved humanity "cooling credits" worth $18 trillion.

So in short it is a scam and some plan to profit mightily from it while enslaving and reducing the human population.
Look at this clown believing herself better and belittling the global leaders of each country at the UN, below the translation:

"...wait for our political leaders, who are you, to have the will to do it.
This is a global agreement regarding the actions we will take.
This is no longer a negotiation.
That is why the 2030 Agenda is called Agenda.
And not a wish list."
Top Bottom