by Larry Bell
Earlier this month a top UN “climate change” official announced that the organization is actively working to “intentionally transform” the entire world’s economy. Nor is she the only member of the UN’s climate elite to fess up to this priority, leaving little doubt that this has been the end goal of their contrived alarm crisis all along.
Speaking at a press conference in Brussels, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres (left) explained, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Referring to a so-called “Lima draft” international treaty proposed for adoption at a climate change conference which will be held in Paris later this year, Figueres pointed out that “in addition to the treaty, there are current climate change actions from now and until 2020, the financing packages and the so-called ‘Intended National Determined Conditions’ (INDCs).”
Yes, unfortunately President Obama has indeed showed his cards — and it’s clearly not a winning hand. His recent agreement with China’s Supreme Leader Xi Jinping trades away near-term U.S. energy security and prosperity for vague and distant promises.
Under terms of the understanding, Xi Jinping agrees “to intend to” shift at least 20% of Chinese energy production to nonfossil fuels and achieve peaking of fossil CO2 emissions by 2030 . . . at which point emissions are to begin receding. Incidentally, this shift to nonfossils is principally directed away from coal to nuclear power — not to windmills and sunbeams — and is something they have intended to do for some time.
In exchange for these nonconcessions, our negotiator-in-chief pledged that the U.S. will cut CO2 emissions by as much as 28% below 2005 levels by 2025, suggesting a doubling of the annual reduction pace he set for EPA’s anti-fossil fuel regulatory agenda in 2009.
Figueres emphasized a “need to get to a maximum level of ambition of collective INDCs because what we are going to have to do all of the time is to close the gap between what science tells us where we have to end and where we actually are . . . But the point is will we be at the end destination? I would answer, yes.”
He told the audience: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation, which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Even prior to that, in 1988 former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Upon resigning from the American Physical Society to protest the organization’s alarmist stance on global warming, Physics Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever referred to this as “pseudoscience.” He also took the occasion to deride the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and the IPCC a peace prize, characterizing “climate change” as a new religion.
Let’s finally recognize that virtually all of this climate alarm nonsense is based upon speculative theories, unreliable data, and demonstrably failed modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored?
We must give lots of money to the UN to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but anemic, unreliable and costly “free” and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.
None of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.