Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German
  • French

Environmentalism updates

Category Archives

IMF Meeting Gets Underway, Under the Gathering Clouds of Growing World Famine

IMF Meeting Gets Underway, Under the Gathering Clouds of Growing World Famine

April 20 (EIRNS) — IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva warned in her opening remarks at the IMF/World Bank spring meetings that began today in Washington, D.C., that the world is facing a “double crisis”: the pandemic, and now the war in Ukraine and related economic destruction. She stated that “rising food and fuel prices are straining the budgets of ordinary families to the breaking point,” and that this is particularly concerning in poor countries where there is a growing risk of a food crisis. She of course blamed Russia for most of the problem.

Georgieva also expressed concern as to what will happen as central banks tighten their monetary policies by ending QE and raising interest rates, and urged them to be “mindful of spillover risks to vulnerable emerging and developing economies.” Given their already high level of indebtedness, rising interest rates will place 60 percent of low-income countries at or near debt distress, she reported.

That is true enough. So, what does the IMF recommend be done? “To address debt, countries need domestic policies that can help bring their budgets back on track” – in other words, the neoliberal “structural reform” austerity policies that created the problem in the first place.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s approach is to throw oil on the fire. According to comments by a Treasury Department official on April 18, Yellen is going to tell her colleagues at the IMF meeting that they should help “ramp up the economic pain on Moscow… The secretary will also underscore our shared resolve to hold Russia accountable.” She’s also planning to boycott any meetings that the Russians attend.

While Yellen was bashing Russia, her Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo attacked China. “China has in the past — and we expect them to continue to follow — the sanctions regimes that have been introduced by us and the coalition” of sanctioning countries, Adeyemo said at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “China’s business with the rest of the world is greater than its business with Russia,” he threatened.


German Railway Suffers Partial Blackout

German Railway Suffers Partial Blackout

Mar. 23 (EIRNS)–Early Wednesday morning (Mar 23) all rail freight traffic in Germany was brought to a standstill because of an ‘under supply’ of electricity according to a statement by German network operator DB Netz. The Deutsche Bahn had to pull the plug on rail freight in order not to interrupt the passenger network in the middle of the rush hour. The extra power was restored by the afternoon according to an article in railfreight.com.

No reason was given for the power shortage. Deutsche Bahn has its own energy provider, DB Energie which produces and purchases all the energy requirements for the railway. DB makes a big deal in its advertising that its high speed passenger ne​t​work runs on 100% green energy – whatever that means. The problem is DB Energie plans by 2038 to be totally green by phasing out all the other sources including, nuclear, coal and gas. The nearly 40% which now comes from non green sources is planned to be sourced from new wind​ ​farms in the North Sea, some of which have yet to be built, and from Norwegian hydro-power plants. The Deutsche Bahn consumes as much electricity as Berlin, a city of four million people.


Climate Scientist Asserts ‘Climate Emergency’ Is All About Finance

Nicola Scafetta, an Italian scientist and world leader in climate models based on astronomic oscillations, has exposed climate policies as a pretext to build a financial business in an earlier interview with Italian media.  Speaking to the Italian daily Il Libero Quotidiano for Jan. 21, 2020, Scafetta said he suspects “that there is an effort to exploit climate fears to generate a catastrophism aimed at allowing a changed economic and social model in a direction promoted by big finance and multinationals. They created a demand to make money: They must have people accept costly and disadvantageous policies, which are profitable for some investors. Catastrophism is more for business rather than for the environment.”

Read the article in Italien.


Italian Scientists Praise Russian and Chinese Climate Models, Blast Coming IPCC Report

May 28 (EIRNS) — At the first “Climate Dialogues” webinar on May 26, organized by the Padua Association of Engineers and by Galileo magazine, Italian climate scientists have exposed the biased climate models used by the IPCC to justify a so-called “climate emergency” and have praised more balanced Russian and Chinese climate models. They have also warned against the new IPCC report, expected to be issued soon, which is based on questionable 2019 charts. There will be seven more webinars between now and October.

Prof. Nicola Scafetta, a world expert on climate models based on Sun activity, counterposed climate models based on CO2 to models based on astronomical oscillations. The former are used by the IPCC and are regularly refuted by real data. When applied to the past, they are not able to reproduce past temperatures. Astronomical oscillations (Sun, Earth and other planets) can explain climate cycles much better.

Whereas polls show that 97% of scientists agree that we are in a warming phase, only 26% of them are convinced that it is due to human activity to some extent. Therefore, the famous “consensus” reported by the media is fake news. Professor Scafetta does not exclude human participation in climate change, but it considers it secondary to astronomical causes.

The next IPCC report, coming soon, is based on a 2019 chart which is very problematic, Scafetta said, because it puts together a series of inconsistent data for the purpose of demonstrating their hypothesis. There is a 1,000-year cycle determined by solar activity, which IPCC simply ignores, which is unacceptable.

What is interesting, in his view, are the indices of climate sensitivity that measure climate variations when CO2 doubles. Here, Chinese and Russian models show much lower indices than the Western ones (in particular Canadian models.) The Chinese and Russian results are converging on real historical data, and they have a higher rate of forecasting actual temperatures.

Professor Scafetta was preceded by Massimo Coccato, chairman of the Padua Association of Engineers, Galileo editor Enzo Siviero and by Prof. Alberto Prestininzi, founder and chief editor of the Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment. Both Scafetta and Prestininzi are among the initiators of the 2019 “There Is No Climate Emergency” manifesto of 200 Italian scientists, which became an international group of over 500 scientists by October 2019. Since then, at least another 300 scientists have signed the manifesto.

Siviero, who moderated the event, announced the cycle of “climate dialogues,” which is open to all opinions based on scientific data. In order to be a good engineer you need to be a great humanist, Siviero said.

Professor Prestinizi regretted that supporters of man-made climate change won’t undertake a scientific debate with critics. The debate occurs in the media instead of within scientific forums, while hundreds of millions of people in the world, whose primary fuel source is coal, have no adequate access to electricity. He gave a short historical review of climate hysteria, highlighting the example of the “hockey stick” curve, which was ruled to be false even by a court. In 1977, the IPCC forecast a sea level increase of 6 meters by 2030. Eventually, they revised their forecast and the most recent ones say the increase will be between a half and 1 meter.


Mark Carney: Africa Will Get Rich with Carbon Offsets by Rejecting Development

Mark Carney: Africa Will Get Rich with Carbon Offsets by Rejecting Development

May 18, 2021 (EIRNS)–Speaking at “The Road to COP26: Opportunities, Challenges and the African Transition to Net-Zero” on April 22, Mark Carney spelled out his plan for mass death in Africa and the occupation of Africa by Green police — the modern version of colonial occupiers.

From Carney’s answers to a question about Africa getting funds from “carbon offsets,” he said that the “carbon offset market” will be set up by the end of the year. Africa will get rich, he said, by providing these offsets to western companies who want to buy “offsets” for their carbon emissions. Carney said he was impressed by the “incredible service that is provided by the existing national capital in Africa, and the opportunity from emissions reduction, and to grow that through reforestation.”

What does the madman mean? By not developing its resources, and by not cutting down any trees — in fact, reforesting existing agricultural lands — Africa will be paid huge sums in “carbon offsets.” So, by not developing, they will get money for “development,” remaining forever without modern infrastructure, industry, or agriculture.

Carney: “90% of demand from carbon offsets will come from advanced economies, and 90% of supply will come from the developing economies, including Africa. This is a market which could scale rapidly to $100 billion per annum.”

Of course, the “advanced economies” could not trust the ‘wogs’ to live up to their promises, so a new kind of colonial overlords will be required. Says Carney: “Of course, there must be integrity around the offsets, and a degree of permanence of these offsets, with verification and monitoring of that permanence. This is a private market, so the offsets will be bought by private companies, like Microsoft. They are not going to make these commitments unless they know that in Rwanda or other places in Africa these offsets are permanent.”

Who, one may ask, will have the responsibility to “verify and monitor” that no African country breaks it’s business-contract to not develop its resources or clear forests to build factories, farms, or new cities? The Green colonial masters will be more than willing to perform that important task.


Nigerian VP Osinbajo: “Banning Fossil Fuel Investments Would Crush Africa”

Nigerian VP Osinbajo: “Banning Fossil Fuel Investments Would Crush Africa”

Nov 8 (EIRNS)–Adding another voice to the African chorus denouncing the Green Reset– Mark Carney’s drive to “red-line” the developing world, by refusing credit for projects and even proffering pay-offs to never develop your nation– is Nigeria’s Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo. He wrote an article this Summer, that was re-posted last week during the COP26 Summit. He states that “wealthy nations” cutting investment avenues for carbon-based energy sources in Africa– especially after having profited from them for decades– “will do little to limit carbon emissions globally but much to hurt the continent’s economic prospects.”

Nigeria, a country rich in petroleum and natural gas, is being forced to deny itself the benefit of {its own} resources, Osinbajo says, because the only investments which can be financed are for (interruptible) solar and wind. “For countries such as my own, Nigeria, which is rich in natural resources but still energy poor, {the transition must not come at the expense of affordable and reliable energy} for people, cities, and industry. To the contrary, it must be inclusive, equitable, and just – which means preserving the right to sustainable development and poverty eradication, as enshrined in global treaties such as the 2015 Paris climate accord.”

The Vice President writes, “Africa’s progress could be undone by the rich world’s efforts to curb investments in all fossil fuels,” pointing out with bitter irony that, “Institutions such as the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation {were specifically created to help spur high-impact projects},” the very kind of which they are now refusing to let go forward. [emphasis added]

The fact that Osinbajo wrote this piece, titled, “The divestment delusion: Why banning fossil fuel investments would crush Africa,” over two months ago –about the time that the multinationals were beating a retreat from one of the world’s largest natural gas developments, in Mozambique– should not reduce the power of his statement, in fact just the opposite. Originally published in the August 31 issue of the Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the imperial Council on Foreign Relations, Osinbajo’s piece was republished last week by the Habari Network a publication focusing on Africa and the Caribbean. While the post therefore may not reflect the latest developments in Glasgow, the sentiment and the validity of the charges made against the “climate mafia” in the U.K., the U.S. and Western Europe continue to ring true. The Habari Network article appears here. The original article in Foreign Affairs is here.


Like Father, Like Son: Prince Charles Demands Environmental War Drive at COP26

Like Father, Like Son: Prince Charles Demands Environmental War Drive at COP26

Nov. 2, 2021 (EIRNS)—While the Queen ensured that Prince Phillip’s virus hovered visibly over the proceedings, recording her video for the Royal Family’s reception for the world leaders gathered to open COP 26 with the late His Royal Virus’s picture prominently next to her, Prince Charles well saluted his father’s Nazi-like approach to depopulation, demanding that this be accomplished by replacing governments by a global system of private interests imposed through “a vast military-style campaign.” 

Twice he insisted that “a war-like footing” be adopted. “Climate change and biodiversity loss … pose an even greater existential threat than the COVID-19 pandemic, to the extent that we have to put ourselves on a war-like footing,” Prince Charles asserted from the outset. “We know what we must do. With a growing global population creating ever increasing demand on the planet’s finite resources, we have to reduce emissions urgently, and take action to tackle the carbon already in the atmosphere, including from coal powered power systems….” 

“Our efforts cannot be a series of independent initiatives running in parallel; the scale and scope of the threat we face, call for a global systems-level solution, based on radically transforming our current fossil fuel-based economy to one that is genuinely renewable and sustainable…. 

“We know this will take trillions, not billions of dollars. We also know that countries, many of whom are burdened by growing levels of debt, simply cannot afford to go green. Here what is needed is a vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector. With trillions at its disposal, far beyond global GDP, and with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders, it offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition,” he concluded. His ghoulish speech can be found here,

HRH’s reference to a military approach is not mere metaphor. As EIR reported in its Oct. 1, 2021, Daily Alert, the British Crown’s premier policymaking think tank, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA)—known as Chatham House—had just published a paper, “Building Global Climate Security,” arguing that since climate change poses such a serious threat to global security, it will now be necessary to rethink “traditional security concepts,” because climate change is “the most serious threat to global security we face,” and the “security community” is going to play a major role in enforcing green fascism and depopulation. For example: the RIIA paper enthusiastically noted that since there are growing calls to legally define “ecocide” as a crime under the International Criminal Court (ICC), the chance of the armed forces being called on to defend against ecocide “looks increasingly likely.” 


Experts Speak Out Against Suicide in the Name of Climate

Experts Speak Out Against Suicide in the Name of Climate

Oct. 31 (EIRNS) – Quite a number of seasoned experts on power, carbon, and weather are challenging the premises of the Suicide on the Clyde in Glasgow. Among those who have not yet participated in Schiller Institute and LaRouche Organization events, are Bjorn Lomborg, Robert Bryce, and Richard Lindzen.

Swedish economist Lomborg was quoted in Manila Times: “You’ve probably seen the latest alarming headlines: Rising sea levels from climate change could flood 187 million people out of their homes. Don’t believe it. That figure is unrealistic — and it isn’t even new. It appears in a new scholarly paper, whose authors plucked it from a paper published in 2011. And what the earlier paper actually found was that 187 million could be forced to move in the unlikely event that no one does anything, in the next 80 years, to adapt to dramatic rises in sea level.

“In real life, the 2011 paper explained, humans ‘adapt proactively,’ and ‘such adaptation can greatly reduce the possible impacts.’ That means ‘the problem of environmental refugees almost disappears.’ Realistic assumptions reduce the number to between 41,000 and 305,000 — at most, less than 1/600th of the figure in those headlines.

“Sober scientific findings get less attention than alarming and far-fetched scenarios…. We have more knowhow and technology than ever to build dikes, surge barriers and dams, expand beaches and construct dunes, make ecosystem-based barriers like mangrove buffers, improve building codes and construction techniques, and use land planning and hazard mapping to minimize flooding….”

Bryce, a regular Forbes contributor on energy and power, spent two days with no power in Texas in February. He testified Oct. 27 at the House Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on the American power grid. Whereas from 2000-2007 there were fewer than 100 blackouts in any year around the country, in the past three years there have been 220, 278, and 383 blackouts as interruptible sources have been pushed out and onto the grid. “These policies are not just wrongheaded, they are deeply dangerous,” Bryce told the Committee. “Banning the use of liquid and gaseous fuels will reduce America’s energy security because it will concentrate our energy risks on a single energy network, the electric grid. Furthermore, they would require an electric grid with more than two times the capacity of today’s grid. That’s a largely fanciful notion given that the electric grid is faltering under existing demand.” His Forbes piece is here.

Richard Lindzen is emeritus Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He is quoted, also in Manila Times by author Yen Makabenta. After explaining that the demanded “climate mitigation” measures will have no effect on climate, Lindzen says: “Consider what the climate system actually is. This system consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid, and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and re-emission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2 percent perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds, ocean circulations, and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multi-factor system, what is the likelihood that the climate (which itself consists of many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomalies) is controlled by a 2 percent perturbation in the energy budget due to just one of the numerous variables, namely CO2?

“Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic…. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”


Did Geopolitics Sink Portugal’s Sines Port Expansion Project for Now?

Did Geopolitics Sink Portugal’s Sines Port Expansion Project for Now?

May 5, 2021 (EIRNS)—At the close of the April 6 deadline for submitting bids to construct a new, huge container terminal at Portugal’s Sines Port, not a single bid had been entered. Port authorities blamed the fiasco on the drop in world shipping from the pandemic, and are talking of launching another offer with more “flexible” conditions when “market conditions” are better. The chairman of the port’s board of directors José Luís Cacho assured that the port expansion will happen, calling the possibility of a two-year delay “almost irrelevant.”

Most likely more than pandemic effects were involved. Portugal and China have been working for several years to use the planned “Vasco de Gama” terminal at Sines’s excellent deep-water port, just south of Lisbon on the Atlantic coast, as a key Belt and Road Initiative hub, connecting the westernmost point of the Eurasian rail network with the Maritime Silk Road in the Atlantic, thereby facilitating trading connections with the Americas and the Western coast of Africa. The Schiller Institute supported the plan as key for developing the Americas, and Portugal pinned its own industrial expansion on the project, envisioning proudly a return to its historic role as a leading center of maritime development. In late 2018, Portugal signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China on the Belt and Road, becoming one of the few countries in Europe willing to counter pressure from Washington and the EU.

The Anglo-American nexus moved in. The U.S. Embassy organized multiple visits of U.S. gas companies promising big investments to build up Sines’s LNG facilities. The Portuguese government welcomed investments from all serious bidders, but in September 2020, U.S. Amb. George Glass told the Portuguese daily Expresso that Portugal is inevitably “part of the European battlefield between the United States and China,” and Portugal now had to choose between its American “friends and allies” and its “economic partner” China. Among other threats, Glass stated that if Portugal awarded the Sines terminal contract to China, the U.S. would pull out of its LNG investments there.

Keeping the pressure on, former British diplomat John Dobson published an op ed in the Sunday Guardian of India on Dec. 5, 2020, picked up in Portugal, stating that the fight over Sines was an “economic flashpoint” between China and the U.S., similar to the military flashpoint building up in the South China Sea. “So will it be America’s huge LNG terminal, or China’s huge container port?,” he wrote. “Whoever is the winner, the geopolitical consequences will be massively significant.”


CLINTEL Challenges IPCC Conclusions to Its Chairman

Oct. 28, 2021 (EIRNS) — Fresh from challenging the Schachtian axioms of the COP26 conference in a joint statement with the Schiller Institute, CLINTEL (the Climate Intelligence group, consisting of nearly 100 scientists, engineers, and professionals disputing the apocalyptic nature of climate change) has pointed out the numerous discrepancies between the IPCC’s full report and its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). These are sufficient to challenge the conclusions and proposed actions to be taken, nominally based on the AR6, “The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report,” but actually based on the Summary for Policy Makers, drawn up by working group 1 [WG1]), which, CLINTEL alleges and demonstrates, misrepresents the latest objective climate science in six key areas.

Attention: Dr Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC, c/o WMO, 7bis Ave de la Paix, CP2800, CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland.
Critique of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM):


Dear Dr. Lee,
We have now carried out an interim review of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and believe that it misrepresents the latest objective climate science in six key areas:

1. It is not “unequivocal” that human influence alone has warmed the planet; the observed modest warming of ~1°C since 1850-1900 has occurred through some as yet unresolved combination of anthropogenic and natural influences.

2. The new “hockey-stick” graph (Fig SPM.1), when analysed in detail, is a concoction of disparate indicators from various time periods over the last 2,000 years, which together fail to recognise the intervening well-established temperature variability, for example of the Roman and Medieval Warming periods and of the Little Ice Age.

3. The incidence of so-called “extreme weather” events is erroneously misrepresented in the SPM compared to the more accurate depictions in the draft main report, which latter identify no statistically-significant trends in many categories over time.

4. Developments in the cryosphere are also misrepresented in the SPM, particularly noting that there is virtually no trend in Arctic sea ice in the last 15 years.

5. Likewise, developments in the ocean are erroneously misrepresented in the SPM; in particular, the likely modest GMSL [global mean sea level] rise to 2100 does not point to any “climate crisis.”

6. The CMIP6 [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase] climate models are even more sensitive than the already overly-sensitive CMIP5 models of AR5, and ignore peer-reviewed scientific evidence of low climate sensitivity. The models lead to invalid conclusions on ECS [climate sensitivity estimates] and “carbon budgets”; the likely global temperature increase to 2100 does not indicate a “climate crisis.”

These concerns are summarised in the table overleaf and are then analyzed in more detail in the pages that follow. Our more detailed analysis will follow in due course.

We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does not exist in reality. The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation to whatever modest climate change occurs in the decades ahead would be much more appropriate. Given the magnitude of proposed policy implications, the SPM has to be of the highest scientific standards and demonstrate impeccable scientific integrity within the IPCC.

You may recall that, in 2010, the InterAcademy Council carried out an independent review of the IPCC procedures at the request of the then UN Secretary-General and IPCC Chairman. Among its recommendations were that reviewers’ comments be adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies be adequately reflected in IPCC reports. The AR6 SPM inspires little confidence that these recommendations have been put into effect.

We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably does not offer an objective scientific basis on which to base policy discussions at COP26. It also fails to highlight the positive impacts of slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.

Yours sincerely,
Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL (https://clintel.org),
Jim O’Brien, Chair of the ICSF (www.ICSF.ie).


Page 1 of 7123...Last