Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Green New Deal

Category Archives

Swiss Youth Among Big ‘No’ Vote against Switzerland’s CO2 Referendum

June 19 (EIRNS) — The big surprise with the No vote over the new Swiss CO2 law was the fact that the majority of young people voted against it. According to the website 20 Minuten website, 54% of those over 65 — that is to say the Boomers — voted in favor of the new law, while 58% of those under 34 voted against it, according to a 20 Minuten and Tamedia survey of 16,249 participants. See report here.

The leading Swiss weekly Weltwoche wrote that the result signaled a “turning point in international climate policy,” a “popular uprising” in which the Swiss electorate rebelled “against the dictates of the elites…. The Swiss are going on a climate strike, just differently than what those in power intended. They want less government action against climate change instead of more.”

The claim that was circulating, that many people voted against the new law because it was not “strong enough” also seems to have not been decisive, according to the survey, since only 2% of the no voters claimed they cast their ballot against it for that reason. According to the survey, fear of higher costs was the main argument against the CO2 law, including among young people.

Swiss Social Democratic Party parliament group leader Roger Nordmann claimed that the no vote was not a strike against climate policy, but had to concede that it showed that “the ‘green wave’ has ebbed — that’s clear. The rejected proposal has shown that the policy of big tones, of constant outbidding with even more ambitious climate targets has had its day.” He called for a climate policy of small steps, and not expensive and extravagant “wallet-regulated” ones.

The Swiss national broadcaster SRF had a similar take on the young no vote, quoting a 19-year-old saying: “You certainly have the money in the back of your mind, that you will have to pay more afterwards. In fact, that was the most important point when I think about it. “

Official statistics on the voting are expected to be released sometime in July.
Interestingly, another poll showed that 51% of Swiss would have voted against the framework agreement with the EU, which the government walked away from last month. Only 35% would have backed it, according to a survey. There was overwhelming support for suspending the talks. 

The climate is heating up for those tyrants!


Green Dealers Have To Digest Swiss Vote against Them

The fact that with 51.6 and 61% respectively, the Swiss population defeated plans backed by special legislation for a CO2 tax and for a total ban of pesticides in referenda yesterday, implies, as Germany’s leading news weekly {Der Spiegel} notes, that for the time being, the Swiss government’s ambitions to make its country the first in the world that bans pesticides, have been crushed. It remains a totally open question how Switzerland will now meet its promises signed at the 2015 Paris Climate Accords, the weekly says.


Germany’s state-run Deutsche Welle tries to still push the illusion that things might be corrected sooner or later in Switzerland, quoting Swiss Environment Minister Simonetta Sommaruga as claiming that the referenda were “not a vote against climate protection,” that “the debates of the past weeks have shown that many people want to strengthen climate protection—just not with this legislation.” How new legislation would come about, however, as other media note, is yet rather uncertain, because government and parliament have worked on the defeated laws for several years.


Freakouts in Germany seem to be moderate still, which may change once the full impact of the Sunday referenda has been digested. There is so far more of a freakout on the anti-terrorism law which the Swiss backed in a parallel referendum: Radical pro-climate actions like occupation or blockades of bank building, road blockades and the like which have repeatedly occurred in the past can now be termed “threat to public security” and punished much more harshly. And: police can now pre-emptively detain people suspected of planning a disruption or terrorist act even under “climate-protection” pretexts.

The science of climate change is not settled, and much of what is presented is not based on science at all.  Leading scientists with the integrity and courage to buck dangerous “popular” dogma will discuss so-called manmade climate change, and the most-advanced science including the galactic science of astronomical-scale oscillations during the upcoming Schiller Institute conference. The suicidal trend in some European countries to stick with anti-nuclear attitudes will also be discussed.

For the Common Good of all People, not the Rules Benefiting the Few!

International Schiller Institute/ICLC online conference, June 26/ 27, 2021

RSVP today →


Second “Dialogue on Climate” Webinar in Italy

The second “Dialogue on Climate” webinar took place in Italy yesterday, with professors Franco Battaglia and Franco Prodi as speakers. Prof. Battaglia is a teacher of physics and chemistry at the Modena University, while prof. Prodi, brother of Italy’s former Prime minister Romano, is teacher of Physics of the Atmosphere at the University of Bologna. 

Prof. Battaglia demonstrated in a conclusive way that all forecasts of the IPCC have been wrong. “Nobody can deny that human activity has produced CO2, but this is not the cause of climate change”, he said. We are in the end phase of a mini-glacial era, and global warming has already occurred in the past, when there was no anthropogenic CO2 production. 

Solar and wind energy will never be able to replace other energy sources, which today represent 80% of the energy mix. The insanity of renewables can be shown in Italy, where ca. 100 billion euro have been invested for photovoltaic parks that produce 2.6 GW of power, whereas one nuclear power plant would produce 3 Gw and would cost one tenth of it! Battaglia revealed that when he was advisor to Environment minister Altero Matteoli, the latter asked him whether he should sign the Kyoto protocol. Don’t sign it, Battaglia told him. Nobel prize winner Carlo Rubbia also told me so, Matteoli confessed – but eventually signed the Protocol. 

Prof. Prodi went into a long and detailed explanation on how the formation of clouds affects the climate. This is a complex and articulated system, but the IPCC focuses only on some aspects, neglecting some very influential factors. 

During the Q&A period, former minister Carlo Giovanardi asked why scientists who argue against the IPCC are excluded from the public debate. 

Prof. Alberto Prestininzi, who moderated the event, answered that “there is a direction. When economic leaders get together…. if the EU decides that one trillion Euro should go to decarbonization”. Prof. Renato Ricci, honorary chairman of the Italian Physics Society, commented that it is “big finance” behind the so-called climate emergency. 

Claudio Celani from EIR intervened in support of prof. Ricci explaining that the climate emergency is a pretext to create a new financial bubble in the attempt to save the bankrupt financial system. The origin of climate activism and environmentalism is neo malthusianism, and answering Sen. Giovanardi, Celani said that politicians have a responsibility for having accepted a decades-long slide into the current regime. 

Celani’s remarks were backed by prof. Mario Giaccio, an economist, who said that he agrees about neo malthusianism and went into a description on how liquidity has moved into energy assets, creating the bubble. However, he concluded with the pessimistic remark that you cannot do anything against it because they are too strong! 

Prof. Prodi intervened saying that he has been ostracized by media because of his “negationist” views, and the situation in the scientific community is “more rotten than you think”, almost as rotten as in the financial system. 

There will be a “Climate Dialogues” Webinar every other week between now and October.

The science of climate change is not settled, and much of what is presented is not based on science at all. Leading scientists with the integrity and courage to buck dangerous “popular” dogma will discuss so-called manmade climate change, and the most-advanced science including the galactic science of astronomical-scale oscillations at the upcoming Schiller Institute/ICLC conference. The suicidal trend in some European countries to stick with anti-nuclear attitudes will also be discussed.

For the Common Good of all People, not the Rules Benefiting the Few!

International Schiller Institute/ICLC online conference, June 26/ 27, 2021

RSVP today →


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.


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.”


Former British Foreign Sec. Proposes Global Fascist System To Enforce Anti-CO2 Measures

April 29, 2021 (EIRNS)–In an article in the inaugural issue of a new British journal called Environmental Affairs, former UK foreign minister William Hague proposes that British armed forces could be deployed, not to secure supplies of raw materials for the British Isles, as happened in the past, but rather to prevent them from being used by anybody. “In the past, the UK has been willing to use all of our firepower, both military and diplomatic, to secure and extract fossil fuels,” Hague wrote. “But in the future, the UK will need to use all of its diplomatic capacity to ensure that these resources are not used and that natural environments are protected.”

“This could result in uncomfortable situations where the need to coordinate international action on climate change runs against our other foreign policy priorities.”

Hague’s comments on resources made headlines in publications such as the Daily Mail, and it actually constitutes a blueprint for a global fascist system to enforce the shutdown of productive economic activities through such measures as sanctioning deforestation in other countries, international taxation of “specific high carbon products,” and mandatory labelling schemes for products “with risks of high environmental damage, such as food and clothing…”

Hague frankly admits that the shift to a “net zero” carbon emissions economy will result in greater global instability, not less. Aside from the obvious hardships that will be visited on many countries–he names Nigeria and Libya as two obvious examples–the transition will also sharpen “strategic competition” among the major blocs, particularly in the Arctic. But instead of Russia being the major strategic competitor in his context, it is China that worries Hague the most. The UK must cooperate with China on climate change even if it strongly disagrees with China on other matters. At the same time, the UK must wean itself from dependence on China for green technologies and the raw materials they require, such as cobalt. At the same time, the UK must remain aligned with the US on its geopolitical policies.


Suicide Watch: Day One of Biden’s Climate Summit

Suicide Watch: Day One of Biden’s Leaders Summit on Climate

April 22, 2021 (EIRNS)–Forty government heads of state and dozens of other leaders of institutions gathered (virtually) today to sing the praises of Joe Biden (“Joe” to many of them) for “bringing America back,” as most of them said — perhaps best expressed by the UK’s Alok Shama, the President of the COP 26 event planned for November in Glasgow: “We welcome America back into the fold,” clearly meaning the Malthusian death cult known as the British Empire. The meeting was chaired by climate fanatics Joe Biden, Antony Blinken and John Kerry.

There was a sharp distinction between the presentations of the leaders of the western world, and those of Russia, China, Mexico, South Africa, and some (but only some) other leaders from the Global South. While Biden, Macron, Merkel, Trudeau, Draghi, et al. described the so-called “climate crisis” as the greatest existential crisis facing mankind today, they emphasized that {all countries} must join in the suicide pact of eliminating fossil fuels and shutting down major portions of industry and agriculture to save Mother Earth from the non-existent danger of carbon dioxide. 

But the West no longer can dictate to the nations still guided by reason, rather than by Chicken Little’s screaming, ‘the sky is falling.’ 

Xi Jinping spoke poetically about the harmony and balance between man and nature, but added that it must follow a “people-centered approach,” focusing on those “longing for a better life.” We must follow the UN-centered multi-nationalism (i.e., not the artificial “rules-based order” made up by the imperial powers). Most importantly, he and many others emphasized the “common but differentiated responsibilities” between the advanced sector and the developing sector, insisting that the concerns of the developing countries must be accommodated. It is of note that climate czar John Kerry, speaking on Wednesday, called on China to give up its intention to allow coal-fired energy production to “peak” only in the 2030s. Xi did not obey, stating that they would continue producing coal-fired plants, as presented in the 14th Five Year Plan. That plan made clear that moving beyond coal depends on expanding nuclear and fusion power.

Vladimir Putin also insisted on UN-centered policies. He explained that Russia had reduced carbon emissions by half since the 1990s (like China, Russia has a serious real pollution problem, which they are resolving, with the side-effect of reducing carbon emissions). He said Russia is restructuring its energy and industrial sectors, focusing on nuclear power (he reminded the world that there are no carbon emissions from nuclear), as well as petro-gas and hydrogen. He noted that Russia’s ecosystem absorbs 2.5 billion tons of CO2 per year. He closed by insisting that global development must “not only be green, but also sustainable,” by fighting poverty and closing the gap between rich and poor. Nary a word about solar or wind.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) began by stating that Mexico had recently discovered three hydrocarbon deposits, all of which, he said, would be used to meet domestic demand. No longer, he said, would Mexico sell crude oil and import gasoline. Hydro plant turbines were being modernized to produce more electricity at less cost. Vast reforestation was taking place — 700 million trees, heading for a billion, and Mexico would help reforestation in the triangle countries to the south. He offered to advise the US on this successful program. He also called on the US to treat migrants as “exceptional people” who are willing to work hard, and who should have a path to citizenship if they desire. The State Department had warned AMLO in advance that the issue of migration should not be raised in the context of the environment — they are two totally different matters — but he did anyway. 

Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne, interestingly, barely mentioned climate, but focused on the financial disaster which, due to the pandemic, is striking countries like his dependent on tourism, and demanded that the nation’s debt must be forgiven or reorganized — it simply cannot be paid. He praised the fact that not only the US, but also China, were setting the pace on the climate issue. 

The session was ended by 19-year-old Xiye Bastida, a Mexican version of Greta Thunberg (who is from Fridays for the Future and was busy testifying at the US Congress), ranting and lecturing the evil white folk in the Global North who caused all the problems, and must now take direction from the brainwashed children. Blinken spent several minutes praising her as one of the “leaders of the future” who are dedicated to saving us from our folly. Xiye had been scheduled to speak in the session following AMLO’s, but she was moved up to provide a direct rejoinder to AMLO, and build her up as an international figure. One pro AMLO YouTube program, Antonio Villegas’s Guacamole News, reported on the incident: “Biden Ambushes AMLO at the Summit! They Create a Mexican Greta. She Already Attacked Him. From the Soros Group.” According to Villegas, Xiye insisted that the world has to recognize that we are at the end of the era of fossil fuels.  

The rest of the day included a session on Green Finance genocide with the normal suspects (Yellen, Georgieva, etc.), and another on Green Defense genocide (Sec. Austin, DNI Avril Haines, Sec. Ben Wallace, NATO’s Jens Stoltenberg, etc.). Climate is the center of all things, they all agreed, and the world must bow down or die. 

Friday is more of the same, ending with Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates.


“Depriving the Poor of Energy Is Bad Climate Policy,” China Daily Op-Ed Warns

“Depriving the Poor of Energy Is Bad Climate Policy,” China Daily Warns in Lomborg Op-Ed

April 20, 2021 (EIRNS) – The President of the Copenhagen Consensus, Bjorn Lomborg, penned an op-ed published by China Daily yesterday, which contains a strong argument along the lines we have been hearing recently from Indian officials and others: They pay lip-service to the green paradigm, and then insist that those policies cannot possibly be imposed on the developing sector. Some quotes from Lomborg:

“To tackle climate change, rich countries are promising to end fossil fuel use in 29 years. As this becomes excruciatingly costly, the G7 is now thinking about making the world’s poor pay for it. That will go badly… Despite green protestations, rich people still get 79 percent of their energy from fossil fuels. Ending that will be hard, socially destabilizing and surprisingly ineffective. Besides, it will also destabilize rich countries… As climate policies reduce growth further, this will threaten long-term social coherence as people realize their children won’t be better off and pensions will wither. Moreover, the cuts will matter little for the environment.”

Lomborg continued: “Six billion not-rich people also want access to plentiful and cheap energy, lifting them out of hunger, sickness and poverty. They are more concerned about economic growth that will create welfare and resilience against disease and even climate change… The main effect of carbon tariffs is to shift the economic burden of developed-world climate policies to the developing world… [provoking] profound resentment with a rich world that claims to implement climate policies to help, but in reality shifts the costs onto the world’s poor… Depriving the world’s poor of the twin drivers of development, abundant energy and free trade, is unacceptable.”


Page 2 of 4123...Last