Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German
  • French

Environmentalism updates

Category Archives

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.”


Global Times Editorial Defends Developing Nations’ `Industrialization’ vs. Climate Geopolitics

Global Times Editorial Defends Developing Nations’ `Industrialization’ against Climate Geopolitics 

April 19 (EIRNS) — The unsigned editorial in the April 19 Global Times, “To deal with climate change, China-US cooperation is important and sensitive,” takes the global anti-Malthusian resistance shown by India and others to another level. The developing nations’ 2009 resistance to population reduction and genocide, effective in Copenhagen then, is revived.

The unsigned editorial (indicating a Politburo statement) begins with reserve, pointing out that it is “fair to say that China and the U.S. have communicated quite effectively and achieved some results. China has not yet announced plans for its top leader to attend the climate summit; analysts are waiting for things to become clearer.” The editorial likewise points out that “the general environment among the big powers is not good. The U.S. wants to show leadership by working with China and Russia to address the climate challenge, while it is also obstructing China and Russia in other spheres. That is not what normal relations among great powers should be like.”

But then the principles of economic development against environmental extremism become very clear indeed. “UN climate action involves the fundamental interests of humanity, and the specific arrangement for reducing emissions concerning all countries’ major development interests,” says Global Times. “The developed countries have completed industrialization, while developing countries are still in the process of industrialization, and some have just started this process…. People’s living standards are still low in these countries, and it is particularly important to create more resources to improve people’s livelihoods through further industrialization.” The article states that the U.S. has used its power to force more obligations on countries, while taking benefits.

“In an extreme scenario, if the world is about to promote carbon neutrality today, then the world’s economic development pattern will be perpetuated as it is today. The development gap between the developed and underdeveloped countries will become permanent.” The newspaper reminds that while the American elite fight over many issues, they agree on U.S. hegemony. “The current U.S. administration is trying to play the role of a leader and thus squeeze developing countries’ room for growth, as the previous U.S. administration desired.

“China and the U.S. are both the largest emitters; the two countries have huge differences in population and economic development, but the U.S. wants China to take more responsibilities in reducing emissions. It is worth observing the relation between such [environmentalist] pressure from the U.S., and the U.S.’ geopolitical move to pressure China.”

It concludes: “We should promote that the common interests of humanity are jointly defined by the interests of people from all countries, rather than by a handful of countries that want to monopolize this definition.”

Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche suggested today that the editorial has a clarity that would not have come without the LaRouche movement’s organizing and reports exposing the Green New Deal. She called it the strongest statement since the 2009 announcement of the G77 nations that they would not sign the Copenhagen “suicide pact” of population reduction.


Join The Anti-Malthusian Movement To Defeat the “Green New Deal”

Unbeknownst to most Americans, resistance is growing internationally to the scientific fraud and economic disaster known as the “Green New Deal” (GND).  Furthermore, few are aware that the movement behind it was launched by a rabid opponent of human civilization, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, whose passion — like that of those oligarchs who rushed in to support him — was population reduction.  In 2002, Nelson lamented that the environmentalist movement did not speak openly about reducing the world’s population, which he said was the result of “McCarthyism” and “demagogic contrivance.”  Nelson, like most of those in power today trying to impose the GND globally, would prefer to cover up the British roots of Malthusian genocide, and its successful implementation of population reduction based on eugenics and British “race science”, in Nazi Germany. 


World Bank, IMF Plot `Debt for Green’ Restructuring

World Bank, IMF Plot `Debt for Green’ Restructuring

April 12 (EIRNS)–A report issued by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on March 25 announced that, as part of the “recovery” from the pandemic, the debt of the world’s poorest countries would now be used as a lever to force furtherance of the Great Reset genocide dictate from the City of London. “This paper discusses World Bank and IMF support for addressing fiscal and debt distress in [the world’s poorest] countries, with emphasis on strong continued concessional [low-interest–ed.] flows for green, resilient, and inclusive development,” reads the introduction, the translated message being, “The only way you will get further assistance, is if you agree to kill your population `to save the planet’.”
            As part of this discussion, the report concluded that the G20 should agree to extend their DSSI (Debt Service Suspension Initiative) through to the end of the year, but with one proviso: The G20 had to “publicly commit that this is the last extension of the DSSI,” thus forcing the 49 DSSI-eligible countries to confront their continued (financial) existence head on. As of April 7– two weeks from the IMF/WB dictate– the G20 had complied, both by extending the DSSI (Debt Service Suspension Initiative), {and} by stating that it will be terminated at the end of the year.
            This action — of issuing new, non-productive debt to already over-burdened poor nations — is one which is potentially hyper-inflationary, but otherwise perfectly conforms to the terms of the Great Reset. Recognizing this, the IMF/World Bank acknowledge the need for “a holistic approach to the challenge of containing debt vulnerabilities” specifically calling for “direct private sector funding especially non-debt flows,” along with budget austerity on the part of recipient countries. “Emphasis can be given to green priorities and private sector solutions, including green stimulus packages with significant multiplier effects,” they say, as well as revenue-generating “solutions” such as carbon taxes (to kill coal and oil-fired power and heating)..
            The report indicates that in October 2020 these institutions’ “Development Community” issued a “mandate to address debt challenges in low-income countries and to do so in a way that supports green, resilient, and inclusive development and poverty reduction” (otherwise known as GRID). That “mandate” had been prompted by an open letter, they say, “[from] the Ministers of the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Spain, Germany and Sweden,” who wrote: “We ask the World Bank and IMF to deliver on a coherent approach to debt restructuring. We need to make sure we do not lose sight of green and inclusive reforms because of limited fiscal space and a looming debt crisis.” 


Indian Power Min. Singh: World Cannot Stop Africa from Developing

Indian Power Minister Insists, the World Cannot Stop Africa from Developing

April 7 (EIRNS)—The International Energy Agency (IEA) press release claiming a consensus reached at the March 31 IEA-COP26 Net Zero Summit on “accelerating clean energy transitions” is deceptive. While note was taken by some media of the words of warning given there by India’s Minister of Power, New and Renewable Energy Raj Kumar Singh, watching Singh’s presentation makes visible the fury building in developing countries against being told they have no right to develop.

Singh spoke for the continent of Africa, and he did so with such forcefulness that IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol began, politely but insistently, trying to cut him off halfway through his remarks.

True, Singh calmly reported the great advances India is making in building up the percentage of renewables in its energy mix, and his government’s agreement that the climate threat is real. But what followed was outrage that the developed world, which “has occupied almost 80% of the carbon space already,” now makes “pie in the sky” promises to get to net zero carbon emissions by some decades from now, while demanding developing countries cut their carbon emissions. Here his tone changed:

“Now, in order to give space for others to develop, you have to think of the whole continent of Africa! You have 800 million people in Africa who do not have access to electricity. It’s not about us. We will achieve whatever has to be achieved because we get investments. But it is about those countries…. They have to develop! That development will require more steel, in huge quantities; that development will require more cement, in huge quantities. They also want to build skyscrapers. They also want a high standard of living for their people. And you can’t stop it!…

“You have to give space to those countries, whose present per-capita consumption is less than one-fifth of the world’s consumption, whose present emissions are one-sixth of world emissions. You have to give them space to develop. You need to understand [here, he hit the table for emphasis] that if they consume more steel, they will make [emphasis* more steel; if they consume more cement, they will make [emphasis] more cement; if they consume more plastics, they will make [emphasis* more plastics—and all that is made with carbon.”

By then, Birol had stepped up his “thank you, thank you” interruptions, but Singh insisted on talking over him to make one last point: “you” insist that we go for carbon capture and storage, yet are these technologies proven? And they are very expensive!

India does not intend to sacrifice its own domestic energy supply, either. That same day, India’s Environment Ministry issued an order extending the compliance deadline for Indian coal-fired power plants to meet tougher emissions guidelines, by up to two more years. The measure was supported by the Power Ministry, because the costs of retrofitting emissions scrubbers on existing coal plants are prohibitive.


India Helps Crush the Great Reset and `Green New Deal’

India Helps Crush the Great Reset and `Green New Deal’

April 6 (EIRNS) – In a second “No”, India’s Energy Minister Raj Kumar Singh said at an IEA meeting on climate change that “net zero” carbon is “pie in the sky” no matter when you pledge it for. At a meeting supposed to be preparatory to the COP26 in Scotland in November, Singh said, “I would call it, and I’m sorry to say this, but it is just pie in the sky. What we hear is that … 2060 is far away and if the people emit at the rate they are emitting the world won’t survive, so what are you going to do in the next five years…. You have 800 million people who don’t have access to electricity. You can’t say that they have to go to net zero. They have the right to develop, they want to build skyscrapers and have a higher standard of living; you can’t stop it.”

China’s minister Zhang Jianhua also spoke at that IEA meeting, but when invited to a formal pre-meeting for COP26 – by the UK, remember, which is its host – China declined the invitation.

John Kerry, in Delhi for the same meeting, “happened to meet” Sergei Lavrov, who was in India on the world’s real business (see separate report). Kerry was perhaps trying to gauge whether Russia would attend Joe Biden’s April 22 “Earth” (or “dearth”) summit. But at the IEA meeting Kerry appeared to be criticizing long-term pledges to net zero carbon, like China’s 2060 pledge. “Avoid the happy talk and recognize that this challenge is global”, Kerry chided.

The real challenge is the power to develop, as Minister Singh made clear. The only power that can meet {that} global challenge is nuclear fission and, as soon as possible, fusion. (See BBC News article here.)

These are blows against the royal family’s “Green Deal” which can be amplified in the United States. Americans do have ‘plentiful” electricity but a steadily increasing share of it doesn’t work. In 2020 the percentage of companies which reported suffering blackout problems {every month} leaped from 20% in 2019 – already very high – to 44% in 2020. The FERC attributed this to the increasing share of “renewable” (interruptible) power sources.

This destroys an economy’s productivity, exactly as described in EIR Special Report and The LaRouche Organization’s mass pamphlet, Great Leap Backward: LaRouche Crushes “Green New Deal” Fraud.

In a sign of political pressure for nuclear rising, President Biden’s “climate advisor” Gina McCarthy told press on April 2 that nuclear energy will be included in the Administration’s so-called Clean Energy Standard, which is intended to be a requirement for electric power utilities and generators.


Page 3 of 6First...234...Last