This article appears in the November 12, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Mounting Opposition to Malthusian Green Policies
[Print version of this article]
The British royals and their banker assets from around the world are conspiring in the Glasgow COP26 climate conclave to create a cartel of private western bankers to assert power over governments by cutting credit for fossil fuels and those industries and farms that emit, in their warped view, too much carbon. (See article in this issue, “British Demand Faster Green New Deal, While It Fails Disastrously.”)
But a mounting number of nations around the world, representing a majority of the world’s population, have smelled the rat, and are publicly refusing to accept the genocidal demands of the Green New Deal. We here present the statements by several governments, heads of state, and prominent individuals who have asserted that the development and the well-being of their people comes first. Thus far, these courageous rejections of poverty and depopulation have not taken the next crucial step—to deny the validity of the fake science that claims carbon emissions threaten a climate crisis. (See article in this issue, “CLINTEL Message to National Politicians and World Leaders.”)
Le Keqiang, Premier of China (Oct. 12)
Energy security should be the premise on which a modern energy system is built and the capacity for energy self-supply should be enhanced.…
Given the predominant place of coal in the country’s energy and resource endowment, it is important to optimize the layout for the coal production capacity, build advanced coal-fired power plants as appropriate in line with development needs, and continue to phase out outdated coal plants in an orderly fashion. Domestic oil and gas exploration will be intensified.
Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India
Although Prime Minister Modi was the only one among the BRICS leaders (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) to attend COP26—Jair Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Cyril Ramaphosa all stayed home—he was far from a willing victim of the COP26 dictates. Modi insisted that India will actually increase the use of coal for power generation until at least 2040, and will not pledge net-zero until 2070—twenty years beyond the COP26 demand. India is the world’s second-largest producer and consumer of coal after China; 70% of its power generation comes from coal.
Modi insists that the $100 billion per year promised by the advanced countries to the developing economies for transitioning away from fossil fuels (if the money is ever to materialize) must be for “adaptation” of their economies to any changes in the climate, rather than “mitigation” through carbon-reducing measures, as demanded by the COP26 bankers. Calling the emphasis on mitigation an “injustice towards the developing countries that are heavily affected,” he proposed instead that the money be used for providing “Clean Tap Water for All” and “Clean Cooking Fuel for All,” and invited all countries to join the “Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure.”
Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC)
The 24 nations of the LMDC issued this statement Oct. 18 on COP26:
Major developed countries are now pushing to shift the goal posts of the Paris Agreement from what have already been agreed by calling for all countries to adopt Net Zero targets by 2050. This new “goal” which is being advanced runs counter to the Paris Agreement and is anti-equity and against climate justice. Demands for “Net zero” emissions for all countries by 2050 will exacerbate further the existing inequities between developed and developing countries.
On the issue of delivery of climate finance, developed countries agreed in 2010 to mobilize USD100 billion per year by 2020. Regrettably, here too they have fallen short of their agreement.
The LMDC countries are Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
Igor Sechin, Rosneft CEO, Russia
The Earth’s climate has never been static, and even after reaching the carbon-neutral goals by 2050, humanity will still face climate changes. The development of new materials is no longer an energy issue, but a much more serious issue of changing the structure of the economy. Despite the variety of plans to reach carbon neutrality, the energy transition will remain a pipedream without developing new technologies and materials. Even in the long-term, renewable energy will not be able to completely replace traditional energy resources….
This year has clearly shown that wrong decisions in the field of climate policy can lead to serious negative consequences for the entire global economy and society….
Pressure from climate activists stops the implementation of joint projects with international companies, which forces majors to cut investments in oil and gas production, redirecting funds to renewable energy. It is the climate agenda that is now putting pressure on the global oil and gas market.
Viktor Zubkov, Gazprom CEO, Russia
We cannot ignore threats against [natural] gas, as a transition fuel, which we see in Europe. There are those who call for stopping investments in gas, but prices are now beating all records—and yet, populists call for the Green Economy.
Yoweri Museveni, President of Uganda
In an Oct. 24 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled, “Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa”:
Africa can’t sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals. The continent should balance its energy mix, not rush straight toward renewables—even though that will likely frustrate some of those gathering at next week’s global climate conference in Glasgow. [If Africa were to] triple its electricity consumption overnight, it would add only 0.6% to global carbon emissions.
Museveni supports a “slow” move to “reliable green energy sources,” adding that “nuclear power is also already being put to good use in South Africa,” and that other nations (including his own) have nuclear ambitions. In closing, Museveni says:
Africans have a right to use reliable, cheap energy, and doing so doesn’t prevent the development of the continent’s renewables. Forcing Africa down one route will hinder our fight against poverty.
Muhammadu Buhari, President of Nigeria
In a Nov. 1 Newsweek op-ed titled, “The Climate Crisis Will Not Be Fixed by Causing an Energy Crisis in Africa”:
Dire warnings of the end of the world are as old as civilization itself. But each year as the countdown to United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) begins, they grow in volume and intensity. Recently, senior United Nations officials raised the alarm of “world conflict and chaos” and mass migrations and institutional collapse should greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked for much longer….
It is an inconvenient truth, but energy solutions proposed by those most eager to address the climate crisis are fuel for the instability of which they warn. No more clearly can this be seen than in Africa. For today’s 1.3 billion Africans, access to low-cost and reliable energy is the highest of all possible concerns….
Without extra and stable power, we cannot build the factories that will transform Africa from a low-job, extractives-led economy to a high employment middle-income continent. Children cannot learn for longer and better by battery light any more than by candlelight. No more than the Africa of today, the Africa of tomorrow cannot advance using energy production that intermittently delivers….
Wind and solar, the most fashionable of modern energy technologies, are flawed by their reliance on back-up diesel generators or batteries for when there is no wind for the turbines or sun for the panels.
Buhari called on the West to “lift the moratorium they have placed on fossil fuel investments in Africa.” He also promoted nuclear power, which will provide “constant electricity production on which sustained economic progress can be built.”
Luis Arce, President of Bolivia
Speaking at the COP26 event:
Developed countries are promoting a new world recolonization process that we can call the “new carbon colonialism,” because they are trying to impose their own rules of the game in the climate negotiations to continue feeding the new green capitalist system, while pushing developing nations to accept these rules of the game without any other options.
Siti Nurbaya Bakar, Environment Minister, Indonesia
Indonesia was one of 100 countries reported by COP26 officials to have signed on to an agreement to end all deforestation by 2030. However, on Nov. 4, Minister Siti, who attended COP26, said that trying to “force Indonesia to zero deforestation in 2030 is clearly inappropriate and unfair.” She said the COP process will not be allowed to halt economic growth. “The massive development of President Jokowi’s era must not stop in the name of carbon emissions or in the name of deforestation.” Some forests must be cut down, she said, to build new roads and to develop food crops.
Mahendra Siregar, Vice Foreign Minister, Indonesia
Minister Siregar commented to the press that the COP26 declaration “does not refer at all to ‘end deforestation by 2030.’ It is important to move beyond mere narrative, rhetoric, arbitrary targets and sound bites.”
Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, UK
While governments have failed to publicly denounce the fake science behind carbon’s supposed role in climate change, Lord Monckton has long done so. However, speaking at the “Climate Reality Forum” on Nov. 2 in Glasgow, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, Lord Monckton went further and ridiculed the royal Windsor family for driving the climate change hoax, and warned Prince Charles that he has broken British law with his evil political activities:
Your Majesty, your Royal Highnesses, your Holiness, your Eminences, your Graces, my Lords, Ladies, representatives, distinguished diplomatic, international, Uncle Tom Cobley, all here at the COP26 conference:
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves because if you are honest, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. President, Sir David Attenborough, or Boaty McBoatface—I suppose we should really call you—you know perfectly well that you lack either the scientific or the statistical or the control theoretic or the economic knowledge or understanding; you lack the grasp of the scientific method and of the language of science that is mathematics, to be able to make any pronouncement whatsoever on whether or not global warming is a global crisis, on whether or not we are at one minute to, or one minute past midnight; all of this sloganizing and platitude producing is shameful.
Your Royal Highness, now listen to this: You need to pay attention for once because I have warned you privately, and I warn you publicly that it is the constitutional obligation of a future constitutional monarch to remain absolutely silent on all matters of politics, and you may think … that there is such a consensus on all sides, that therefore that somehow takes it out of politics!
Well, let me remind you, for you perhaps have not read any history for some time, in the 1920s and ’30s, one hundred years ago, when all the major parties represented in parliament—in fact, 425 of the 450 of the members of parliament then sitting—were in favor of appeasing Hitler’s Germany; and they were wrong to do so!
So you cannot say that just because there appears to be an (albeit manufactured) political consensus about global warming, that therefore you are safe in pronouncing on this matter.
If, sir, you wish to be king, then henceforth and for aye be silent on all political matters, or you will have to resign the throne for yourself and for your heirs and successors forthwith and for all time. We are not prepared to accept a constitutional monarch who does not obey the necessary constraints upon a constitutional monarch. Be silent or go, sir.
